Commons Sitting of 20 November 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PENSION APPEALS TRIBUNAL.
Copy presented of Memorandum on the functions and powers of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 501 to 505, inclusive, declaring the respective areas described in the .Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland under the Act, entitled the Public Health (Milk) (Ireland) Regulations, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Food Control Committee for Ireland (Powers) Order, 1917, Sugar and Confectionery Order, 1917 (General Licence), and Oil Splitting Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1916–17.
Copy ordered " of Accounts of the Civil 'Contingencies Funds, 1916-17, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection
982
with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1917; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon." —[Mr. Baldwin.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.
    3. Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the proposed sale of the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company to an alleged Norwegian syndicate; whether the names of the actual purchasers are not disclosed and the conditions of sale are such as to raise suspicion that the real purchaser is the Imperial Foreign Trade Department of the German Government; and who are the persons negotiating this purchase on the Norwegian side and what are the financial relations of each of these persons, what directorship they hold, and what holdings they possess in Germany and Austria, before any such transfer is sanctioned?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): I would refer the hon Member to the replies on this subject given yesterday to the hon. Member for South-West Ham.
    5. Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether some years ago the Norwegian Government passed a law prohibiting the sale of freehold property, water-power, and mines to foreigners; that under this law the Kellner-Partington Wood Pulp Company were prevented from increasing their holding in Norway; whether it is now proposed to sell the British holdings in this company to a Norwegian syndicate, whose names are not disclosed; and whether, as this will imply the passage of over £200,000 worth of industrial property in this country to the control of foreigners, and possibly enemy foreigners, and the transfer of numbers of British workmen to foreign employment, he will oppose the completion of this transaction?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The third part has already been answered. As regards the last part, I understand that the original scheme of purchase included the resale to an English company of the industrial property in Great Britain, valued at about £200,000, and negotiations for this purpose are taking place.
    31 Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total amount of wood pulp imported into Great Britain in 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916; what proportion of this came from Norway; and of the Norwegian consignment what proportion was imported by the Kellner-Partington Paper Pulp Company?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARYto the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I returned to a similar question which he put to me on the 13th November.
    36. Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a large transfer of works and forests situated in Norway, Sweden, and Austria is about to be made from the Kellner-Partington Paper Pulp Company to a Norwegian syndicate; whether, as no sale of these Austrian properties is possible without the consent of the Austrian Government and without direct business relations with the enemy, he will have the correspondence of the directors of this company examined and find out to what extent they have been negotiating with the enemy; and if he will commence proceedings against them under the Trading With the Enemy Act?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Negotiations for the sale of the Austrian property of this company were licensed by the Treasury under the Trading With the Enemy Acts. No licence was necessary for the sale to a neutral purchaser of the other interests referred to in the question.
    38. Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, before sanctioning the transfer of the Kellner-Partington Pulp Company to a secret Norwegian syndicate, represented in this country by one Jans Frederiksen, he will have careful inquiries made in Copenhagen, Christiania, and Stockholm as to the actual relations between Frederiksen and the
    984
    Actien Gesellschaft fur Maschinen PapierFabrik, of Germany, whose works at Aschaffenburg, Memel, and other places, are now employed in the conversion of wood pulp into munitions of war and celluloid for Zeppelin manufacture?
    Lord R. CECIL: Mr. Frederiksen is a Norwegian barrister, who signed the contract of sale of the Kellner-Partington Company's properties on behalf of the Norwegian purchasers. As regards the general character of the latter, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given yesterday.

    BANK OF NORWAY.
    4. Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who are the directors of the Bank of Norway; and whether any inquiries have been made at any time by his Department in order to ascertain the extent to which this bank or the directors of it may be used by persons in this country as a means of evading the Trading with the Enemy Act?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Bank of Norway has, on many occasions, given valuable assistance to His Majesty's Government. The directors are: Messrs. K. Bomhoff, W. Monsen, H. C. Klingenberg, K. K. Heie, W. Duborgh; and there is no reason to believe that it has been used by persons in this country for the purpose indicated in the question.
    Sir C. HENRY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of any Swedish, capital in the bank?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I could not say without notice.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries?
    Lord R. CECIL: Of course, I will.

    REGIMENTAL CARE COMMITTEES.
    6. Mr. MOUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the list of regimental care committees for prisoners of war is no longer available at the post offices, he will arrange that record offices shall send out with the notification that a man is missing which is now sent out to the next-of-kin the name and address of the regimental care committee, either on a slip

    985
    attached to the notification or otherwise, asking for the next-of-kin to communicate with the regimental care committee as soon as he or she shall receive information that the man posted as missing is a prisoner of war?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. There are, however, arrangements already in operation which are working well and go far to meet his point, and there are also various considerations which render it inadvisable to adopt the further measure proposed. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will write to him and explain the matter in greater detail than is possible in answer to a question.

    WEEK-END TRAVELLING (SOLDIERS).
    11. Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Army Council Instruction No. 1,564 is intended to prohibit soldiers from travelling even for short journeys on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays, or whether it is only intended to prevent an undue amount of week-end leave being granted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The arrangements to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were made on the understanding that ordinary leave involving railway travel on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays would not be granted. Provision is made for journeys on these days in special circumstances. The present Regulations as regards leave are far more favourable to the men than those previously in force, and in view of the heavy demands on the resources of the railways, it is considered necessary to maintain the existing restrictions.

    EAST LEEDS WAR HOSPITAL.
    12. Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement from British soldiers at present in the East Leeds War Hospital protesting against the difference in treatment of themselves as against that of an Austrian interned prisoner of war who is also in the same hospital, the allegation being that the Austrian prisoner of war is fed with luxuries and treated with a consideration
    986
    denied to wounded British occupants of the same ward; whether wounded British soldiers make no complaint about their own hospital treatment but declare that what is good enough for them should be good enough for this alien enemy; and whether, having regard to the fact that this differential treatment is causing criticism locally of the hospital authorities, inquiries will be made and steps taken to rectify the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This man, who is an interned civilian, was on a fish diet, and the statements made respecting special treatment are incorrect, except that on one occasion a jelly was bought and given to the patient, who was very ill and unable to take his food or share the gifts of special food articles sent to the ward. He was at first separately accommodated with another interned civilian in a small ward of two beds, but it became necessary to use this ward for other dangerously ill cases, and he was then moved into a general ward.

    OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR (PROMOTION).
    13. Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state the rules which govern the promotion of officer prisoners of war in the case of second-lieutenants, lieutenants, captains, and officers of higher ranks; and whether there has been any modification in the Regulations on this subject laid down in Article 47 of the Royal Warrant for the pay, appointment, promotion, and non-effective pay of the Army since 1914?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave to the question he put to me on 13th March. Officers are eligible for promotion up to the rank of captain, but throughout the War it has been the practice that one step only is given during the period that an officer is a prisoner of war. Otherwise there has been no modification of Article 47 of the Pay Warrant in this respect.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the ambiguous language of Article 47 of the Royal Warrant, will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of bringing out a new version or edition of it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into it.

    CADET UNITS.
    14. Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the County Territorial Associations were not consulted before the Central Volunteer Association was authorised to intervene in matters of Cadet organisation and training; and whether it is proposed to continue to allow the Central Volunteer Association to interfere with the Territorial Cadet movement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Central Association of Volunteer Regiments have not been authorised to, nor is it intended that they should, interfere with the responsibilities of Territorial Force Associations in regard to recognised Cadet corps. The Central Association offered very patriotically to place their services at the disposal of Territorial Force Associations and to help them in the matter of providing speakers and other propaganda work for the extension of the Cadet movement and the formation of new units; but the responsibility for recognising Cadet units, and of administering such units after recognition has been accorded, will rest, as heretofore, entirely with Territorial Force Associations, who may or may not, as they please, take advantage of the Central Association's offer of assistance.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it a fact that the County Territorial Associations have not availed themselves of this offer at all, and that they do not want it and have not asked for it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that a great many of the County Territorial Associations have gladly accepted the offer of the Central Volunteer Association.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the rules allowing boys of seventeen to enter Volunteer regiments Would it not be better to take them into Cadet corps up to the age of eighteen?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that the rule as it at present exists is very satisfactory. Boys up to seventeen are entitled to enlist in the Volunteer Corps and are placed in Section C.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of placing them in Cadet Corps?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is much more satisfactory, and in the best interests of
    988
    the Army, that a boy of seventeen just about ready to enter the Army at eighteen should have some preliminary training in a Volunteer Regiment.

    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS.
    15. Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if certain men in the South Wales Borderers, stationed at Kinmel Park, who were inoculated on the 31st October, and who were excused duty by the medical officer for forty-eight hours, were ordered by the commanding officer within twenty hours of the inoculation, and while their arms were stiff and sore, to scrub out the huts, and then to stand by their kit on the wet floor, with the result that a number of them were faint and feverish; and whether he will inform this commanding officer that in future the order of the medical officer must be observed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    LIEUT. —COLONEL MONTEAGLE BROWNE.
    16. Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of Lieutenant-Colonel Monteagle Browne's good service during nearly the whole of the South African War and of his distinguished service during about 32 months at the front in France in this War, he can say why he was dismissed from His Majesty's service without being granted either an official inquiry or a court-martial, especially in view of the excellent reports on him by the generals under whom he served in France?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on July 31st to my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick East, to which I have nothing to add.
    Major HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reasons given to me at the War Office for turning this officer out of the Army were so hopelessly bad that I was compelled by the War Office to promise special secrecy for fear the public should find out the gross injustice that has been done to him?
    Mr. KILEY: Is there any Court of Appeal or of Inquiry to which officers such as the one referred to in the question, in the event of there being any question raised as to their efficiency, can submit their claim, or are there any means by which an officer, if found unsuitable for work in one direction, can be transferred to some other branch rather than that his services should be lost to the State at a time like the present?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The War Office does not dismiss men from the Service. That can only be done by court-martial. Colonel Monteagle Browne was removed from the Service because he refused to obey an order directing him to send in his resignation.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will the hon. Gentleman order an inquiry into this case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are two ways of getting rid of the services of an officer. One is on account of misconduct, which is purely a question of fact; and the other is on account of inefficiency, which is a matter of opinion. Colonel Mont-eagle Browne was asked to send in his resignation on account of reported inefficiency. Inefficiency is a matter of opinion. He was reported by his brigadier-general, then by the divisional-general, and right up to the Field-Marshall Commanding-in-Chief, and, as always in the Army, the War Office was perfectly satisfied that he was justly asked to send in his resignation.
    Captain SHEEHAN: Is it not a fact that this man has commanded three different battalions in one year and that he has been found to be a most efficient officer during the whole time of his service, that he got the Distinguished Service Order, and that nothing whatever has ever been alleged against him; and is not the least that can be done to have an inquiry into his conduct and alleged inefficiency?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There has been no Court of Inquiry allowed in the case of any officer who has been serving at the front. If he has been asked to send in his resignation on account of inefficiency, it would be quite hopeless, as the House will readily realise, to have such a Court of Inquiry. All inefficiency questions are matters of opinion, and it is quite clear that the brigadier-general, the divisional
    990
    general, and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, who are in direct contact with him in varying degrees, are the best judges of a man's efficiency.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does my hon. Friend seriously ask this House to believe that in the Army efficiency or inefficiency is a matter of opinion?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly, and it has always been regarded so in the Army.
    Major HUNT: Is not Colonel Mont-eagle Browne's record, by the various officers in whose command he has served, one of the very best? In view of the very unsatisfactory answer of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

    PALESTINE OPERATIONS.
    17. Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what regiments have taken part in the advance in Palestine; and what London Territorial regiments were present at Beersheba and Gaza?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question on 7th November. All information which can be given without detriment to the public interest has been published in communiqués, and I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the review of his operations from 31st October to 8th November, which has been received from General Allenby, and was published on 14th November. This review contains the fullest particulars as to the regiments engaged which it is possible to publish.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the newspaper correspondents' accounts of this advance the London Territorial regiments were mentioned, and, in view of the anxiety of the relatives and friends of the men in these regiments, is it not possible to give the numbers of the Territorial regiments so engaged?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I think it would be extremely ill-advised to give the numbers of any regiments until the Commander-in-Chief in the theatre of war thinks fit to give them.

    ARMY PAY (INCREASE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the increase of one penny per day for service applies to every unit of the Army; and, if not, what are the exceptions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I think the hon. Member will agree with me that we had better await the issue of the final orders on this subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that the Government promised this increase of pay to these men as from the 1st October of this year and that this is now the 20th November, but not a single man in the British Army or British Navy has received this increase? When do the War Office propose to give this increase to the men?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I have already explained previously to the hon. Member, the matter is being reconsidered by the Cabinet, and until the Cabinet announce their final decision I do not think it is desirable to go into the details raised in this question. With regard to the question of the pay dating back to the 1st October, I have already assured the House that that will be the case.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in reply to me only three or four days ago, that the amount payable as from the 1st October was being paid in addition to the fact that the Cabinet were considering a further increase, and why is it he does not know what the Leader of the House knows?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the Leader of the House gave that answer in reply to a supplementary question.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the announcement of this promised increase to the man's wife and family, in many cases the families have spent their money on that promise but that neither the man nor the wife has received the money?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry for the delay, but either the man or the wife will receive the money as from the 1st October.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that the Leader of the House did not know what he was talking about in his reply to me?

    ITALY (SUPPLY OF COAL).
    21. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether coal is being sent to Italy from Great Britain in requisitioned British liners at Blue Book rates; what the hire money and expenses for the voyage to Italy represent in freight per ton of coal carried; the cost of the coal f.o.b. at the loading port and the cost of the coal plus freight and charges delivered at the Italian port of discharge; whether this coal is sold to the Italian Government or to local authorities or private firms or individuals in Italy; and whether he can account for the price of coal in Italy, which costs the private consumer £24 per ton or thereabouts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The hire and expenses represent a freight of about 17s. 6d. a ton, exclusive of war risk, which is borne by the Italian Government. The price of the coal f.o.b. at the loading port varies according to the nature of the coal, but 30s. may be regarded as an average price; the cost of the coal delivered at an Italian port may be taken as 50s. 6d., exclusive of war risk. The coal so delivered is sold to the Italian Government. The Ministry of Shipping have no means of accounting for the retail price of coal in Italy.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman take measures to represent to the Foreign Office or to the Consular Service the fact that the people of Italy ought to be informed that it is not the British Government, or the British shipowner, or the British coal-owner, who is responsible for the high price of coal in Italy?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can only say, in answer to that question, that the facts are as I have stated.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman offer any explanation as to who is getting the difference between the 50s. and £24 a ton?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can add nothing to my answer, which gives all the facts.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to my request that he will make representations to the Foreign Office?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think my hon. Friend's question has already achieved that purpose.
    22. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether there have been instances where British vessels have been requisitioned at blue-book rates and carried coal from the United Kingdom to Italian ports and immediately after discharge of cargo, have been put off hire and owners compelled to purchase bunker coal for the return voyage at current Italian market rates, although this bunker coal has been carried in the ship; and whether the hire money paid to owners in such cases has been swallowed up or nearly so by the cost of the bunker coal which had to be paid for by the owners, reducing the freight on the cargo coal carried to nil or nearly so?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Where under a practice discontinued some time ago, an owner accepted in Italy release of his vessel from requisition, he paid the current market price for any Government bunker coal taken over, just as the Government does in taking over owners' coal at the commencement of requisition. No owner, however, was compelled to accept delivery in Italy on those terms. He always had the option of remaining under requisition and was therefore never put in the position of earning less than the normal profit obtainable under bluebook conditions on either the outward or homeward voyage.
    Mr. HOUSTON: In reference to the first portion of the hon. Gentleman's reply, which proves the statements made in this question, is not that a proof that the British shipowners and the British Government are not responsible for the price of coal in Italy?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is clear from my former answer that they are certainly not responsible.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in order to check extravagance in public restaurants and hotels, to encourage economy in the use of foodstuffs, and to remove the distinction at present existing, he will issue
    994
    orders that the price of meals in hotels and restaurants shall not exceed those at present in force for officers and men in uniform?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): As I am informed, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil last Wednesday, in the case of cheap restaurants there is a limit of price but not limit of quantity; in the case of more expensive restaurants there is a limit of quantity but not of price. It is not clear that the further restriction which the question suggests would limit the consumption of essential foodstuffs.
    Colonel WILSON: Are the Government prepared to encourage extravagance among civilians and rightly prohibit it to soldiers and sailors?
    Mr. CLYNES: No such extravagance is encouraged. What we say is that in the case of the more costly restaurants the expenditure on costly foods, like oysters and peaches, assists in reducing the consumption of essential foodstuffs.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if the Chorley Food Control Committee has only been allowing a Mr. Howarth, who owns a temperance bar in that town, and who manufactures the herbal drinks he sells, 1 ⅛ lbs. of sugar per week; that that amount is now stopped; and that Mr. Howarth has been informed by the firm who supplied him with sugar that they have been instructed not to supply him with any more sugar before February next; and whether, with the object of preventing this man being ruined, he will give instructions that sugar must be supplied to him?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am causing inquiries to be made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    CREAM.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware of the shortage of milk in Ireland caused by the manufacture of cream; if he will state what quantity has been exported from Ireland within the past five months; if he will state how many gallons of milk it takes to manufacture 1 gallon of cream; and if he is aware that during the summer hundreds of gallons

    995
    were exported, thus making it difficult for the poor of Ireland to obtain a supply of milk?
    Sir T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department of Agriculture are aware of the present shortage of milk in various parts of Ireland. The quantity of cream exported from Ireland in each of the five months, May to September, 1917, inclusive, was returned to the Department as follows:

    Cwts

    May

    1,907

    June

    2,132

    July

    1,797

    August

    1,101

    September

    1,971

    The total for these five months in the year 1917 was, therefore, 8,908 cwts., as compared with 15,740 cwts., 9,578 cwts., and 12,977 cwts. in the corresponding periods of 1916, 1915, and 1914, respectively.
    From 12 to 15 gallons of milk are required to produce 1 gallon of cream containing 50 per cent. butter fat.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is it not time that the Government made up its mind to prevent the manufacture of 1 gallon of cream, which is undoubtedly a luxury, and deprives deserving poor of 12 gallons of milk?
    Sir T. W. RUSSELL: The question is occupying the attention of the Government at the present moment.
    Mr. BYRNE: I hope we shall get an answer very shortly, and before there is any more of this manufacture of cream.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the area of the land acquired for the purpose of the new national shipyard at Chepstow, the number of slips which will be completed there for new construction, and whether it is intended to construct shops for the manufacture of the engines and equipment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It has not been definitely settled what exact area will be acquired for the national shipyard at Chepstow, nor has the number of slips been definitely settled. It is not the intention to construct shops
    996
    for the manufacture of the engines and equipment. I would remind my hon. Friend that, as I stated on Thursday last, it is intended that the number of slips of the new national shipyards will be from thirty to thirty-six. I have already stated also that an addition of from fifty to sixty slips will be made to existing private yards, and that thirty-three of these have already been sanctioned.
    Mr. TERRELL: As it is definitely decided not to construct shops for the manufacture of engines, from what sources does the right hon. Gentleman intend to obtain the necessary engines and equipment for these vessels?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: From the existing shops in this country; from the engineering shops as a whole.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it intended to obtain the land for building workmen's houses at the same time, or is that to be left to private enterprise?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained fully the other day the procedure in regard to that.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Have the Admiralty taken any steps to secure the refusal of such land as they require at a price, or is the uncertainty they have as to the amount of land required enabling the landowners to raise the price?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall proceed to occupy under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, and if we require to purchase land we shall proceed under the Acquisition of Land Act.
    27. Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how the Government propose to run the ships constructed in the new national shipyards; is it proposed that they should be run after the War by the Government in competition with privately-owned ships or are they to be sold to outside owners?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am not aware of any reason for distinguishing between ships built in national shipyards and ships built for the Government in private shipyards, and it, is not proposed to make any such distinction.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question how the Government propose to run these ships after the War? Are they to be run in competition with privately-owned ships?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Our present purpose is to run them for war purposes. As to post bellum that raises a very wide question, of which I must ask notice.
    Mr. TERRELL: The notice is on the Paper.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Member will find that his question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. TERRELL: The specific question is on the Paper.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will my hon. Friend answer the part of the question which distinctly asks whether after the War they are to be run as privately-owned vessels or are to be sold?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend will realise that that is a question which demands and is receiving the very serious attention of the Government. It is not possible for me to give it an answer at this moment.
    Mr. TERRELL: Then the answer is that he is unable to answer.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No, my answer is that post bellum, questions relating to shipping are under consideration, as all other questions relating to reconstruction of industry are under consideration.
    Mr. TERRELL: Then he is unable to give an answer.
    28. Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty from what source he proposes to obtain the necessary skilled staffs of managers and draftsmen for the new national shipyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave last Wednesday to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division, wherein I stated that there is no intention of calling upon private yards to provide any labour for the new national shipyards, though we may, by agreement, secure the services of a limited number of foremen from the private yards, and, indeed, from our own Royal Dockyards. Labour for the national shipyards will have to be drawn from sources other than privately-owned yards. I may say that no skilled managers or draftsmen will be taken from existing shipyards without the consent of the shipbuilders with whom they may now be employed.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how he proposes to obtain the necessary skilled managers and draughtsmen?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Our Shipyard Labour Department is in consultation with the National Service Department, and they are together working with our Deputy-Controller of Shipping.
    Mr. TERRELL: Are they skilled managers of ship construction yards?
    Mr. WILKIE: What is the reason why they have selected places for these national shipyards where there is no shipyard labour to be got?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is plenty of shipyard labour.
    Mr. TERRELL: Are these gentlemen the right hon. Gentleman has in view really skilled managers of ship construction yards or amateurs?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can tell the hon. Member who they are. They are the heads of three Departments, the Minister of National Service, Sir Lynden Macassey, Director of Shipyard Labour, Admiralty, and Major-General Collard, Deputy-Controller for Auxiliary Shipping, and they have expert business people at work under them.
    Mr. WILKIE: May we be told where there is plenty of shipyard labour to be got?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I certainly hope to get shipyard labour to the localities in question. If there is some there we will get on with the building of a few ships.
    30. Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what is approximately the area of the land acquired for the purposes of a national shipyard at Beachley; whether it was acquired under the Defence of the Realm Act or under any other special provisions; when it was acquired; what was the purchase price of it; and what was being taken as its annual value for rating purposes at the time of its acquisition?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has not been definitely settled what exact area will be acquired for the national shipyard. The land is at present being taken up under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that part of it which will be required permanently is being purchased under the

    999
    Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act. As the purchase has not yet been completed, the answers to the other parts of the question cannot be given.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state approximately what land will be required?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot. As I said before, if the hon. Member will put a question on the paper I will try to answer it.
    Mr. BOLAND: In view of all this criticism of national shipbuilding, will the Tight hon. Gentleman not consider the idea of having one in Ireland where there will be no difficulty at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am glad to hear there will be no difficulty at all. We do not propose to construct national shipbuilding yards in Ireland, but we are availing ourselves increasingly of the facilities which Ireland has for shipbuilding and repairs.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean increasing shipbuilding in Ireland or taking advantage of the facilities which Ireland has offered to this country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Shipbuilding in the North and repairing in the South. We are doing more than we have been to use facilities in Ireland.

    PETROLEUM (UNITED KINGDOM).
    29. Mr. DENMANasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government has yet begun to bore for petroleum in the United Kingdom?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Pretyman): No, Sir.
    Mr. DENMAN: In view of the continued delay, will control of the matter be handed over to persons more concerned with the getting of oil than with political disputation?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot tell what the hon. Member means to suggest by that. The matter is in the hands of the Government, which is not concerned with political disputation, but is glad to avoid it.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is there any intention to proceed with the Bill?

    COAL SUPPLY.
    32. Sir CLIFFORD CORYasked the President of the Board of Trade who is responsible for the payment of accounts for coal supplied by direction of the Coal Controller to any customer?
    Mr. WARDLE: Generally speaking, the customer to whom the coal is supplied is responsible for the payment of accounts. In cases where there is reason to doubt the financial position of a customer, or where a customer's position may be insufficiently well known, arrangements have been made for responsibility for payment of accounts to be undertaken by local committees, or payment may be secured before the coal is delivered.

    IMPORTED TIMBER.
    33. Sir JOHN FLEMINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now grant to holders of stocks of imported timber which have not been taken over by the timber buyer the liberty of disposing of the same at prices sufficient to cover the cost of replacement, and thus conform to the practice of the Government timber buyer?
    Mr. WARDLE: The subject of this question has been discussed thoroughly by the Controller of Timber Supplies with his Advisory Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member and on the advice of that Committee it has been been decided that in present circumstances no change in the direction suggested can be made.
    Sir J. FLEMING: Am I to understand that this is an example of British fair play, that the Government should be allowed to charge 40 per cent. profit and that the previous holder of the goods left on his hands can charge none? That never was arranged at the Controllers' Committee.
    Mr. WARDLE: I believe the hon. Member is aware that a conference on this subject will be held in the course of a day or two.
    Sir J. FLEMING: I hope something will come of it.

    RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
    34. Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has

    1001
    taken as regards the increase by railway companies in London of season tickets; and if instructions have been issued to stop all further increases and to refund all recent increases made?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am still in communication with the Railway Executive Committee, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman on this subject last Wednesday.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the posters which were issued last December increasing railway fares by 50 per cent. specially included increases to workmen's weekly and traders' and season tickets, and in view of the very great hardship to workers, many of them with small wages, by the increase of season tickets, can he give the House any definite date when he will be able to reply to the question?
    Mr. WARDLE: With regard to the first part of the question, there is no increase of 50 per cent. on any season tickets.
    Mr. GILBERT: I did not say that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked a question. He should wait for a reply.
    Mr. WARDLE: With regard to the second part of the question, I hope it will be possible within two or three days to give a definite answer.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Would it not be possible to make regulations so that third-class season tickets may in future be paid for by four equal quarterly instalments, instead of fining poor men, as is done in certain cases?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in addition to the increased price that is now put on the season ticket a great number of stations have actually been closed, and people who travel by these trains are put to extra inconvenience and cost to reach the stations from which they now travel?

    WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
    37. Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many speakers the
    1002
    War Aims Committee is employing at a weekly salary or upon an engagement for longer periods; and what salaries are being paid to them?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the course of the Debate on Tuesday last to the effect that it is not considered advisable to give details either of expenditure or of personal employment in connection with this work. The opinion of the House was very definitely expressed in the Debate referred to.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many discharged soldiers have got work in speaking on war aims throughout the country?
    Captain GUEST: I think my answer is quite complete.
    54. Mr. KING askedthe Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be in charge of the literary work of the National War Aims Committee; whether an editor has been appointed at a salary of £1,500 or less; and whether, in accordance with the new Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, his name will be appended to all the articles, pamphlets, leaflets, and other published matter from his pen?
    Captain GUEST: In regard to the first two points raised in the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Bradford. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, though, of course, all publications will bear the imprint of the Committee.
    Mr. KING: If it is a matter of town talk that very large salaries are being given to certain necessitous persons under this scheme, will not some public reply be given for the purpose of denying or confirming it?
    Captain GUEST: The opinion of the House was expressed on this matter very definitely in the Debate last Tuesday.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this new Department is considered by many people as simply a subterfuge for giving subventions and help to necessitous persons?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the salaries paid by this Department will appear in due course

    1003
    on the Estimates so that the House can see how this public money has been expended?
    Captain GUEST: They will come up on the Report.
    Mr. HOGGE: On which Report?
    Captain GUEST: On the Report stage of the Vote.

    NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
    39. Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the advertisement of National War Bonds, whilst being inserted in daily, local, religious, pictorial, fashion, comic, and miscellaneous publications, is being withheld from the trade papers and technical journals, which have done so much to develop national trade; and whether, in view of the circulation of these journals amongst the commercial classes, he will give directions that a fair share of the advertising is given to them?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that he question of advertising in the principal trade and technical journals is receiving favourable consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for the choice of the papers in which advertisements are put?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RAOUL VAN PARYS.
    40. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a young Belgian, Raoul Van Parys, living at 5, Beckwith Road, Herne Hill, a conscientious objector to military service, is employed on work of national importance as a substitute for a British subject serving in the Army; why this young man has been subjected to domiciliary visits and constant police attentions; and whether he will in future be allowed to continue his present useful work?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I have no information that this man is employed on work of national importance as a substitute for a British subject serving in the Army. Inquiries have
    1004
    recently been made through the police as to why he refuses to discharge his military obligations under Belgian law; and steps are being taken, in pursuance of the arrangement between the British and Belgian Governments, to enforce those obligations by means of a Deportation Order.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    63. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the shooting affray at the Dartmoor settlement; whether he can say how it has been that a conscientious objector should be armed with a revolver; whether any search is made of a conscientious objector's belongings on admission to the settlement; if not, will he undertake that the precaution is taken in future; and whether a man who carries about him a weapon which may cause death can be correctly described as a conscientious objector within the meaning of the Military Service Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have received a report on this shooting, which appears to have been accidental. The revolver was brought into Dartmoor without the knowledge of the authorities, and steps will be taken to prevent this from happening in the future.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter of opinion. I suppose that a man may wish to defend himself and nevertheless claim to be a conscientious objector.
    53. Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether Douglas Bishop, a member of the Society of Friends who has undergone repeated imprisonments after courts-martial in consequence of his conscientious objection to military service and to receiving merely conditional exemption therefrom, has been recently transferred to an asylum from Winchester prison; whether the Home Office were repeatedly informed both by his father and from other sources of the danger to his mind involved by his continued imprisonment; whether any action was taken in consequence of this information; whether previous to his last sentence the military doctor declared, after a medical examination, that he was not a to undergo hard labour, to which he was sentenced notwithstanding this; and

    1005
    whether the Government sanction this method of punishment, involving the loss of reason, of a man of high character whose action was the result of his religious convictions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with regard to the matter, but I regret I have not yet been able to complete the necessary inquiries. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the matter has been fully considered and I am in a position to let him know the result.
    Mr. HARVEY: I will put it down again to-morrow.

    DROYLSDEN LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
    64. Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that the clerk to the Droylsden Local Tribunal is a single man of military age, and if he is further aware that, as an example of this tribunal's work, it has recently refused exemption to a man with eleven children; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has made enquiry into the matters referred to. The clerk to the tribunal, who is also clerk to the urban district council, is of military age and holds a certificate of exemption granted on the ground that he is in a certified occupation. The military representative agreed to his exemption. The man referred to in the second part of the question was granted exemption in August, 1916, but the exemption was withdrawn six months ago because of his failure to comply with a reasonable condition attached to his exemption. He did not exercise his right of appeal against this decision of the local tribunal. I understand that some of the children are not dependant on him and that there is no question of financial hardship. My right hon. Friend does not see any ground for questioning the procedure of the local tribunal in either case.
    Mr. JOWETT: What was the condition of exemption which is called a reasonable condition of exemption?
    Mr. WALSH: The condition was to join the local volunteers, which he refused to do.

    ABSENTEES (IRELAND).
    65. Mr. BUTCHERasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are in Ireland at the present time a number of men who have left their homes in England and Scotland and gone to Ireland for the purpose of avoiding military service; and what steps have been or are being taken to get these men back to this country to fulfil their obligations under the Military Service Acts?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Full instructions were issued by the Army Council in May as to the procedure to be adopted for dealing with absentees under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, who had proceeded to Ireland for the purpose of evading their obligations under the Military Service Acts. A copy of the Instructions, Army Council Instruction No. 817, of the 19th May, 1917, may be seen in the Library. Action has been and is being taken under the Instruction, and in several cases men who had proceeded to Ireland have been brought to this country, and having been dealt with by a Court of summary jurisdiction, have been handed over to the military authorities.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    PACIFIST LITERATURE.
    42. Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether the offices of the Women's International League have been raided; what is the charge or suspicion against this organisation; and whether any Police Court proceedings will be taken?
    43. Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 14th November a police raid was effected on the suffrage shop in Duke Street, Adelphi; whether the advocacy of adult suffrage or other reasons placed this institution under suspicion; whether anything criminal was found on the premises; and whether legal proceedings will follow?
    44. Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 14th November a raid was carried out on 5, York Buildings, Adelphi, the office of the No-Conscription Fellowship; whether it is intended to make the objects for which this fellowship has existed, not

    1007
    hitherto illegal, into illegal objects; and, if not, why this raid was carried out against a body which has always been open and unwavering in its aims and methods?
    Sir G. CAVE: These offices were searched by the police on the dates mentioned, on warrants issued by the competent military authority, under No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. A quantity of literature was seized, and is now being examined. The question of prosecution will be for the Attorney-General.
    Mr. KING: How long does it take to examine this literature, seeing that the raid, was made over a week ago?
    Sir G. CAVEIt takes some time.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that there are only a few leaflets, but a large number of similar leaflets? Do they read every individual leaflet?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH.Does not the fact that the Home Secretary is making these raids, and seizing thousands of leaflets, and very seldom following up by prosecution, show that these leaflets are quite legal, and that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of testing his action before a Court of law?
    Sir G. CAVE: By no means. As a matter of fact, there are cases where seizure is more effective than prosecution by preventing circulation.

    FAWCETT ASSOCIATION.
    61. Mr. T. WILSONasked whether the office of the chairman of the Fawcett Association Trade Union was raided by the police in his absence last Wednesday evening, and Mr. Ammon's private cheque book, some loose postage stamps, and the minute book of the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Trades Council, also a manuscript dealing with postal history, stolen; and if he will state what purpose it is thought will be served by acting towards trade union officials and trade unionists in such a manner?
    62. Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the office of the chairman of the Fawcett Association Trade Union was in his absence raided by police officers last Wednesday, and that
    1008
    they removed his private cheque book, a number of postage stamps, the minute book of the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Trades Council, also a manuscript dealing with postal history; if he can state for what reason these things were removed; and whether they have been returned?
    Sir G. CAVE: Acting on a warrant issued by the Competent Military Authority, under Section 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the police visited No. 4, Duke Street, Adelphi, the offices of the No-Conscription Fellowship, on the 14th November. Certain documents were removed, among which were the minute-book and manuscript referred to, but no stamps. The minute-book and manuscript, which were removed in error among a mass of other documents, have been returned to the office. It is misleading to refer to this raid as having been made on a trade union official. The raid had nothing to do with the Fawcett Association (whose offices are at 55, Doughty Street), or with any other trade union, and was concerned with the No-Conscription Fellowship only.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the book with the list of the trade union delegates to Rotherhithe and Bermondsey Trades Council, the file of trade union correspondence, and the Income Tax assessment paper belonging to this official, are returned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite all denials, the drawer was broken open and postage stamps were taken away, and have not been returned?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will see that anything belonging to the trade union which has not been already returned shall be returned. In reply to the latter part of the question, I can only speak from my information which conflicts with that with which the hon. Gentleman has been supplied.

    IRELAND AND BELGIUM.
    45. Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if the Government by force of arms or peace negotiations will insist that Germany shall be compelled to yield to Belgium the rights which the British Government is prepared to concede voluntarily to Ireland, or whether the Government are in favour of giving both Belgium and Ireland the right of deciding for themselves without reference to foreign influences of

    1009
    any kind the form of government under which they prefer to live and the measure of freedom to which they are entitled; and whether the Government will not prevent such decision coming into operation immediately when the will of both nationalities, based so far as Ireland is concerned on the principles underlying the Representation of the People Bill now before the House, has been ascertained?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can add nothing to the statements already made as to the intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland and to Belgium.
    Mr. LYNCH: Have not Irishmen the same rights as Belgians?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish Belgians had the same rights as Irishmen.
    Mr. LYNCH: I wish to ask a definite and precise question—would the right hon. Gentleman or the Government come to terms with Germany if Germany would agree now to constitute Belgium—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will put it on the Paper.

    AIR SERVICE.
    46. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to rendering the Service universally attractive, he will Advise that the style and titles Royal Flying Corps and Royal Naval Air Service be changed by the substitution of the word National for Royal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    47. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the peril to which London is exposed on account of the development of aircraft offensive by the Germans, he can give the House the assurance that, within the control of the authorities concerned in the defence of London, there is constituted what might be called a thinking department whose duty it is intelligently to foresee the effects of German activities and to advise appropriate and adequate preparations to defeat them and to avoid the disadvantages of being taken by surprise and being compelled to substitute plausible explanations for vigorous and effective fighting action
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. LYNCH: If a thinking department exists why does it never commence to think until after the event?

    BRITISH ARMY (COMMAND).
    48. Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to his statement in Paris of the failure of the Higher Military Command during the present War to correctly appreciate the relative importance of the different campaigns undertaken by the Allies, he will consider the desirability of appointing a Commander-in-Chief of the whole British Army?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

    PEACE PROPAGANDA.
    49. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, under any new Defence of the Realm Regulation, it is made, or intended to be made, an offence to advocate, state, or discuss the desirability of peace through negotiations; whether, if this is illegal in the country, it is the intention of the Government to take steps to prevent similiar views being expressed in Parliament; and whether any action against peace by negotiation is being taken in conjunction with similar action by our Allies, France, and the United States?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. I must refer the hon. Member to the Regulation, which has now been made.

    FINLAND.
    50. Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received from Finland an appeal for assistance in view of the famine now threatening that country; and whether any steps are being taken to meet the needs of Finland?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is, I understand, in the affirmative. We should naturally be glad to do all we can for Finland, but the position is not an easy one.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    51. Major DAVIESasked whether it is proposed that all the Allies shall be represented on the Allied War Council; and whether representatives of the Russian, Serbian, Roumanian, and Belgian Armies will be given permanent positions on the inter-Allied General Staff?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the Prime Minister's statement in yesterday's Debate.
    Mr. PRINGLE (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have received any intimation from the Government of the United States of America to the effect that President Wilson has asked Colonel House and General Bliss to attend the first meeting of the Supreme War Council, which is to take place before the end of the month, and that President Wilson has cabled to Colonel House that the Government of the United States considers unity of plan and control between all the Allies is essential; whether the official statement to this effect issued to the Press yesterday was issued by the authority of the Government; whether his attention has been called to a message from the Washington correspondent of the " Daily Mail," published in that paper this morning, in which it is stated that President Wilson denies that he has sent a cable in the terms quoted; whether in these circumstances the Government can make an authoritative statement on the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The President has directed Colonel House to take part not only in the inter-Allied Conference, but also in the Supreme War Council, with General Bliss as his military adviser.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether President Wilson has sent a cable, or whether this is another instance of a Kerenski telegram?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that the House would wish me to answer that question. We have the information quite officially.

    INFANT MORTALITY.
    52. Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the present loss and maiming of infant life and the need for legislation; and whether, with a view to securing
    1012
    agreed legislation, he will grant the House an early opportunity of discussing the whole question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question the introduction of legislation is under consideration, and as regards the second part I cannot at the present moment see an opportunity for this discussion.

    LAND VALUES TAXATION.
    55. Mr. D. WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his expressed lack of belief that money can be obtained by taxing land values, whether he has inquired of the Valuation Department what is the estimated aggregate of the full-site values of the lands of the United Kingdom, as defined and ascertained under the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910; and if he will state what is the aggregate of the full-site values of the lands within the London area in so far as ascertained?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member is aware, the final settlement of large numbers of valuations has had to be postponed until after the War, and none but the roughest estimates could be given of the values referred to.
    Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give the provisional estimate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am afraid not. I have the information given to me, but a provisional estimate could only be unsatisfactory.

  POSTAL RATES.

    INCREASES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
    57. Mr. EVELYN CECILasked what increases in postal rates have been made as war measures by the following countries since the beginning of the War, namely, Canada, Australia, the United States, France, and Italy; and what annual additions, if any, to the national revenue are in each case calculated to be the result?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Of the countries mentioned I have at present complete information of increases in rates of letter postage only in the cases of Canada, the United States of America, and France.
    In Canada a " War Tax " of 1 cent is levied on all letters the ordinary rate

    1013
    of postage for which does not exceed 2 cents (1d.) per ounce; and also on 1 cent postcards.
    In the United States of America postage which used to be levied on letters at the rate of 2 cents per ounce has now, with certain exceptions, been raised to 3 cents per ounce.
    In France the 10 centime letter rate has been raised to 15 centimes.
    I am unable to give any information as to the effect of these increased charges on the national revenues of the countries in question.
    Mr. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have tried to get what information I can. I do not know that it is available yet, but I will try again.

    NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (AUTHORSHIP).
    58. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Regulation requiring the writer of an article or pamphlet on the war to attach his full name will be made, or is intended, to apply to newspaper articles and correspondence, or whether newspaper writers are to have the privilege of anonymity denied to all other citizens?
    Sir G. CAVE: I must refer the hon. Member to the Regulation.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Would the journal of a trade union be a newspaper under the Regulations
    Sir G. CAVE: I would rather not answer that at the present time.

    HOME RULE FOR INDIA LEAGUE.
    59. Commander WEDGWOODasked whether the office of the Home Rule for India League, in Robert Street, W.C., has been raided; whether the aims or methods of this league are considered or suspected of being seditious or illegal; and whether legal proceedings are contemplated?
    Sir G. CAVE: The office of this league was searched by the police on the 3rd November for copies of a book containing statements which encouraged sedition and
    1014
    assassination. The papers seized are under examination, and I am not at present prepared to express any opinion upon the aims or methods of the league, or whether criminal proceedings are likely to be taken.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Was not the book seized the book to which I wrote a preface?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did make himself responsible for it.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Am I to be prosecuted as well as anybody else? It is a travesty to say that any such suggestion was made in that volume. Was this search undertaken after consultation with the India Office or not, or is it held to be in support of decent relations between AngloIndians and Indians in India?
    Sir G. CAVE: It was taken after consultation.
    Mr. KING: As it has taken over a fortnight to decide whether the hon and gallant Member's references are seditious, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will come to a decision?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not say that the writings of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself are seditious, but the book in itself encourages sedition.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: It certainly does not.

    SOUTHAMPTON TRADES COUNCIL.
    60. Mr. T. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether at a recent meeting under the auspices of the Southampton Trades Council two detectives from Scotland Yard were discovered hidden beneath the grand piano; and whether this action was ordered by the Government?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (REGISTER).
    66. Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Minister of National Service whether he can state the source and nature of the information from which his Department is cataloguing and card-indexing the people of this country with a view to national service?
    Sir A. GEDDES: For the present we are consolidating information available from:

    The Military Register.

    The National Register.

    D.R. 17 Form, as required under Defence of the Realm Regulations, 41A.

    Register of Employe's, M.M. 37B.

    Returns from Employers, M.M. 82S.

    Registration of Aliens.

    A special register is also being compiled by direct inquiry to cover all men in the Army in Great Britain and Ireland. Numerous special inquiries are also being made by the officials of this Ministry with the purpose of clearing up points left doubtful by these returns. So soon as the information available from these sources is exhausted, we hope to tap other sources of information which are, or which may become available—for example, any information which may be in the possession of the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has my hon. Friend never thought of using the national register, which the Local Government Board keeps up to date?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The second source from which the information is taken is the national register.
    Mr. HOGGE: If the Local Government keeps the register up to date, what is the use of any other source of information?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The national register does not record the changes of occupation. The occupation of individuals is of great importance at the present time.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Are the sugar cards one of the sources from which information is drawn?
    Sir A. GEDDES: We have not yet drawn any information in bulk from the sugar cards, but hope to be able to get information from them.

    DUBLIN GENERAL POST OFFICE.
    67. Mr. BYRNEasked when the Dublin General Post Office will be rebuilt?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The reconstruction of the Dublin General Post Office involves a number of problems, consideration of which is being actively pursued. I regret that at present I am unable to say when operations are likely to be begun.
    Mr. BYRNE: As the matter has been under consideration for nearly two years,
    1016
    when will some steps be taken to rebuild, or is this portion of the Government boycott of Ireland?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given.

    SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (WOMEN CLERKS).
    68. Mr. BYRNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the fact that a woman clerk of twenty-one months' service in the Savings Bank Department has been transferred as a woman clerk to Dublin when sixty-seven names stood before hers on the recognised list of applications for transfer to Dublin from the Savings Bank Department; and whether, in view of the fact that clerks are being released constantly from the Savings Bank Department for work in other departments, he will immediately release Irish women clerks from London whose names are the longest on the list to fill the six existing vacancies for women clerks in the Accountant - General's Department, Dublin?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 8th instant. As regards the second part, owing to a rearrangement, it is not necessary to fill the vacancies on the class of women clerks.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the suggestion made in this question and treat these people fairly?

  MUNITIONS.

    HOURS OF WORK.
    70. Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the 20th Memorandum of the Health of Munition Workers' Committee, in which the opinion is expressed that the time is now ripe for a further substantial reduction of the hours of work, and that reductions can be made with benefit to health and without injury to output; and whether he intends to carry out the recommendations of this Committee and reduce the hours of labour in national and controlled factories?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): My right hon. Friend has received the recommendations, and is considering to what extent they can be put into effect, having regard to the maintenance of production.

    BOY AND GIRL WORKERS.
    71. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions how many boys and girls and how many male and female young persons are now employed on night shifts in the national and controlled factories and establishments, respectively?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It appears, from the returns recently collected at the Noble Lord's request, that the boys under sixteen years and the girls between sixteen and eighteen years employed on night shifts in the national and controlled factories number about 14,000 and 8,000 respectively. The night employment of girls under sixteen is nowhere permitted. The figures include boys employed in factories where night work is permitted under the ordinary provisions of the Factory Act, as well as boys employed at night in pursuance of Emergency Orders. The whole matter is now under review by the Home Office and Ministry of Munitions; but no definite statement can yet be made.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the employment of young boys on night shifts directly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Factory Acts, and not only most uneconomic, but most injurious to health?
    Sir G. CAVE: As my Noble Friend knows, special relaxations have had to be given.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the number also include boys under fourteen years of age?
    Sir G. CAVE: Boys under sixteen.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But it does include some boys under fourteen?

    WOMEN'S STRIKE (GLASGOW).
    Mr. ANDERSON (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Munitions whether he has investigated the circumstances of a strike involving 400 women employed by Messrs. Beardmore at their East Hope
    1018
    Street Factory, Glasgow; whether he is aware that the origin of this strike was the dismissal of four women who were charged with restricting output; that three of the women have been in the employment of the firm for two years; that they catch a 5.25 train every morning, and do not return home until 7.25 at night; that one of them was the most successful fine borer engaged by the firm in 1916, and gained the highest bonus for ten weeks in succession, and that she now attributes her decreased output to the state of her health, due to the strain of the long hours; that the fourth woman is the mother of four children, and, in addition to her work, has had to look after them and attend to a paralysed husband, who died three weeks ago; whether he knows that the circumstances of this dispute have aroused much feeling in the district; that the organised workmen are contributing to the support of the women on strike; whether he will ask the firm to reinstate the four women, and, if so, state what reply has been received?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: This question only reached me at a quarter to two, and I have not been able fully to inform myself as to the facts. But I have given instructions that the women on strike be informed that the Ministry is prepared to investigate their grievances, or to refer them to the Ministry of Labour as soon as they return to work.

  RECONSTRUCTION.

    CIVIL WAR WORKERS COMMITTEE.
    72. Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Reconstruction the names of the members of the Civil War Workers' Committee which he has appointed, and the terms of reference?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): In an answer which I gave on 6th November to the hon. Member for Rutland I stated that details as regards Committees appointed to consider reconstruction problems will shortly be furnished to Parliament by means of a White Paper. I hope that this will be ready by the end of this week.
    Mr. TERRELL: I did not put my question about all the Committees, but about this particular Committee, and will the right hon. Gentleman furnish me with the list?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will send the hon. Member the list, and I promise that the official return shall be included in that.

    RESERVE OF WORK.
    73. Mr. TERRELLasked the Minister of Reconstruction what steps he is taking, if any, to create a reserve of work for our factories, so that men now engaged on war work may after the War, with the least possible delay, be turned over to peace work?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am giving the most careful consideration to this subject, and I am in constant communication with the Departments concerned, and with the Committees and Conferences which are advising me on questions connected with the supply of materials and other matters which have a bearing upon this problem.
    Mr. TERRELL: Are we to understand that up to the present nothing has been done in regard to the reserve work to be arranged in the event of the termination of hostilities?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not possible to answer a question of that kind, which involves a number of very grave considerations of a very complicated order with which the Department has to deal. The question is not one that could be answered in simple terms.

    TARIFF AGAINST FOREIGN IMPORTS.
    74 and 75. Mr. TERRELLasked the Minister of Reconstruction (1) whether, in connection with the many questions of reconstruction of British trade, he is proceeding on the basis that after the War British manufacturers will be protected by a tariff against foreign imports or on the basis of free trade; (2) whether, in connection with the problem of turning over from war conditions to peace conditions in our factories and maintaining a continuity of employment for labour, he will cause an inquiry to be directed all manufacturers asking if in their opinion the prospective situation can be made substantially easier by the imposition of a protective tariff on all imports of articles which compete with home manufactures?
    Dr. ADDISON: Questions relating to the fiscal policy to be adopted after the
    1020
    War are being considered, in the first instance, by the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War.
    Mr. PETO: How can the right hon. Gentleman proceed with his plans of reconstruction if he does not know the very basis on which he is to act? Is not the basis on which the trade of the country is to be carried on fundamental to the work of reconstruction?
    Dr. ADDISON: There are a great many bases of industry.

    Catholic Schools, Glasgow.
    23. Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland the total average salary, exclusive of war bonus, of all duly qualified teachers in the Glasgow Board primary schools and in the Catholic primary schools in the Glasgow School Board area respectively; and what average amount has been allotted by the Scottish Education Department from the equivalent grant to each duly qualified teacher in the Glasgow Board primary schools and in the Catholic primary schools in the Glasgow School Board area respectively?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As regards the salaries of teachers in the Roman Catholic Schools in Glasgow I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to his question of 9th July last. I regret that it is not possible without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour to give the information required in the case of the primary schools under the Glasgow School Board. The grant in aid of teachers' salaries has been distributed on precisely the same basis in respect of all teachers in Glasgow in what ever school they may be serving.

    Post-mortem Examinations.
    41. Mr. INGLEBYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, in cases where a patient is brought into hospital in a moribund condition and a post mortem examination has to be made and an inquest held, the medical officer who undertakes the post mortem and subsequently attends the inquest to give evidence is precluded by Section 2, Clause 22, of Part II. of the Coroners Act, 1887, from receiving any fee, where as if the patient is dead before being received into hospital the medical officer is, under Section 1, entitled

    1021
    to receive £2 2s. for his services; if he is aware that coroners have from time to time expressed their opinion in Court of the injustice suffered by the medical profession in this matter; and whether he will introduce a short Bill repealing Section 2 of the Act above referred to?
    Sir G. CAVE: I believe that the facts are as stated in the question, but I do not see my way to propose legislation on this subject at present.
    Mr. INGLEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was dealt with in the Report of a Departmental Committee of the Home Office seven or eight years ago?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say without reference, but I think it is a matter which has been discussed on both sides for some years.
    Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the case that the disability referred to in the question dates from the time of the Burke and Hare murders, and whether the condition of things then obtaining was not rendered obsolete by the Anatomy Act, 1832?
    Sir G. CAVEThat may be so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    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.
    Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed [15th November], 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." —[Mr. Acland.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." Debate resumed.
    Mr. CARADOC REES: It will be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday night, at 11 o'clock, there was an idea that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would have something to communicate to the House this afternoon that would obviate the necessity of any remarks being made. The House,
    1036
    I am sure, would like to have that statement, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it, I will give way to him. The right hon. Gentleman signifies that he is not prepared at this moment to accept the Amendment. In effect, the Amendment was that a married woman residing with her husband should have the municipal vote, and there was a suggested Amendment to that, to which, the House generally agreed, restricting that municipal vote to those who had attained the age of thirty years. The Bill gives married women the full Imperial. vote, and it was with some astonishment that many of us learned that, although women of thirty years of age and upwards received that vote, that they would not be allowed to vote for municipal representatives on the local bodies. One would have thought that the greater contained the less. There are two points I wish to refer to —first, the Amendment on its merits, and, second, the point raised in opposition, whether the Amendment can be properly embodied in this Bill at present. As to the merits, I have read every speech made in the House on Thursday, and no matter whether the Speaker was in favour of the Amendment or against it, in the sense that it ought to be done in some other way, not one single Member said anything against the merits of the Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: I would ask the hon. Member not to include me in that statement.
    Mr. REES: I will make an exception of the hon. Member, and say that apart from the hon. Gentleman nothing was said against the merits of the Amendment. For a long time women have been battling in order to get the vote; they have taken the highest peak, the right to vote for membership of the Imperial Parliament. Having captured the highest mountain, they saw a small mountain half-way up which they had not captured, but all their guns can be trained on to it, and in time nearly everybody admits that we must withdraw from that small mountain of municipal voting, and that women must have not only the Parliamentary vote, bat the municipal vote. It is said that this was not one of the points considered by the Conference. But I submit if it can be done, the quicker it is done the better. We do not want to have another agitation throughout the country and to have women dissatisfied. I support the Amendment, and propose to vote for it on. Division.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: As a consistent opponent of the extension of the franchise to women, I heartily support this Amendment. I have always held the view, and I believe this is the view of most of those opposed to the Parliamentary vote for women, that women are particularly concerned in and should have their activities directed to municipal affairs and to matters pertaining to their district. I consider that it is the height of inconsistency if you are going to give the Parliamentary vote to women, or as my hon. Friend has just described it, the Imperial vote, to deny to them the municipal franchise. Until this matter was brought up I was not aware that it was not intended to give this vote to women. The sphere of activity of women, I maintain, is largely in municipal affairs, and I entirely endorse what the last speaker said, that if you pass this Bill without including these women in the municipal franchise, there will be an agitation in order to secure that it shall be done. I think when you are passing this comprehensive franchise Bill that it is better to deal with all these thorny subjects and not leave them for future consideration. As regards the Amendment to the Amendment to make the age thirty, I fail to see what logic there is in that proposal. I consider that a woman of twenty-one is quite able and quite intelligent enough to exercise the municipal vote. Though an opponent of woman's suffrage, I would rather, if you are giving it, that no age limit should be fixed. The suggestion that a woman of twenty-one cannot be trusted to vote on municipal affairs is not a tenable proposition. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the opinion of the House on this question, an opinion which I venture to say reflects the opinion of the people throughout the country. I consider that if you extend the Parliamentary vote to women you cannot logically take up the position that you should not extend the municipal vote on equal terms.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD: I rise to support the appeal so strongly made from both sides to the Home Secretary, that he should consider whether he is not able even now to reconsider the position which he has taken up with regard to this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman is really in favour of the Amendment, but he has alleged that he is bound
    1038
    by the terms of the Speaker's Conference. It has already been pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the whole object of the Speaker's Conference had been to come to arrangements on matters affecting election of Parliament, and that nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise. He said that they purposely left local government franchise, so that the female Parliamentary suffrage might be placed on a uniform footing. Taking those words, it surely cannot be argued from them that the Speaker's Conference recommended, or in any way implied, that the municipal franchise should not be extended to women, and surely that argument could not be found embodied, taking the right hon. Gentleman's own words. But, then, it is said,
    they recommended with regard to the local government register that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he felt bound by those words—that those words were the real objection to his accepting this Amendment. I venture to say that if he has looked at the matter, not as a quibble but quite seriously, he will see that the proper legal interpretation to put upon the words, if this Amendment is accepted, is that husband and wife will not both be registered in respect of the same premises. Take, for, instance, the Parliamentary vote. Our wishes are that the women should have the Parliamentary vote, and also the municipal vote. There I cannot agree with my hon. Friend beneath me, because I do think it is right to limit the age, as is proposed to be done, with, I think, the general assent of the House, to take the age of thirty for the municipal register when we have taken it for the Parliamentary register.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why?
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: One reason has been explained by the Home Secretary himself. The very large number of women who would be suddenly put upon the municipal register if we took the age of twenty-one. It is better, in my humble opinion, to have the same qualification both for the Parliamentary and for the municipal register. If we look at the Bill we see that a woman will have the Parliamentary franchise if she has attained the age of thirty—that she is

    1039
    entitled to be registered if she is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered. Let me quote:
    (1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a 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.…

    I can leave that out for the moment.
    " or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered."
    Very well. In that case the husband and the wife are not registered in respect of the occupation of the same premises. The registration officer would not have to consider what premises are occupied by the wife at all. She is not registered at all in respect of any premises. She is registered as the wife of her husband who is on the municipal register. It would mean exactly the same thing in this case. I maintain that these words which are proposed to be left out by way of Amendment
    " Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property "—
    might even be left in the Statute and stand together with the Amendment, because the Amendment does not propose that a woman should be registered in respect of premises at all; it only proposes that she shall be registered in respect of the municipal register because " she is the wife of a husband who is entitled to be upon that register." Therefore I submit that the Speaker's Conference really did not make any recommendation which is a bar to this Amendment. The Speaker's Conference did contemplate changes in the muncipal franchise. They, on page 7, say this:
    "The franchise for local government purposes is so closely connected with the Parliamentary franchise that the Conference thought it desirable to deal with the matter, and resolved that—
    31. (a) 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."
    1040
    The Conference go on to say
    " (b) For the purpose of this resolution neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification, provide that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises."
    Quite so. It is perfectly easy to consider the franchise which might be proposed if there were a different franchise for husband and wife who were in joint occupation of certain premises, say, of a certain value. In that case, if that was applied to the municipal register, it would be running counter to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. But I submit the present Amendment, which only wishes that the woman who is the wife of a man who is on the local government register shall be entitled to the municipal vote as well as the Parliamentary vote, does not run contrary to the Speaker's Conference, or the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, either in spirit or in effect. I submit, again, that this is a real, serious, legal interpretation of the words, and it does not in any way quibble with the matter. Putting that aside, what is the real argument in favour of this Amendment? Surely it is the absurdity of giving the Parliamentary vote to women and denying them the municipal or local government vote? If they ought to have the Parliamentary vote, surely a fortiori they ought to have the municipal vote, because here comes in the work of women—the welfare of children, education, housing, and other matters which have already been mentioned. I can hardly conceive of anyone in favour under these circumstances of giving the Parliamentary vote to women who would not also be in favour of giving them the municipal vote. One knows that many who are opposed to, and who long have been opposed to, the Parliamentary vote to women are in favour of giving them the municipal vote. We allow women to sit upon these various boards. They may be on a county or a town council, and those of us who are on these bodies appeal to the class of women who are interested. Again, it seems that this is an anomaly that ought to be removed. As my hon. Friend has already said, if this is not done, there will be at once another agitation, and I think a just and a proper agitation, in order to obtain for women the municipal vote. It is better, surely, to settle this at once ! I understand that the Amendment to the Amendment will be accepted raising the age of women to thirty. The right hon. Gentleman the

    1041
    Member for Cleveland was taken to task by the hon. and learned Member for York because he said that if the Home Secretary stood strictly by the Speaker's Conference in this instance he should expect him to do the same, in other cases also, such as the case of plural and proxy voting. This my hon. Friend called a menace and a trap. I fail to see it. If the Home Secretary is really going to stand so rigidly, I was almost going to say pedantically—but certainly I do not use that epithet, for nobody in the world is less a pedant than the Home Secretary—if he is going to stand strictly and rigidly upon what he considers to be the terms of the Speaker's Conference—which I humbly submit is not against us in this Amendment—in this particular case, then it would only be consistent that he should adopt the same attitude in regard to, say, plural voting and proxy voting. I fail to see that this is a menace or a trap. 'To me it seems to be a perfectly fair argument. If, however, you are going to be consistent, if you are going to carry this Amendment to this particular point, how can you refuse to adopt the same attitude in other matters? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this Amendment—and I devoutly hope he will put an end to this controversy—there is one thing, at any rate, that I trust he will see to: to allow this question to go freely to the House for Members to express an independent and an unbound opinion upon it. That was done in the case of the Parliamentary vote for women, and I can see no objection to the same course being taken in regard to the municipal vote. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I desire to say a very few words in support of this Amendment, which was moved in such a convincing speech. As an opponent of the granting of the Parliamentary franchise to women, I ask myself how this Amendment bears upon the question of the Parliamentary franchise? I noticed that on Thursday night my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somersetshire called attention to the fact that on the Report stage of this Bill the opponents of woman's suffrage did not again challenge the decision of the House. It certainly seemed to me, in view of the Division in June, that it would have been a waste of time at this stage to have asked the House of Commons to go into
    1042
    another discussion and another Division: it was wiser for us to rely upon the hope that the provisions of this Bill relating to woman's suffrage would be modified in another place. That hope, I am sure it will be admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, is a legitimate one. He himself has so often declared against. Single-Chamber despotism that I am sure he will admit that the revising Chamber have a right to ensure that a change of so great magnitude should be submitted to the country. How does that bear upon the question before us this afternoon? I will put it frankly in this way to my right hon. Friend: Suppose that this Amendment is rejected; suppose that the Government ask the House to reject it? That will certainly help us enormously in fomenting opposition to the Parliamentary vote in the House of Lords. I admit it will strengthen our hands very greatly.
    What shall we be able to point out? That after months of labour, after prolonged discussion and delay, the Parliamentary vote has been conferred upon six millions of women, while, at the same time, not on the spur of the moment, but after very careful consideration, this House has declined to enfranchise women in the sphere in which practically every body admits women are well qualified to exercise the franchise. That will be such a transparent absurdity that it will help us in saying to our friends in another place, " The woman question has been mishandled in the House of Commons." It will go far to justify many of the hard things which the Suffragists have said about this House in the past when they have been dealing with questions affecting women. This will be a most gross injustice to women. It will help us very much to fight the Parliamentary vote.
    I am sure, however, it is a weapon of which no opponent of the Parliamentary suffrage for women will wish to avail himself.
    In view of the public demand for this change, of which I have seen many evidences in my constituency, the complete absence of opposition to it in the country, the almost complete absence of opposition in this House, I am justified in assuring the House that those women who are opposed to the Parliamentary vote are not in the least opposed to the extension of the municipal vote, and that they will welcome this change if made by the House of Commons this afternoon.
    Colonel YATE: I should like to say one word in support of what has just been said by the hon. Member, and also in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Wellington (Sir O. Henry). I am entirely in favour of giving votes to women in municipal affairs, and shall vote for it, on condition that the age is fixed at thirty. I am opposed, and have been from the commencement, to the vote being given to women in Imperial matters, which are not their sphere at all, but I entirely endorse what has been said regarding this Amendment. I hope the women will be given the vote for municipal affairs, where their assistance may be of the greatest use to the country; and, in fact, I will go so far as to say that if you gave internal legislative control to England, Scotland and Wales, as to Ireland, I should support votes for women in those assemblies. But I am absolutely opposed to their having a vote in an Imperial Parliament.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George
    Cave): I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. The Amendment which we are technically considering is not that which is really being pressed on the Government, because it is common ground that two changes must be made in it in order that it may be considered by the Government. One is that it should be confined to women who are residing with their husbands, and the other is that it should be confined to women who attain the age of thirty. In fact, the only form in which it can be considered is that of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). Therefore, what I have to say applies to the Amendment in that form. I have, of course, been listening, as I was absolutely bound to listen, to the expressions of opinion of Members in this House. I have always received, and I dare say others have received—probably I suffer more than others in that respect—an enormous mass of resolutions and letters on this matter, all of them in favour of the Amendment, and none of them against it. There has been some opposition, quite reasonably worded, in this House to this Amendment, even on merits. Two hon. Members, I think, spoke against it, but there has been a long succession of speeches in its favour—speeches made by Members of all parties in this House; indeed, I do not
    1044
    think it would be possible to make a comparison as to the proportion of one party or the other by which this Amendment has been supported. Members like my hon. Friends who have last spoken, who are opposed to the Parliamentary suffrage for women, have spoken in favour of the Amendment. When I spoke last week I did not think it my duty to put forward any arguments against this Amendment on the merits, for reasons. which I think the House will probably guess at. But I did put forward, and I think I was absolutely bound to put forward, the view that we are working under special conditions in regard to this Bill. I mean, of course, that it arises out of the report of the Speaker's Conference, and no one, I think, has had to press so often upon the House that view as I have. If we had not had that protection in these Debates, we could never have got so far in this Bill as we have. Therefore, I have always been reluctant to go beyond the Report of that Conference. At the same time, no one recognises more than I do that the whole object of that Conference was to obtain agreement—I will not; say permanent and final agreement, but, at all events, lasting agreement upon all these matters relating to the suffrage, and, apart from the merits, I think we should all be reluctant to see left outstanding and unsettled a question of this importance, if it could be now solved by a stroke of the pen.
    Therefore, I think we were entitled to consider again what course we should take in this matter. The exceedingly ingenious argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) impressed me, but did not convince me. The Government, of course, in conducting this Bill are doing the work of the House as a whole, and if it be the fact—as all the indications tend to show—that the very great majority of this House would like this experiment to be made, then I think we should be justified in leaving this matter to the decision of the House. I have come to that conclusion with considerable hesitation, because I do not want to leave more matters open in that way than we are absolutely bound so to leave, and I think I am entitled to add this: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) last week said to us very pointedly, " If you are going to be stiff about this Amendment, are you going to be equally stiff about other Amendments relating to

    1045
    proxies and matters of that kind? " It is an argument I shall bear in mind in future, and if we leave to the House the right of choice on this Amendment, we shall feel at liberty to exercise something of the same freedom in dealing with the other Amendments to which my right hon. Friend referred. We are coming to important matters, raising such questions as the military vote, the right of the conscientious objector to vote, and the right to vote by proxy, and, in view of the pressure which has been exercised upon us from all parts of the House to come to the decision which I have just announced, namely, not to put on the Government Whips on this question, I anticipate that similar freedom will be conceded to us by the House when we come to consider the method of dealing with those other matters. Notwithstanding what I have said, I am heartily desirous that we should still look upon this Report as our guide in dealing with this Bill. Exceptions, as I have said, must be made, but I still may have to appeal as a general rule to the Report of the Conference as our guide, and I hope that nothing that happens in this Debate will prevent our still going on with the Bill in that general agreement on nearly all the points of the Bill which has enabled us to carry the matter so far. I hope the decision I have announced will commend itself to the House.
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps I may, by leave of the House, say a few words. The Movers of the Amendment are entirely disposed to accept either the words of the hon. Member for Woolwich, or perhaps merely the addition of the words " in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years," which embody all the points the right hon. Gentleman made. I would merely add we would not have thought it right to bring forward anything which conflicted with the Report of the Conference had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman himself said at an earlier stage of the Bill that nothing with regard to the municipal vote was referred to the Conference. Therefore, we thought it rather in a different category than the other questions.
    Question, "That the words 'Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. CROOKS: I beg to move, after the word " man," to insert the words " or where she is the wife of a man who is so. registered in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years."
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said— [HON. MEMBERS: " Agreed ! "] I second it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) withdraw his Amendment? In that case I will put the words proposed by the hon. Member for Woolwich.
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir; but there is one verbal point. It says " who is so registered " instead of " entitled to be so registered." If that can be put right, I withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: In place of the words left out, after the word " man," insert the words " or where she is the wife of a man who is so entitled to be registered in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years."—[Mr.. Crooks.]
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Before this matter is finally settled, 1 should like to take the opportunity of saying just a word in respect of the observations which fell a moment ago from the Home Secretary. I am sure the majority of the House is very grateful to him for having left this matter to the decision of the House, and I have no doubt this Amendment will be generally accepted. The Home Secretary has said that if there is a matter in which there is general assent that we should be at liberty to leave ourselves free to depart from the strict letter of the Conference, and that similar latitude should be allowed in similar cases. I venture to suggest, however, that they must be similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman will fully appreciate that where a matter raises issues which before the War were regarded as questions of acute party controversy, on which the Conference arrived with much difficulty at a general compromise, on such matters as those we should still feel ourselves entitled to claim that the decisions of the Conference should be respected. I have in mind particularly the question of plural voting, to which many of us attach

    1047
    the greatest importance, and if the effect of this Bill is to increase the number of plural voters far beyond the number contemplated by the Conference in their Report, we must press the right hon. Gentleman not to depart from the Conference recommendations in that particular, even though on these matters on which there is general assent we have felt ourselves free to indulge in a somewhat larger latitude.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4. —(Franchises (Women).)

      CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions for Persons Serving on War Service.)
      (1) Any person who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and who is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military for force of the Crown, shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for such service:
      Provided that—

      (a) any such person shall be entitled to be registered for any constituency in which he has been serving for a period of not less than one month or in which he may have an actual residence qualification on making an application to the registration officer of that constituency and making a declaration in the prescribed form that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent his being registered under the foregoing provision for any other constituency; and

      (b) nothing in this provision shall prevent any such person being registered in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification.

      (2) The statement of any person made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that he would have had the necessary qualification in any constituency but for his service as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown, shall for all purposes of this Section be sufficient if there is no evidence to the contrary.
      (3) This Section shall apply to any person who, in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, is abroad and is—
      1048

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

      (b) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object;

      as it applies to a person serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown.
      Major HUNT: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
      This is the Clause which makes special provisions for persons serving on war service. The excuse which the Government gave for not dealing with this question in a comprehensive manner was that there was a general agreement that there should be no controversial legislation brought in during the War. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Herbert Samuel) alluded to some very controversial matters in the Bill, but I may point out that the Home Secretary during the Second Reading Debate told us that he was not going to give votes to sailors and soldiers because they had fought for us during the War. I think it is only justice that those who have fought for their country should be able to vote for it I hold very strongly that without the gallantry and devotion of our sailors and soldiers, and the mercantile marine who have served under the Admiralty and the War Office during the War, we could have had no Parliament at all. I think every man over nineteen years of age who has fought for his country should have a vote for life in the constituency in which he was born. It is only right and just that this should be so. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what will these men say when they come home after having endured all the dangers and hardships and suffering abroad which those who remain at home have escaped? What will they say when they find that most of them have not any political power in their own country?
      I think a huge majority of the people of this country have a great sense of justice and fair play, and I am sure that there is a very strong feeling amongst them that those who have gone abroad to save their country should at least have an equal share in the shaping of its destinies with those who have stayed at

      1049
      home in peace and comfort, who have been able to get a vote as well as high wages. The majority of the people of this country—and the Government will find it out some day—hold that a man who is good enough to risk his life for his country is good enough to vote for it. I understood that the Home Secretary had promised to bring in on Report words which would have this effect, but it has not been done, and the great majority of those men will have no voice in the elections after the War. The Bill admittedly provides that conscientious objectors, shirkers, and naturalised foreigners, many of whom are earning high wages here and have done their best to help our enemies, shall have votes just as if there had been no war at all. That will be the result of the Bill as it stands. The men who have supported the enemy will have votes and those who have saved the country will not. I wonder what the sailors and the soldiers and the men of the Mercantile Marine who have faced the dangers and horrors of the War on the sea and under it, in the air, and in foreign lands will think of this injustice when they come home? Is it likely that they will take it quietly when they find how they have been tricked by the politicians?
      Let the Government remember how the returned soldiers after the American Civil War dominated American politics for more than three Presidential elections. If our returned men, as they surely will, find out that they have no particular power in the country they have saved, will they not be justified in demanding their share and taking it by force? I think that this last Clause ought to be left out altogether, so that the people as well as the fighting men, can see clearly what the real intentions of the Government are. I cannot see how any Government, more especially a Coalition Government, supposed to be bringing in a Bill with the consent of all parties, can in the face of these facts, and knowing what they are doing, deliberately make provision in the Bill that a great majority of the sailors and soldiers and the men in the Mercantile Marine who have been under the Admiralty and the War Office, will have no vote and no political power at all when they come home after the War and after they have saved the country.
      Amendment not seconded.
      Captain O'NEILL: I have an Amendment on the Paper to insert in Sub-section (1) the words, "or having served on active service in any war in which His Majesty is
      1050
      engaged, has attained the age of nineteen years." On a point of Order, I wish to know if I shall have an opportunity of raising the matter, and I wish to know whether it is possible to keep these words alive to the extent that a discussion may take place On the Amendment I have put down.
      Sir G. CAVE: May I point out that when the Amendment I have put down dealing with that point is reached, I think it would be entirely in order for the hon. and gallant Member to raise the substance of his Amendment.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It will be open to the hon. and gallant Member when we reach that point.
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words " (1) Any person who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and who is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown," and to insert instead thereof the words "A person to whom this Section applies (in this Act referred to as a naval or military voter)."
      This and the subsequent Amendments standing in my name to this Clause are really drafting Amendments to put the Clause into a form satisfactory to the draftsman, and it will really make no change in the substance. I think I ought to say that I wish the House to understand that the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hunt) grossly misrepresents the Government proposals and the effect of the Bill, and if Clause 5 had been struck out as he proposed the soldiers and sailors would not have had a vote at all.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out from the word " for " [" for such service: "] to the end of the Sub-section, and insert instead thereof the words
      " the service which brings him within the provisions of this Section
      The right to be registered in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall be in addition to any other right to be registered, but a naval or military voter shall not be entitled to be registered for a constituency in respect of an actual residence qualification in the constituency except on making a claim for the purpose accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent his being

      1051
      registered under the foregoing provision for any other constituency."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word " person " [" the statement of any person "], to insert the words " or of his wife, parent, brother, or sister."
      The object of this Amendment and of another Amendment standing in my name lower down on the Paper, as well as that ,of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson), is practically the same in all cases. In my opinion, the wording of the Clause is a little too vague. It might lead to the impression that such a statement will have to be sent in by the soldier or sailor himself, and as he may be in Mesopotamia or on the high seas it would be quite impossible for him personally to make it. The words I am suggesting are adapted from the Schedule introduced by the Home Secretary in regard to the property qualification, and I want to secure that if a soldier or a sailor is absent one of his near relatives shall have the right to make a claim on his behalf. My later Amendment goes even further than that, and perhaps the words of that are too wide, for they suggest that "any other person" should be able to make the claim. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) suggests words to the effect that nothing in the Sub-section shall remove from the registration officer the duty of registering all naval and military voters entitled to be registered in his registration area upon such evidence as he deems sufficient for the purpose. Either of these Amendments would, in my view, meet the case, and there is no fear that they would go too far, in view of the limiting words at the end of the Sub-section. I move the Amendment, therefore, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept one or other of the Amendments.
      Mr. PETO: I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
      It does not seem to me that the Clause as amended by the Home Secretary really carries out the intention of the recommendations made at the Conference held under the presidency of Mr. Speaker. It is provided that it shall be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain as far as possible the names and addresses of persons of full age who ordinarily reside in the area, but who are serving in His Majesty's Forces and who are qualified to
      1052
      be registered to vote as a Parliamentary elector of that area. It may be quite impossible for the registration officer to get the information from the soldier or sailor himself, and that was the difficulty which presented itself to our minds. Personally, I prefer the wording of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, which is intended, I take it, to maintain the system contemplated by the Bill by which soldiers and sailors actually go on the register. It more nearly carries out the intentions of Mr. Speaker's Conference, because it makes it the duty of the registration officer to get his information where and how he can. It is contemplated he should call at the house and ask who lives there, who is entitled to vote, and if any members of the household are absent on military or naval service who but for the War would have been qualified to go on the register. I, therefore, hope the Home Secretary will accept one or other of the Amendments, and thus put the Bill into a form which will not make it necessary that the application should come from tile actual soldier or sailor whom the registration officer may not be able to get at.
      Sir G. CAVE: When I saw the Amendment of my hon. Friend on the Paper I thought there must be some misunderstanding, and, having heard him speak, I am clearly confirmed in that view. The effect of the Bill as it stands—the whole intent of the Bill—is that the registration officer shall get this information where and how he can. He may receive a statement from the relatives of the soldier and, if satisfied, may act upon that statement. If my hon. Friend will look at the Schedule he will see that that is the effect of the Rule which the House has annexed to the Bill. Assuming there is not sufficient information from relatives or other people in the hands of the registration officer, then he may receive a statement from the soldier signed by himself and attested in the proper manner as evidence upon which to act. But that is in addition to the information which the registration officer may get from other sources. The effect of the Amendment might be to lead him to require a statement from the relatives to be made in a, similar formal way. What is really aimed at is that it is only in the case of the soldier himself, when away on service, that these formalities are to be required. They are unnecessary in other cases, and would throw work that is not needed both

      1053
      on the registration officer and on the relatives. I think the Bill as it stands will be much better for the soldier and sailor than it would be if amended in the way suggested. The whole thing comes to this: We expect the normal procedure to be followed of inquiry at the home, and we hope that it will only be in very exceptional cases that resort will have to be had to the special powers conferred by this Sub-section.
      Mr. DICKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing with regard to my Amendment on the Paper. I quite agree with him that the intention of the Bill is clear, namely, that the registration officer shall, quite apart from this particular Section, find out the persons who are entitle dto be placed on the register, and shall get all the information he can in order to justify placing him there. Precisely the same idea occurred to me as to my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken. It may be that my Amendment merely restates what the effect of the Bill is; but I am inclined to think that the registration officer, looking at Clause 5, might think that this is rather a substitute for his general duty to inquire, and that he ought to depend on the soldier or sailor himself claiming to have this special privilege. Some of the registration officers might, in fact, make use of this provision as a reason for avoiding a great deal of trouble and a rather difficult task. I do therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend whether it would not be wise to add the proviso I have suggested, that nothing in this Sub-section shall remove from the registration officer the duty of registering all naval and military voters entitled to be registered in his registration area upon such evidence as he deems sufficient for the purpose. I suggest to my right hon. Friend it would make the Bill perfectly clear.
      Colonel SANDERS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words " for his service as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown," and insert instead thereof the words "the service which brings him within the provisions of this Sub-section." —[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, the words
      1054
      " Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall remove from the registration officer the duty of registering all naval and military voters entitled to be registered in his registration area upon such evidence as he deems sufficient for the purpose."
      Sir G. CAVE: I am advised that these words are unnecessary. My hon. Friend seems to be rather afraid that the registration officer may be mistaken as to his duty; but if one looks at the whole Subsection, I think that duty is perfectly clear, and, unless my right hon. Friend presses me very hard, I would rather not accept his Amendment.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman, but I would like him to consider whether or not it would be as well to put these words in in another place.
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
      Mr. DICKINSON: It seems to me that they deal with a valid objection to the Clause.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words " shall apply " [" this Section shall apply "], and insert instead thereof the word " applies."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      5.0 P.M.
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, after the word " who " [" any person who "], to insert the words
      " is of the age required under this Act in the case of that person, and is not subject to any legal incapacity, and who—

      (i.) is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown; or

      (ii.) is abroad or afloat."

      Colonel L. WILSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word " person," to insert the words " or who, having served or is serving on active service abroad in any war in which His Majesty is engaged has attained the age of nineteen years."
      I do not think I need offer any apology to the House for bringing this proposal forward at this stage. The House will remember that when the Bill was in Committee this matter was very fully discussed and the proposal was

      1055
      received with sympathy by both the President of the Local Government Board and by the Home Secretary, while it was supported by Members of all shades of opinion in all parts of the House. I must confess I rather expected to find the proposal, inserted in the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of what I may call a really definite promise that was given by the President of the Local Government Board and endorsed by himself at a later stage, and I will read what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, as given in
      the OFFICIAL REPORT:
      "It is impossible to disguise— my right hon. Friend does not disguise from himself, nor do I disguise from myself—that there is a very strong current of opinion in favour of giving the franchise, at all events for the election after this War, to those who have seen active service and have attained the age of nineteen."
      Further on he said the Government
      " will recognise that a very strong opinion has been expressed in this House in favour of giving the franchise at all events for the election after the War—I do not say for all time—to soldiers of nineteen, and they will see whether they themselves can find any form of words which will meet the opinion of this House."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1917, col. 85, Vol. XCV.]
      The Home Secretary at a later stage said:
      " My present impression is that it can be done—"
      that is, that words could be found,
      "and that there is no difficulty which cannot be overcome. I am going to try to do it before the Report stage."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1917, col. 102, Vol. XCV.]
      I do not think there is any necessity to recapitulate the arguments which were brought forward when this matter was discussed before. The object of this Amendment is very clear and very plain. Its object is to give all those men who have been on active service at the front, who have seen active operations in a theatre of war, a vote at the next election. My Amendment does go further and says that it should be for all elections in the future. I would like to say this: During the last discussion in Committee those who opposed this measure said we were appealing to the sentiments of the House. We are not appealing in any way to the sentiments of the House; we are not asking for a reward for the soldiers; we are not asking for a privilege in that sense of the word. We are asking what is only a right, that these men who have been out to the front, and who have seen active service, should when they come back have the elementary rights of citizenship. I, personally, doubt whether I should press this
      1056
      Amendment upon the House quite so strongly as I do at the present time, if the House thought that the conscientious objector should not have the vote; but as the House, when in Committee, decided, in my opinion very wrongly indeed, that the conscientious objector was entitled to a vote I cannot see how it is possible for this House to say to the soldier who has been fighting that he is not to have a vote while this House is willing to give it to the conscientious objector who has deliberately shirked his duty. This so-called conscientious objector is a man, with a conscience or without a conscience, who has evaded the very first duty of citizenship, namely, to fight for his country if necessity demands; and it is certain that there will be cases at the next election where we shall have a conscientious objector who is just over the age of twenty-one who will be entitled to a vote and in the same street there will be a man, perhaps—there are certain to be cases in the same locality—who has been fighting in the trenches for eighteen months, who has come home maimed, who has lost a leg or an arm, but who is just under twenty-one. The conscientious objector will get the vote, and the man who has been fighting, who is maimed and handicapped for life, is going to be deprived of the vote by this House. I do not think it is possible to contemplate a case of greater absurdity, greater unfairness, and greater hardship on our sailors and soldiers.
      I know there are many objections which will be brought forward. There is difficulty, I quite recognise, in differentiating between those men who have seen actual service at the front and those men who have been abroad, whom I have put in my Amendment, but who have not seen actual service in the trenches or under fire. I acknowledge that there is very great difficulty indeed about that, and I was hopeful that the Home Secretary would help me, and other hon. Members who raised this question in Committee, in endeavouring to find words in order to meet those difficulties. There is also the objection that the age of twenty-one was mentioned in the Speaker's Conference and nothing whatever was said about giving a vote to anybody under the age of twenty-one. I would, however, put it to the House that so far as I know, and so far as I am concerned to a very large extent, the whole object of a new Representation of the People Bill was to enable the sailor and the soldier to vote at the

      1057
      next election whenever that election came, and if that is so it is surely not impossible for this House to be able to give the sailor and the soldier a vote, even if he is under the age of twenty-one years. I do not wish to delay the House because this is a matter which has been discussed at very great length before, which was received very sympathetically by the Government, and with which I am sure I have the sympathy of the Home Secretary, but I would like to say that I am not in any way wedded to the words of my own Amendment as long as the principle is accepted. At the same time, I do say that unless the Government can see their way either to accept my Amendment or—although it does not go quite as far as I would wish—the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I shall have no option but to divide the House on this question, and I personally should be sorry for the feelings of any man who voted against a proposition such as this.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I had an Amendment down in Committee upon this very point, and I understood at the end of the Debate in Committee the Home Secretary to suggest that we should leave this matter over and bring it up again on Report; that in the meantime he would consider the matter, and, if I remember rightly, he certainly gave us to understand—at least I went away with that impression—that the Government would probably see their way to meet us on this very point. To my mind there is no difficulty whatsoever. The Home Secretary has said more than once that his great idea in this Bill was to give every man who had fought in this War, whether sailor or soldier, a vote. Many of these boys of nineteen have fought in the War, and many will fight in the War. A great number of boys of nineteen have performed very important work in the Royal Flying Service. Some of the greatest deeds done in the Royal Flying Service has been done by men under twenty-one, many by boys of nineteen. At the present time there are many boys of nineteen who are flying and doing wonderful work in France, and I would appeal to the House, and would ask them, if this matter is carried to a Division, to support this Amendment with all the power they can. I would ask them to remember, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel L. Wilson) has said, and as I ventured myself to say in Committee, that the country will not tolerate giving a vote to the con-
      1058
      scientious objector and refusing it to the soldier of nineteen. What has the conscientious objector done? Nothing. What is the conscientious objector likely to do for his country? Nothing. What have these boys done? Everything. It is not only a scandal, but it is a cruelty in disguise to try and make boys of nineteen feel after the War that they are not on an equality with men who are slightly older than themselves when they have both faced the same dangers in the trenches, and have both done their duty to their King and their country. I, therefore, would appeal to the Home Secretary once more to give a vote to the boys of nineteen. In the event of his being unable to commit the Government to this measure I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Government, and I trust every man in the House will do the same.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know what action the Government are likely to take upon this Amendment, but I would like to point out to the Committee that only a few moments ago they departed very greatly from the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and if they accept this Amendment they will be departing still further from the recommendations of that body. The Government have over and over again told us that they were unable themselves to give sufficient time to draw up a Bill of this sort, and that, therefore, they referred it to a Conference composed of men of all parties on the understanding that the decisions which were arrived at by that Conference should be carried out in this House, and one of the objections which 1 have always had to this Bill is that though it was supposed to be founded on that basis I have always said that when a Bill of this sort once came to the House it would be almost impossible to adhere to the actual details of the Conference, and that therefore it was most dangerous to bring in a Bill, which might be altered in a very serious manner, at this period of our history. Those forebodings have proved to be, to a certain extent, justified, because only a few moments ago we added five millions of people, apparently, without a word and in absolute contradiction to the statement made by the Government last week to thelocal electorate. I really do hope that the Government will abide by the decisions of the Conference, which were only arrived at after very great deliberation

      1059
      and very great consideration. What are the arguments which have been advanced in favour of this Amendment? One argument has been that the conscientious objector is enfranchised. I have voted against the enfranchisement of the conscientious objector, and I shall do so again if there is an opportunity, as I hope there will be, to bring forward that question; but because, as I happen to think wrongly, the conscientious objector has been enfranchised, that is no reason why you should give the franchise to somebody else. It has been said—I think by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment—that this was a right which everyone who fought for his country ought to have. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I think that is what he said.
      Clonel WILSON: Yes.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I say the vote is not a right, and never has been a right. If the vote is a right, everyone ought to have it whether he has fought or whether he has not. But it never has been a right. What the vote has been is a duty which has been given by Parliament to people who they thought were fit to exercise that duty, and to carry it out. The next argument is that because a young man of nineteen makes a good soldier he may also make a good voter. The two things are totally different. What is required to make a good soldier? Physical strength, courage, and obedience to orders.
      Colonel F. HALL: No brains !
      Sir F. BANBURY: No—
      Colonel HALL: The right hon. Baronet does not think they are necessary
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that they are very necessary for a private soldier.
      Colonel HALL: The right hon. Baronet does not know much about them, then!
      Sir F. BANBURY: I have read history, and I know that there were no finer soldiers than those who fought in the Peninsula, but it cannot be said that they were men who would have been capable of exercising the vote. Supposing, however, these boys have the greatest brains that ever existed, at nineteen they will not have had the experience necessary in order to fit them to exercise a vote of this
      1060
      sort. Brains—a man may be the cleverest man who ever existed at nineteen, and when he is twenty-two or twenty-three his views will change as he gains experience. It does not at all follow that because a young man of nineteen is clever he is fit to exercise a vote. The hon. Member who sits for Devonport (Sir C. KinlochCooke) says that many of these boys of nineteen are very brave. Whoever would deny that? There are many boys of nineteen—I forget the name of the boy who was on one of His Majesty's ships—
      HON. MEMBERS: Jack Cornwall.
      Sir F. BANBURY: No one could have been braver than he, and no doubt he must have been an able and smart lad to do what he did do. I do not know what his age was; I think it was about sixteen. Is it contended that he ought to. have had the vote? The age of nineteen has nothing to do with it. If the argument is that everyone who is fighting should have the vote, then the qualification should be " because he is fighting," and not " because he is of a certain age." The qualification of twenty-one—personally, I would rather have seen twenty-five—is put in because you must have some age limit. and because it is believed that by twenty-one a man will have had sufficient experience—not brains; that is a totally different thing—to enable him to exercise the duty which has been imposed upon him by the State. This is a very important measure. It is in direct conflict with the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. It is a question which undoubtedly appeals to the heart and to the sympathy of a great number of people, including myself; but we in this House are in a responsible position, and we must not be guided either by our sympathies or by our hearts, but by our heads. These people are thoroughly deserving, and they have deserved from us every consideration, but it is in their own interests that this vote should not be given to them before they have arrived at that maturity of life to give them the experience to exercise the franchise in a proper way. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be rejected.
      Mr. MACMASTER: The Speaker's Conference made a declaration of general principle, namely, that soldiers and sailors should have the vote. The question of age is simply a detail. It is well understood that young men brought into the Army by compulsory service are not bound to go to the front until nineteen years of age, so

      1061
      that we have some index of the age at which a young fellow is thought to have the brains and intelligence to fight. I quite disapprove of the view that simple ignorance and minority in age are sufficient to qualify a man for a soldier under the conditions of to-day. Intelligence and great skill are required, and if a man of nineteen is capable of defending his country and the country entrusts to him the duty of defending it and preserving its rights and he undertakes that great burden, then, though he has not arrived at the ordinary age of manhood, he is sufficiently qualified to have the vote on the merits entirely apart from the consideration whether certain people should or should not be entitled to the vote on account of their demerits.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: This is an Amendment which naturally appeals very strongly to the sentiment and sympathy of the House, and hon. Members who support it have sought to double that appeal by bringing into the question the equally strong and natural antipathy felt in most quarters of the House to the conscientious objector. They have pointed out the contrast between the two. We must not look at these matters, however, purely from the point of view of sentiment. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment (Colonel L. Wilson) said, " How can we say to the soldier who is fighting for his country, 'You shall not have the vote '? " I am sure he will agree with me that you would, of course, apply that equally to the sailor. " How can you say to the sailor who is fighting for his country, 'You shall not have the vote?'" But the hon. and gallant Member does say that to the sailor who is fighting for his country and who is under the age of nineteen. There are thousands and possibly tens of thousands of lads on board His Majesty's ships who are midshipmen rendering most gallant service or who are ships' boys in one capacity or another. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has mentioned one whose name is known throughout the length and breadth of the land—Jack Cornwall. To all these boys the hon. and gallant Member says, "You shall not have the vote." Therefore, he is departing absolutely from the principle that fighting or facing danger is in itself a sufficient qualification for the franchise. Obviously, it is not. You must have some limit of age. It is not consonant with
      1062
      common-sense to give the franchise to lads of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years old.
      Colonel WILSON: I have already given the age of nineteen; I have never made any suggestion of giving the vote to lads of fifteen.
      Mr. SAMUEL: That is precisely my point. By giving the age of nineteen the hon. and gallant Member gives away his principle, because he distinctly says that it is not enough to fight for your country to entitle you to have the vote; you must also have attained a certain age, and he takes the age of nineteen.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Why take the age of twenty-one?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am trying to press this point upon the House. By abandoning the principle that anybody who fights ought to have the vote and by inserting the age of nineteen hon. Members dispose of their own arguments on the ground of principle, and it is no longer a question whether we should or should not enfranchise people because they fight. They agree that we cannot put people on the register until they have arrived at a certain age. The question, therefore, is what is the age which qualifies a person to exercise the rights of citizenship?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Surely, in this Bill women of thirty are to be enfranchised whilst women under thirty who are doing equally good work are not to be enfranchised!
      Mr. SAMUEL: That raises an entirely different issue. The age limit in the case of women is avowedly artificial in order to prevent women voters outnumbering men voters. It raises an entirely separate consideration. If the House agrees with me—and I am sure that every Member must agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then do hon. Members say that everybody who is fit to fight is fit to have the vote?
      Mr. MACMASTER: Everybody of nineteen years of age.
      Mr. SAMUEL: That is precisely where hon. Members evade the point. I put it distinctly, and it is quite a fair question, "Do they or do they not say that everybody who is fit to fight is fit to have the vote?"
      Mr. MACMASTER: That is not the point.
      HON. MEMBERS: Yes It is.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Hon. Members do not say so, because in their own Amendment and in their own speeches they admit that it is necessary to have two things—first, the fact that a person has fought, and, secondly, that he is of a certain age. The fact that a person has fought is not in itself sufficient to give the right to the franchise. Now, what ought the proper age to be?
      General HICKMAN: Nineteen.
      Mr. SAMUEL: If it should be nineteen for a soldier, why not nineteen for everyone else? If you admit that a person is of mature political judgment, qualified to exercise the duties of citizenship, at nineteen if he is a soldier, why does he not possess those qualifications if he is nineteen and not a soldier?
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Why do you give soldiers other special advantages in the Bill?
      Mr. SAMUEL: We have not done so. We have said and it is absolutely right, that no person shall suffer electorally because he is serving his country in the War. We have said that a person who otherwise would have the vote shall not forfeit that vote through going abroad or through leaving his home or residence in order to serve his country in the Army or in the Navy. It appears to me that we must all accept two things—first, that it is universally agreed that serving in the Army is not sufficient qualification for a vote, but that a person must also be of a certain age; and, secondly, that when you come to consider the age there is no reason why you should choose one age for soldiers and sailors and another age for the civilian population. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken (Mr. Macmaster) is in error in saying that the Speaker's Conference left this matter open. They did not do so. They said, "It shall be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain as far as possible."
      Mr. MACMASTER: I did not say that. I said that they made a declaration on the principle and that this was a matter of detail.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I apologise if I have misquoted the hon. and learned Member, but I gathered that he said they made no recommendation. It is, of course, a matter of detail. They do, as a matter of fact, use the term " of full age," which in this connection means twenty-one. There-
      1064
      fore, if we accept this Amendment, we are once more specifically departing from a direct recommendation of the Conference.
      General CROFT: No. The Speaker's Conference did not decide this question, which is purely a temporary one, at all. The question they decided was entirely the permanent one.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Speaker's Conference dealt with the whole question of soldiers and sailors, of course having in view the fact that we are now at war and that vast. Armies and Fleets are engaged, and they used in connection with this matter the term " of full age." The Amendment proposes that we should insert in the Bill the words " or who having served or is serving on active service abroad in any war in which His Majesty is engaged." I do not know what view the Government will express on this matter, but I should be rather surprised if they agreed to these words being inserted in the Bill. The registration officer cannot judge whether an individual is on active service or not or whether he is abroad or not. The Amendment introduces a new and fresh complication.
      General HICKMAN: The term "on active service" means any man serving during the War.
      Mr. SAMUEL: That may possibly be so, but you have to consider in each case whether a man is or is not abroad, or whether or not he has been abroad, and that introduces a fresh complication and difficulty. I know that it is an exceedingly invidious and ungrateful task to oppose an Amendment of this kind. I am quite aware of that fact. The easy road of popularity is always to take the course which appeals to sentiment, and if there is any feeling in favour of an Amendment of this kind to go with the stream, but the House of Commons would be doing less than its duty if it allowed its sympathies to override. its common sense, and I feel sure that among men in the Army of all ages the general sentiment cannot be in favour of enfranchising lads of this age on account of their service in the field. For these reasons, I would suggest to the House that we should be wise to take the course we took in Committee in spite of the superficial attractiveness of this proposal and to adhere to the age of twenty-one, itself an age too low in my opinion, for the whole of the population.
      Captain O'NEILL: It might be advisable to remind the House of the circumstances under which this question arose in Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Reading (Colonel L. Wilson) who has moved the Amendment to-day moved an Amendment in Committee, the object of which was to give all soldiers of nineteen, irrespective of whether they were on active service or not, the vote. The Committee considered that too wide, and an Amendment which I have down on the Paper practically in the words which have been moved to-day was substituted for it, namely, that the vote should be given to soldiers provided that they have reached the age of nineteen years and have been on active service abroad. With regard to that, as my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded the House, the Government gave what we may consider to be a definite pledge. The right hon. Gentleman, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, said quite definitely that, after what had been said in all quarters of the Committee, the Government had come to the conclusion that the great mass of sympathy in the Committee was with the Amendment, and that they themselves would see if they could not find proper words to carry out the intention of the Committee. I therefore look at the Amendments on this stage of the Bill expecting to see words put down by the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to speak on this question, I hope he will not in any way recede from the attitude he took up on the Committee stage. I take it that we are now discussing the whole principle of giving votes to soldiers of nineteen. There is on the next page an Amendment appearing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), and I take it that we are in order in referring to that. The Mover of the present Amendment stated just now that he did not confine himself to any particular words, and that he was quite prepared, if the House thought fit to take that course, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes should be substituted for his. Essentially it carries out the same purpose. In regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes includes naval voters. It says, "A male naval or military voter
      1066
      who has served or hereafter serves in or in connection with the present War shall, notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if that voter at the commencement of service had attained, or during service attains, the age of nineteen years and is otherwise qualified." I do not know whether the House would accept that Amendment. Probably those are the correct words to carry out the intention of the present Amendment. If so, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, when he said that we proposed to enfranchise soldiers of nineteen, and definitely refused to give the vote to sailors of nineteen—
      Mr. SAMUEL: I said sailors under nineteen.
      Captain O'NEILL: I must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that this Amendment proposed to give the vote to soldiers of a certain age, but did not deal with sailors.
      Mr. SAMUEL: No.
      Captain 0' NEILL: Then I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Apparently I was under a misapprehension in regard to that. In any event, whether that was so or not, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that you ought, if you give votes to sailors, to give them to midshipmen, boys of fifteen and sixteen, and Jack Cornwalls, does not realise the essential character of the vote we wish to give. Our Armies now number millions of men serving in all parts of the world. How many midshipmen are there'? I do not know. Hon. Gentlemen who know more of the Navy than I do will be able to say, but I do not think I am far from the mark if I say that on the very widest estimate you cannot number the midshipmen by more than hundreds. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, with the object of defeating the whole trend of the Amendment, comes forward and says that we ought not to accept it because, if we do, logically we must give the vote to all the midshipmen of fifteen and sixteen. That argument will not hold water. It is perfectly logical that you should limit the age to nineteen, because nineteen is the age at which, according to the view of the military authorities, a man is fit to go abroad and serve. For that reason I regard the age of nineteen as being the age at which the

      1067
      soldier is fit to have the vote. In some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon hon. Members have rather forgotten how the whole question of the soldiers' votes originally arose. I remember that long before Mr. Speaker's Conference ever sat, this House was discussing the question of votes for soldiers and sailors. It was to a great extent the desire to secure votes for soldiers and sailors that brought about Mr. Speaker's Conference. I was not in this country at the time, but I remember quite distinctly reading Debates in this House in which the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), who then sat on the front Opposition Bench, was constantly criticising the Government of the day for not bringing in a Bill for the extension of the franchise, and the main ground upon which he based his argument was the necessity for giving votes to soldiers and sailors.
      As to the question of giving votes to men of nineteen or to soldiers at all, I would not go so far as to say that every boy of fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen is entitled to vote; but I do say that the whole question of granting votes to soldiers and sailors was based upon an intense desire on the part of every reasonable person in this country to see that those who had borne the brunt of the struggle in which we are now engaged, and those who had made the greatest sacrifices for the country, should be given the chance of saying after the War, how the country for which they had given so much was to be governed. It is primarily on that ground that I, at all events, base my desire to see that all soldiers and sailors who are of an age which is considered to be an age at which they are competent to fight abroad, in the case of soldiers—I eliminate the few midshipmen for the moment—who have suffered the greatest sacrifices and borne the brunt of the struggle, should be enfranchised, even though it may be that some of them are under the age of twenty-one. I hope that the Government will not recede from the pledge they gave in Committee. This House and the country will consider that Parliament has done a bad day's work if the principle embodied in this Amendment is not carreid into law.
      Sir G. CAVE: I think it woud be convenient that I should state, as early as possible, what are the views of the Government in this matter. The matter was
      1068
      raised in Committee, and I gave, so far as I personally was concerned, a favourable consideration to it, and I said—this was the only pledge I gave—that I would consult my colleagues on the matter, that I would recommend it to their favourable consideration, and that I would do my best, so far as I was individually concerned, to find a form of words which would meet the point raised. I have carried out my promise to the full. My colleagues thought—and I have no doubt they thought rightly—that it would be better to see the Amendment on the Paper in the form in which it was proposed by hon. Members who were favourable to the general principle, and that we should then declare our view upon that Amendment as so moved. I must say that I do not like the form of the Amendment which is now moved. If the words which the hon. and gallant Member proposes to insert are put in the Bill they will make this Clause very obscure The Amendment will not work as part of the Clause. Again, the words are of general application. You give the vote to soldiers of nineteen at all future times, and are not confining it to the present War. Therefore, so far as form goes, I greatly prefer the form suggested by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), which appears later on the Paper. I propose to deal with the Amendment in that form, which I understand hon. Gentlemen are prepared to accept.
      Reverting to the present Amendment, I entirely agree that this is a new proposal and that my right hon. Friends opposite were quite justified in testing it to the full and quite right in putting forward their views upon the matter, however unpopular they might be with certain Members of the House. If I agreed with them, I should without hesitation argue with them and take the same line that they have taken. But the House knows that I personally take other views. I said in the Debate in Committee that I thought that a soldier or a sailor who has fought in this War and has attained the age of nineteen is fitted by experience to exercise the franchise. Who can doubt that these men, after what they have gone through, are as old as ordinary men of twenty-one, and that the experience they have gone through is very much more than the average man of twenty-one has gone through? I do not think that is an argument which appeals to sentiment; there is really good, sound, common sense in it. I agree that the proposal is quite

      1069
      exceptional, but there never has been a war like this and, perhaps, there never may be again. I think it is right that in this War, when the whole of our young men are fighting, we should take this exceptional step and give the vote to these men. I am speaking, of course, for myself. What the Government propose to do on this matter, as on the other, is to ask the House to exercise its judgment. I say that because it is argued—I do not want to dispute it—that this Amendment would not be thoroughly in accordance with the recommendations of the Conference. If that is so, I think it right that the House should pronounce. The House has adopted the Conference, and where it is even said to be going beyond it it is right, rather than that we should put pressure on the House in favour of an Amendment, to leave the House to decide. I have expressed very freely my personal feeling. My personal hope is that the Amendment in the later form may be adopted. So far as the Government are concerned, we propose not to put on the Government Whips.
      Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend says a young man of nineteen has gained so much experience by what he has gone through that he is in a sufficient position to exercise—the vote as compared with a civilian of twenty-one. A boy of nineteen may go out in a year's time, if the War is still going on, and may be only out there for two days, and may never be near the firing line, and he will get the vote.
      Sir G. CAVE: I think we must treat the matter broadly. There may be many cases where the argument does not apply, but we must treat it broadly and take it in the general sense.
      Colonel WILSON: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto).
      Mr. DENMANrose—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The matter will come up again on the subsequent Amendment if this is allowed to be withdrawn.
      Mr. DENMAN: On this point, we will not decide that the vote is to be given only to persons who go abroad. The difference between the two Amendments is essentially that the present Amend-
      1070
      ment gives the vote to persons of nineteen who have gone abroad. The next Amendment gives it to anyone whether he has gone abroad or not, and the argument is fundamentally different.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the present Amendment is withdrawn the subsequent will be open for discussion and Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words " on full pay."
      I move this in order to obtain a statement from the Home Secretary as to what the words mean. I do not know whether it is the case now, but up to a very short time ago it was a fact that the majority of men in hospital had certain sums deducted from their pay. I want to know whether these men would be excluded from having the vote by these words. I am sure the Home Secretary means exactly the same as I do, but I want to put it to him whether the words actually include these men or not.
      Mr. TICKLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: Of course we intend that a man or an officer in hospital shall come under these words. I am told he does. But I will have the point further considered, and if need be have the Clause amended.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "military," to insert the words " or air.
      "
      I do not know what the Government means to do about the air
      forces in this Bill. The Bill creating the Air Force was introduced long after this Bill was introduced, and will be passed into law long before this Bill is passed, and I do not quite know how the Home Secretary means to deal with the Air Force where it comes in in various parts right through the Bill. It may be, of course, that they take it that "naval and military forces" includes the Air Force. If so, well and good, and if we get the dictum of the Government that that is so there is no more to be said. Otherwise it may be desirable to make Amendments in another

      1071
      place. There is this further point. We are dealing now with those who are serving on full pay as members of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown. If " naval and military forces" include the Air Force and a member serving on full pay in the Air Force comes under the same category as " serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces " it may create certain difficulties. The personnel of the Air Force is bound to be very different from that of the Army and the Navy. You get a number of men who are mechanics, semisoldiers if you like, but they will be the main part of the Air Force, who are earning their pay as mechanics and not as soldiers at all. Would those men be soldiers or sailors on full pay? I do not think they would be. They might be held to be, but we want to have the point made clear.
      Colonel WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am not prepared to say with any certainty whether, when the Air Bill passes, the words "naval or military" would include the Air Force. I think sooner or later this Amendment will have to go in. We have passed the Air Bill through this House, and I do not see why we should not put these words in to-day leaving the other House, if it thinks fit, to take them out if it makes Amendments in the Air Bill which would make them inapplicable.
      Major NEWMAN: What would happen to the former Clauses of the Bill? How could we do it now?
      Colonel SANDERS: Could we not put words in the definition Clause to say once for all that military organisation includes the Air Service?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not care in the least which is done. Perhaps we had better not take the Amendment to-day, but have words put in in another place.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question again proposed, " That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means paragraph (a) to stand? I understand the Clause, as amended, will run:
      " This Section shall apply to any person who is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military
      1072
      forces of the Crown, or is afloat, or is in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament."
      Does he mean that paragraph (a) shall stand exactly as it is? It seems to be a duplication of the reference to the naval or military character of the service. The right hon. Gentleman has given notice to omit lines 13 and 14, but not to deal with paragraph (a), which seems to be a duplication of this Amendment. I would ask him to say how he means the Clause to run.
      Sir G. CAVE: We have circulated, for the convenience of hon. Members, Clause 5 as it will stand if my Amendments are accepted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Paper I think he will be satisfied. Paragraph (a) will stand and will be quite appropriate, because now we divide the persons mentioned in the Clause into two categories—first, those who serve on full pay as members of the naval and military forces of the Crown, and, secondly, those abroad and at home in connection with the War in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament. Then follow other words. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will be quite satisfied with the Clause as proposed.
      Words proposed there inserted in the Bill.
      Further Amendment made: Leave out the words " is abroad."—{Sir G. Cave.]
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the word " or " [" or the Order of St. John."] I have a subsequent Amendment of the same line, to insert after " England " the words " the Young Men's Christian Association."
      The object of this Amendment is to include within this Clause all those who are engaged in work on behalf of the troops as was originally intended by the words which already have been put in in paragraph (b). That paragraph includes
      persons who are abroad or afloat in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged and are serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society,
      or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body which has
      similar objects. In the course of the Debate which took place in Committee it was assumed by hon. Members that the Y.M.C.A.

      1073
      was included within the Sub-section. The hon. and gallant Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders), when discussing the form of the Clause, referred to the fact that the people who had gone out in connection with the Young Men's Christian Association were already within the scope of the Sub-section, and the Home Secretary in reply said:
      "The effect of the Sub-section is that people engaged abroad in connection with the War shall be entitled to exercise the vote in the form prescribed."
      It turns out, however, that such organisations are excluded under the present wording of the Sub-section. I do not think anyone for a moment will doubt that the service which has been rendered and is being rendered by the workers of the Young Men's Christian Association not only in France, but in Italy, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, and, indeed, in every part of the world where the British troops and the British Navy are situated, deserve to be considered in a matter of this kind and should be included within the terms of the Subsection which provides for the war workers who are not directly paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. The Young Men's Christian Association, better known as the Red Triangle, in France and elsewhere, is as well recognised as the Red Cross and deserves equal consideration. I am informed that there are at the present moment 1,450 workers in connection with this organisation at the different fronts, and that there are only within the ranks of the Young Men's Christian Association a mere handful of men who can be considered fit for military service, and that the War Office authorities have declined to remove these men from the work they are doing on account of the small number who could be used in other capacities. The great majority of the men are over military age, discharged soldiers, and men who have been passed in the very lowest categories. Their term of service varies from four to twelve months, according to the particular part of the world in which they are serving. In the case of the Mediterranean and other distant places the period is six months, and in the case of France it is four months, and a great many, if not the majority, of these workers are quite unable to come home to exercise the privilege of the franchise
      I do not require to inform the House as to the particular nature of the services which are rendered by this organisation,
      1074
      because it is well known to everyone; but perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the attitude of the military authorities on this question, who without exception have recognised this work as of the greatest value to all the soldiers in connection with the War. I might perhaps be permitted to read the latest message received from Sir Douglas Haig by the Young Men's Christian Association last month. He said:
      "The work which the Y.M.C.A. is doing to-day in France and Flanders has assisted in no small degree to maintain the health and the fighting spirit of the men, and on that ground as well as on many others of a more general character it is worthy of all possible support."
      The Secretary of State for War has characterised it equally as work of an indispensable character. I submit that it would be a great injustice to deprive these persons of their Parliamentary vote, and, as you are giving the vote to others who are engaged in services of a similar character, I appeal to the Home Secretary to accede to what I hope will be the general desire of the House, and to include by this simple Amendment the Young Men's Christian Association and other similar organisations within the scope of the Sub-section in question.
      Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I think this organisation comes within the definition given by the right hon. Gentleman These are men who but for going on service abroad would be able to exercise the franchise at home. It is unnecessary for me to say what good work has been done abroad by the Young Men's Christian Association, the Church Army, and other similar bodies. I understand that the words "Young Men's Christian Association," if they are inserted here and followed by the words " or any other body with a similar object," would include the Church Army or any other body of the same definition. I do not think that anyone can possibly take objection to these men being included, because they would have had the vote if they had been at home, and they are probably doing much better work abroad than they would be able to do at home.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether this Amendment, together with the parts of the Clause which deal with the British Red Cross Society and the St. John's Ambulance Association, will give the vote to women of twenty-one?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not think so.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?
      Sir G. CAVE: If the right hon. Baronet will read the Clause he will see that Subsection (3) begins:
      " This Section shall apply to any person who in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, is abroad," etc.
      That is to say, it applies in the case of that person.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: In connection with this Amendment, which on the face of it seems to be a very fair one, it ought to be remembered that there are certain cases in which people who are serving the country in France have escaped military service by going abroad in this way. I know cases of that kind myself of men who earlier in the War were able to escape without the possibility of their being brought back. While I have no doubt these cases are rare, they have certainly occurred. Whether any provision will be made to meet these cases I do not know, but it ought to be made.
      Mr. GULLAND: On the other hand, I hope the Home Secretary will consider this Amendment favourably, because I know lots of men over military age who almost since the beginning of the War have been out and have been working devotedly in this way, and it is rather hard that these men, many of them without encumbrances at home, who have gone out and have made this their service, should be deprived of their vote. I know other men who, perhaps owing to weak heart, or other medical disabilities, have been unfit to fight, who have regarded this as their war work, and have done it most enthusiastically. I think that type of man is backing up the War and doing his bit in a splendid way, and ought not to lose his vote in consequence of it. Many of them would lose their votes unless this Amendment is carried.
      Colonel YATE: If this Amendment be accepted and the words " Young Men's Christian Association " are inserted, I hope that the name of the Church Army will also be inserted.
      Mr. CURRIE: The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) raised a point which must touch only a few cases in either the Young Men's Christian Association or the Church Army, and I can scarcely imagine that my hon. Friend who moved
      1076
      this Amendment would have any objection to a saving Clause being put in which would quite meet the case my hon. Friend has raised. I think that it should be provided for. I am sure that the number of cases which would fall within the definition suggested by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs is extremely small.
      Sir G. CAVE: It would be impossible to speak too highly of the work of the Young Men's Christian Association in connection with the War or of the work of the Church Army and other similar organisations. I am a little nervous about accepting this Amendment at the present time, for the reason that it would be followed by the words " or any other body with a similar object." I do not know from the inquiries I have been able to make how far that would carry us. There are, I am bound to say, a great number of philanthropic and religious bodies which are doing work in connection with our soldiers, and I would like to know exactly what we shall be doing if we give to all the servants of these bodies the special right of the naval and military vote. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) that if the Young Men's Christian Association is included the Church Army should be included, and perhaps the Salvation Army, and other bodies. I am not clear that these are covered by the inserting of the words proposed. On the other hand, I am not prepared to say that the words of the Amendment do not include other bodies. If the House would not mind, I would rather not put in the words to-day. I will have inquiries made at the War Office as to how far they think we should go, and perhaps words may be found to cover all those deserving special facilities. I do not want to pledge myself to names or to words, but I will have the whole thing looked into and consider whether in another place appropriate words can be inserted.
      Major HAYWARD: Would the Home Secretary decide what is the status of men employed in the Expeditionary Force canteens. I do not know whether they come within the general Clause or in this special provision.
      Mr. R.MCNEILL: I am glad that the Home Secretary has approached this Amendment in a spirit of caution because although everybody would agree to the full with what fell from the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland), at the same time, as the Home Secretary has

      1077
      pointed out, it is rather difficult to see how exactly it would be necessary to go if this Amendment were accepted. There are a great number of organisations of sorts which are ministering to the troops in France and elsewhere in one way or another. As the Bill stands at present it is confined to two organisations which are definitely engaged in military service, because the medical service has always been accepted as part of the military equipment of an expedition. In this particular War there has been, fortunately and rightly, a new departure in the way of ministering not only to the religious needs but to the needs of the troops in the way of recreation and comforts of all sorts. We have not any information to show off-hand exactly what organisations have or have not taken a very large part in that work. If you accept for the purpose of this Bill one particular organisation outside the circle of military service, such as the Young Men's Christian Association, it is obvious that a number of other suggestions must immediately be made. We have already had the Church Army and the Salvation Army mentioned as being fully entitled to consideration. There have been organisations of actors and concert givers who have rendered most valuable service in improving the morals of the troops, and keeping up the spirits of the troops by affording recreation for them. I certainly think that we might be led into dangerous latitude if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept organisations of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman should know what sort of numbers of men who would otherwise be liable for military service have engaged themselves under these various organisations before he accepts this Amendment or any Amendment of this sort.
      Sir A. SPICER: I think that the line which has been taken up by the right hon Gentleman the Home Secretary is a very fair one and that it is not right to deprive of his vote anyone who is serving his country simply because he is serving his country one way rather than another. I think that the work which is being done by organisations like the Young Men's Christian Association, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and other similar organisations, has added to the efficiency of our Army and enabled our men to do better work.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: There are one of two alternatives for the right hon.
      1078
      Gentleman—either he has got to have a list. of the organisation or to leave the matter quite open. Every registration officer has his views and therefore the man serving in one organisation might get a vote in one constituency and not in another. I think, on the whole, that it would be impossible to make an exhaustive list, and if there is a list, say, of six or seven organisations, the registration officer would say "those are the organisations which the House of Commons has put into the Bill and I will not give the vote to anyone else." The right hon. Gentleman might, as well take this into consideration before he makes up his mind.
      Mr. MILLAR: After the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not propose to press the Amendment at this stage. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the form in which an Amendment might be inserted in another place in order that he might distinguish clearly the different organisations which might be specifically dealt with.
      Sir G. CAVE: I said that I would go into the matter and see whether anything should be inserted and, if so, what.
      Mr. MILLAR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that he had difficulties at this stage in considering the exact form in which the matter might be dealt with. The only object that I had in mentioning the Young Men's Christian Association particularly was that it is typical of the class of institutions, including the Church Army and the Salvation Army, and the Scottish Churches Hut Committee, which, I believe, represent the only kind of work that are admitted by the military authorities at the present time. In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter later on and that a suitable Amendment will be adopted in another place, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (3, b), leave out the words " if it applies to a person serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,
      " (4) A male naval or military voter who has served or hereafter serves in or in connection with the present War shall notwithstanding anything in this

      1079
      or any other Act, be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if that voter at the commencement of service had attained, or during service attains, the age of nineteen years and is otherwise qualified."
      Practically the ground of this Amendment has been covered. All that has got to be said against it has apparently been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division. The right hon. Gentleman argued that in the conclusions of the Conference it is distinctly laid down, in the Clause regarding the registration of soldiers and sailors, that these persons should be of full age. That recommendation, 32, relates to persons who are serving in His Majesty's Forces and is not in any way confined to service during the present War. The Amendment which I am moving deals specifically with service in or connection with the present War. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Macmaster), who was also a member of the Conference, was perfectly right in pointing out that whereas we laid down as a general principle the age of twenty-one this is really a very small matter and it recognises in a special way the service rendered by men between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one. This is a very small detailed departure in a matter which has been very largely expanded by the action of this House, namely, the vote for soldiers and sailors. I am pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that he proposes to leave this question to the free vote of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved an earlier Amendment had ground for disappointment in that the Home Secretary did not say that he was going to accept this Amendment, the exact words of which he has commended and which he has told the House he thinks satisfactory and preferable to those which were moved earlier.
      I am sure as to what the decision of the House will be, if there is any Division at all. It is not worth wasting words upon it, except that I may say this, there was nothing in the argument put by the two right hon. Gentlemen except an attempt to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he had abandoned a principle because he did not admit that every cabin boy and midshipman were fully qualified to have the vote. There is an old legal
      1080
      maxim which I am quite sure the Home Secretary will appreciate—de minimis non curat lex. We are dealing with millions of men who are fighting on land. We include in this Amendment men of the same age who are fighting at sea, and we shall enfranchise by this Amendment a very large number of men between nineteen and twenty-one. Nineteen is the age at which the military authorities think that a man should go to serve abroad. We are dealing broadly with the whole of the main question, and we are not in the least likely to be upset by being told that we have abandoned some principle because every cabin boy is not going to be given a vote. Those being the only arguments put forward against the Amendment, is unnecessary to say more in support of it, but I would ask the Home Secretary, though he has not adopted this Amendment, which he personally supports, but is leaving it to a free vote of the House, that he should at least extend a similar treatment to the Amendment to Clause 8 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) dealing with conscientious objectors, and that if he does not adopt it he will leave it open to the House to express a free opinion upon it.
      Colonel WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. DENMAN: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Home Secretary for having left it free to hon. Members to vote as they like upon this particular Amendment. I am one who would find it very difficult to oppose any decision of his because he has held the scales so fairly all through this Bill. Quite apart from all sentiment, young fellows of nineteen who have served abroad acquire a maturity which makes them the equivalent of persons of twenty-one who have not been abroad. Of course, there will be cases of men who merely land at the other side and see no actual fighting, and no doubt they will not have the special experience that will entitle them to be treated as favourably as persons of twenty-one in this country, but, taking broadly the young fellows of nineteen who have fought in France, they have acquired a maturity that is at least equal to that of those who have reached the age of twenty-one in this country. There is no particular magic in the age of twenty-one. It is not alleged that a man on his twenty-first birthday wakes up endowed with some peculiar provision of knowledge

      1081
      and statecraft which he did not possess before. It is merely a convenient age which we think represents a certain rough stage of development, and I believe that the House will determine that in the case of men who have gone abroad and fought it is not necessary to reach this age to be entitled to a vote.
      I have had a superior officer myself who was a great deal less than half my age, and he was in development of character and range of judgment fully equal to the average voter in this country. I might ask the Mover of this Amendment to recognise the great difference between men who have gone through the experience of war and soldiers who have been merely called up in this country and have seen no kind of active service. This Amendment applies to everybody who is called up. If the hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment after the word " served " to insert the word " abroad," I think that the proposal would acquire additional popularity. After all, young fellows of nineteen in this country are in the main drafted at once into regiments abroad. What will be done by the proposition as it stands is to give votes to men of nineteen who are below the physically fit category and are doing some clerical or minor organising work in this country. I do not think the House will feel that such men are specially entitled to more favourable treatment than the average man; so far as one hopes for a new electoral system, one hopes to have a body of electors as far as possible thoroughly representative of the age distribution of the community. Under the conditions which prevailed before we shall have an enormous extension of the list, and it will be rather worse where we are enfranchising women above thirty years of age, and for that reason I want some corresponding balance on the other side. If the hon. Member, however, insists on his Amendment I shall not seek to oppose him, but I think some balance would be obtained by the insertion of the word "abroad," so as to be quite clear that the vote is being given to persons of nineteen and upwards who have served in foreign lands.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: It appears quite clear to me that the general feeling of the House is in favour of the Amendment, which, after all, does not raise any question of a large number, nor is it any extension of the scope of the measure. I
      1082
      think this Amendment is a good deal more limited than the previous one, because it is purely temporary and provides only for the present War. I think it will only operate in one election, and, after that, the age will be limited to twenty-one, which will be applied generally. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, after something which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, that we should all have to remember de minimis non curat lex, but it should also be remembered de minoribus non curat lex. I think it is the general desire to give the franchise to these young men of the military or naval service, and although my own view remains what it was, I venture to suggest that the House should not be troubled to go to a Division.
      Sir G. GREENWOOD: The Amendment, of the hon. and gallant Member for Reading contained the words, " serving on active service abroad," and I think those words might be inserted in this Amendment, and, if necessary, I should propose them.
      Mr. HOHLER: I think the Amendment should be most carefully worded so as not to exclude naval men from even such a very small matter as this.
      Sir G. CAVE: A man has no control as to whether he serves abroad or at home, as the men at home would only be too anxious to go abroad. If this proposal to insert the words " on active service abroad " were adopted, it would be very difficult for the registration officer to know who had been abroad or who had not, and he would have to make many inquiries. I think, on the whole, it is best to take the Amendment as it is.
      Amendment agreed to.

      CLAUSE 6.—(Qualifying Period.)
      The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending either on the fifteenth day of January, or the fifteenth day of July, including in each case the fifteenth day:
      Provided that in the application of this Section to a person who has been serving as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown at any time during the qualifying period, and has ceased so to serve, one month shall be substituted for six months
      Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, to leave out the words " either on the fifteen day of January, or "
      The reason of this Amendment is that two registrations a year has been considered by many of the borough councils in the Kingdom, and they have come to the conclusion that it would be more economical and more desirable to have one register a year instead of two. In the London area alone the saving would be something like £80,000 a year to the ratepayers, besides saving an immense amount of labour. There are over sixty members in the London area, and that means about one-tenth of the electorate of the whole country, and, if the saving be £80,000 a year for the London area, it is assumed that the saving for the whole country, by having one register a year, would be about £800,000 a year to the ratepayers alone. In addition to that, there is an enormous amount of extra labour involved in having to do the work twice a year instead of once a year, and the evidence has gone to show that municipal elections as a matter of course take place in the month of November, so that the spring register would be of no service for municipal and county council elections which take place in March for Parliamentary elections. In regard to Parliamentary elections, for eighty years, I think, there have been only two elections which have not taken place in the period covered by the register that would come into force on the 15th October. It is not proposed to lengthen the period of qualification, which will remain the same, six months after the 15th July, and the register would come into force on the 15th day of October. There is nothing political about this proposal; it is purely a business proposition with a view to economising the taxpayers' money to the extent of £800,000 or £1,000,000 a year. It would also economise the expenditure of candidates, who will otherwise have to keep their organisations for the revision of the list twice a year instead of once a year, as would be the case if this Amendment were adopted. I have been asked not only by my own borough council, but by other public bodies, to move this Amendment. I ought to tell the Home Secretary that, unfortunately, by some Mistake, it was forgotten that the Amendment should be printed upon the Paper this morning. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to do something to meet the wishes of the municipal bodies of the country.
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Mr. Hayes Fisher):
      I think the House will consider it a little inconvenient to have an Amendment of this kind brought forward, and which does not even appear upon the Paper. It is a proposal which touches at the root of one of the most important decisions of the Speaker's Conference, that there should be two periods of qualification, as now, in the Bill, and two registers. As regards saving the ratepayers' money, I myself in earlier years have made several attempts in that direction, and I have every sympathy with anything which would just now relieve the ratepayers of any portion of their burden. But I feel that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill dealing with one of the most important recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. We are all agreed that the time which has hitherto elapsed between a man obtaining his qualification and obtaining the possibility of using that qualification by way of voting at an election was far too long, often amounting to two years. As far as I can understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, if it were carried it would be quite possible that a man, five days after the first part of the qualifying period, might possibly come in on the 20th of January, and if he came in on the 20th he would not obtain a vote, so far as I can understand, until the following October year. Therefore, if we were to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, we should be perpetuating the foolish and evil system under which voters would have to remain in a particular place for something like eighteen or twenty months before they could exercise their qualification. However desirable it may be to save the money of the ratepayers, yet, after all, we may comfort ourselves with the knowledge that while the first registration will be very costly, on the second time of asking, and on the third time of asking, a great deal of that expenditure will disappear. Once a thorough and exhaustive survey has been made, and once a good new register has been established, there will not be such an enormous expense in keeping up that register. I, like others, am desirous of saving money to any extent, but I do not think such a saving could be effected as my hon. Friend has indicated to the House; but, on the other hand, I think there would be a very great loss, which would not at all be compensated by any saving,

      1085
      if we were to do away with one of the greatest benefits to be found in the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, namely, registration twice a year, and a short instead of a long period of qualification.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: After the word " person " insert the words " who is a naval or military voter, or."
      Leave out the words " qualifying period " [" during the qualifying period "], and insert instead thereof the words " said six months."
      At the end, insert the words " as the qualifying period."—[Sir G. Care.]

      CLAUSE 7.—(Right of Person Registered to Vote.)
      (1) Every person registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency shall, while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency; but a man shall not vote at a General Election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification on for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind, and a woman shall not vote at a General Election for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification.
      (2) A person registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area shall while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage) be entitled to vote at a local government election for that area, but where, for the purposes of election, any such area is divided into into more than one ward or electoral division, by whatever name called, a person shall not be entitled to vote for more than one such ward or electoral division.
      Mr. CURRIE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words " her own or her husband's local government qualification," and to insert instead thereof the words,

      " (a) her own local government qualification occupied by her as a dwelling-house;

      1086

      (b) her husband's local government qualification occupied by him as a dwelling-house."

      My object is to place the woman voter in the position recommended by the Conference. The original Bill gave the woman a rather larger right than a man, but in Committee a change was made which gave her a rather smaller right. What I now propose is intended to restore to the woman the position which was recommended, and I hope the right hop. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. FISHER: The Bill gives the woman the right of a local government qualification which is derived from any land or premises. This proposal seems to me to be distinctly restrictive.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, at the end, to insert,
      " (3) Unless and until provision is made as respects Parliamentary boroughs returning three or more members that any election of the full number of members is to be according to the principle of proportional representation, a person shall not vote at a general election in more than one division of a Parliamentary borough which is divided into divisions."
      I raised this question on the Committee stage, and I did so on the Schedule because at that time there was no other opportunity of my doing so. The existing law as set out in the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, Section 8, Sub-section (3), provides,
      " Where any Parliamentary borough is divided into divisions in pursuance of this Section a person shall not be registered as entitled to vote and shall not vote in more than one such division."
      By Schedule 7 of this Bill that Clause is repealed, and if the Bill passes as it now stands this method of plural voting, which now does not obtain, and has not obtained since 1885, would come into full force. I do not desire in the slightest degree to go back on the report of the Conference, and my Amendment, as I understand the matter, is an attempt to make the Bill accord with the report of the Conference. As I have understood the Speaker's Conference was a balanced

      1087
      compromise, and this was acceded to, by many members of the Conference, at any rate, because they understood that proportional representation would form a definite part of our legislative proposals. I am supported in that view by the fact that on my Amendment in Committee no less than four members of that Conference spoke and represented that view. I could have no better evidence than from the members themselves that that was the view they took. I approached this question as one on the merits absolutely. I am opposed to plural voting altogether; I do not believe in plural voting. I believe that the voter, whether a man or a woman, should have one vote and one vote only at a general election. But, notwithstanding that very strong view, and desiring that the report of the Conference should be carried into effect, I have subordinated my own views to carry out entirely what the Conference Report carries through. But the change which comes about by the refusal of what the Conference proposed in the direction of proportional representation is so great that it is absolutely vital to bring the question to the notice of the House. When I brought this forward on the Schedule, it was pointed out by the President of the Local Government Board that it was a very inconvenient time and place to bring it forward. That I fully recognized, and did not desire in the slightest degree to take a snatch vote upon it. It was moved then simply because it could not be moved on Clause 7 in the Committee stage, because at that time proportional representation formed part of the Bill. It is because proportional representation for the time being has gone out of the Bill that I was forced to the only alternative of moving on the Schedule. Now that it is out of the Bill, and that we are on Clause 7 as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, I bring forward my Amendment.
      I put this question purely on the ground that, proportional representation being eliminated from the Bill, the balance of the compromise is broken, and if proportional representation goes out, then plural voting in the divided boroughs should go out as well. It was proposed, as I understand it, as a quid pro quo, and if one goes the other goes. But if proportional representation, as I personally sincerely hope, is introduced into the Bill, then I have no desire in the
      1088
      slightest degree to oppose this method of plural voting. Consequently, my words are " unless and until provision is made " in regard to proportional representation. The difference is perfectly manifest. Under proportional representation this method of plural voting would have a very slight and limited effect. It would not apply to any divided borough with three divisions, or four divisions, or even five divisions, and it would have no effect whatever in any such case because in such cases there would be only one constituency. Even in the very large boroughs up to thirteen or fourteen divisions there would be only three constituencies, and the application of it would be so small that it did not require any serious consideration. But with the removal of proportional representation the position is entirely altered. Now, in all the divided boroughs, it would apply and a most serious change and revolution would take place as compared with the existing law, and consequently I felt it to be my duty to bring the matter to the very serious attention of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee, and among the members who took part were also members of the Conference, one of them the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) saw the situation in a most illuminating way, and I venture with his permission to quote a few words from his speech, because they put very clearly what the present position is. On that occasion he said:
      "I have had occasion to make a calculation for another purpose as to the effect of this proposal, and I find that this Amendment affects 127 constituencies in the United Kingdom, for that is the number of cities with divided boroughs. Therefore it is idle to say that the Speaker's Conference in agreeing to the dual vote ever intended that it should apply to 127 constituencies. As the Bill was introduced, and as the Speaker's Conference recommended, only some seventeen constituencies were affected."
      There at once you see the difference in the change that takes place if the proposal of proportional representation is not further introduced. This is so manifest that I sincerely trust that it may appeal to the sense of justice of the House. This matter having been discussed before, I do not wish to elaborate it, but simply to say that I am not seeking in any way to depart from the Conference and am only trying to bring the House back to what the Conference proposed. If proportional representation goes in, then my Amendment will have no effect whatever; but if it does not go in, then it applies, and the existing law is carried still into effect. In view of

      1089
      the importance of this matter, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept it, as it is only a fair way of carrying out the Report of the Speaker's Conference.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I do so because in my view the Clause .as it stands is a grave departure from the agreement that was come to by the Conference. Let me tell the House what happened in the Conference. When it was proposed that there should be a business vote, we who were objecting to plural voting altogether in every form raised the point that the business vote would enable a man to vote in two divisions in the same city, a thing which has never been allowed hitherto, and that, therefore, we were being asked to consent to an actual extension of plural voting in that sense. Our Unionist Friends desired, and, indeed, made the stipulation, that the business vote should be applied. We had, therefore, to consider whether we would accept that or not. I myself prepared some figures, and called my Friends together and laid them before them, and we quite distinctly took into account the fact that with proportional representation the effect of the business vote in extending the plural vote in the same city would be very small indeed, because, where the town was not too big for three, four, or five members, of course there would only be one division, and therefore no plural voting in that town or city. There would be very few towns large enough to be divided into two divisions, and very few indeed large enough to be divided into three. Moreover,besides there being very few towns in which it would have any effect whatever, the effect would be comparatively slight in those towns where it did apply. For this reason: In the single-member constituency, where the candidate has to get a majority of the whole constituency, a single vote, or two or three votes, may very likely turn the result, and a few dozen very often does; whereas in the proportional representation constituency it cannot possibly affect more than one out of the three, four or five seats, and is very unlikely to affect even that one unless the plural vote amounts to a considerable proportion of the whole vote. Therefore, we felt that with proportional representation in, we could agree to this extension of plural
      1090
      voting. When it came to the House, the House struck out proportional representation, and thereby extended enormously the amount of plural voting, because it allowed it in every town in the country big enough to have three members. What is more, even in the very large towns like Glasgow, where it would have existed to a small extent even under proportional representation, it will now exist to a very much larger extent; instead of having three divisions there you will have fifteen. I say, therefore, if the Clause stands as it is, there is a very grave departure from the proposals which were agreed to in the Conference. I do not believe the House meant, or desires, to go back upon that agreement, therefore I think we ought to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, which will put back the compromise to where it was left at the Speaker's Conference. That is to say, if there is proportional representation, then there is the plural vote within the towns to a small extent; if there is not, there is no plural vote within the same town.
      Sir HARRY SAMUEL: I very muck regret that I was not present in the House during the Committee stage of this Bill, when the hon. Gentleman who has just moved this Amendment raised the question. Frankly, I did not see at that time how the question could be raised on the Schedule; therefore I was not present in my place, which I should have been had I known. To my regret I feel I must completely join issue with the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. It is well-known to hon. Members that the result of the Speaker's Conference was a give-and-take between the members of the various political parties. The question of proportional representation had absolutely nothing to do with the parties. There was a complete cleavage, if I may say so, through all parties in regard to proportional representation. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment will bear me out, I am quite sure, when 1 say that there were members of their party who objected to proportional representation quite as much as there were those in favour, and members of the party to which I have the honour to belong were placed in precisely the same position. I think my hon. Friends opposite will also concede this—that the party to which I have the honour to belong had, if we were coming to any arrangement at to make concessions which to us would

      1091
      appear to be of great magnitude. For these concessions we naturally expected, and we naturally obtained, concessions from the party to which the hon. Members belong.
      At the Conference I moved in regard to the particular subject which is now under discussion in this Amendment, and I have myself a perfect recollection of what occurred. I know that the very objections raised by both the hon. Members who have just spoken were raised there. Eventually they gave way upon this point, and there was never one word more mentioned of proportional representation at any time. It was never suggested by any hon. Members of the party to which my hon. Friends belong that it was on proportional representation that they had conceded to us our point; there was never one word of any kind or sort said about the subject. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment mentioned just now that he called a meeting of his friends to consider something. I have no knowledge whatever of any kind of meeting called by the hon. Member on the question of proportional representation. But it has nothing whatever to do with me. Therefore, I cannot for the moment allow that the question of proportional representation at the Conference had any bearing whatever upon the concession, and the only concession given, for the very large quid pro quos by us.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: We only got one—the business vote concession.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Baronet on my right says we only got one concession. I am not going into that; but I know perfectly well that in a grave desire to effect the settlement of outstanding questions of great difficulty one has to give-and-take, and those of us representing our party did so. We attained something at all events. The hon. Baronet refers to what he describes as the only concession we got. At all events we did get it, and it was not given to us on account of the reason alleged. I have no knowledge of any meetings. My Friends held no meetings on the subject. We had no idea that hon. Friends of the party were holding meetings on the subject. I do know this, that after the business vote was conceded to us, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, members of the party to which my hon. Friends
      1092
      opposite belong, used their best endeavours to get proportional representation set on one side.
      I hold in my hand a pressing request from the London Liberal Federation, urging me in the strongest possible language to vote against proportional representation. It seems a very curious thing that it should be put forward in this House that the concession in regard to business votes was only given because the Conference had accepted proportional representation. It seems odd that the party to which my hon. Friend belongs should urge me, who do not even belong to the party, by all means to vote against the very thing which caused them to make this concession! I desire to be absolutely honest. I do not desire to travesty one single thing that took place at this Conference. I do not in any degree desire to upset the harmony which existed during the whole of that Conference, which, considering the differences we had to discuss, to my mind was one that was most praiseworthy to the members of the various parties taking part in it, and which, in my opinion, has resulted in a reform which will be of the very greatest value to the country. But I must remain perfectly firm in saying that, if this Amendment is carried, it is a breach of the agreement between the two parties, which I seriously trust the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not depart from one iota. I hold it to be a sacred agreement
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is evidently a conflict of opinion as to what occurred, and what was intended by the Conference. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion I understood that four members of the Conference supported the view that has been expressed to-day by one of them, my hon. Friend behind me. I think I am right in, saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was one of the members, and the other was the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. A. Williams), and another whom for the moment I forget. As to the conflict Of opinion, I look at the matter from the. point of view of one who was not a member of the Conference, of one who views it from the outside. It presents itself in this. way—and this is the view I should venture to press upon the House: We have a Bill introduced by the Government which was supposed to represent the recommenda-

      1093
      tions of the Conference. That Bill contained two provisions which are, in my opinion, indissolubly related to one another. One was the provision creating the great new constituencies in the boroughs. All the larger boroughs with now three, four, or five members became single-member constituencies. Boroughs with more members than that became divided into two constituencies, or at most into three. No borough was to have more than three constituencies. That was one proposal in the Bill. Another proposal in the Bill was to repeal the provision which has been the law of the land ever since 1885—that is for thirty years—the provision that no one should exercise more than one vote in one borough, whether divided into constituencies or not. Let me take an example, the City of Bradford. Bradford is divided into four constituencies. The Bill as introduced by the Government would have made that one constituency. No person now can vote twice in Bradford. If a business man has a house in which he lives in one part of Bradford and he has a shop or business offices in another part of Bradford he cannot vote twice. That is at present the law of the land, and has been for thirty years
      Under the Bill, as introduced by the Government, he still would not have been able to vote twice, because Bradford would have been one constituency. As the Bill now is, however, in its present form, proportional representation having been struck out, he will for the first time be able to vote twice. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] If the Bill as introduced represented the recommendations of the Conference, and I believe it did—no one can say it represents the recommendations of the Conference now; it cannot. The things are inconsistent with one another. This Amendment is one of very great importance indeed. It affects a very large number of great boroughs, Bradford, Bristol, Hull, Leicester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Salford, Stoke-on-Trent, West Ham, Wolverhampton, Cardiff and Edinburgh. These are all the constituencies, all boroughs, which would be single constituencies returning three, four or five members under the Bill as introduced, and as recommended by the Conference. In future these will all be divided boroughs in which persons who are qualified will be able to vote more than once. There are a few larger boroughs, Birmingham, Leeds,
      1094
      Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and Glasgow where there is a further
      complication. Under the Conference proposals these larger boroughs would have been divided. Birmingham, for example, would have been divided into three constituencies. It is true that a man who had a house in one of these three constituencies and an office in another would have been able to vote twice, if it so happened; but under the Bill as it now stands Birmingham will have twelve divisions, and a man who has a voting qualification in any one of the twelve, and another qualification in any other of the twelve, would be able to vote twice. Consequently, plural voting is immensely extended even in those cases beyond the recommendations of the Conference.
      Let us see how this question of plural voting really stands. For thirty years or more the party with whom I am associated has advocated the complete abolition of plural voting. We have logic and justice in support of it. We passed, in those distant days, which seem so long ago, when party controversies raged, a Bill twice to abolish plural voting altogether, and it was twice rejected by the House of Lords, and is now awaiting its third passage under the Parliament Act. If that had been passed into law, plural voting would have disappeared altogether. The party to which I belong agreed that we would no longer persist, in view of the compromise come to, in pressing for the complete abolition of plural voting, and we acquiesced in a dual vote, by which persons should not have more than two votes. That is a very great concession in itself, because what some right hon. and hon. Members are asking now is something which has never yet existed, and consequently it cannot be suggested that it is a concession to create for the first time a new plural voter. The concession is that we should surrender our opposition to the existing plural voter. Furthermore, it has always been one of the principles of the party with which we are associated to abolish university representation. As a part of this compromise, university representation is maintained, and, indeed, increased, a large number of additional university voters having been created.
      I can say with absolute sincerity that I have no desire whatever to use this Bill as a means of snatching any unfair party advantage. I think I can say quite truly

      1095
      that, throughout the many Debates on this Bill, we have quite loyally supported the compromise arrived at in your Conference, Mr. Speaker, and that whenever points of difficulty have, arisen, and the Home Secretary has had to resist proposals that have come from hon. Friends of mine, which appeared to be in some conflict with the Speaker's Conference, he has appealed to us not to insist on them, on the ground of the compromise arrived at, and on every occasion we have responded to that appeal. I am sure he will do us the justice of believing that we have endeavoured loyally to maintain that position all through. All we ask is that those who represent the point of view of the Unionist party should not seek now to press upon us a proposal which we contend is not included in the Conference Report, which was not included in the Bill as introduced into the House, and which represents what we regard as a retrograde step on what has been the law for the last thirty years.
      The present Government consists of Members of all parties. It consists of Unionists, Liberals, and Labour representatives. As it happens, the two representatives of the Government who are in charge of this Bill both belong to the Unionist party. I do not for a moment raise any complaint as to that. I think that those right hon. Gentlemen have conducted the Bill, if I may be allowed respectfully to say so, with the utmost fairness as well as courtesy, and the manner in which they have conducted the Bill has won the confidence and approval of every section of the House. And I am sure, feeling as they do that they represent one section of a Government which consists of members of three parties, that where a matter which has been long a question of party controversy comes before the House they will recognise the obligation which rests upon them in a very high degree of maintaining impartiality to the utmost. I would urge the Government very strongly to accept this Amendment. But, in any case, I cannot for a moment believe that the Government would oppose this Amendment, for that would be regarded by my hon. Friends and myself as very unfair treatment, and as departing from the spirit and the principle on which this Bill has been founded, and on which these Debates have been conducted.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not think this question can really be very satisfactorily debated on the footing taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As regards the question how far the arrangement is fair as between parties, we do not know sufficiently what is going to be the fate of parties after this Bill passes to make it possible to form an estimate for the future, and, in any case, that is not a satisfactory argument in an assembly of this kind, which ought to consider the question from a more elevated point of view, and in the interests of the whole country. I venture to point out that all these difficulties arise from the fact that our system of representation rests on two different theories. It partly rests on the theory that we are elected by a great number of different communities, each of which has the right to send a Member to Parliament. It is coming more and more to rest on a quite different theory, namely, that every elector has an equal share in the election, and on the principle of one vote one value, that each man, therefore, ought to have an equal voice in electing to the representative House. Those are quite different principles. According to the first principle, the plurol vote is quite reasonable. Because a man belongs to two different communities it is quite reasonable that he should have a voice in both those communities. According to the second principle—it is, of course, quite unreasonable—the only way to make that operative is by adopting proportional representation.
      Therefore, when we find that the rejection of proportional representation has enlarged the scope of the concession to plural voting, we do not find, as I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks we do, something quite accidental, and therefore quite unreasonable. We find what is a quite natural and logical consequence of rejecting proportional representation. If you reject proportional representation you are adhering—I think mistakingly—to the theory that each community, as a separate body, has a right to send its representative to Parliament, and you drop for the moment the theory that each elector throughout the whole country is entitled to an equal voice in electing to the representative House. But, if that is so, then it is quite reasonable that a man who has two qualifications in two different constituencies should have two votes, so long as he genuinely takes part in the life of

      1097
      the two constituencies. Nothing could be more absurd than the contrary, that a man should have a vote if he happens to live just outside the boundary of Bradford and a second business vote, as the right hon. Gentlemen would suggest; but, on the other hand, another man who lives just inside the boundary of Bradford should not have a residential vote as well as a business vote. You might have two friends, each having a villa, one just within the boundary of the borough and the other just outside the boundary of the borough, and, under the system the right hon. Gentleman recommends one man would have two votes and the other only one vote.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: It has been the law for thirty years.
      Lord H. CECIL: It does not make it wise. We are now seeking to improve the law. My point is this: That it is not an accident that the rejection of proportional representation increases the plural vote. It is a reasonable and natural consequence. I prefer proportional representation; but if you drop proportional representation do let us have what additional security you can give by following out the logical consequence of dropping proportional representation, and give a dual vote to persons who live in two different divisions of a great city. That is the natural, the logical, the reasonable consequence of dropping proportional representation, and if you do drop it—which I hope you will not—then by all means let us adopt the consequences, too.
      Sir WILLIAM BULL: It will be within the recollection of the House that when this doubt first arose, in Committee, I rose at once and protested against the interpretation placed upon it by the Mover of this Amendment. I want to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir H. Samuel) in his recollection of what took place at the Speaker's Conference. At that Conference this matter was debated at various times; but on no occasion did one depend on the other. On no occasion at all was it mentioned at any time that proportional representation depended in the least on the plural vote.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that he is denying what I did not assert. I did not assert that there was any bargain in the matter. Hon. Members opposite did not give us the reasons why they made certain
      1098
      concessions. Consequently we did not give them the reasons why we made certain concessions. I was speaking of the reason why we made a concession, and the extent of the concession as we understand it.
      Sir W. BULL: We, as representing our party, on the other hand, thought we were giving up a great deal in giving up various kinds of franchise which had been in existence not for thirty years but for centuries. There were various kinds of franchise of a valuable description, all of which we swept away. We deliberately chose the local government franchise as being the best one on which to build a sure foundation. A basis was sought in various directions, and finally we came to the conclusion that the local government franchise was the best one to suit our purposes, and so we chose that. The plural vote has not been swept away. The vote was there, and in many cases men had six, seven, eight and nine votes, and we thought it would be a fair thing for the vote to remain where the man had his residence and where he had his business, and if by accident it increased the plural vote we were satisfied that was part of the bargain.
      I do not wish to go now into the subject of proportional representation because that will come on later, but I will say this, that one member of the Conference said, "We are giving up a great deal, because we are parting with one of our great grievances, the man with eight or nine votes. It is a splendid cry on election platforms. Think what a valuable concession we are making on that account." Surely a great deal of value was attached to the fact that we were clearing away every kind of franchise and dealing only with one. I only wish to support what my right hon. Friend said with regard to his recollection of what took place at the Conference. Our party never had one meeting at all. I did not even know that the other side had private meetings. We thought it was not fair or right to act as a party, and we did not so act. We came there without any predilections in that respect, but tried, as far as we could, to arrive at something we considered to be fair. My right hon. Friend said this was the only valuable concession we had obtained. That shows we were trying to do our best for the Conference. But I am afraid it will be a very serious matter if this is swept away. It will be considered, at any rate, by our party that the agreement
      come to at the Conference has been departed from.
      Mr. MAURICE HEALY: This is a question which interests men of business. As I intervened during the Committee stage on this question, perhaps the House will permit me to say a word or two on the general argument. The hon. Member who spoke last, in entering into the controversy as to what took place in Committee, has contradicted statements which were never made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir H. Samuel) argued as if we agreed that there was a bargain at the Speaker's Conference to the effect that one side wanted proportional representation, and in lieu of that it was conceded that we were to give as a quid pro quo this dual vote in boroughs. Nobody said that in Committee. That was a subject upon which there was a clear inter-party cleavage. It would have been no concession at all to say, "If you give us proportional representation we will give you this dual vote." That would have been no bargain at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that this precise question of the dual vote in boroughs was raised as quite a distinct question from the granting of the business vote. The bargain at the Conference was, "You give us the business vote and we will give you certain concessions in the way of the property vote and other matters"; and that was the bargain. It will not be denied that when those in favour of one man one vote conceded the business vote they never agreed to concede a double vote in boroughs.
      Sir H. SAMUEL: I assert most emphatically that it was conceded.
      Mr. M. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman will attend to my argument, I do not think he will differ from me on the facts. He will not deny that hon. Members in favour of one man one vote, in conceding the business vote, at first at any rate, strongly objected to conceding the dual vote in boroughs. The two things are quite different. The principle that you shall not vote in two divisions in a borough has existed since 1885, and ever since there were boroughs. I do not think the right hon Gentleman the Member for Norwood will deny that those who thought as I did at the Conference, when we conceded the business vote, we reserved this question of the double vote to boroughs. When the Conference came to its final conclusion, we did concede the double vote, but why? Because of the proposal embodying proportional repre-
      1100
      sentation, and for no other reason. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood will deny that, when we were having some very earnest discussions on this double vote, the argument was that once you adopt proportional representation this question becomes an unimportant one, because then it will only affect some fifteen or sixteen boroughs, and that was the argument which carried the double vote in boroughs. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil) has argued this as a matter of first principles, but with great respect I would urge that we are not now considering questions of first principles, and this Bill is not framed on that basis; it is framed as a compromise, and will anybody deny that the balance of the compromise has been most gravely affected by the striking out of proportional representation? With proportional representation in the Bill the double vote only affected fifteen seats, and my hon. Friend has told the House that in Committee I stated that with proportional representation out the Bill would affect 127 seats. The case is much stronger. When I made that statement the Redistribution Schedule was not in the Bill, but now under the new Schedule this question will affect 213 constituencies in Great Britain alone. Its operation in Ireland is confined to Dublin and Belfast. As these proposals left the Speaker's Conference this was a matter affecting at most some sixteen seats, but after dropping out proportional representation it affects 213 seats. Treating the matter as a compromise, can it be denied that so profound and large a change as that most seriously affects the balance that was struck by that compromise? That seems to me to be beyond argument, and if you pass from compromise to principles, as the Noble Lord opposite did, then the balance is the other way. The Noble Lord said that the existing theory of the English Constitution is that boroughs and counties are represented, and that is quite true. The unit is the borough, and that has always been the unit.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I would like to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his calculation, has taken into account the fact that there are a great many extended boroughs?
      Mr. M. HEALY: In any borough which encroaches on the surrounding county and takes in an additional area, it is quite true that in the case of a man who formerly

      1101
      had two votes, one for the county outside and one for the borough inside, he would lose his vote, but that has always been the consequence of extending municipal boundaries. I do not think I have ever heard it suggested in any discussions I have taken part in that when you are .extending the municipal bounds of the borough you preserve the right of voting .as if part of the borough taken in remained in the county. It is a natural and normal consequence that the part taken into the borough becomes part of it, and carries with it the consequences of residence in .that borough. I do not think there is anything in the point which the hon. Baronet has made. However you regard this question, whether on principle or on the basis of a compromise, nothing can be plainer than this, that the striking out of proportional representation has changed the nature and consequence of this question of plural voting in boroughs. The borough in the past has always been a unit for Parliamentary purposes, and it is the unit for municipal purposes.
      If the argument of the Noble Lord is to be adopted it ought to follow that if you had property in two wards in a borough you ought to have two municipal votes in a borough, but such has never been the case. Similarly, up to this time, no matter in how many divisions you have property, you vote as the inhabitant of the borough as a whole, and you have no right to a double vote. The importance of this question has been radically changed by the rejection of the plan of proportional representation. The way to set the matter right would be to go back to the proposals of the Conference. A change so great as that which has been made has the inevitable effect of maiming and disfiguring the whole proposal of the Bill. The proper solution would be to put proportional representation into the Bill, and if that is not done the compromise on this question will become a lop-sided thing. Its whole nature will be changed, and though in form it would have the appearance of going no further than what the Speaker's Conference decided, the actual results will go a good deal further.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am very glad that, this subject, which has aroused a good deal of feeling—more than is generally aroused on most of the subjects—has had the advantage of being discussed after very full notice and in a, fairly full House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. R. Samuel)
      1102
      claimed for himself that he was in no way desirous of snatching a party advantage from any discussion in which he took part, and I think the same may be said of the party to which I belong. Those who have followed the whole proceedings with regard to the Bill will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have never weighed our words from the point of view of the effect they may have on the fortunes of our party, but we have all along been solely desirous of guiding the House to decisions which are strictly in conformity with the actual decisions of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I intend to keep that view in my mind in the few remarks I am about to address to the House now. After all, what was the general decision of Mr. Speaker's Conference? It was that any man might be registered in one constituency for a certain qualification and in another constituency for another qualification, and, so far as by-elections were concerned, he would be able to use either qualification for which he was registered. He, therefore, became a dual voter, and that was to be pretty extensively the case so far as by-elections are concerned. Then Mr. Speaker's Conference went on to decide that, so far as general elections were concerned, he might vote in no more than one constituency in respect of his residential qualification and bin one constituency in respect of his business qualification. Mr. Speaker's Conference went on to define what was a constituency, and the words are quite clear. In Article 11 (b) they
      say:
      "For the purpose of this Resolution the expression 'constituency' means any county, borough, or combination of places, or a university or combination of universities, returning a member or members to serve in Parliament, and where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, means a division of the county or borough so divided."
      In view of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, it is clear that the Bill ought to be drafted on lines which would give to anyone having a residence in one division, say, of Battersea, and an occupation qualification in another division, the right to vote in one of the divisions of Battersea as regards the residential qualification, and in the other division as regards the business qualification. Those who frame the Bill had to look to the decisions of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and those decisions give the plainest and clearest directions to the draftsman, who had consequently to take the only course of so framing the Bill

      1103
      that it be possible for anyone who has a' residential qualification in one division of either a borough or a county, and who has an occupation qualification in another division of the same borough or county, to be able to exercise both those qualifications at a General Election and to give two votes, one in one division and one in the other. Now my right hon. Friend says, "You are importing into this Bill something which never yet existed: you are giving now a dual vote which never existed before." That is a very strange argument to come from my right hon. Friend, in view of what took place earlier in the afternoon, when he made an eloquent appeal to the House to throw over Mr. Speaker's Conference and to put into the Bill something which certainly never existed before, and which would give a qualification to something like 5,000,000 women in respect of the same premises which qualify their husbands for a local government vote. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to import into the Bill something absolutely and directly opposed to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, to import into our local franchise something like 5,000,000 women on a qualification which has never yet given anybody, either man or woman, a vote.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I also said that if the Government persisted in their objection on the ground that it was opposed to Mr. Speaker's Conference, I would not press it.
      Mr. FISHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he would have had any very large following in such a case? He put forward a very powerful plea, and he threw over Mr. Speaker's Conference. One of the arguments which has been made use of to-day is that we are importing something into the Bill which never yet existed. But the Bill is full of things which never yet existed, and I am very glad of it. Then there is an argument which has been used by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams), to the effect that this thing would never have been put into the Bill if it had not been that those who were opposed to it felt that they would get an equivalent by the adoption of proportional representation.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: My argument was that it was thought that proportional representation would very narrowly limit
      1104
      the effect of this proposal, and consequently some of those who agreed to it did so because they realised that proportional representation, to which they were opposed in principle, would very narrowly limit the effect of this concession.
      Mr. FISHER: I think I understand the argument. It is that this would never have been allowed—this form of dual voting would never have been allowed by Mr. Speaker's Conference—had the hon. Gentlemen speaking in favour of the Amendment not been given to understand, or had they not had the expectation, that proportional representation would, in some form or other, find its way into the Bill. We are told that four members of the Conference spoke in support, and I have heard three speeches from members of the Conference in which it has been denied that a bargain of some sort was come to.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I never said there was a bargain.
      Mr. FISHER: Other hon. Gentlemen have. At least three hon. Members have denied that there was anything in the nature of a bargain.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say there was a bargain.
      Mr. FISHER: However that may be, I do understand that while the whole Liberal party have very strong views on plural voting and are solid in their advocacy of their views on that point, they have never been solid as regards their support of proportional representation. I have in my pocket at the present moment a most earnest appeal from the Liberal organisation, from the chief party managers in London, asking me to do all I can to defeat proportional representation. That shows that the Liberal party in London are not fond of this new arrangement.
      Mr. GULLAND: Only in London!
      Mr. FISHER: Yes; but London has a big population, and when the matter of proportional representation comes to be argued, if those in favour of it as a principle are not willing to take their courage in their hands and apply it to London, they will hardly be allowed to apply it to Lancashire. I repeat it does not seem, to me a matter on which the Liberal party are solid. I come now to the question of the limitation of dual voting from the point of view of principle. The hon.

      1105
      Member for East Lanark (Mr. Duncan Millar) said he did not regard this matter of the residential vote and the business vote applied to two divisions of the same borough, as in any way involving a principle, and he added that if proportional representation was established he would be perfectly willing that, as regards adjoining constituencies, there should be a residential vote in one constituency and an occupation vote in the next. I take it that if proportional representation were to be applied to London, it would only apply to boroughs which under the Bill will be entitled to three or more members. Under the Bill the borough of Wandsworth, which is to be split up into five divisions, it will be possible for a man to have a residential vote in any one of those divisions But if proportional representation is applied then he will only have one vote, although if he lives in Wandsworth and has an occupation vote in Battersea, he will still have the two votes, one for his residential qualification, and the other for his occupation qualification. Therefore you will have this anomaly, that as applied to London you will have an entirely different law governing London as regards votes given in respect of the residential qualification and those given in respect of the business qualification.
      Mr. M. HEALY: Under the Clause the administrative county of London will be one Parliamentary borough.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. FISHER: I think my hon. Friend is quite wrong in that. What I say is, that the opponents of this particular form of voting do not ground their opposition to it on principle, and therefore the real difference between those who are arguing this thing on the one side or the other is what amount of plural voting you are going to apply. It is not a matter of principle. It is really a matter of degree, and it is not for us who are in charge of this Bill to take one side or the other in this very contentious question. For our part we see nothing for it but to abide by the Bill, because we believe the Bill has been framed upon the only possible interpretation we can put on the decision at which the Speaker's Conference arrived. We believe we are adhering not only to the words but to the spirit of the decision of that Conference on this subject, and in so doing we ask the House to support us. We believe we are rightly interpreting the
      1106
      decision of the Speaker's Conference on. this very debatable question, and that in. doing so we are taking a course consistent with that which we have hitherto, followed in all contentious subjects, and. we ask the House to support us in adhering to the Bill which is framed on the Speaker's Conference.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), when he said he stands by the Bill, which Bill? The whole question is. whether he is going to stand by the Bill which was introduced, and which I suppose was the Government's idea of a fair representation of the Report of the Speaker's Conference, or whether he is going to stand by something quite different. The Government bring in a Bill with the principle of proportional representation as part of that Bill.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: With the assent of the House.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: Certainly. No doubt they brought in the Bill in that form because the Speaker's Conference had included proportional representation among its recommendations, and what we complain of is this. The Speaker's Conference having recommended proportional representation and thereby limited the number of plural voters the Government feel themselves entitled to allow the House to throw over the Speaker's Conference on proportional representation, thereby multiplying enormously the number of plural voters. It seems to me that the speech which the right hon. Gentle man has addressed to the House does not meet the argument in the very least. It may be a question of degree, but almost every compromise is a question of degree, not of principle, and that argument does not meet the case at all. I must say I am amazed on an occasion like this, especially after the challenge thrown rout by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), that labour has no voice at all in a matter of this sort. Perhaps it will have; but I was surprised it has not hitherto had, because the Noble Lord threw out the most challenging observations on plural voting, of which I should like to say something in a moment. It seems to me no answer at all to say that somebody recognises that it is not a question of principle, but a question of degree, when you are, by throwing over, or letting the House throw over, one of the cardinal principles of the Speaker's Conference,.

      1107
      going to raise the plural voting question in such an extended form. I do not believe: the Speaker's Conference ever intended to raise the plural vote question in that magnitude. We are told that certain points were not definitely discussed; but we have the fact that the ultimate form of the recommendations of the Conference included proportional representation, and thereby limited this number of plural voters. By striking that out, as you have now done, you have an unlimited creation of plural voters, raising the most thorny and controversial questions, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) said, in some two hundred and thirty constituencies. It cannot possibly be right to say that the Bill as introduced represented the Speaker's Conference, and that the Bill as amended represents any conference by which we are bound.
      Let me say, with regard to the whole principle of plural voting, that I have never been able to understand—especially in war time—how any body of men can have come to the conclusion that you could give to business men two votes and to the soldier one vote. It has always struck me as incomprehensible; and if we are to double, and treble, and quadruple the number of plural votes of men of business, it seems to be a most objectionable scheme, which we ought not to be called upon to support. When this House had the question before it on the Resolution, we always understood— I am sure every Member on these Benches understood—that there was this strict limitation on plural voting; and that there was to be a new plural vote created that never existed before in the divided boroughs never seemed to occur to anybody until, when proportional representation was struck out of the Bill, some few Members of the House realised that a vast number of new plural voters were thereby created. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull) says that if the Government gives way the most serious situation will have arisen. I do not know what he means by that. Does he mean that a serious situation would have arisen if the Government's Bill with proportional representation in it had been carried, because that is the only situation we are contending for? We say, by all means keep the same number of plural voters that we conceded in the original Bill as a compromise, but if the compro-
      1108
      mise is to be departed from, and you are to create a large number of plural voters, that cannot possibly stand. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University raised an ingenious argument on the question of Conservatism with a small "c" as he expressed it, although I do not know quite what he meant by that. He developed an argument on the position of the man who has a vote in one constituency for his residence and one in another for his business. It never seems to occur to the Noble Lord what an extremely objectionable feature there is in this business vote, or why we were only prepared to accept it in very small doses as a compromise. A man may have worked in Bradford for fifty years in the same place, but because he is a workman he has no business vote, whereas if a man has a small shop, or is an employer; he gets a vote. That is why I say this extension of the plural vote is absolutely outside the scheme, and the complete recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and why it ought to be, and I should have imagined would have been, resisted tooth and nail by the Labour party.
      We have here an attempt to set up a business vote of enormous dimensions, giving to the employer and propertied classes two votes, whereas men who have worked and had interests in a constituency for the whole of their working lives are left out of the calculation. Many of us consider that the whole principle of this business vote is objectionable, but I regard this extension of it to some 230 constituencies as so objectionable that I should certainly divide the House if I were the only person to go into the Lobby on the question. It seems to me to be absolutely vital to the Bill to keep the plural voting within reasonable limits, and I think that unless this Amendment is carried it gets altogether out of hand, except on the assumption that plural voting is carried. I cannot imagine that any course that the Government could have taken would have tended more to get proportional representation restored to the Bill than the course now taken by the Government representatives. Any lingering doubt that I might ever have had in supporting proportional representation will certainly be thrown aside at once when I find that we have to choose between an enormous increase of property voters on the register, never considered or determined before, and never in the mind of the Speaker's Conference at

      1109
      all, and a new system in which I may not feel confidence. I can only say that the Government ought not to persist in the course which they are now taking, which on the face of it is clearly contrary to the. Speaker's Conference, which included proportional representation, and that they ought, directly proportional representation was taken out of the Bill, to have limited plural voting in a fair way and in accordance with the compromise arrived at between the parties. This Amendment seems to meet the case, and I shall support it.
      Mr. HUDSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to what he considers to be our .duty. I can assure him and the House that we have no sympathy with plural voting in any shape or form, and that we stand for its total abolition so far as the power within us lies. With regard to the Amendment which is before the House, I may say that not only those who are associated with me, but I also am in hearty agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will support him, as this does create a new position. Whatever might have been said as to what the Speaker's Conference decided or did not decide upon this point, there is one thing certain, that this creates a new fundamental principle in regard to the franchise The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) talked about some fundamental principles existing in the franchise, and what happened with regard to certain sections, but this is entirely new. Taking the whole boroughs, the large double-member constituencies are now divided into three, four, or more small constituencies. Where a plural voter was never known before he now comes into existence. Take my own Constituency. I suppose as long as it has been known in history Newcastle-on-Tyne has never allowed anyone to give more than one vote within that constituency, but, under the Bill it is now four, and, consequently, the occupation vote can now be used within that constituency where it could never be used before. Listening very carefully to the two sides of this controversy with regard to the original Bill and what was intended by the Speaker's Conference, it appears to me that a certain amount of power was retained to the plural voter in certain circumstances in the original Bill, and that that carried with it the consequence
      1110
      adopted in those circumstances. Had the Government stood as rigidly by the original circumstances in connection with proportional representation as they are doing by this particular position now, it would have altered the whole circumstances of the Bill so far as the plural voter is concerned. I do say that even if the Government at the present time cannot see its way to withdraw it should at least leave this an open question to the House, and allow us to settle it. I think that would be very fair. I, personally, and I think the party for whom I speak, do not wish to trespass at all upon the compromise effected by the Speaker's Conference in this matter. I say that we have stood for the total abolition of plural voting, but seeing that this was a compromise we are prepared to take the compromise as it originally stood but not as it has now developed. We think it is quite fair, under all the altered circumstances, for the Government not to be too rigid upon this particular point. It does alter the basis of the franchise, no matter what anyone may argue. It is not in accordance with the original intention, and it will have effects of a very far-reaching character in all the large constituencies that are now divided up. From this point of view, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill at least to give the House a chance of deciding this matter by a free vote without the Whips being put on.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I have been very much struck with the conflict of opinion why this was conceded. I have in my hand an extract from a speech on 6th June by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) in which he gave a reason totally different from that given by anybody else. He said:
      "I do not know whether hon. Members have realised the extent to which the duplicate vote has been enlarged. At the present time in the city of Liverpool no man has a duplicate vote. but by the Resolutions which the Conference agreed to a man with different premises in different parts of Liverpool will be entitled to exercise a duplicate vote. The man who lives in the suburbs of a big city will be able to vote for his residence and for somewhere else in the city, and in return for this—"
      This is the point that I wanted to make—
      "we thought it was justifiable to say that the masses of people who are moving from the suburbs to the city or vice versâ should have the advantage of successive occupation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1917, col. 261.]
      Here is a member who gives another totally different reason for having conceded this .particular duplicate vote, and

      1111
      among this conflict of views it appears to me that the Government are quite right in the attitude that they have taken up. I have said before that this is the only concession of any value that my party has got, and I still think so. Where are the other concessions to be found? I certainly do not find them. We regard this as a very important concession. We have given away the ownership vote, the livery votes, and all these fancy franchises, and this is the only return that we get for having taken up that attitude and for having agreed to the very wide extension of the franchise that we have all agreed should take place. Indeed, we agreed that it should take place on the distinct understanding that this vote should be conceded. I do not see that it is fair to press the matter now, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman who has created 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 new local government voters has no right to advance the argument that this is a new thing. It is no doubt new to many towns or cities, but it is not new to the extent that hon. Members seem to think. It is quite another matter what the House may do about proportional representation. That is still in the hangs of the gods. We do not come to it until we get to Clause 17. We lay very great stress on the retention of this vote, as recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and the very grave difference of opinion which has been shown entitles us to say at all events that the recollection of members of the Conference as to why this was granted, or under what conditions it
      1112
      was granted, is not very clear. The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A, Williams), who has interrupted pretty often, has said that there was no bargain in the end. We now know for the first time that the understanding to which he alluded, that proportional representation was to follow as a matter of course and as a corollary to granting the other, was a private understanding among members of his own party outside the Conference That certainly was not the impression conveyed to me on the Committee Stage. It alters absolutely the whole situation, and that plea cannot be advanced now with fairness or justice. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the stand that he has done. It is a stand that has been taken far more often against us than against hon. Members opposite. I said the other day that the general assent of this House which the late Home Secretary (Mr. H. Samuel) mentioned meant an Amendment to which he had got the Home Secretary to agree and to which we objected. That has been going on all through the Committee, and I hope we have accepted the position. We have certainly thought that our Friends have been rather hard on us on more than one occasion, and I hope that as we agree with them on this occasion we shall have the general assent of the House in leaving the Bill as it stands.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 163.

      Division No. 115]

      AYES.

      [8,23 p.m.

      Adamson, William

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

      Hayward, Major Evan

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Armitage, Robert

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan,Mid.)

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Elverston. Sir Harold

      Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Higham, John Sharp

      Bentham. George Jackson

      Falconer, James

      Hinds, John

      Bothell. Sir J. H.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Hogge, James Myles

      Billing, Pemberton

      Field, William

      Holt. Richard Durning

      Black, Sir Arthur W.

      Finney, Samuel

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

      Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Boland, John Pius

      Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Bewerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      France, Gerald Ashburner

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

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Joyce, Michael

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Gilbert, J. D.

      Keating, Matthew

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Glanviile, Harold James

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Buxton, Noel

      Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

      Kiiey, James Daniel

      Byrne, Alfred

      Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

      King, Joseph

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

      Clough, William

      Hackett, John

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Crumley, Patrick

      Harris, Percy A, (Leicester, S.)

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

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

      Haslam, Lewis

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      1113

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Reddy, Michael

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

      Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Rendall, Athelstan

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Molloy, Michael

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

      Robinson, Sidney

      White, Alexander F.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Rowlands, James

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

      Nugent, John Dillon (Dublin, Coll. Gn.)

      Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Nuttall, Harry

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

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

      Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

      O'Dowd, John

      Shaw, Hon. A.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

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

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Smallwood, Edward

      Yeo, Alfred William

      Parrott, Sir James Edward

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Young, William (Perthshire, East)

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Peel, Major Hon. G.

      Smith, Sir Swine (Keighley, Yorks)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Sutton, John E.

      G. Thorne and Mr. Hudson.

      Price Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

      NOES.

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C.J. (Kens.,S.)

      Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Hanson, Charles Augustin

      Pennefather, De Fonblangue

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Barnett, Capt. R. W.

      Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

      Pratt, J. W.

      Barnston, Capt. Harry

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Hickman Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Bellairs, Commander C. W.

      Hills, Major John Waller

      Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

      Bird, Alfred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

      Blair, Reginald

      Hope. Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Houston. Robert Paterson

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

      Boyton, James

      Hunt, Major Rowland

      Samuels, Arthur W.

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Carew, C. R. S.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool)

      Cater, John

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Cheyne, Sir W. W.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

      Clive, Col. Percy Archer

      Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

      Stewart, Gershom

      Coates, Major Sir E. F. (Lewisham)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Stirling, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

      Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

      Lardner, James C. R.

      Swift, Rigby

      Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

      Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Coote, William

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

      Thomas-Stanford, Charles

      Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

      Lindsay, William Arthur

      Tickler, T. G.

      Courthope, Major George Loyd

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Touche, Sir George Alexander

      Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Craik, Sir Henry

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

      Walker, Colonel William Hall

      Croft, Brigadier-Genral Henry Page

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Currie, George W.

      McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

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

      Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Weston, J. W.

      Dixon, C. H.

      Macmaster, Donald

      White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

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

      Whiteley, Herbert James

      Du Pre, Major W. Baring

      Macpherson, James Ian

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

      Fell, Arthur

      Malcolm, Ian

      Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

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

      Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

      Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Winfrey, Slr Richard

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Ganzoni, Francis John C.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Younger. Sir George

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Nield, Herbert

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

      Gretton, Col. John

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Mr. PRINGLE: Victory for the mercenaries!

      CLAUSE 8.—(Provision -as. to Disqualifications)
      (1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a Parliamentary elector by reason that he or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms.
      (2) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject, and nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided therein, confer on any person who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered or to vote either as a Parliamentary or local government elector, any right to be so registered or to vote.
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "A person shall be disqualified from being registered and from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector if that person has, for thirty days or more in the aggregate, during the qualifying period been maintained as an inmate of any prison, or of any lunatic asylum or workhouse or poor house supported wholly or partly out of local rates, or other similar institution; but if a person so disqualified would have been entitled to he registered as a local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a Parliamentary elector. Save as aforesaid."
      Mr. KILEY: I desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "A person shall be disqualified from being registered and from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector if that person has, for thirty days or more in the aggregate, during the qualifying period been maintained as an inmate of any prison, or of any lunatic asylum or workhouse or poor house supported wholly or partly out of local rates, or other similar institution; but."
      I move this Amendment because I am considerably mystified as to the reason which induced the Home Secretary to propose this alteration in the Bill. One realises that if a person is in prison he naturally cannot record a vote or that if
      1116
      he is in a lunatic asylum he is also prevented from recording a vote. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!] I cannot imagine—
      Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): I have been looking at the hon. Member's Amendment, and I cannot make it read.
      Mr. GILBERT: On the main Question, if the suggested Amendment be out of order, will the Home Secretary kindly explain to the House exactly what he means by his proposal. It says:
      "a person shall be disqualified from. being registered and from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector if that person has, for thirty days or more in the aggregate, during the qualifying period been maintained as an inmate of any prison, or of any lunatic asylum or workhouse or poor house supported wholly or partly out of local rates, or other similar institutions."
      The point we wish to raise is, what the Home Secretary means by the words. "inmate of any prison." A man who had a charge made against him and was under remand would be an inmate of a prison, it might be for a week or a fortnight, during the qualifying period. As regards lunatic asylums the Amendment raises a very important point. Everybody knows that one of the unfortunate things of this War has been that men have come back and have been sent from the Army or from hospitals to lunatic asylums or similar institutions. In many cases under special treatment those men have got better. If the Amendment as proposed by the Home Secretary is carried, does it mean that any soldier who has unfortunately been in a lunatic asylum for thirty days or more for special treatment because the Army has sent him there—the county asylums are maintained out of the ordinary rates—is to be disqualified from voting? The same thing applies to a workhouse or a poorhouse supported wholly or partly out of the local rates. That surely includes in firmities. Owing to crowding in the hospitals at present many men whose cases will take a long time to recover have been sent to ordinary infirmaries or institutions of that kind which are kept up wholly or partly out of the rates. I do not think the Home Secretary wishes to exclude this type of man from obtaining the vote. It seems to me from the way this is worded that it will certainly have that effect

      1117
      if the law is carried out in the words proposed by the Home Secretary, and I hope he will give us some explanation ,as to what they mean.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE:It appears to me that the Home Secretary's Amendment is contrary to the decision which the Committee adopted with regard to the removal of the Poor Law disqualification. A discussion took place in Committee which lasted for two or three hours. Undoubtedly it was the intention of the Committee not to allow the fact of having received either indoor or outdoor relief to be a disqualification to the exercise of the franchise. That was assented to, I believe, by every party in the House and no Division was challenged. This is certainly hostile to the decision of the Committee. It therefore requires the most careful consideration by the House and we are entitled to an explanation from the Home Secretary.
      Sir G. CAVE: I did not rise earlier because I was under the impression that the House would understand that this Amendment carried out promises which had been made in Committee. Two subjects were discussed. First there came the question of Poor Law disqualification. According to the Report of the Speaker's Conference anyone who had received Poor Law relief, whether indoor or outdoor, for thirty days would have been disqualified, and a proposal to that effect was inserted in the Bill. On the discussion of that Clause in Committee there appeared to be a general view that at all events the receipt of outdoor relief should not be a disqualification for the franchise, but it was expressly stated that an Amendment would be proposed by the Government on Report to the effect that a person who was an actual inmate of a Poor Law institution for thirty days or upwards should be disqualified from voting. That was apparently accepted as satisfactory by the Committee because the Amendment was then withdrawn. That part of the promise is carried out by this Amendment. Now I come to deal with the other part of the Amendment. There were discussions in Committee as to whether a person who was in prison during a substantial part of the qualifying period, or was a lunatic in an asylum or institution for mental deficiency, should have a vote for the district in which he lived or not. That, again, was discussed at some length, and the proposal was finally made that at this
      1118
      stage of the Bill provision should be made for dealing with that matter. Thereupon we considered the whole question, with due regard to what was said in Committee, and this Amendment was put on the Paper. It proposes that there shall be no general disqualification by reason of the receipt of Poor Law relief, but that anyone who would be otherwise qualified. who has for thirty days or more of the, qualifying period been maintained as an inmate of a prison, a lunatic asylum, a workhouse or a poor-house maintained wholly or partly out of local rates or other similar institutions, shall not be qualified for the vote. I am quite prepared to listen to what the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) has to say with regard to the words, but, leaving the words aside, I think the Amendment exactly carries out the proposal which we made in Committee.
      Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "for thirty days or more in the aggregate."
      The Clause as it stands excludes or disqualifies from the register a man who has been in prison for an aggregate term not exceeding more than thirty days. My Amendment provides that if a man has been sentenced to any term of imprisonment he shall not be qualified to be registered for that registration period. I know that that will make a big change in the intentions of the Government, but at the same time I do suggest that it is a change which we ought to make. The present law with regard to men who have been convicted or imprisoned is fairly clear, and it is drastic. A person convicted of treason or felony is not allowed to vote. As the house knows, a man must be registered in order to vote, and in the particular case of a man who has been convicted of treason or felony the judgment must be proved, or, on the other hand, if he has been sentenced to any term of imprisonment with hard labour or for a term of imprisonment exceeding six months he is not allowed to exercise the franchise until he has suffered his punishment. We have to remember that under the election law as it stands at the present time there is no objection to a man in custody on conviction for misdemeanour voting. He can vote if the authorities will allow him, out. As a matter of fact that question has been tested, and a man has applied to get habeas corpus to come out and vote, but

      1119
      he has been refused. Therefore, as I understand it, if a man is in custody n conviction for misdemeanour he is not actually allowed to come out to vote. I should like to simplify that. We are now having a short registration period of six months, and I suggest that a man who is sentenced to any term of imprisonment—I do not care how long or how short—should, ipso facto, be disqualified, and not be put on the register for that particular registration period. Surely that is a small thing when we have two registrations in one year.
      We want to get the most desirable men on the register. It is not like it was before, when an Amendment such as this would have meant disfranchising a man for two years or even more. It can only be for six months. I maintain that no man who has been sentenced for anything at all to any term of imprisonment should be allowed to be registered for that period of qualification. I know that my Amendment will not meet with universal support. I know that people will say that a man who is convicted for an offence such as passive resistance, which was in vogue some years ago, and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of perhaps a couple of days in default of paying a fine, that man on going to gaol will, under this Amendment, be deprived of his chance of getting on the register for that particular registration period. I face that position. If a passive resister or a conscientious objector actually comes up against the law and breaks the law and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, even for one day, he ought not to be allowed to get on the register for that particular registration period. He could get on six months afterwards. The Bill provides for an aggregate not exceeding thirty days. If hon. Members look at Clause 5 they will see that it is provided that a person shall be entitled to be registered for any constituency in which he has been serving—this is in respect of the military vote—for a period of not less than one month. According to that, a soldier may be in detention for something under thirty days, and during that time be will be qualifying, and would have a vote in the division where he was under detention. That is not meant, surely; but that would be the effect of the Bill as it stands. If a soldier or a sailor is committed to a detention barracks or a detention prison for even a week or a day
      1120
      he ought to lose his privileges under Clause 5. It is a ludicrous thing to say that a man who may be in detention for a period of twenty-eight days during the qualifying period should be qualifying as a voter under Clause 5. That cannot be meant. Therefore, I move this Amendment to make things clear. If a man is sentenced to any term of imprisonment he will forego his chance of getting on the register for that particular qualifying period, and I am convinced that the country will support this. We do not want conscientious objectors or passive resisters; we want the very best.
      Colonel YATE: I beg to second the Amendment
      Mr. WING: After the interpretation of the Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member, I wish to enter my protest, because, as he has already pointed out, it is quite possible that a large number of people would be disfranchised under this Amendment without having committed any crime. When you consider the very small offences which soldiers and sailors commit, and the punishments which are meted out to them, it is a most monstrous proposal that they should be disfranchised by an Amendment of this kind. What I am most concerned about is, and I should like to ask the Home Secretary on the point, whether this Amendment in any sense undermines the right of those who have received Poor Law relief, or relief in any sense, to the franchise. This House decided that no man, and now no woman, should be disfranchised because, under certain circumstances—for instance, if they continued on strike—they required public assistance. Does the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment in any way destroy their right to the vote?
      Sir G. CAVE: Not at all.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I cannot help thinking that the Government have possibly inadvertently put us in a position of very considerable difficulty, because they have changed the form of the Report. The Conference originally proposed a very simple proposition, that the old disqualification for being registered, which arose from the receipt of Poor Law relief, should be reduced to this one, namely, that it should only apply if relief had been received for more than thirty days during the six months' qualifying period. When

      1121
      this question came to be discussed, the House evinced a great desire to do away even with that restriction, and the President of the Local Government Board, with certain reservations, accepted the desire of the House. In doing so, he said—
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that it is better to dispose of the comparatively minor point raised by the Amendment—that is, the question whether imprisonment disqualifies a man from voting —before dealing with the main question, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is now raising.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. DICKINSON: The question which my hon. Friend opposite raises is precisely mine, only he takes the other view. I am speaking now against his Amendment, before my Amendment comes up, to get rid altogether of this disqualification of imprisonment, and I am just going to show the way in which this new proposal for disqualification, by reason of imprisonment, has come up. The President of the Local Government Board accepted the position in regard to the Poor Law. That is to say, he said he was not going to insist upon the strict proposal made by the Conference, but he said he was prepared to go a great deal further than the Conference, and he said practically that he would accept the Amendment, which was then proposed, to the disqualification from voting as a Parliamentary elector by reason of a person or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible, having received Poor Law relief, subject to the following condition. He said:
      "I told the Home Secretary before he left the House what I was proposing to do, and he agrees with it, but he wishes to make this one suggestion. He thinks that the person who is actually resident in a Poor Law institution should not have the franchise conferred on him. and later on he will propose himself or will accept an Amendment by which residents in prisons, Poor Law institutions and lunatic asylums shall not be qualified to vote. I will not tell the Committee what words we propose to accept. We are really sweeping away the whole of the disqualification from Poor Law relief, unless a person is actually an inmate of a workhouse."
      That proposal, as regards Poor Law, has been carried out by the Amendment of the Home Secretary, because he is going to limit the disqualification to a disqualification of actual residence in the workhouse. But the words that have been used by the President of the Local Government Board were that those who were actually resident in the Poor Law institutions should not have the franchise conferred on them. Then, later on, that those who
      1122
      were inmates of prisons, or Poor Law institutions, and lunatic asylums should not be qualified to vote.
      That is a very simple proposition, namely, that those persons who were at the time in these various institutions should not be qualified to vote. But the Government have gone a great deal further by their Amendment which is now before us, and they propose that anybody who has been in a workhouse, prison, or lunatic asylum for a certain period during the six months qualifying period, by the mere fact of having been there is disqualified from voting. That raises a very important and perfectly novel doctrine in this country. The law with regard to the right of felons to vote is laid down very clearly by an Act, I think of 33 and 34 Victoria, Chapter 23, Section 2, that persons are disqualified who are convicted of treason or felony, for which the sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour, or exceeding twelve months, until they have suffered that punishment, or such as may be substituted by a competent authority, or until they receive a free pardon. And
      persons who are imprisoned by reason of misdemeanour, I believe, do not even lose their vote; though if they happen to be in prison the Courts will not grant them a writ of habeas corpus in order to. Enable them to go out and vote. But, so far as the voting of felons and misdemeanants is concerned, once their sentence is completed, once they have suffered the full penalty of the law, they are not thereby disfranchised; and at the present moment a person who may have an occupation vote, or anything of the kind, and whose wife continues to reside in the house, and who does not lose his qualification for other reasons, can go to prison and come out of prison and can vote, notwithstanding the fact that he has been in prison. I cannot help thinking that the Government have mixed up two things. It was understood when we were debating this point, that a person should not be able to qualify by residence in prison. That I am prepared to agree to. That is the point that was raised by my hon. Friend in a very amusing speech, in which he said that all the denizens of Holloway Gaol would come on
      the register for Islington. That I quite agree we ought to prevent, but in doing
      that we are not entitled to say that because the law inflicts upon them a particular punishment for a particular offence

      1123
      we are going to add to that punishment the penalty of disqualification for the franchise, which up to the present has never been imposed. I understand that my hon. Friend's Amendment applies to lunatics as well as to prisoners, and that he wants to disfranchise not only a man who has been in prison for one day, but a person who has been in a lunatic asylum for one day.
      Major NEWMAN: No. My Amendment is quite different on that point.
      Mr. DICKINSON: The words have that effect. If you strike out "thirty days," then one day's residence in a lunatic asylum during the six months will disfranchise. That is a totally novel doctrine. The law, as regards lunatics, is that a lunatic can vote provided that it can be shown that he votes at a moment when he is compos mentis. There are old cases in which the vote of a lunatic has been objected to, because it was said he could hot understand the proceedings that were going on, and their votes have been allowed. There is one standard case which happened so long ago as 1791, in which the voter was seventy-five years old and a paralytic, and was affected by the noise of the polling. He had no clear idea of the names of the candidates, but he had of the side on which he wished to vote. When questions were put to him he merely repeated them, but his answers to his wife were more clear, and that man's vote was allowed. The whole question is, whether a man when he is recording his vote, not when he is registered, has sufficient power of mentality to record his vote with ordinary common sense and discrimination. That is the position of the law at the present moment. It will he changed by this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, because a man who goes into a lunatic asylum, when he comes out, is to be struck off the list. He may have been on the register for years, and had a continuing qualification, but because he had gone for a very short time into a lunatic asylum, being deranged, when he comes out, and is no longer deranged, he is to be deprived of the franchise. I really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider how far it is wise suddenly at this moment to start a new system of disqualification. That is really what it is. I know that the Home Secretary will reply that I am exaggerating the position, and that if a person is claiming to
      1124
      vote because of his residence in a certain place for six months, and if, during a portion of that residence, he was in a lunatic asylum, he ought not to be on the register. I submit that this Clause goes a great deal further than it ought. There may be many men with a continuing qualification who, nevertheless, would lose it because of this proposal. I cannot help thinking, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have been better had he accepted the simple view that was taken by the House when it was in Committee. It was then urged that this matter should be restricted to dealing with Poor Law relief which in former times was really a crying evil, a man who was in receipt of Poor Law relief being disfranchised. The Government, I submit with great respect, have made a proposal which is full of very serious objections, and I think that at this stage the House ought not to be called upon to make so great a change in the law.
      Sir G. CAVE: On the point of Order, Sir. May I ask where we are? We have a perfectly short and simple Amendment moved to disqualify anyone who has been in prison even a single day, and I cannot possibly accept that. I submit that we should dispose of this proposed Amendment to my Amendment.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I stated some time ago that what the right hon. Gentleman now suggests would probably be the best course to adopt. It would be much better to dispose of this Amendment now, and then proceed to other Amendments to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I have here a list of Members who have spoken already on the general Question, and we shall be quite mixed up in regard to those Members who have a right to speak on Amendments and on the general Question. The better course, as I said, would be to dispose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment now before the House.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "prison or of any lunatic asylum or."
      Mr. E. HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I very much hope that the Home Secretary may see his way to accept this

      1125
      Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I think that unless that is done this House will, in passing the Amendment of the Home Secretary as it stands, be doing what we have always been most reluctant to do, adding to the penalty imposed by the Court of Law, and, in addition, we shall be bringing to the legal penalty for wrong doing or offence a further political penalty not contemplated Previously. It has always been, I think, the theory of the English law that a crime is purged by imprisonment; so far as civic rights are concerned, when the man or woman have gone through that period of imprisonment, and have come out to ead a new life, their penalty is over. If this proposal of the Government is carried, that ancient principle of British law will be put on one side, and how unjust that is will be evident to the House if we realise that we have sitting as our honoured colleagues men who have undergone imprisonment, but are now recognised as being worthy citizens of this country. The right hon. Member for Battersea, the hon. Member for Cork, and other Members of this House have in the past been in prison, and some of us feel that they were imprisoned wrongly. If this Amendment had been carried years back it would have disfranchised those who are recognised to be honourable men, who, quite apart from political views, try to do their duty as loyal subjects of this Empire. There are members of the present Government who, if the law had been a little differently applied, might conceivably have been imprisoned. I have no wish that anyone should be disfranchised after having undergone a term of imprisonment. I think we must also remember, quite apart from personal cases like those—which appeal to all of us—that this Amendment if it were carried would disfranchise a large number of people simply on the ground of poverty. Some ten thousand persons were imprisoned during last year because they were unable to pay the fine at the moment. Some had to go to prison who would not have gone there if they had been a little richer, if they only had a few shillings or a few pounds more, and they would not have been liable to this penalty now proposed. If the Amendment of the Home Secretary is carried, it will, in effect, disfranchise at the next election some 10,000 men and women imprisoned for debt. [An HON. MEMBER "Or rates!"] Or rates, as the
      1126
      hon. Member says. I am sure that the Home Secretary does not mean by this Amendment to deal with eases of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras has raised by his Amendment to the proposed Amendment the question of lunatics, and I think we must all feel how unfair and unjust it would be—
      Major NEWMAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member seconding my Amendment, or what is he doing?
      Mr. HARVEY: The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was negatived.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment now before the House is that of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras.
      Mr. HARVEY: I am seconding the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras. This Amendment with regard to lunatics will, in fact, disfranchise a large number of poor lunatics and will leave enfranchised those wealthy persons who go to private asylums or endowed institutions. We know of a number of cases of persons of genius and probity who at some period of their lives have unfortunately gone through a period of mental instability. They should not be disqualified from exercising their rights as citizens in any way when that period is over. As has been pointed out, these persons as the law stands have the right to vote if at the moment of voting they are in a sane condition of mind. We have no right to take away from them their civic privileges because of a defect of the kind and to inflict this disability, as the Government do in some instances, by reason of the poverty of the people who are concerned. I hope I have advanced sufficient reasons to induce the Government to reconsider their attitude.
      Colonel GRETTON: The arguments in support of this particular Amendment leave out of account one very important fact. Under the election law as it stands the qualifying period is twelve months, and it may well happen that anybody who is disqualified may have to wait two years, or nearly so, before getting the right to exercise the franchise. All that has been altered by this Bill, which reduces the registration period to six months, so that if all the restrictions imposed by the Bill were to take effect the longest period a person would have to wait would be seven months. That is a fundamental differ-

      1127
      ence. The House has rejected the proposal that any term of imprisonment should disqualify a man or woman from exercising the franchise. The proposal of the Government is that the term of imprisonment should be a serious one and the offence not a light one. The period must be at least thirty days. Justices are not used to inflicting penalties of thirty days unless the offence against the law is really a serious one, and the law prescribes such offences as serious, and those who commit them know that they are serious breaches of the law. It is rather a noval doctrine to suggest that a person who has deliberately broken the law, not by accident but by intention, should be allowed forthwith, after serving a term of imprisonment to exercise the right to vote and to continue to have that right during the period in prison. The whole aspect of the case is altered by the change in the qualifying period.
      The question of lunatic asylums perhaps requires some little consideration. A person who is released from a lunatic asylum is released because probably it is assumed that he is a person able to take care of himself, but there must always be a doubt about the matter, and it is surely not unreasonable that there should be some short period, such as six months, before he is put on the register as a voter. The argument has been used that in this provision we are discriminating as between these people and more prosperous lunatics. That is an argument really that some persons are going to be left out who ought to be included. I agree that is a defect, and all lunatics, I think, ought to be prevented while there is doubt as to their mental state from exercising the vote and influencing the affairs of this country. If we want sanity in politics we should not blindly invite persons of doubtful mental stability to exercise the franchise. There is another point in connection with the Amendment which I think ought to be mentioned. There are persons who live in prisons and asylums and poor-houses who are not maintained out of the rates, but are simply employed in the service of those places. I am sure it is not intended that such persons should be disqualified.
      Sir G. CAVE: It is stated "maintained as inmates."
      Colonel GRETTON: I lave no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite
      1128
      correct, but I thought it right to mention the point. The Amendment does not, in my opinion, go far enough, but it is much the best proposal yet made. Reference has been made to the case of soldiers, but I do not think that the hon. Members who made the suggestion realised that twenty-eight days is the longest period which a. commanding officer can give as punishment, and thirty days is a sentence for a court-martial offence, and soldiers are not sent to court-martial unless the commanding officer thinks the offence a very serious one, and the court-martial seldom gives a sentence of thirty days unless the offence is a very serious one. Therefore the suggestion that the thirty days will lead to oppression and land the soldier in particular hardship is not founded upon a proper appreciation of the facts of the case. I suggest that the thirty days and upwards, being only given by courts-martial for very serious offences, is a case where the soldier might be easily deprived of his vote for the six months.
      Mr. M. HEALY: I think the acceptance of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend opposite is absolutely necessary to make the proposal of the Home Secretary at all possible. There is something to be said that when a man suffers in gaol as a punishment for an offence that some electoral disqualification should follow. But what is to be said in favour of punishing an innocent man? The Home Secretary's Amendment, as it stands, applies to an untried prisoner who may be afterwards acquitted. If the right hon. Gentleman will read his Amendment he will see that it applies to any person who has been detained and consequently has been the inmate of a prison. But an untried prisoner, remanded without bail on a criminal charge, is maintained as an inmate of a prison, though he may afterwards be proved to be an innocent man. Very often he is acquitted. If so, it is established in law that he has not committed the offence with which he has been charged. What is the justification in that case for disqualifying him? The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman mixes up qualification and disqualification. They are totally different things. It must be remembered that this Amendment is not limited to the residential franchise, but applies to both franchises. It might very well be that an untried prisoner, who was subsequently acquitted might lose his residential qualification by residing in the constituency into which he

      1129
      happened to be thrown for the period preceding his trial. But what is the justification for saying that he has to lose his business vote a well?
      Similarly in the case of the inmate of a lunatic asylum. The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has dealt with the Amendment as if the gist of it was to make a want of mental faculties a disqualification for the vote. That is not at at all the gist of the Amendment. The disqualification is not lack of mental qualities, but maintenance in the asylum. That is to say the fact that you are under elemosynary relief, owing to maintenance in the asylum. We are not discussing lack of mental faculties as a disqualification for the vote, but whether or not a man shall lose his vote because he has been maintained in a. lunatic asylum. This raises the broad question as between rich and poor. Many people are very wisely sent by their friends to asylums rather than that the friends should try to maintain them at their own expense; but it is may be that a patient is sent there as a paying patient by friends, and because he is rich and able to pay he does not lose his vote; whereas the poor man does. I rise particularly because this in Ireland would impose an entirely new disqualification. In Ireland there, is no disqualification by virtue of medical relief. Relief in lunatic asylums is considered on an equality with medical relief, as, of course, it is. The law is different in Ireland and England. There is a common misapprehension on one aspect of this matter. The majority of people who go into lunatic asylums do not at all remain permanently there. They are mostly cured after a comparatively short period. The Amendment, therefore, raised the question on both grounds —that of the case of the untried prisoner where you apparently, are going to punish the guilty and the innocent alike; and the case of the inmate of the lunatic asylum which penalises the poor and not the rich I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, because it is absolutely necessary.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must row realise that the Amendment that he has put down to this Clause has a greater and far-reaching effect than he seemed to anticipate when he made his remarks a short while ago. We have had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, whose knowledge of these matters is well-known; and we have seen
      1130
      his observations augmented by the speech to which we have just listened from an hon. and learned Friend whose knowledge, those of us who have heard him over a long period of years, know, is great; he is well worth listening to on these questions of registration. I have just again been looking at the Amendment. It seems to me, as it is at present drafted, to want a good deal of amending, even if it remains as it is without the acceptance of the words proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. There are a whole series of issues which rise in one's mind as the Amendment stands at present. There was a question put a while ago to the Home Secretary in regard to persons who might be officials of an institution, of which there are many known to us in and about London. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied: "Oh! he must be an inmate" I should like to know whether he is prepared to qualify the word "inmate" or if he would give me the advantage of his legal knowledge as to what exactly an inmate means. In these institutions, besides the inmates who are being kept out of local funds, there are paying inmates who are detained there for the same reason under medical restraint, and may be there temporarily. Would they come within the scope of this proposal? Unless the right hon. Gentleman qualifies the word "inmate," I think it would cover those persons as well as those who have to be kept out of public funds.
      Take another case. In all these institutions, besides the officials who have meals in them, there are a great number who board and lodge inside the asylums. Would you not have to qualify the word "inmate" in their case? Otherwise would they not come within the scope of this Clause? While any of us would be prepared to give the Home Secretary a Clause which would meet any little difficulty he might have, we could not have a wide and far-sweeping Amendment of the description which he has put on the Paper. There has been a confusion, to my mind, between the words "imbecile" and "lunatic." An imbecile, I believe by law, because he is not supposed to have mental power at all, is not privileged to have the vote, but a lunatic is qualified under certain conditions that have been quoted to the House by my right hon. Friend. It has been said—I would not vouch for the truth of it—that Noble Lords have been brought from institutions not exactly their

      1131
      actual residence to vote on public questions. This may only be hearsay and not correct, but there are people ho believe that a Noble Lord with a touch of lunacy has been brought down to vote for a measure.
      What is the position we take with regard to this Amendment? It has been said that you can accept the Amendment of the Home Secretary because of the change in the period of time between the registration period and the time when the registration comes into force, and over and over again Members have mentioned in this Debate that anybody can get his vote within about seven months—that that is the longest time anyone would be deprived of it. That is totally inaccurate. It is quite true that under this Bill the period of time is reduced by one-half as against the existing registration period, but you just allow electors under this Clause, if it were amended in the way the right hon. Gentleman wants, to meet their registration period in February by a day. They do not get their vote in seven months, if they are not on the register. The next seven months they are not qualified, not having had six months' residence, although they have missed it by a day, and so in the next qualifying period, not having their residence. It is therefore fifteen months before they can come on the register. I do not want us to be led astray with the idea that anyone, in missing one registration period, could get on in seven months, because it would be fifteen months before he could get on the register. I do sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman will give this Amendment of my right hon. Friend due consideration, and that he may see his way to accept it. Those of us who have had a great deal to do with registration in times gone by, who have had the making up of registers, who have appeared in Registration Courts, and know all the details, know that these qualifications, simple as they may seem to put in a measure like this, will mean, when they are fought out before the registration officer, a great deal of difficulty, and will very often disfranchise a very large number.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: It seems to me that the proposal of the Government as it stands is open to very great objection. If there were only the case of the innocent man who was wrongly charged with some offence and confined in prison awaiting
      1132
      trial, that would alone, I think, be sufficient to make this proposal impossible, because it would mean that, having been wrongly arrested, and having been kept in prison for some time, and then acquitted, leaving the Court without a stain on his character, he would go home to find himself disfranchised at the next election, thus adding insult to injury. There is, also the case of the political prisoner, who refuses to pay a fine, and may be sent to prison and is disfranchised. In many continental countries there is, as part of the sentence of a civil Court, deprivation of civil rights. I do not think we should like it to be part of our law that any offence should carry with it deprivation. of civil rights. The real difficulty arises from the fact that now, for the first time, we are basing the franchise on residence. A man who is living in a prison, a lunatic asylum or a workhouse, is not, I understand, an occupier according to the technical provision of our existing law, but where you say a person shall get a vote according to his residence, I am disposed to think it may be held that all these people may be thereby ipso facto enfranchised. We have never had any definite statement on that point. We do not want, for instance, the district in which Dartmoor is to have added to it several hundred votes of men who are the resident population of the convict prison. We do not want the district in which Hanwell is to have added to its register hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of residents who are residents of the asylum there; and so forth.
      Therefore, it appears to me that the Government might well consider whether the right course is not to confine residence so as to exclude these cases, very much on the lines of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), that the Bill should specifically exclude residence in these places from being considered residence for the purposes of the Parliamentary qualification or local government qualification. The effect of that would be that a man might retain his qualification for his own home. but if still in prison or a lunatic asylum when the polling day came round, he could not in fact exercise his vote, because he would not be released for the purpose, whereas if discharged he would go back to his own home, and he. might be in a position to exercise the franchise. I would suggest, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should consider

      1133
      whether it is really necessary to include the words "or other similar institution," which is a very vague term, and whether it would not be possible to define that more closely. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted as an alternative, it would be perhaps necessary to add the words which appear in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, saving the wife from disqualification.
      Sir G. CAVE: I want to say quite plainly that my Amendment simply carries out the undertaking we gave to the House. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Rutland to disfranchise anyone who in the qualifying period had been an inmate of a prison or an asylum. The President of the Local Government Board objected to the form of that Amendment, but promised to introduce words having that effect. The House accepted that proposal and the Amendment was withdrawn. Therefore, I have only carried out my promise. Let us now deal with the merits. It is true that the main point is that residence is now to be the qualification, and it is mainly for that purpose that we desired to make a provision of this kind. I took the period of thirty days from the Report of the Speaker's Conference as being convenient. I do not care a bit about that period. The question is, what is residence? and on this point I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we should set aside this Amendment altogether and in the proper place put in words providing that inhabitance or residence in a prison, asylum, or workhouse should not be residence for the purpose of this Bill. We will endeavour to propose words in the Definition Clause to carry this out, and, if that cannot be done, I will undertake to introduce words to meet the point in another place. I hope what I have said will put an end to this Debate.
      Major NEWMAN: Before this Amendment is withdrawn I would like to support the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), but I do so for perfectly different reasons to those which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I do so because I happen to represent Colney Hatch.
      Mr. BILLING: If the Amendment is withdrawn, surely the Amendment to the Amendment automatically goes with it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: We must first dispose of the Amendment to the Amendment.
      Major NEWMAN: I want to make it clear that the inmates should not lose their votes. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) also has an Amendment down dealing with the same point, and my proposal clears that matter up. I want to make sure that the keepers and inmates in Colney Hatch would have a chance of keeping their votes. Naturally, if lunatics could give me their votes, I would be glad to have them.
      Mr. DICKINSON: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir G. CAVE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: At the end of the Home Secretary's Amendment to add the words "Provided that residence as an inmate of any prison or of any lunatic asylum or workhouse supported wholly or partly out of local rates, or other similar institution, shall not be deemed to be residence within the meaning of this Act."
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to move this Amendment because I understand that the Home Secretary will see that words carrying out the intention of my proposal will be put in the Bill in a suitable place. It would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, who seems to be under the impression that it is necessary in this Bill to give power to lunatics to vote because rich lunatics would have power to vote, that in my Amendment the effect would be to cut out the rich lunatic also. I think it is a fitting climax to this Bill that we are now allowing lunatics to vote.
      Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word " Parliamentary," insert the words "or local government."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Captain BARNETT: I wish to raise a point of Order in regard to the next Amendment (Disqualifying Conscientious Objectors), standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). His Amendment was

      1135
      on the Paper for a whole week as an Amendment to come in at the end of Subsection (2), but it has now been promoted to the position it now holds as an Amendment to Sub-section (1), and it comes in front of the Sub-section that insists upon British citizenship. My point is that it is out of place.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I think they may go in at either place, but I will be guided rather on that point by the opinion of the Home Secretary.
      Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment will come equally well at either place.
      10.0 P.M.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "Any person who has been exempted from military service on the ground of conscientious objection or who, having joined the forces, has been sentenced by court-martial for refusal to obey orders, and who alleged conscientious objection to military service as a reason for such refusal, shall be disqualified from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector."
      It is really a very small point which is involved in this Amendment. It is whether or not a man who has absolutely refused to fight for his country in its dire distress shall be entitled to a vote. I unhesitatingly say he should not be, and although the House on the last occasion was in favour of giving him his qualification, I trust that on this occasion a different view will prevail. There can be no doubt about it that public opinion outside is distinctly in favour of this proposal. Notwithstanding the very great leniency with which these men have been treated, they have not shown very much gratitude. We deal in this Amendment with two classes of conscientious objectors: those who have been granted exemption, and those who having applied for exemption, or not having applied, have been taken into the Army and have refused to obey military law, have been court-martialled and have been sentenced to imprisonment. The number of these is very large. But it is not the number so much as the question of principle which is involved, and it is because of the principle that I have again brought forward my Amendment. We are now to a great extent dealing with a manufactured article. The original conscientious objector was largely honest. Now he is largely dishonest.
      1136
      I can speak with considerable knowledge on the subject. 1 have been a member of the Central Tribunal since the inception of the Act, and it has been my painful duty in consequence to deal with many of these prisoners. I have had to interview hundreds of them, and I have had very good chances therefore of seeing
      for myself their real character. Originally, we were asked to hold a special inquiry with a view to offering any man whom we had reason to be satisfied that he honestly held his objection an alternative to punishment in the shape of sending him to a Home Office Committee, which would ask him to do only civil work in the interests of the State. At first there was general acceptance of the conditions offered by the Prime Minister. Very few—I think the number could have been counted on the fingers of one hand—among the first 800 or 900 who came before us declined to accept that condition, and those few consequently remained in their cells. But, later on, as time progressed, and as a rather pernicous organisation— the No-Conscription Fellowship—became more active and I have always been surprised that the Government have allowed it to pursue its operations—we had a rapid manufacture of the conscientious objector, and the rapidity of the manufacture was due largely to a concession which the late Prime Minister agreed to in this House The men were to allow themselves to be called up, they were to refuse to do their drill, they were court-martialled and sentenced to imprisonment, and then they were to go before the Chairman of the Central Tribunal, and, if they
      answered questions put to them accurately —I do not say straightforwardly—we had no excuse to do otherwise than to send them straight to the Home Office Committee, which
      would put them to work of national importance. Latterly I have not myself been attending at Wormwood Scrubs. I have been excused from that duty, but
      those who have undertaken it have found themselves up against a very different class of objector. Men have refused absolutely, under any circumstances whatever, to accept the conditions of the inquiry or to accept an alternative form of service, and they say, quite frankly, they will accept no form of service, they will do nothing of any sort or kind for the State, and will only do what they wish to do and nothing else. There

      1137
      are a large number of these military prisoners—considerably over 4,000. Three thousand five hundred and forty, in Class A, have been passed out to this Committee and are doing work of one kind or another. There are 126 who are not certified as conscientious objectors and are still in prison. There are 37 who have said they will not fight in this War but would fight in any war of their own choosing. There are 142 who were not conscientious objectors, but were political and socialistic in their views; 611 absolutely and entirely refused the conditions. They would have nothing to do with the State in any shape or form except to take all the benefits it provided. Leniency to this kind of man is entirely misplaced, and if they are to get any further concessions, and if there is any likelihood whatever that they may be released because they have suffered one or more terms of imprisonment, then I say we had better strengthen our law because they will become very successful propagandists.
      Many of them have been living together under extremely comfortable conditions, and after their release they have in some cases been able to do a great deal of harm. We have now therefore an organised system for the manufacture of the conscientious objector, and I do not see how we can stop it unless some different policy is adopted. I could never understand why this agitation should have been encouraged at all. But if it is to be encouraged I venture to think much mischief will result. In some respects, I frankly admit, my proposal may seem a little harsh. There are a certain number of conscientious objectors who are absolutely honest in their opinions. They are misguided people—wrongheaded but perfectly honest. There is the notorious case of Mr. Stephen Hobhouse. I think it is a great misfortune he was not entirely exempted. His character is perfectly well known. But he would not plead before the tribunal, and in the case of a man who declines to plead the tribunal has no power. In that case, a very worthy case, the tribunal is in no way to blame for not granting him the exemption which they are entitled to grant under the Act. Exemptions have not been lightly given, nor should they be lightly given. In the case of the Central Tribunal, not a single absolute exemption has been granted in the case of any appeals that have come to them from the local appeal Courts. In
      1138
      every case a man has had to undertake work of national importance, either through the Pelham Committee or through the Home Office, and it is right that it should be so. I am sure of this: that if hon Members had seen as many of these absolutists as I have, and had had to cross-question these men as I have, they would form the opinion that while it may be a little harsh to disfranchise certain people who are quite honest and conscientious, it is our bounden duty to disfranchise the others, and to see that if they will not perform their prime duty to the State they shall not be entitled to have any say in the Government of the State.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The House will remember that when this same Amendment came before the Committee on a previous occasion it was preceded by another Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill). On that occasion the hon. Member went into a long, and most interesting and instructive argument based on the question whether conscientious objectors were reasonable or unreasonable. I think that was the text of the speech, and it led the entire Committee astray. Members went off into different lines of oratory, and raised a number of issues which, in my opinion, were entirely foreign to the point. They obscured the main point, which is not whether a conscientious objector is acting in a reasonable or unreasonable manner but whether a man who declines to fight on the grounds of conscientious objection to combatant service shall have the same privileges of citizenship as the soldier and sailor in regard to the Parliamentary and municipal franchises. That is the point before the House now, and that is the point before the country. What the country wants is that this man —the conscientious objector, so-called—shall not have the vote. The Government on the last occasion said that the conscientious objector should have the vote. To-night we are going to try the issue, and I venture to think that on this occasion, as the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs has said, we shall see a very different result. Again, with regard to the result on the last occasion, the position was rendered more difficult by the Amendment coming on quite suddenly—in fact, altogether unexpectedly owing to the

      1139
      withdrawal by the Government of the pauper disqualification. That also told against the numbers in the division, but the chief reason was one which the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs pointed out in proposing the Amendment, and that was that the Government put on the Whips. I understand from what has passed this afternoon, in fact, I heard the Home Secretary say, that if on one occasion he gave way and declined to put on the Government Whips there were other occasions when the same course would be followed. I really trust and hope that this will be one of the occasions, for a good deal will depend—I thank the right
      hon. Gentleman, and by that motion of the head I think I may draw the conclusion that the Government Whips will not be put on.
      I would like to pass on to the question of right versus privilege. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) this afternoon introduced into the Debate upon an Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Colonel L. Wilson) a very interesting point. He said that the franchise was not a right; nor is it a right. The granting of the franchise is a privilege, not a right, because, as the right hon. Baronet said, and I wish to repeat to the House to-night, if it were a right, on what ground could women be excluded from the franchise? Again, if it were a right, on what ground could you limit the franchise to women to the age of thirty as is done in the present Bill? These limitations are only justified on the ground that the vote is a privilege. They could not be sustained if the vote were a right. Again, this Bill, I think the House will admit, is practically a sailors' and soldiers' Bill. The Home Secretary himself has said that he desires to see every soldier and sailor who has fought in the War enfranchised. He says, of at any rate he allows the conclusion to be drawn from what he has said, that this Bill was specially designed to give the men who have fought in the War the privilege of voting. If that be so, it cannot at the same time be justifiable to give votes to men who have refused to fight in the War. That, I think, is the logical conclusion, because, in whatever way you may lock at it, and the Government may look at it, you cannot have it both ways.
      Then, with regard to the women, the opposition to the women's franchise broke
      1140
      down on the ground that women had in our civil life taken the places of men who have gone to the War, that they nave become war workers. I know in certain quarters that is not allowed, but I think that, at any rate in this House, it will be accepted that that was the ground on which opposition to the women's franchise broke down. To meet the case of women's enfranchisement the Government came to a compromise. They fixed the age at thirty, and by doing so they excluded the majority of women who are working in the War. Why should these women be excluded and men of the same age who have refused the first obligation of citizenship, namely, to defend their home and country against the enemy, be included? I submit that such a step is neither just nor logical.
      The man in the street regards equality of privilege as being justified only by equality of sacrifice, and I think that is the opinion of most men. No one can say that the sacrifice of the conscientious objector is in any way equal to the sacrifice of the sailor or the soldier. The soldier and the sailor have not only risked their position, and risked their worldly goods, but they have risked their lives. What has the conscientious objector done? The conscientious objector has done nothing; he has done nothing whatsoever. On the other hand, in many cases the conscientious objectors—I do not blame them for this—have got into a number of very soft jobs. I think it will be found that in the Insurance Department there are a great many conscientious objectors who are drawing considerable salaries. If that be the case, if a conscientious objector is to be allowed to draw a large salary and to make no sacrifice whatsoever in the War, he cannot be placed in the same position as the soldier and sailor who had made every kind of sacrifice for their King and country.
      When this Amendment came up in Committee, the first point the Home Secretary took was that it was a proposal to disfranchise persons who had taken a certain line. Those were the words that he used. I join issue with him there, and I would call his attention to the fact, which must be fresh in his memory, that in its original form the Bill contained a Clause disfranchising all persons, including sailors and soldiers and the dependants of sailors and soldiers, who had received parish relief for over

      1141
      thirty days. Surely that was a disfranchising Clause. Surely the Clause which he has proposed to-night is a disfranchising Clause. Yet the House seemed to have no objection to a Clause of that kind. How, then, can it be said that this is an enfranchising Bill and not a disfranchising Bill? On that ground, I submit that his point with regard to disfranchising the conscientious objector falls to the ground. There is nothing in it. The Government do not hesitate to disfranchise the sailor or soldier or his dependants impoverished by reason of his patriotism and his valour, but they indignantly propose to exclude an Amendment disfranchising the conscientious objector, who has never raised a hand to defend either his country or his home. It was a mere hypocritical answer to the Amendment which was proposed in Committee, and if it is repeated to-night I shall have to give the same reply to it. We were told by the Home Secretary on the former occasion that the Military Service Act allowed a man to claim exemption from all military service on the ground of conscientious objection to military service, and that therefore to enforce on him a penalty for exercising what he called a statutory right would be unfair. I submit that no penalty is imposed. All that the Amendment says is that the man who has not fought in the War because he objects to combatant service on the ground of conscience shall not receive the same civil privileges after the War as are given to men who have fought in the War. Canada has found no difficulty in disfranchising conscientious objectors, and why should we? The Canadians did not take two days in coming to a conclusion. The Canadian Legislature came to their conclusion at once, and Canada approved of it. I am certain, if the Government come to the same conclusion as Canada, that this country will approve of their decision. Then the Home Secretary said that it would be unfair to disfranchise men of military age and give the franchise to men who were above military age, presuming that they were both conscientious objectors, and he instanced that there were several Members sitting below the Gangway whom he would like to see disfranchised I agree with him, but I do not see how you can do it in a Bill of this kind. This question of conscientious objectors deals merely with men of military age. I admit that there are some men of military age who ought to be
      1142
      fighting and who prefer the work in this House, but that has nothing to do
      with it. You cannot disfranchise men not of military age or discusss the question of disfranchising them on an Amendment which deals with conscientious objectors who are of military age. The last objection put forward by the Home Secretary was that this is an agreed Bill, and that to introduce a contentious provision might imperil its prospects. Not at all! All you have to do is to take off the Government Whips. Now you have done that, therefore you will not imperil the prospects of this Bill by accepting the result of a Division. I should like to say a word in regard to the religious side of the question. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who made a very eloquent and interesting speech on the last occasion, claimed that all conscientious objectors were religious men, and that they were martyrs clinging to their religious principles. His distinguished relative, the Bishop of Exeter, has put him right on that point in a letter he wrote to the "Times" after a visit to Dartmoor. He paid that visit very shortly after I was there myself, therefore I am in a position to support the Bishop of Exeter in what he said, because the information he discovered was exactly the same as I discovered. After visiting Dartmoor, where there are 1,000 conscientious objectors, or men who call themselves conscientious objectors, he came to the conclusion that only 25 per cent.—I think that is rather too large a percentage—had any religious views at all. Therefore I fail altogether to follow the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University when he said:
      "I wish the country was attended with like particular devotion to the cause in which they believe. If it were so the whole international life would be invigorated."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1917, col. 320, Vol. XCV.]
      Would our international life be invigorated if all men behaved like conscientious objectors? Where would this country have been in this War if all men had behaved like conscientious objectors? Did the Noble Lord really mean that he would like to see the hordes of Huns invading this country and crucifying our women and children? Of course, he did not. Then I say he made a very grave mistake in addressing the speech he did to the House. The greater number of these men, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs has said, are not religious people. They

      1143
      have no religious objection to fighting. Their objections are based on altogether different premises, some are political—a great number are political. Some desire to shirk fighting, and a great number are what are called cranks. I am sure hon. Members in this House understand the meaning of the word "cranks" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad I have hit that nail on the head. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) made the singular statement that no one had hitherto ever thought that men should be deprived of votes who had not fought owing to conscientious objection. How many people in the time of the Napoleonic wars were on the register? How many people were on the municipal register? The whole argument, if it were based upon these premises, is absurd ab initio.
      Another point which has been raised a good deal is the question of freedom. One speaker said it would be an evil day in the history of freedom if these men were not given the vote. But freedom of thought and of action cannot always be given, or what would be the use of our legislation, which is directly concerned with restricting freedom in certain cases? All debates in this House centre on the question whether freedom should be restricted. The whole of the arguments used on every Amendment to-night have been based on these premises. There is no doubt about the feeling in the country, and I should like to know what is the feeling of the Government on the subject. The Prime Minister yesterday told us this was a time for heroic measures and this was a time when things should be looked at not in the ordinary way. This is the first time the conscientious objector has been given anything like this wide latitude. In the Militia Ballot Act only Quakers were excluded. In this War all men who can prove that they have a conscientious objection are allowed to be exempted from military service. But they have grossly abused this privilege. They have dealt with it in a manner which may in some way or other coincide with the views of certain parties in this House, but that manner does not coincide with the views of the people, and the people have a right to have some say in a matter of this kind. I have been inundated to-day with letters and telegrams asking me to record my vote against the conscientious objector, and I have no
      1144
      doubt hon. Members in all parts of the House have received similar applications. That could not be done unless there was great feeling in the country on the matter, and the country will look to us to see that we no longer allow these so-called conscientious objectors to have the privilege of voting in either Parliamentary or municipal elections. I admit that there are some conscientious objectors who are highly religious men and ought not on that account to suffer the loss of any privileges, but I see no reason for placing them in different categories on this occasion, because, after all, they have refused to fight, and you cannot say that because a man has refused to fight because he is a religious man he should be disfranchised and an irreligious man who has refused to fight should be enfranchised. The thing is impossible. You must have one rule for all.
      But do these men want the vote? I had a letter to-day from Dartmoor. This gentleman writes his letter from a cell in Dartmoor convict prison. The convicts in the prison, I understand, do not like the conscientious objectors residing in their quarters. I suppose that this gentleman, by addressing his letter from a cell in Dartmoor convict prison, thought that he would create some interest in my mind. He says:
      "Apropos of the exceedingly friendly interest which you have shown in our life may I say that I heartily support the Motion you are bringing forward to disenfranchise the conscientious objectors? As one who is wholly uninterested in politics and has never exercised any voting powers your Motion appeals to me very much indeed."
      Here we have evidence from a conscientious objector that he does not want the vote. Therefore, those hon. Members who are anxious to give votes to conscientious objectors are fighting a lost cause. This man does not want it. Hon. Members who are opposing this Amendment will be very much better employed if they voted for it, and by so doing they would be meeting the views expressed by this conscientious objector at Dartmoor. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] There is one other point, and that is in regard to Quakers. Many Quakers have fought well in the War, but there are other Quakers who have not fought. There are a great number—I brought one case to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the other day—who have sheltered under the guise of Quakers. They have passed into the Quakers' Unit, although they are not themselves Quakers. A very well-known case is that of a person at Wellington who was not a Quaker, but who

      1145
      was passed into the Quakers' Unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am going to finish in a minute, but as this subject will be under discussion tomorrow for a considerable time, I think I might be allowed to put a further point. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs told us that it is often said that the conscientious objector is a negligible quantity. It is not a question of quantity, but a question of principle. The citizen who refuses to do his duty to the State is not entitled to receive privileges which can only be exercised under the provisions of the State.
      Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I understand that the Government are not going to put on the Whips for this Division; I should like to know why. I freely confess that I am the last man in this House who should object to the Government giving freedom to vote in this House, for ever since I entered it I have believed that the House ought to have greater freedom in the Division Lobby. But in this case the Government accepted a certain principle in the original Bill. They knew that in this country, where compulsory military service had not been in vogue before the War, there would arise many cases which could not be dealt with by the ordinary military machinery, and they recognised in advance the phenomenon of conscientious objection. When the question arose as to the disfranchisement of conscientious objectors in the Committee stage of the Bill they made up their minds that, having recognised that phenomenon in the original Bill, they must stand by that recognition when it was challeneged on the Reform Bill. What has happened to change their attitude in this matter? I am not challenging their right to withdraw their Whips for good reasons. I am challenging that they should withdraw their Whips on a matter on which they considered it politic and advisable to apply them on a previous occasion. If the Government to-night tell us that some second aspect of the case has arisen since the Committee stage of the Bill, or that they have revised the opinion which led them to recognise conscientious objectors under the Military Service Acts, then they will present a good case to the House, but, unless they can supply the House with the reason, they are standing on shaky ground when they say that they will not use whatever influence they may have in inducing Members to go into the Lobby, and I shall listen with particular
      1146
      interest to the speeches which come from the Front Bench on this subject on this ground.
      It is a tactical change of position imposed upon them, as I suspect, by clamour. [An HON. MEMBER: "Public opinion!"] I hear an hon. Member behind me say "public opinion." There are two views commonly held as to the attitude of the Government towards public opinion. If the Government waits to listen to the voice of public opinion it is not uncommonly mocked at for weakness in leading the people. It is called a wait-and-see Government. This Government, apparently, has waited and has seen, and has changed its mind, not in response to the arguments of reason, but in response to the arguments of clamour. But there are much deeper grounds on which one must discuss this Amendment than any that I have yet put forward. The reasons which led the House to recognise the possibility of conscientious objectors were many, but one of the reasons which weigh most with me in dealing with the subject is this: Compulsory military service was only enacted after we had been many months at war. Some will say that it should have been enacted earlier. Some will say that it ought not to have been enacted at all. But surely the Government recognise that it is one thing for them to lead the country into a war in which ninety-nine men out of every hundred in the country believed, and to ask the country's support in that war, if the country is fully forewarned of the policy which lies behind the War and of the means by which the War is to be carried on. If, for instance, Lord Roberts had been successful in his campaign before the War, and had carried compulsory service as part of the recognised and accepted legislation and Constitution of this country the position of the conscientious objector in this country would have been rather different. I do not say that the fundamental case for recognising him would have disappeared, but there would be this difference, that we should have entered upon the War, a war in which every male subject knew that it was his duty to respond to the call of the Crown for military service. But, as that was not the case, the position of the conscientious objector in a country which embarked on war under voluntary military service is very different from that of a similar individual in a

      1147
      country which was already under compulsory military service. The difficulty arises out of this fact, that throughout our long history we have, on the whole, avoided the extreme statement of the justifiable claim of the State to demand military service from its citizens, owing to our geographical position, which has largely created the peculiar individualist character of the British citizen, and is responsible in large measure for that freedom of conscience which now creates the problem of the conscientious objector. If we were French citizens we should be born and bred in the notion that at any moment we should have to defend our hearths and homes against the invader; and if we had a land frontier, then the case in relation to the conscientious objector would be very different.
      I understand it is usually a subject of the supreme penalty in great military States. But surely the Government cannot act now as though Great Britain was a, great military State in which the obligation of military service was known and accepted beforehand. Surely the Government must realise that as being the very foundation of the case. They recognised it by passing the Military Service Act and they recognised it in earlier stages of this Bill; but they go back when, for various reasons, public opinion has been aroused against the conscientious objector, and they abrogate the first function of a Government. I do not think there is need for any elaborate argument to be put forward in a case like this, and I am considerably surprised to find that the Government should have thought it worth while to change back again. I am not going to deal with all the arguments that have been put forward. We are in this position, that we have recognised the conscientious objector in legislation already; we have set up certain tests whereby the conscientious objector may .be discovered. It may be, from the point of view of the Government, that these tests are not adequate, but that is not the issue to-night. If these tests are inadequate, surely it does not pass their wit to devise others! The position to-night is not that the test of the conscientious objector has been discovered to be inadequate; it is: that his moral position should be recognised. I am not one of those who have the least sympathy with the conscientious objector. I repudiate entirely his right on grounds of public policy, but the Gov-
      1148
      ernment cannot say that the character, the outlook of those who are properly tested conscienious objectors, is that of men who ought to be disfranchised, more especially that there are numbered in the ranks of conscientious objectors, as hon. Members recognise, some of the finest spirits in this country. I think that every man in this House honours the spirit which has actuated many of these conscientious objectors, and if there are black sheep among them you must devise further tests to find them out. But since that question has already passed extremely drastic tests—tests at least as serious in some ways as those imposed upon soldiers—the Government will surely be prepared to listen to the plea that these men, in this country above all countries, should be able to say that though their view comes into direct collision with one of the fundamental rights of the State, nevertheless under the policy that the State recognises, you cannot solve that simply by force, as you propose to do, for, after all, disfranchisement is an act of force, and you cannot solve it by reason, because these are all fundamental rights, brought into fierce collision, owing to the conditions of war, and cannot be settled either by farce or by reason. Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House not recognise that in that collision you have one of the fundamental bases of the determination of liberty? If I have been able to put my argument aright, the right hon. Gentleman will not misread me by thinking that I challenge the right of the State to test the conscientious objector. I do no such thing. I do not for a moment challenge that it is one of the fundamental rights of the State, to demand military service from its citizens. But, having reached a point where you find a certain class of citizen, from reasons, usually good reasons, standing up and denying the application of that right in his particular case, and when you have devised a test by which you discover he is bonâ fide, then you must abide and uphold that liberty.
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have listened with a good deal of sympathy to the very temperate speech of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and, more than that, I am ready, within limits, to subscribe to a great deal of what he said. What I rose to do is not to justify support of this Amendment, but to justify what the Government have decided upon doing,

      1149
      and that is to leave it to the free decision of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "You should do that every time!"] My hon. Friend suggests that that is the result of what some call public opinion, and what he calls clamour. If he had been present at the earlier Debates to-day he would have found a simpler reason. He speaks as if my right hon. Friend in refusing to leave it to the free decision of the House in the Committee stage .did that on its merits, and that now there is a volte face on the part of the Government. That is not the case. I discussed it with my right hon. Friend then, as I have discussed it now, and I agreed with him then that it would hardly be fair to avoid putting on the Government Whips, and for this reason, that in the main we were bound—and that is the basis of the Bill—to follow the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference; Something has happened to-day. We had a discussion about the giving of votes to women for the municipal franchise. As I listened to that Debate I felt that it was really most unreasonable to be bound by a technical consideration of that kind, when it was obvious that the overwhelming vote of the Members of the House wished to take another view. I was waited on by a deputation of those in favour of this extension of votes to women. I said to them, "I am quite willing to say to the people of the House that so far as I am concerned I should like to see that extension made," and partly from the reason that I knew that if it was not done there would be an agitation which would bother us endlessly until it was carried out; "but," I said to them, " it is obvious that if the Government departs from the Speaker's Conference in this case it cannot adopt the rigid view in future which it has adopted in the past, and where similar circumstances arise they must show the same attitude." That is our justification for the course which we have taken, and I venture to say to the House, and I put it to those who are fair-minded, that it is quite obvious we cannot depart from the decision of the Conference with regard to one matter which pleases one large section of the House and refuse to depart from it in another matter which is equally vital to another and probably equally large section of the House. That is the justification for that. Let us look at the question on its merits. Having decided to leave it to the decision of the House we must as individuals
      1150
      either vote or abstain from voting. As it is free I intend to vote in favour of this Amendment. I will tell the House why. I quite recognise everything that has been said by my right hon. Friend about the disadvantages of taking up an attitude of this kind against men who really are conscientious in their views. But after all, nobody denies the right of the State to demand services in defending the life of the State as the necessity arises. Therefore, it is a question of how great that necessity is. My hon. Friend made a statement which I cannot follow for a moment, as to the time at which compulsory service commences. There is surely nothing in that. If the State is going to demand this service, it has the right to do so at any time. That is the way I look at it. It is entirely a question of what is for the interest of the State in carrying out the War. That is my view. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment spoke of one gentleman who has suffered very severely, and about whose sincerity no one has any doubt. That is quite true, but that is not the end of the matter. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway said quite truly, it is a conflict—some one, I think, has said the great tragedy in life is not the conflict between right and wrong, but the conflict between right and right. Take the case of rebellion, which might happen in this country, as it has unfortunately happened in the past. I read the accounts of the rebellion in Ireland, and I really, personally, had nothing but admiration for what was told me about many of those who feel in that fight. I had that admiration; but what was the Government to do with it? The life of the State is the first rule, and if one is not satisfied that we as a State are right we ought not to continue the Government.
      An HON. MEMBER: That is Prussianism!
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It goes further back than that. There is the Latin tag that the safety of the State is the first rule of the State.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: That was a Pagan saying.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a Pagan saying, but it is an absolutely true saying. Unless you accept the view that the State is wrong in what it is doing and has no right to demand services of its citizens, then I

      1151
      do say that the safety of the State is the first rule for the men who are responsible for the Government.
      Look at it from another point of view: It is said, and I will admit it, that it is rather illogical to allow people to escape from military service and to punish them by taking away their vote. I do not think it is quite so illogical as some of those who take that view here assumed. It does not follow that, because you say a man holding particular views is not to be treated as a deserter and shot, therefore you say he is to have every other privilege. It is not at all the same thing. At the same time, we do not recognise that they are carrying out their full duties to the State.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: How about the clergy?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I may be wrong in this view, but when the Military Service Act was carried through this House I pleaded strongly for this right of conscientious objectors. If the numbers were so few and if the sincerity were so obvious that we could grant the right, without any serious risk of weakening our forces, that is one thing; but if you find that there is a real danger to the State in the growth of this, you have a perfect right to put it down. I think this has a real bearing on the present position of the country. There is not the slightest doubt to my mind that if we give any encouragement to this Absolutist movement you would create Absolutists in numbers, with which you could not possibly deal. I think it will be a direct deterrent on the growth of this kind of thing by showing that the House of Commons takes a view which is taken by the whole country, that there is a difference between the men who are ready to obey the service of the State and give their lives in the defence of the State, and the men who think that they are not called upon to do so. I say again that I may be wrong. It may be that I am moved by the experience of this War, and that I would not take the same view at another time. That is quite possible, but at all events, it is my view now, and I think there can be no harm—though I
      dare say many of my colleagues may differ from me—when you hold a view strongly, in saying clearly what that view is. But there is one thing that, I would like to say. I hardly think it is right to
      1152
      make that exclusion from the vote perpetual. It is not merely that perhaps we are unduly influenced by the danger with which we are now faced. I do not think that it is right to make any punishment of this kind perpetual. There is this further: For myself I would prefer that, while we show clearly what our view is to-day, we should leave it to a new generation, after reconstruction has come, to look at this question afresh and decide for itself. If my hon. Friend were willing to make this operative for a certain term of years, I would prefer it, or if anyone would move an Amendment to the Amendment making it a term of years, I would vote for that rather than for my hon. Friend's Amendment. I have said all I wish to say on this matter; and, after all, my views are not so important as the action of the Government. The main thing is that we are undoubtedly justified, after what we have done in regard to the women's vote, in leaving this question to the free judgment of the House.
      It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      COLONEL MONTEAGLE BROWNE.
      Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House, of the 12th February, proposed the Question, " That this House do now adjourn."
      Major HUNT: I want to bring before the House the case of Lieut.-Colonel Browne. The Under-Secretary for War, whom I do not blame at all, told us that efficiency was a matter of opinion. I want to invite the opinion of the House of Commons on the question of the conduct of Colonel Browne during the War through which we are now passing. I would remind the House that Colonel Browne received the South African medal with five clasps, that he was at the front in France for thirty-two months —about eighteen months of that time as commanding officer—and that he was wounded two or three times. Service members will recognise the enormous strain this must have been on any man.

      1153
      The hon. Member who first took up this case and then turned it over to me was very strongly of the opinion that Colonel Browne at the time was suffering temporarily from shell shock. I went into the case very carefully with a well-known brigadier who has made study of military law, and his opinion was most distinctly that even if colonel Browne's record had not been half as good as it was, he should have been sent home to a medical hoard, and then he would have had a chance of getting six months at home. I have only time to read the recommendations of one general as to
      1154
      Colonel Browne's efficiency and he is a Guardsman, very well known to be very strong on discipline. The first remendations have been sent to the War office for confirmation, and they have not been disputed. It would be very difficult indeed for any officer to have a better record than Colonel Browne had in the
      War until he went into Colonel McCalmont's Division—
      Notice taken that forty Members were not present: House counted and, forty members not being present,
      The House was adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.