CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions for Persons Serving on War Service.)

HC Deb 20 November 1917 vol 99 cc1047-82

(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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

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

rose—

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- 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.