Commons Sitting of 21 November 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Third Annual Report of the Medical Research Committee, 1916-17 [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1916-17.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 20th November; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for India when a decision may be expected to be arrived at with regard to applying Part I. of the Royal Warrant of
    1156
    1st August, 1917, to officers of the Indian Army; and whether, in view of disadvantages to them of the application to their cases of the Royal Warrant of 26th November, 1915, the decision when arrived at will be retrospective?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Part. I. of the Royal Warrant of 1st August, 1917, if and when applied to officers of the Indian Army, will extend to all cases which have arisen out of the present War and will have effect from 1st April, 1917, as is laid down, in regard to officers of the British Service, by the introductory article of the Royal Warrant. The Secretary of State for India is doing all he can to arrive at a speedy settlement of the question. It is not altogether simple, owing to the difference of conditions under which the Indian Army serve, and to the liability of Imperial revenues to bear the excess charges of Indian Expeditionary Forces. The Secretary of State's general view is that officers holding temporary or permanent commissions in the Indian Army should enjoy not less favourable treatment, if disabled in consequence of the present War, in respect of pensionary benefits than officers of the British Army.
    Mr. PETO: May I specially call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a number of men who were civilians before the War were attached to the Indian Army simply on account of their knowledge of the Indian language, and that therefore in the case of those civilians there is a real hardship in this long delay that is taking place in giving them the advantages of the Royal Warrant of August last?
    Mr. FISHER: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Colonel YATE: Are we to take it that it is the Treasury that is causing delay and not the India Office?
    Mr. FISHER: The question has to come before the Ministry of Pensions, which has to consider the recommendations.

    VOTE OF THANKS TO SERVICES (ROYAL MARINES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that

    1157
    in the Vote of Thanks to the Services given in this House no reference was made to the corps of Royal Marines; and whether, as it has been the immemorial custom to associate the name of the Royal Marines with that of the Royal Navy on similar occasions, he will say what action he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The omission to mention specifically the corps of Royal Marines in the Vote of Thanks to the Services, which was recently the subject of a Resolution of both Houses, is much regretted; but the work of this gallant corps is so closely identified with the Royal Navy, both afloat and ashore, that any reference to the Royal Navy includes their highly valued comrades of the Royal Marines, whose magnificent services now, and at all times, are fully recognised. It may be added that in communicating to the Fleet the Resolution passed by both Houses, it has been expressly stated that the Resolution is to be brought to the notice of all officers and men of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Auxiliary Services, to whom it fully and equally applies.

    ENEMY SUBMARINE WARFARE.

      OFFICIAL RETURNS OF LOSSES.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain why only one British steamer over 1,600 tons gross and five British steamers under 1,600 tons gross were officially reported in the weekly Return issued by the Press Bureau as sunk by mine or submarine during the week ending 11th November, when it was well known to underwriters and others that during five days of that week, namely, Monday, 5th November, to Saturday, 10th November, a greater number of steamers over 1,600 tons gross registered tonnage was reported sunk; and will he in future see that correct reports are given to the public, so that they may realise the vital importance of economy in food consumption?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I must at once challenge and deny the suggestion contained in this question, namely, that incorrect returns are given.
      I must also express my regret that the question should be framed in such a way as to undermine public confidence by
      1158
      suggesting that a responsible Ministry is issuing incorrect returns. It is clear that this mischievous suggestion is made without any adequate investigation as to the true facts of the case.
      The number of British merchant vessels reported in the Press as sunk by submarines and mines during the week ending three p.m., 11th November, 1917, is correct.
      The weekly Returns—together with the notes attached thereto—definitely indicate the number of ships sunk during each week, and not the number of reports of sinkings received during the week. Three large ships were reported during the week ending three p.m., 11th November, as sunk by submarines and mines, but two of these were sunk during the previous week, and were included in the previous week's Return which appeared in the Press.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Ignoring the right hon. Gentleman's strictures, may I ask him whether the five steamers which were reported posted at Lloyds on the 5th and 6th November—that is, during the week ending 10th November—have already been reported, and when; if not, when they will be reported; and can he explain why of the five small steamers which were reported at Lloyds as sunk during the same week, and which were reported in the Press, only one was included in the Return?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I must repeat that the Return gives precisely the facts of the vessels reported sunk within that week. In this case two had been previously reported, and were in the Press in the previous week's Return. If there were any others, I do not know and I cannot say, but if there were they will be reported later. The whole suggestion of this question is that we took too favourable a view of the situation, and so caused people to say: "It does not matter any more; we need not be economical any longer." That is quite untrue, and we should not be fit for our office if, in these times, we took such a course. I again resent it strongly.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are not reported in the Return of the 4th or in the Return of the 11th; will they be reported in the Return of the 18th?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: They will be reported with a footnote showing the week in which they were sunk— if those facts are correct. I cannot be taken to accept them now.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not putting too favourable a view on the situation when ships which are stranded on shore and are badly damaged are not included?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is putting another point altogether. We have frankly stated that this return does not include damaged ships. We never said that it did, because many of them come back again into service after being repaired. This return does not include those, and nobody ever suggested that it did. This return includes the number sunk within the week, and it is a true return.
      Mr. HOGGE: Was the return adjusted in order to suit the political crisis?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not consider that I am called upon to answer that. If anybody in any quarter of the House thinks that it ought to be answered, the answer is "No."
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that this has often been done before?

    DUBLIN PORT (CRANE).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the proposal to remove the 100-ton crane from Dublin port has aroused indignation; whether the Port and Docks Board have unanimously passed a resolution protesting against its removal, as it would almost paralyse the trade of the port; and whether, under those circumstances, the order for removal will be withdrawn?
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if the Belfast inspector of auxiliary shipbuilding has informed the Dublin Port and Docks Board that it was his intention to requisition the 100-ton crane at the North Wall, Dublin; if he is aware that any attempt of the Government to remove the crane from Dublin to Belfast, or any other port, will he resented, and will add to the bitterness and ill-feeling which is rapidly growing in Ireland owing to the Government's attempt to crush Irish industries and their continued boycot of Ireland so far as war expenditure is concerned; if he is aware that this crane is within 100 yards of the Dublin Shipyard Company, and that there is at present one of the best sites in Ireland still available at North Wall for a Government shipbuilding yard; and if he
    1160
    will take steps to prevent the removal of the crane and to see that portion of the War taxation which is collected in Ireland will be spent on shipbuilding in Dublin?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Inquiries were set on foot to ascertain the capacity, lift, etc., of this crane, and also the extent to which it is at present used, with a view to its being utilised by the Government if it had been found possible to spare it from the work on which it is now engaged. There never was, and is not now, any intention to requisition this crane or remove it from its present position without the consent of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and as it has now been ascertained that the crane is being put to full use, no further steps are being taken in the matter, and the local Admiralty Inspector has been instructed to this effect. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour, respecting the position of Irish industries in relation to war expenditure generally, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Wicklow (West) on 7th November.
    Mr. FIELD: May I as a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board say that I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply?
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a site for shipbuilding at the present moment available in Dublin within a hundred yards of this place, and will not some of the money be spent by the Admiralty on shipbuilding there?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That shall be reported to the proper authorities. As I stated on a previous occasion, it is our duty to give every facility to get as much tonnage as is possible.

    AMERICAN-JAPANESE AGREEMENT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has announced that it does not recognise the recent American-Japanese agreement as binding upon China; and, if so, whether the good offices of the British Government are available to prevent any difficulties between China and any other Allied States?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The Chinese Government have communicated

    1161
    to His Majesty's Government the text of a declaration which they have addressed to the Japanese Government and the United States Government in regard to the Notes recently exchanged between those two Governments. I do not understand this declaration of principle by the Chinese Government to mean that they do not recognise the American-Japanese Agreement, and His Majesty's Government have no reason to anticipate that it will give rise to any difficulties between the Chinese Government and any other Allied State.
    Mr. KING: Will this declaration of the Chinese Government be published, or alternatively, a copy laid in the Library?
    Mr. BALFOUR: If that is to be done, I should prefer to ask permission of the Chinese Government.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly do so?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps I will.
    Mr. KING: How soon will he be able to make up his mind on this? Will there be his usual delay?
    Mr. BALFOUR: To what delay does the hon. Member refer?

    FRANCE AND RUSSIA (M. RIBOT'S DECLARATION).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date he became cognisant of the declaration made by M. Ribot to the French Chamber of Deputies that the Czar of Russia had promised M. Briand, when Prime Minister of France, that he would, in addition to supporting the French claim to Alsace-Lorraine, leave France free, if need be, to make an autonomous state out of German territories on the west bank of the Rhine?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I received the text of M. Ribot's statement on 1st August.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of that statement when in the Debate on peace negotiations he described my reference to it as an absolute mare's nest?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member misinterprets what I said. Perhaps he had better put a question down and I will consider it. One of the things in this con-
    1162
    nection which I said was a mare's nest was the idea that one of the war aims of the British Empire was to create a new autonomous territory on the Rhine.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that my statement was distinctly that it was an agreement between Russia and France, and that I specifically said it was not an agreement in which this country was concerned?
    Mr. KING: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know in November what was communicated to him officially in August, is not that an instance of his delay?
    Mr. BALFOUR: On the hon. Member's own statement, that is not delay, but forgetfulness.
    Mr. KING: Is not forgetfulness in a Minister just as bad as delay?

    DISTURBANCES IN CEYLON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Sly, mentioned by Sir John Anderson as having shot the Uduwa Arachchi on 15th June, 1915, in Ceylon, is still a justice of the peace and an unofficial police magistrate; and whether he is aware of the comments made on Mr. Sly's conduct by Sir John Anderson?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have approved Sir John Anderson's proposal to remove Mr. Sly from his appointment as Justice of the Peace and unofficial police magistrate, and I have no doubt that his removal has been carried out. Sir John Anderson's comments on his conduct were made in a dispatch addressed to me.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the name of the official who drew up the proclamation issued in Ceylon during June, 1915, by Government agents and assistant Government agents; whether he is aware that Sir John Anderson declares this proclamation to have been badly drawn and that it may have been in part the cause of the irregularities which occurred; and whether the official who drew up the proclamation is still employed by the Government?
    Mr. HEWINS: This proclamation was drawn up in slightly varying forms by Government agents and assistant Govern-

    1163
    ment agents under general instructions given to them to meet a pressing emergency by the general officer commanding the troops, who had been entrusted by the Governor with the administration of martial law.
    Sir J. D. REES: Did not these officials face a situation of great danger with courage and resource, and are not these ungenerous attacks likely to promote trouble in the island at the present crisis?
    Mr. HEWINS: The courage with which great emergencies have been dealt with by these officials has been constantly pointed out. I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. MORRELL: Did every one of these Proclamations contain the injunction to shoot at sight, out of which the state of lynch law referred to by Sir John Anderson arose, and was that order to shoot at sight approved by the Attorney-General?
    Mr. HEWINS: That has never been alleged by anyone.
    Mr. MORRELL: It is in the White Paper.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will ascertain how many employés of military age and military fitness are in the service of the members of the Appeal Tribunal of Dumfries and Galloway; and whether he will see that his military representative there will take similar action with such employés as he has taken with those in the service of the Post Office and of other employers?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. There are twenty-two men of military age in the employment of the members of the Dumfries and Galloway Appeal Tribunal. I have examined the grounds of exemption in each of these cases, and without exception they appear to be satisfactory. I am supplying my hon. Friend with details.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, on the facts as he has found them, that it is a right and proper thing for men of military age and fitness to be on tribunals sending others into the Army?
      Mr. WATT: Is it the case that one member of the tribunal, who is most persistent in sending men into the trenches, has still six gardeners in his employment, and describes them as engaged in agriculture?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

      ARREST (RICHARD E. PRENDERGAST).
      Mr. FITZGIBBONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the arrest of Mr. Richard Edmund Prendergast, formerly of Caraun, Claremorris, county Mayo, who was arrested by the local police in Cheshire on 8th October on the warrant of the Salford police for military purposes; and can he state why this man was not first tried before a local magistrate, he being at the time engaged in farming on his own farm?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This man was arrested by the Royal Irish Constabulary at Claremorris, and brought back to Salford, where he was born and lived up to this year and where alone his case could be dealt with, the warrant having been issued at Salford.

      PRISON OFFICIALS.
      Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary if men voluntarily leaving the prison service to join the Army, and then wounded or disabled whilst on active service, and returned to civil life in many instances are only able to get back into the prison service, if at all, as temporary officers, which means they have to do exactly the same duties as they did before and have to work longer hours than previously, in view of the fact that these temporary officers do not get paid for Saturday afternoons or Sundays when off duty like the permanent staff; and if he will take steps to improve the position of these disabled soldiers?
      Sir G. CAVE: The places of all permanent officers who were recalled to the Colours or joined the Army with permission have been kept open for them, and, on their return to civil life, they resume their position as permanent officers if they are physically fit to do so. If permanently disabled for prison service, these cases are considered for civil pension. Men who are unfit for prison service cannot, of course, be employed as temporary officers.
      Captain HALL: Is it the policy of the Home Office to penalise men whose physical health has been ruined by serving in the Army by giving them less pay and advantages than men who have remained in the prison service and not volunteered?
      Sir G. CAVE: That supplementary question was evidently prepared before my answer was heard. If the hon. Member will be good enough to read my answer he will see that it deals fully with the matter.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will have immediate Inquiry made into the state of health of Arthur Butler,, a conscientious objector now undergoing his third sentence of imprisonment at Preston, who is stated to be in a serious condition, on account of the hardship of his imprisonment and the insufficiency of food supplied to him?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am having inquiry made as to the health of this prisoner, but I would remind the hon. Member that all prisoners are under the constant supervision of experienced medical men, who have full authority to supplement or modify the ordinary dietary whenever that may be necessary in order to maintain health.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed in the new Regulations ameliorating the present conditions of conscientious objectors who have served twelve months' imprisonment to aggregate separate periods of imprisonment and to give the improved conditions where the aggregate term of imprisonment served is twelve months or more?
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir.

      MINISTRY OF FOOD DEPARTMENT (EXEMPTIONS).
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how many of the representatives of his Department throughout the country are of military age and of military fitness; how many of these are farmers granted exemption in order to grow food; whether he is aware that in several instances military representatives have withdrawn exemptions given to such farmers; whether his Department proposes to contest such withdrawals of exemptions; and whether his
      1166
      Department will arrange to find fitting representatives in discharged soldiers who have done their share of the fighting?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Of the 130 commissioners, sub-commissioners, and assistant commissioners who have been appointed up to the present, ten are of military age, two are Army officers seconded by the War Office until fit for general service, and two others are C3 men exempted on medical grounds. One is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The remaining five are farmers and had been granted exemption previous to their employment by the Ministry. In only one instance is the Department aware that a military representative has recommended the withdrawal of exemption. This farmer has been specially selected for a post of great responsibility in connection with the control of live stock and meat supplies, and Lord Rhondda considers that, in view of the importance of the post and his special qualifications for filling it, it is in the public interest that his exemption should be continued. Preference is always given to discharged soldiers, and many have been appointed to posts for which their previous training qualified them.

    ARMY DISCHARGES.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men discharged from the Army on account of adhesive ankylosis of the shoulder following upon severe sprains and dislocations, displacement and adhesive ankylosis of the ankle and wrist following upon sprains and Potts and Colles fractures, respectively, and all kinds of old standing strains and dislocations?
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men discharged from the Army suffering from pes planus or flat foot?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am sorry that there are no statistics available to answer the questions put by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is

    1167
    aware that 3,000 men have been discharged from the Army owing to derangements of knee cartilages, and that five officers in the 3rd Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry, Majors Wheeler and Debenham, Captain Arnett, and Lieutenants Pemberton and Garland, suffering from the same trouble, were cured and enabled to go to the front after being operated upon by Mr. H. A. Barker, and after at least two surgeons had in each case failed; and whether he will say why these 3,000 discharged men should not be sent to Mr. Barker, seeing that the Army surgeons have relinquished them as incurable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information as to the matters to which my hon. Friend alludes. In regard to the last part of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the answers already given on this subject and to the statement which I made in Debate.
    Mr. PETO: Is it the fact that there is no record of the reasons why men are invalided out of the Army, and consequently the right hon. Gentleman has no means of ascertaining for what incapacity or disablement any men or number of men are invalided out of the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I understand the facts to be different.
    Mr. PETO: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us the summary which is asked for in the question stating the number of men who have been discharged on account of this particular disablement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I have no doubt the facts are available, but it would entail an enormous amount of trouble, which I hesitate to put on an overworked Department.

    MAXIMALIST RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the statement of terms of peace, issued by the Maximalist Russian Government, which appeared in the French Press, was prevented by the Censor from appearing in this country; and, if so, on what grounds?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the latter part, therefore, does not arise.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will allow members of the Volunteer Force to wear uniform when on duty during air raids, as in the case of the Voluntary Aid Detachment, in view of the greater authority uniform would give in regulating crowds?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If Volunteers are employed under the authority of the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief concerned on temporary service during air raids, they would wear uniform. If, however, my hon. Friend is referring to a proposal that the Volunteers should assist the civil police on these occasions, this has not been approved.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS (PRIVATE GODWIN).
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Private Godwin, of Cheltenham, who enlisted in the Army Service Corps, Horse Transport, on the 11th August, 1914, on the War Office promise that he should receive 4S. a day pay and his wife 30s. a week allowance, and which through a mistake on the part of the War Office as to the date of his enlistment has been reduced to 1s. 8d. per day for himself and 19s. 6d. a week for his wife since 12th February, 1917, will be reimbursed the loss incurred by his wife and himself through this mistake, and be reinstated in the possession of the pay promised him on enlistment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): As the result of recent investigation it has been found that although the higher rate of pay was not generally in force at the time, this soldier was in fact enlisted at the higher rate, and it has been restored to him with retrospective effect.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (PAY).
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to increased cost of living and in recognition of other special services performed by the police during the War, the police authorities for East Suffolk have passed a, resolu-

    1169
    tion giving the married police of the lower ranks a war bonus amounting to 60 per cent. of their pre-war pay; whether he is aware that married constables of the same rank in the Metropolitan Police with two children have only received an increase of 37 per cent. on their pre-war pay; and if, in view of these circumstances and having regard to the extra duties imposed upon them, he is now prepared to recommend for the London men an increase on the basis of the scheme adopted in East Suffolk?
    Sir G. CAVE: The pre-war rates of pay of the Metropolitan Police were higher than those in East Suffolk, and were further increased just after the War began. I cannot, therefore, accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

    BOLO.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether his investigations are now complete; and whether he is yet able to trace the activities of Bolo in this country?
    Sir G. GAVE: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 15th November to questions by the bon. Member on this subject.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      POLICE RAIDS (LONDON).
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary how many raids and domiciliary visits were carried out by the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard men during the two weeks ending 17th November; and how many men were engaged in these various undertakings?
      Sir G. CAVE: The number of raids and domiciliary visits carried out during the two weeks ending on the 17th November is thirteen. The number of Metropolitan Police officers engaged was twenty.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that on 14th November a raid was effected against the Peace Society, at 47, New Broad Street, E.C.; whether there was any suspicion raised against the Peace Society by its name or other cause; whether he is aware that recent members of the Cabinet have been
      1170
      members of the society and have not resigned therefrom; and whether, if proceedings are taken, members of the Peace Society in high position, who have increased its status and authority, will also be prosecuted?
      Sir G. CAVE: The police, acting in pursuance of a warrant issued under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, entered the premises in question, but their action was not directed against the Peace Society, and there is no intention to institute proceedings against the society.
      Mr. KING: Is it not because so many of its members are in high places, and happen to be in the Government?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, but because that society has mot offended against the law.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if Mr. Philip Isaacson, trading as Keeley and Company, printer, of Darnley Road, Hackney, has been arrested by the police; if so, for what reason; whether a raid has been made upon his premises and the printing machinery destroyed; will he say why Isaacson has been arrested and his capital and business destroyed without the charge against him being brought into a Court of law; where is the man at present; what further action it is intended to take in regard to the case; and why he has been specially singled out Tar arrest and punishment?
      Sir G. CAVE: The premises of this printer were raided and the printing press seized because he had printed a leaflet which contravened the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It was ascertained that the business, though carried on in an English name, belonged wholly to an alien of Dutch nationality named Isaacson, and he is now in prison awaiting deportation. The question of taking proceedings against the author of the leaflet is under the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

      MEETINGS IN PUBLIC PARKS.
      Mr. PENN EFATHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a resolution passed on Sunday last at a demonstration of working men in Finsbury Park, calling upon the Government not to tolerate the preaching of treason and sedition in the public parks; if he will say whether the Government possess

      1171
      sufficient powers to prevent the misuse of the public parks for any purposes calculated to assist the enemy; and, if so, whether such powers will be promptly and strictly exercised?
      Sir G. CAVE: This matter is receiving consideration.

      LEAFLETS (CENSORSHIP).
      Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary whether the new Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act is applicable to leaflets which have been published prior to its issue, and which have in many cases been distributed for months, and even years, without any objection to them being raised by this or any preceding Government?
      Sir G. CAVE: I only had notice of this question since the House has been sitting, and I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would repeat it to-morrow.

    GOATS (EXPERIMENTS).
    Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether the cost of the experiments on goats with poisonous gases and liquids which have been and are now being carried out at the stock farm, Porton, is defrayed out of public funds under the National Insurance Act or from what source is such cost provided; and if he can now say whether or not anæsthetics are used for these animals in such experiments?
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand that these experiments are carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions. In some cases anæsthetics are used, but in most of the experiments this is impossible without defeating the object of the experiments, and the experiments are made under Certificate A.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Are they paid out of public funds?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no doubt they are, as they are acting under the Ministry of Munitions.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these goats have been killed in this way?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, I cannot give the exact number.

    MILFORD HAVEN POSTWOMAN (CONVICTION).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mary Elizabeth Orchard, a girl of seventeen years of age, who was employed as a postwoman at Milford Haven, and who was lately sentenced to three months' imprisonment for stealing £3,000 while in course of transmission; and whether, in view of her tender age and the temptation to which she was exposed, he will order her release under the First Offenders Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: My attention had not previously been called to this case, and I am making inquiry about it.

    YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (SHORT SENTENCES).
    Mr. T. E. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statements by the Governor and by the chaplain of Pentonville prison, quoted by the Prison Commissioners in their Report for 1916-17, as to the large number of young lads who receive sentences of one month or less who might have been dealt with in a better way than by short sentences of imprisonment; whether he has called the attention of Metropolitan police magistrates to this condition of things; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent its continuance?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have seen the statements referred to. The Home Office has repeatedly communicated with magistrates deprecating the passing of short sentences of imprisonment on young persons and explaining the alternatives of probation, supervision, Borstal training, etc. The Home Office also frequently communicates with justices with regard to individual cases brought to notice by the Prison Commissioners. I believe that magistrates generally sympathise with this view and are most reluctant to send young persons to prison if any alternative which carries a reasonable hope of success is open to them, but there must always remain some in which the conditions of the crime and the circumstances of the case are such that a sharp sentence of imprisonment cannot be avoided.
    Mr. HARVEY: Cannot a practical reform be carried out by increasing the number of probation officers by employing a certain number of discharged wounded soldiers as probation officers?
    Sir G. CAVE: Quite lately we have sent a circular to justices calling attention to the need of keeping up the number of probation officers.
    Colonel YATE: Could not a practical reform be carried out by giving these boys a good birching?

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the land for the colony of 2,000 acres has been acquired; and, if not, what the cause is of the prolonged delay?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Further attempts have been made to acquire land for this purpose, but no suitable land has yet been found which is not subject to leases having years to run. This has prevented advantage being taken of the powers under the Act, which, as my hon. Friend is aware, are purely permissive. As I have previously stated in this House, legislation would be necessary to make the Act effective in Scotland. Meanwhile progress has been made in other directions for providing small holdings for discharged soldiers and sailors. With the generous co-operation of the Duke of Sutherland, 4,200 acres are being prepared for this purpose at Borgie, Sutherland-shire, while 8,000 acres on the same property will be utilised for afforestation, which will also give employment for discharged men; 16,000 acres at Shinness, Sutherlandshire, have also been made available for the like purpose, and a scheme has been prepared. Holdings are also being constituted on the Crown Estate of Dounreay, Caithness, with the co-operation of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the places he has mentioned are hundreds of miles from anywhere in Scotland; and will he, in view of the fact that there are 3,750,000 acres of land in Scotland laid down for sport, make an attempt himself to find 2,000 acres, instead of asking other people to do so?
    Mr. MUNRO: If the hon. Member had listened carefully to the answer I gave he would know that I did endeavour personally to find land suitable for the purpose; but it has not been found possible to do so, except in certain places, I should be sorry to describe those places as hundreds of miles from anywhere.
    Mr. HOGGE: They are. You know they are.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister when the Secretary of State for India will return to the India Office?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am not in a position to give an exact date, but it is not at present anticipated that my right hon. Friend will be back before the end of February.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) ACT.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister what restriction, if any, there is on the payment of the additional 25 per cent. under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act; if he is aware that cases have been brought to the notice of the Member for the Harbour Division where the additional allowance has been refused to the claimants on the grounds that they were not totally incapacitated although they have been unable to resume work and have been drawing half-pay for the past four years; and if he will correct this?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Every workman who is receiving or entitled to receive a weekly allowance under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of total incapacity is entitled also to receive the war addition. If in any case the war addition is being wrongfully withheld, the workman can enforce payment in the same way as he could enforce payment of his compensation allowance.
    Mr. BYRNE: Must a man be described as totally incapacitated in order to get this 25 per cent.?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes. The Act only applies to cases of total disablement.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the opposition among solvent approved societies to the establishment of the special risks fund as proposed in the National Health Insurance Amendment Bill; if so, whether it is the intention of the Government, having regard to the demands on Parliamentary time, to proceed further with such legislation; and whether he has received any assurances that, apart from this provision of the new Bill, the measure is generally acceptable and unlikely to meet with serious opposition?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that such objections as have been raised by certain societies to the National Health Insurance Bill since the First Reading have arisen mainly from a misapprehension of the actual effects of its provisions in certain respects; these will, it is hoped, be cleared up or otherwise removed during the discussion on the Second Reading on Friday next, and I therefore hope that the Bill may not prove controversial.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Second Reading is not taken so early as Friday next, in view of the fact that the White Paper explaining this measure of forty-five Clauses, and which occupies ten pages of closely printed matter, was only issued on Monday, and that to-morrow there is a meeting of objecting societies which might possibly result in some kind of compromise on the financial parts of the Bill?
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill has the support of approved societies, who desire to see the measure speedily placed upon the Statute Book?
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this amending Act will facilitate the payment of insurance benefits to nearly half a million disabled soldiers and sailors, who otherwise would be much longer kept out of what they are entitled to?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The number of supplementary questions makes me rather afraid that I may not be right in thinking that the matter will not be controversial. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be well to have as long a time as possible, but in view of the necessity of getting on with the business, and as the printed
    1176
    explanation was issued on Monday, it is our intention to take it on Friday. If anything should result from the conference on Thursday, we might possibly have to make other arrangements.
    Mr. WINGasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that the introduction of the National Health Insurance Bill constitutes a breach of contract and disregard of definite Parliamentary pledges made to its present contributors during the passage of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, will he say. what action he proposes to take in connection therewith?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): My hon. Friend is, I am sure, misinformed as to the scope and intentions of the National Health Insurance Bill. He will, perhaps, allow me to draw his attention to the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated I shall, of course, be happy to deal, in the Second Reading or Committee stage of the Bill, with any specific points which my hon. Friend may desire to bring to the notice of the House.
    Mr. WINGasked the Comptroller of the Household if he proposes to take a valuation of all approved societies under the National Insurance Act before seeking to pass the National Health Insurance Bill, in order that Parliament may have a line standard of comparison as to he working of various types of such organisations entrusted by the Government with the administration of the National Insurance Acts?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It is not proposed to take a valuation of approved societies before the passing of the National Health Insurance Bill, and I should not be justified in adding to the burdens of the depleted staffs of approved societies by requiring them to prepare for a valuation at the present time.
    Mr. WING: May I take it, in connection with the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that these societies will really have very sympathetic attention from the hon. Gentleman durng the consideration of the Bill?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It is my intention to give full and sympathetic consideration to such representations.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that the hon. Gentleman's Department is employing several conscientious objectors at high salaries?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      WHEAT COMMISSION.
      Mr. TILLETTasked what authority and responsibility is vested in the Wheat Commission for the proper and efficient storage of food at docks, in sheds, on quays, and in barges or other craft; what supervision is exercised to prevent wastage, loss, and damage; what examinations and reports are made and at what periods; and whether experienced labour is employed on supervision and examination?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies have full authority and responsibility for the proper and efficient storage of undelivered cereals. Provision is made at the ports for the landing and storage of grain, stocks are inspected by professional experts, and reports as to condition are furnished every fortnight to the Royal Commission. I understand that the Chairman of the Wheat Commission has invited my hon. Friend to furnish him with the evidence on which were based his recent public statements to the effect that serious losses have occurred through negligent storage and control. I may add that if he will furnish me with particulars, I will undertake to procure a thorough investigation.

      SUGAR.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what arrangements have been made for the supply of additional sugar in Scotland for the use of infants and nursing mothers; how many municipalities in Scotland have taken action in the matter; and whether the arrangements made apply only to districts where infant welfare centres have been established?
      Mr. MUNRO: I understand that the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply were prepared to release limited quantities of sugar to child welfare centres approved by the Local Government Board for Scotland for issue to mothers of artificially fed infants attending such centres. I am informed that three municipal authorities in Scotland applied for sugar under
      1178
      this scheme. Two of these withdrew their application, while in the third case the method of distribution proposed was not in conformity with the conditions laid down by the Royal Commission and was not approved by them. The Royal Commission's scheme referred to applies only to districts where child welfare centres are in operation, but it is open to local authorities to make such other arrangements as may be possible under the powers conferred by the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that on Thursday, the 15th instant, sugar was sold by public auction in Dublin and realised 2s. 2d. per lb.; if he is aware that this system of depriving the public of their sugar supplies, if allowed to pass unpunished, is likely to encourage the auction at fancy prices of all sugar which should find its way to the homes of the working classes at prices within their reach; if he will state his Department's proposals in the matter; and if he will prevent future auctions of sugar or necessary food supplies?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am causing inquiries to be made, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
      Mr. BYRNE: May I ask the Leader of the House if, on behalf of the Government, he will express disapproval of public auctions for the sale of foodstuffs?

      CORN PRODUCTION ACT.
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in setting up under the Corn Production Act the district wages committees for Scotland, he is aware that a number of organisations which have been requested to nominate representatives of workers in agriculture are purely friendly societies for health insurance purposes; that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union is the only industrial organisation in Scotland whose function it is to improve and safeguard the economic and industrial interest of the workers in agriculture; and whether he will see that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union will be given the necessary facilities to nominate representatives for the district wages committees, as contemplated when the Act was before this House?
      Mr. MUNRO: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension.

      1179
      Friendly societies have not been asked to nominate representatives of agricultural workers for the purpose referred to, but merely to co-operate with other bodies in convening meetings representative of farm workers. I am informed that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union is in correspondence with the Rural Workers' Friendly Society with this object in view. I may add that this union is the only workers' association, so far, approved by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, for the purpose of selecting workers' representatives on district wages committees, and it has been given all facilities for this purpose.

      PORK AND BACON.
      Mr. COOTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that under the regulations fixing the price in Ireland to the producers of dead pork at 133s. per cwt. profiteering is carried on over the country; that the retail price of bacon is now ls. 10d. to 2s. per lb., or 91s. per cwt. in excess of the price of pork; and that this retail price is reached by the bacon curers and their agents going direct to farmers and outside the markets, giving the producers large bonuses in addition to the schedule price of their pork, in order to secure control of the uncured article and charging the whole of these amounts plus the standard price to the consumer; and if he will now see his way to put an end to this profiteering by fixing the retail price of bacon and leave the market to correct itself under the retail standard only, as he has done in meat?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Bacon, Ham, and Lard (Provisional Prices) Order, which was issued last Saturday, resembles the Meat (Prices) Order in fixing profits or prices at every stage from the producer down to the consumer, and should prevent any profiteering on the part of the curers, wholesalers, or retailers
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Has not the wholesale price gone up to 214s. per cwt., and the rolled bacon 184s., and sides 214s.; and is he aware that the retail price in London is 2s. 6d. per lb., and in Ireland 2s. 3d. and 2s. 4d.?
      Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Gentleman is calling attention to the alleged differences between meat and bacon bought by the public, and the prices under this Order, which came into effect last Saturday.
      Mr. FIELD: How soon will this Order be carried into effect?
      Mr. CLYNES: It came into effect last Saturday.
      Mr. FIELD: Has it been carried out?
      Mr. CLYNES: I hope it will.

      MILK (ILFORD FOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE).
      Captain BARNSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that the Ilford Food Control Committee has ordered the supply of milk to the necessitous poor, if purchased over the counter, at 6d. per quart, this being the cost price to the retailer; and will he say on what ground this charge of supplying the necessitous poor is thus put on the distributor instead of being a charge upon the rate?
      Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the action of the Ilford Local Food Control Committee. A deputation, representing the milksellers in the Ilford district, made a voluntary offer to the Committee to supply milk over the counter at 6d. a quart to the necessitous poor and sick, under a ticket system, and their offer was accepted by the Committee. The arrangement was, entirely voluntary, and no Order has been issued by the Local Food Control Committee.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. CLANCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food with reference to the Potato Order limiting the bonus to be paid to producers by confining that bonus to those selling 4 tons and upwards, whether such a Regulation will cut out from participation in the benefit three-fourths of all the small farmers of Ireland, who themselves comprise the great majority of Irish farmers; if so, what is the reason for such a discrimination against that class; and whether the Regulation will be altered?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Government guarantee of £6 a ton, made in the early part of this year, was expressly limited to potatoes delivered in lots of 4 tons or more, The Food Controller has given a liberal interpretation to this guarantee by providing that, for the purpose of the bonus recently announced, potatoes shall be deemed to be delivered in a lot of 4 tons or more if the quantity delivered by a

      1181
      grower to a single purchaser in any consecutive period of seven days equals or exceeds 4 tons. It is not proposed to extend the bonus to cases to which the original guarantee did not apply.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not the fact that the small farmers who could not produce more than 4 tons, and are now selling below the price fixed, were informed last spring that they would receive the bonus that was due to other people?
      Mr. CLYNES: The guarantee clearly could not apply to small farmers, but only to those farmers who were capable of sowing and growing potatoes in quantities that brought them within the Order, that is, by turning out more than 4 tons.
      Mr. JOYCE: Will small farmers of this description be allowed to pool their growths in order to come within the Order?
      Mr. CLYNES: That is a point worthy of consideration.

      DREDGE CORN.
      Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that in the South of England a quantity of dredge corn—a mixture of oats and barley—is grown for feeding cattle and pigs; will he say if farmers can use such corn, whether damaged or not, for this purpose, or sell to others requiring it; and is a permit required either to use or sell such corn?
      Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. Clause 1 of the Dredge Corn Order, 1917, made at the end of last week, prohibits the use of dredge corn, other than damaged dredge corn, except for the purpose of manufacturing flour. There is no prohibition against the sale of dredge corn provided that the price charged does not exceed the maximum price fixed by the Order. No permit is required for the feeding of damaged dredge corn to cattle and pigs; but no grain may be so used unless it is proved to be unsaleable for milling.
      Sir J. SPEAR: Is not the hon. Member aware that in Devon and Cornwall acres a this class of corn are grown, especially for the purpose of raising poultry and meat, and that, consequently, the production of this food is seriously hindered unless dredge corn is permitted to be used for that purpose?
      Mr. CLYNES: All those points were taken into consideration in training the Order to which my answer applies.

      FISH.
      Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has been informed that at a recent representative meeting of the fishing industry, convened by the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, a resolution was passed stating that representations should be made to the Board of Trade and the Food Controller to press upon the railway companies the importance of providing, as far as possible, cheaper rates and more rapid transit for the carriage of fish and the withdrawal of the owners' risk note, and resolving that in the meantime the trade should be advised not to sign the owners' risk note; and whether he will state what the Board propose to do in the matter, particularly with respect to the railway companies' risk note?
      Mr. WARDLE: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I do not think that there is any prospect that a general reduction of the rates in force for the conveyance of fish can be made, but if particulars of cases of serious delay to fish traffic are supplied to me I shall be happy to consider them. The question of the owners' risk note was considered by the Railway Conference which was constituted in 1908, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to their Report (Command Number 4,677 of 1909). It is, of course, open to the traders to consign their traffic at company's risk.

      MERCHANT SHIPPING.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the United States Shipping Board has allocated to the service of Italy some twenty-five steamers and to France some twenty steamers; whether, notwithstanding this, British steamers carrying, or intended to carry, food to this country are being diverted to France and Italy; whether many large British steamers are employed in carrying American troops to this side; and whether, with every effort to assist our Allies to the utmost of our abilities, due regard will nevertheless be given to the food necessities of the United Kingdom?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): The answer to all four

      1183
      parts of the question is in the affirmative. The assistance which is being given by Great Britain was decided upon after careful consideration of the respective needs and means of the different Allies including Great Britain, and of the way in which British shipping could be so utilised as to be of the greatest advantage lo the general cause.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, in view of the number of British ships transferred to the service of our Allies and the demands made upon this country for further tonnage by them, the Shipping Controller will make representations in the proper quarters so that our Allies may be fully informed of the sacrifices we have already made and are making on their behalf and of our own needs for tonnage?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The action suggested in this question has been already taken. Our Allies are fully aware of the tonnage sacrifices which have been made by this country for the common cause.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Then may I ask whether it is not the fact that we have already given over 2,000,000 tons of British shipping to France at Blue Book rates. and that the French shipowners have been free from requisition and are working at commercial rates exploiting British shipping, and that it is only within the last few days that the French Government have taken the power to requisition their shipping?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is perfectly true that we have been good Allies in this matter. I am sorry my hon. Friend should suggest that anything that has been done has been done grudgingly.
      Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask why the hon. Gentleman says that I suggested it had been done grudgingly?
      Mr. HOGGE: Does the hon. Gentleman not think there ought to be some reciprocity between the Allies?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: There is reciprocity in all these matters. We have to make equal sacrifices.

      COVENTRY (FOOD SHORTAGE).
      Mr. D. MASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the shortage of food in the city of Coventry
      1184
      which has recently been disclosed, and which, if continued, would very seriously affect the supply of munitions in that city, he will state what provision, if any, has been made to meet the situation?
      Mr. CLYNESMy hon. Friend is aware that I received a deputation from Coventry last Thursday. Prompt action was subsequently taken, and a representative of the Ministry sent to Coventry to investigate the shortage of which complaint was made. As a result of this investigation, arrangements are in progress to furnish additional supplies of foodstuffs in order to meet the requirements of the increased population.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the change in the French Government has modified or will modify either the terms of the constitution of the Supreme War Council or the chances of the agreement being ratified as it now stands; and, if so, whether he will indicate what steps he proposes to take in consequence of these events and in view of future possibilities of a like nature either here or in France?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. T. DAVIESasked if it is still the intention to hold the promised inter-Allied Conference, seeing that a Supreme Council is to be set up for the conduct of military affairs; and whether the Conference will discuss and decide military as well as political questions affecting the Allied countries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative. As the House is aware, the inter-Allied Conference was arranged long before the creation of the Supreme War Council was decided upon.
    Mr. D. MASON: When will the Conference be held?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is some day next week.

    HONORARY OFFICERS, BRITISH ARMY.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether at any time the President of the United States, the President of the French Republic, or the President of the Portuguese Republic

    1185
    have been offered the honour of being enrolled as honorary officers of the British Army, and if not, whether the present honorary officerships will be brought to an end within a given term and the whole system abolished?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that any offers of this description have been made. There is no intention to abolish the present system, so far as I am aware.
    Mr. LYNCH: Why, when so much play is being made of the use of the Democratic ideal, do you continually flout Democratic sentiment?

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE PURCHASE).
    Mr. T. DAVIESasked if Lord Sumner's Committee has completed its Report on English State Purchase of the Liquor Traffic; whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the Report; if so, when may the House expect to receive it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing at present to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Western Carmarthen on the 12th of November.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Mr. KINGasked on what date Lord Northcliffe was most recently invited to take charge of the new Air Ministry; whether the resignation of Lord Covaray has been accepted; and whether a new Air Minister has been appointed?
    Mr. BONAR LAWThe communication between the Prime Minister and Lord Northcliffe was verbal, and I cannot give the exact date of the conversation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third -part in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say—within a week, a month, or two months—when this special invitation was verbally communicated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it necessary to say, but it must have been on a more recent occasion than that, as Lord Northcliffe has only recently arrived from America.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the Prime Minister's answer to Lord Cowdray to be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know that. I have not discussed it with the Prime Minister.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did Lord Northcliffe refuse to take office because of the number of incompetent and tired Members in the Government, and has any step been taken to remove that objection?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not heard of any such statement. The worst of it is that I am afraid that those who are tired do not realise it soon enough.

    WAR LOSSES (MEMORIAL).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to present to the next-of-kin of those who have sacrificed their lives during the War any memento or memorial certificate, recording the gratitude of the country for the services rendered; and, if so, will he consider as to a special form of such memento being given to those families who have lost their only son or sons or male representative?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; but I cannot undertake that special forms of this memento can be devised for special cases such as my hon. Friend mentions. In fact, I think that such specialisation would be undesirable.

    ARMY PAY (CIVIL SERVANTS, ENGLISH AND INDIAN).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked whether there is any distinction as regards rates of pay between members of the English and Indian Civil Services, respectively, serving with commissions in the Army; and, if so, what is the ground for the distinction?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A member of the English Civil Service holding a commission in the British Army receives in addition to his military pay the amount, if any, required to bring up the total to his civil pay. A member of the Indian Civil Service receives from Indian revenue his Indian furlough pay in addition to his military pay from British revenues. The difference of treatment is necessitated by the differences, with which my hon. Friend is no doubt familiar, between the conditions in the two services in regard to pay and in other respects.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. DENMANasked what are the estimates, according to the most recent figures in his possession, of the yield of Excess Profits Duty for the accounting periods ending in 1914-15, 1915-16, and 1916-17, respectively; and what portions of these amounts have as yet been collected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Statistics are not available in the precise form set out in the question, but it may be taken that the duty for accounting periods ending during the first year of the War, and assessed at 50 per cent., amounts to £29,000,000, of which all but a negligible proportion has been collected. The duty assessed at 60 per cent. for the accounting periods ending in the following or second year of war amounts to about £125,000,000, of which over 90 per cent. has been paid. The third year, embracing accounts made up to as recent a date as 31st July, 1917, is to such a considerable extent now in course of assessment that no figures can usefully be given at this stage.

    NATIONAL DEBT (CAPITAL LEVY).
    Mr. ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in replying to a deputation of the Trades Union Congress and other bodies, he stated that after the War he had no doubt that the new burden of debt would be made a charge on realised wealth, and that he, personally, took the view that a capital levy would be a better way of meeting the liability than an annual tax; and whether he intends to make any statement in Parliament on this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question does not give an accurate account of what I said to a deputation which met me confidentially, and it would not be possible to give an account of it in answer to a question.
    Mr. ARNOLD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement in question is reported in the Press? Is it not a fact that in reply to this deputation he did in general terms favour the idea of a capital levy after the War for dealing with this War Loan?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it would be setting a very bad precedent to discuss what was said by a Minister on a confidential occasion. Let me add that I
    1188
    said nothing either sufficiently novel or sufficient important, in my opinion, to justify me in making a special statement.
    Mr. ARNOLD: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a special statement of what he did say?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said, so far as I can judge, I said nothing either sufficiently novel or sufficiently important to require a special statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a member of a Coalition Government representing all of us, think that it is right to make any communication with an outside body regarding the conscription of the wealth of all of us?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am a member of the Coalition Government, but I did not know that it represents my hon. Friend. In any case it is quite a common custom to meet a deputation and talk over matters without issuing a special report. That is all I did.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: In considering this question of the conscription of wealth, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the conscription of land values?

    TEACHERS' SALARIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now received the Report of the Committee upon salaries of school teachers in Scotland; and, if so, whether it will be published without delay?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have received this Report, which is being published forthwith. Copies will, I hope, be available to hon. Members to-morrow.

    ENEMY NEWSPAPERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade under what powers lie excludes newspapers issued in enemy countries from entering these shores; and whether, in view of the advice of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to read what is written and printed in enemy countries, he will now permit the free entry and circulation of enemy newspapers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): All persons are prohibited by the Trading With the Enemy Proclamation of 9th September, 1914, from obtaining any goods from an enemy country, and enemy goods, including newspapers, can only be imported by virtue of a licence issued by the Board of Trade. In licensing the importation of enemy newspapers the board are guided by the recommendation of the War Trade Advisory Committee, which considered the whole subject of the importation of literature from enemy countries. Licences are never refused to editors of reputable British newspapers, many of which publish lengthy extracts from enemy journals, and readers are thus enabled to make themselves acquainted with the trend of thought in enemy countries. I will consider in consultation with the Foreign Office whether these facilities need to be enlarged in any respect.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Is it not the fact that extracts from German and other newspapers are published in the British Press to which they are officially supplied by the Government; and is there any reason why the same extracts should not be circulated among Members of this House?
    Mr. WARDLE: Extracts from enemy newspapers which are allowed to be received are circulated.

    SS. "CLEARFIELD" (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention bas been called to the case of the ss. " Clearfield," reported missing over twelve months ago; whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the cause of the loss; whether he is yet prepared to admit the claim of the widow of the captain of this vessel to compensation under the Government compensation scheme; and whether he will take steps to see that a more prompt decision is arrived at in these cases in future, and that the widows of the officers and other dependants receive more generous treatment?
    Mr. WARDLE: Every effort is made to deal with these pension and compensation cases as quickly as possible, and the general principle which is acted on in the case of missing ships is that if there is any
    1190
    reasonable probability that the vessel was lost through a war peril, the case is treated as a war risk for the purpose of the compensation scheme, and pensions are paid to the dependants. The case to which the hon. Member refers presented some special difficulties, and there has been delay in reaching the final settlement, but I understand that provisional payments on account have been made to the widow of the captain.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not the fact that a sum of only about £20 has been paid to this widow in the course of twelve months, and will the hon. Member take into consideration that there must be cases where vessels are lost without any evidence that their loss is owing to war conditions; and will he in all cases regard that loss as due to enemy action?
    Mr. WARDLE: Sympathetic consideration will be given to the facts of cases brought to our notice.

    RAILWAY STATION TAXI-CABS.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public by the non-admittance of taxi-cabs to the London railway stations, he will take steps to secure a settlement of the dispute or, in the alternative, will arrange-with the Railway Executive Committee that the extra charge shall be paid by the hirer of the cab?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that I cannot add to the reply given on this subject on Wednesday last to the hon. and gallant Member for the South-Eastern Division of Durham.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Sir C. HENRY: Has the last part of the question been taken into consideration?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think the answer to the last part of the question is that that is a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion in the last part of the question would inflict a tax of 6d. on every person who comes to a railway station, and is it not the business of the Government to protect the public in this matter?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have already pointed out that the last part of the question was a matter to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.

    MERCHANT SEAMEN (PENSIONS).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has had under consideration proposals for the inauguration of a scheme of pensions for merchant seamen; whether the State contemplates contributing towards such a scheme; whether shipowners have been approached in order to ascertain the extent to which they will be prepared to supplement any such provision made by Parliament; whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps to ascertain whether the officers and men of the mercantile marine would be willing to contribute to such scheme; and whether, in view of the importance of the shipping industry to the maintenance of British commerce, he will consider the importance of safeguarding the service by taking such steps as will tend to secure an adequate supply of officers and men of British birth and parentage?
    Mr. WARDLE: No proposals for the inauguration of a pension scheme for merchant seamen are at present before the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestions made in this question, in view of the importance of making the merchant service sufficiently safe and secure as a profession to ensure a supply of British-born officers and men?
    Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Gentleman has any scheme that he would like to put put before me, I would be very glad to consider it with him.

    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES ACT
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what steps are taken by his Department to enforce the Business Names Registration Act of 1916; is he aware that there are many firms not trading in their own names which have not yet been registered; and whether he can arrange for the provisions of this Act being at once enforced?
    Mr. WARDLE: The provisions of the Registration of Business Names Act are enforced in every case of default which comes to the notice of the Board of Trade, and proceedings to recover penalties are instituted where necessary. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases which have come to his knowledge, I will have inquiry made into them.
    Mr. GILBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say in how many cases the Board of Trade have proceeded under this Act?
    Mr. WARDLE: I cannot answer that without notice.

    WESTERN FRONT.

      BRITISH ADVANCE.
      Sir S. ROBERTS: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any information as to news from the front?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot at present add anything to the Press communiqué, with which hon. Members, I am sure, are familiar; but I would like to say that the attack yesterday was undoubtedly a very great success. Further particulars will he given later.

      Auguste Rodin (Funeral in Paris).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, recognising that Auguste Rodin stands as a world figure in the domain of art and in view of the fact that one of his masterpieces adorns the precincts of the Houses of Parliament, he will arrange for a special mission to Paris on the occasion of his funeral in order to honour his memory and to bear homage to the greatness of French art?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member's suggestion will receive sympathetic consideration.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as a fellow worshipper in Art? This is an important occasion, for will not Rodin figure among the great ones of Art from Praxiteles to Carpeaux, in passing through Michael Angelo?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I entirely agree with the hon. Member's estimate of M. Rodin's genius, and it is for that reason that I was sympathetic.
      Mr. DENMAN: Will the Minister of Munitions represent British art on this occasion, as he is already in Paris?

      Imprisonment (Insanity).
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether the Prison Commissioners are satisfied at the proportion of prisoners who become insane during the term of their imprisonment, and that this insanity could not have been prevented by a greater variety and elasticity in prison methods?
      Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioners are satisfied that the proportion of prisoners who are certified insane during imprisonment is not excessive, having regard to the classes from which they are drawn, and the conditions of life under which they existed prior to conviction. They have no reason to think that the insanity is the result of imprisonment; but the close expert medical supervision in prison sometimes establishes the fact of insanity in cases where the symptoms would not be observed by medical men while the prisoner was at liberty.
      Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: Has not the Medical Commission in recent reports commented unfavourably upon the facilities that exist for transferring persons found to be of unsound or feeble mind to more appropriate institutions?
      Sir G. CAVE: That is a wholly different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a fresh question.

      Cambridgeshire Race Meeting.
      Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department recently provided a special train from Liverpool Street to Cambridge for a Mr. Rickaby, who had a contract with the Secretary of State for War to fulfil there, namely, to ride his horse Phalaris for the Cambridgeshire?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am informed by the Great Eastern Railway Company that no special train was provided, as suggested.
      Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it was the action of his Department, in preventing the train being utilised, that led to the fact that this horse, which was largely backed by the Government Department, was last in the race?
      Mr. FIELD: Had you any money on it?
      Mr. WARDLE: I have no knowledge ,either of the train or the horse.
      Mr. HOGGE: How is it that Lord Derby can get permission for a man training in this country to ride a horse, when soldiers fighting on the West Front have great difficulty in getting leave?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that question does not arise in my Department.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the House will sit on Friday, and, if so, what business will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I propose to ask the House to sit on Friday, to take the Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Bill.
  Mr. PETO: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks a Bill of this magnitude can properly be dealt with on a Friday?
  Mr. LOUGH: Will that be the only business taken on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the second supplementary question answers the first. I think under present conditions Friday is a suitable day.
  Mr. LOUGH: No other business will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No other business will be taken.
  Mr. D. WHITE: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Patents and Designs Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no chance of that being taken this Session.

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

  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
  1210
  registered or to vote, either as a Parliamentary or local government elector, any right to be so registered or to vote.
  Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed [20th November] —at the end of Sub-section (1), 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." —[Sir George Younger.]
  Question again proposed, " That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire to obtain your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order with regard to the Amendment now before the House. What I want to submit is that this Amendment is really inconsistent with the scope of the measure and outside the scope of the Bill. This Bill is a franchise Bill. Its object is to improve and increase the representation of the people and to make it as complete and fair as possible. What I want to submit is that there is no precedent for using a franchise Bill in order to disfranchise a large section of the existing electorate.
  HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Rub it in! "
  Mr. MORRELL: It may, no doubt, be said that this Bill does already withdraw votes from a certain number of people —namely, the plural voters —but it does so. with the object of improving the representation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is the intention, anyhow, to make this, House more representative of the people. In regard to this Amendment it is clear that the object is not to make this House more representative, to improve the representation of the people, but —as the Mover and Seconder said in their speeches yesterday and as was shown in the Debate —the object is to penalise —for good or bad reasons, I am not going into that —to inflict a penalty on a certain claps of electors. I should like to draw the attention of the House to certain phrases used by the Leader of the House which, I think, entirely bears out what I am saying. The Leader of the House, in a portion of his remarks last night, dealt again and again

  1211
  with the view that this was an Amendment to punish these people by taking away their vote. He said that if you found that there was a real danger to the State in the growth of this—that is, conscientious objection—you had a perfect right to put it down. Again, he said:
  "I think it will be a direct deterrent to the growth of this kind of thing—"
  that is, conscientious objection. A little later he said:
  "I do not think that it is right to make any punishment of this kind perpetual." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1917, cols. 1151 and 1152.]
  The right hon. Gentleman said the punishment ought not to be perpetual, but only for a certain number of years. I submit that this shows clearly enough that the intention of this Amendment is that it should be a penalising measure. It may be right or it may be wrong to penalise conscientious objectors, but what I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no precedent, and that it is not right, to use a franchise Bill for this purpose. If the House desires to deal with conscientious objectors, the House should deal with them in a Bill specially for the purpose, and ought not to put this in a franchise Bill in order, by a side-wind, to disfranchise any class of the electors.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The object of this Bill is to settle on as permanent and firm a footing as possible the general question of the representation of the people in Parliament. If it so happens that during the course of the Bill a certain number of people are disfranchised, all I can say is that that comes within the scope of the Bill. They may happen to be conscientious objectors, or 40s. freeholders. These latter class are disfranchised, or, at any rate, a very considerable number of them will lose their votes altogether. There are also freemen who are disfranchised. I dare say there are other classes. I cannot, therefore, hold that because the Bill disfranchises a certain number of persons, that, therefore, the Amendment now before the House is out of order.
  Mr. MORRELL: Might I put one point Mr. Speaker, with which you did not deal? No doubt the Bill may incidentally take away the votes of a certain number of people. In very few cases, however, will it take them entirely off the electorate. In no case will this be done as a punishment. That is what makes the case I am
  1212
  putting and the other cases different, and I would respectfully submit that aspect to you.
  Mr. SHERWELL: In reference to your argument, Mr. Speaker, as to the 40s. freeholder, may I point out that there is no proposal in this Bill which disfranchises the 40s. freeholder? The only provision in this Bill to the effect suggested is that which prevents him being a plural voter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The 40s. freeholder to vote is abolished. It may, however, well be that there will be a considerable number of freeholders who will not obtain either the residential or the business vote.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: May I submit to you another point of Order to that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley? In Clause 5 of the Bill special provisions are made for persons serving on War service. Sub-section (3) of that Clause says:
  "(3) This Section shall apply to any person who in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged is abroad and is—
  (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."
  I submit to you that the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr will have the effect of disfranchising a large number of people who, in Clause 5, we have specially enfranchised. The whole of the Non-Combatant Corps in France consists, as I understand, of conscientious objectors who are employed on non-combatant work. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, a large number of them, at any rate. They have the vote given to them by Clause (5). You have the members of the Friends' Ambulance Unit, who are engaged in war service abroad, and the vote has been provided for them by Clause (5). The point I wish to submit to you is this: Is it in order for this House, on Clause (8) of the Bill, when we have settled this question in Clause (5), to go back upon its decision, and by an Amendment to Clause (8) upset our decision, as it would be upset if this Amendment were carried?
  Mr. SPEAKER: In regard to Clause (5), the House must have had in its mind the fact that there would be certain persons who would be disqualified because Clause {8) had been in the Bill for some time. Clause (8) deals with disqualifications. If I were to accept the argument of the right hon. Gentleman it would lead to striking out Clause (8).
  Mr. JONES: No, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It must! We must read the Clauses together. The right hon. Gentleman's submission would mean that you could not make any exception in Clause (8). It is always open for the House to add to disqualifications if it so chooses.
  Mr. JONES: I gather I have not made myself quite clear. There is no contradiction at present between Clauses (5) and (8).
  HON. MEMBERS: Yes, there is.
  Mr. JONES: I am not aware of it. But I suggest that we may disqualify in Clause (8) those whom we have disfranchised in Clause (5). If the Amendment of the hon. Baronet be carried you will have set up a contradiction which, I submit, does not at present exist between the two Clauses. I suggest, on a point of Order, that it is not for this House to carry an Amendment to Clause (8) which upsets Clause (5) of the Bill?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I say that I put this Clause down originally as a new Clause, intending to move it at the beginning of these proceedings, and before any of these Clauses were reconsidered? In these circumstances you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that you told me it must come in the disqualifications Clause. It would, therefore, be surely very hard to disqualify me from dealing with this matter now.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: May I point out that there is already a contradiction such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, between Clauses (5) and (8)? In the Subsection of Clause (5), which he has read, qualifying those serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, the right hon. Gentleman and the House are entirely unable to say whether all those who are employed in these orgamosations are British subjects. As a matter of fact, I happen myself to know
  1214
  at least one person who is not a British subject who is so employed. Consequently the argument of the right hon. Gentleman applies just as much to the Bill as it stands as in the case of the Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That was my point. There are certain disqualifications laid down, and they must be taken to be the exceptions to what is provided for in previous Clauses. It is open, however, to the House to add disqualifications.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. I want to take your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon this question. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has said that with regard to the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of this Amendment, they said they desired to penalise the conscientious objector. Their speeches last night were directed entirely in the opposite direction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Just before the House adjourned last night my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House addressed to the House a very remarkable speech. As I listened, that speech excited in my mind both surprise and indignation. My right hon. Friend, in a quite momentary irritation with me—and none of my right hon. Friend's irritation goes beyond the moment—seemed to think that I was criticising his speech because I thought it was a foolish speech. Certainly I thought nothing of the kind. I never think my right hon. Friend's speeches are anything except exceedingly able, but 1 did think—and I am afraid I still think—it was a very dangerous speech, that it laid down propositions which I can hardly think my right hon. Friend sufficiently considered—propositions which go a great deal further than anything relating to this Amendment. I will return to what my right hon. Friend said in a moment, but let me, at the very outset, make a preliminary objection to the Amendment which is before us. The preliminary objection that I make to the Amendment—and it applies to all the objectors within its compass—is that it is a retrospective enactment, inflicting disability of which they had no notice when they incurred it. It is a very well-known maxim of legislation that the Legislature should in no circumstances inflict punishments or disabilities upon persons retrospectively

  1215
  without giving them notice before they commit the offence for which they are to be punished or disabled, so that they may, if they please, avoid the punishment or disability. I submit that this Amendment transgresses that. Had it been the intention of Parliament, at the time the Military Service Act was passed, to disable any person who desired to avail himself of the Conscientious Objector Clause, Parliament should, in all honest and straightforward dealing, have said so then. They should have said that if a man availed himself of this objection he was subject to a certain disability, and then those who took it would have Known where they were. But solemnly to offer by legislation a certain exemption, and then, after a small number of people have availed themselves of the exemption—have taken advantage of the position allowed them by the law—suddenly to turn round and say. "You did not know we regard with profound disapproval the very exemption we offered you. You did not know we intend to punish you for availing yourselves of the exemption we extended to you. You have done what we invited you to do." [HON. MEMBERS: " No!"] Yes, in the case contemplated by Parliament, when a person felt a conscientious objection he was to be exempted—" For availing yourselves of the machinery we set up, we take away from you the vote without warning—and, as I say, without justice—because now public opinion is in a state of irritation, and it would be unwise to resist that public opinion any longer." Let me ask, Who are the objectors? That preliminary criticism applies to all of them, but the mass of my arguments, which I design to submit to the House, applies mainly to some.
  I had not the good fortune to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), but I read it in the Report, and, among other interesting features, it contained a very interesting analysis of conscientious objectors, describing the various groups into which they fell. That must convince the House, as everyone who has looked into this knows, that there are very different people classed together as conscientious objectors. The distinction I should perhaps make of them—of course, it is a rough distinction—is that in the case of certain conscientious objectors—I do not know whether they are the majority or
  1216
  not, but that does not matter—there is a seditious element woven in with their conscientious objection, and, as the tribunals have found, it is not that they are not sincere, but it is that there is another element besides conscientious objection, namely, a seditious objection, with which I have not the very smallest sympathy: and if in any way it were possible to say in respect to those who offered to military service, not a conscientious objection, but a seditious resistance, I should be the last to deny that the State had a perfect right to punish them for that sedition. But there is confessedly another category of persons who have a moral or religious objection to military service, and who confine themselves essentially to saying, "I am bound to respect, in regard to my own life, my own conscience. My own conscience tells me that to do as you would have me do would be wrong. Therefore, without any desire of sedition or rebellion, but merely because of the inherent right of every man to obey his own conscience and the higher moral law, which, according to Christianity, we are told comes before the law of the State, I must disobey, not seditiously but because I am answerable here and hereafter for how far I obey my own conscience."
  Those are two very different cases, and let me say—because my right hon. Friend referred to sincere rebels with some sympathy—the case of the true conscientious objector is quite different from even the best rebel. At any rate, there are two great distinctions. A rebel is not satisfied with managing his own action; he wishes to control directly or indirectly the Government of the State. The Irish rebellion sought to overthrow the British Government in Ireland. Some rebellions we think right, and some we think wrong. The rebellion of 1688 we think right; the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 we think wrong. In my view, and in my right hon. Friend's view, the rebellion that was menaced in Ulster would have been righteous, but we are all of opinion that the Sinn Fein rebellion was wrong. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends think I am speaking facetiously, but they are profoundly mistaken. I am speaking what I believe to be the platitudes of the subject, because I am anxious to clear part of the ground. In all these cases the rebels, whether they were right, or whether they were wrong, were seeking to influence a great many people besides themselves. They were seeking to control

  1217
  in one way or another the government of the country. I do not think anyone who does that can complain of other people, differently minded, who oppose them, or punish them for their action. Both are acting conscientiously; both pursue the object which they believe is in the interest of the country, and if, in the extreme case, they avail themselves of force they have no right to complain of force being used against them. But that is wholly different from the conscientious objector, who claims to do nothing except to manage his own action, which he is bound to do.
  There is a second distinction. The conscientious objector does what the rebel does not. He appeals to a higher law altogether than the law of the State. The Jacobites of 1745 and the supporters of King George II. were essentially aiming at objects on the same plane, as one may say, and justified their objects by arguments of the same sort, with a different termination. Neither appealed to a different standard of morals or a different standard of expediency from the other, but it is the very essence of the conscientious objector's position that he says the State has, up to a certain point, undoubtedly authority over him, but that in this respect he is bound to obey a higher law than the law of the State—a religious law or a moral law which prohibits him from obeying the law of the State. " I only ask," he says, " leave to obey it in my own person, and because I feel the burden of it upon me. I am bound, as I conceive, to obey this higher law. I am bound therefore to disobey the lower law of the State, not because I am seditious or rebellious, or because I want to impose my opinions upon anyone else in the world, but because every individual is responsible here and hereafter for what he does by his own act and by his own will, whether the State commands him or whether it does not."
  Mr. STANTON: Why does he not get out of the State? Let him go where he likes.
  Lord H. CECIL: But this is why I listened to my right hon. Friend with surprise, if I may say so with respect. My right hon. Friend seems to put aside the appeal to the higher law altogether. It is not that he says, as many hon. Members supporting the Amendment, perhaps, would say, "Yes, we recognise the higher law, but you misinterpret it." That is a point I am
  1218
  coming to in a minute. My right hon. Friend says the safety of the State is supreme; there is nothing beyond it. That is not a novel opinion. I might even say it is a notorious opinion. It is precisely the argument that the German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, used in the famous speech in which he spoke of the Treaty safeguarding Belgium as a scrap of paper. My memory may be inaccurate, and I may be mistaken, but I almost, think he quoted the very same saying, that the safety of the State is the supreme law. If there be no other law, if the safety of the State is for the government of the State, and the citizens of the State, the last word of moral obligation, then how can we blame the German Government for many things for which we do blame them?
  Take, for example, one crime which sank, and deservedly sank, into our hearts, and which roused us to passionate indignation—I mean the execution of Miss Cave 7 It is not disputed that Miss Cavell was, according to the strict law of the War, guilty of a war crime. Why did we say it was inhuman and iniquitous to put her to death? Because, according to a higher law, she had a strong claim to the respect and gratitude of the German Government and people who put her to death. Precisely because there was a higher law she ought not to have suffered as she did, and precisely because we believe in that higher law we uttered the cry of indignation at her death. Are we to be told now, in the language of her murderers, that the safety of the State is the supreme law? No, Sir. We cannot make any such answer. We are Christians first and Englishmen afterwards. Christianity can never compromise with any national claim. It must have its disciples all in all, soul and body, leaving no sphere out, and to reserve to the State any supremacy is to part company with the Christian system altogether.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. (Mr. Bonar Law): I should like to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means by his argument. I confess I have rather been accused of making a foolish speech. Does he mean that because we say the German State does things that nobody else and no State ought to do on the grounds of necessity. that is the same thing as when the other States. notably France, America, and everybody else say, " We have a right to demand that every citizen shall give his life in the service of the State if we ask him?"
  Lord H. CECIL: I made no such general statement. What I said was that you cannot meet the claim of the conscientious objector by simply saying that the safety of the State is the supreme law. You must accept his appeal to a higher law and argue on the basis of that higher law.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does my Noble Friend's argument mean that a man who has been before a tribunal can demand that his conscience shall be above the decision of the tribunal?
  Lord H. CECIL: I will come to that point in its proper place, but it does not here arise. The point I was pressing is this, and I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend does not really hold the view which his language seemed to convey. I am only for the moment saying that you cannot set aside a conscientious objection merely by saying that the safety of the State is supreme, and that we will not listen to him, if he claims to serve and obey a higher law than the law of the State. You must say, "We agree with you that there is a higher law than the law of the State, but, judging you according to that higher law, you are in this way or that way in fault." Therefore, I think it is clear that we must follow the conscientious objector on to the ground of an appeal to conscience, that is to say, an appeal to the moral law which is admitted to be superior to the law of the State.
  Let me say, in passing, how very surprising the Amendment seems to me, even on what I consider to be the very unsound basis of the supremacy of the State. Let me point out that if we take the supremacy of the State as the supreme rule, and if we take military service as being such a special obligation that it ought to be made in quite a distinct way a qualification for a vote, we are at once in a perfect wood of trouble, out of which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will hardly be able to guide us. There is the difficulty of Ireland. The Military Service Acts have not been extended to Ireland, and yet we are to give votes to all the young men of military age in Ireland. although they have not got this qualification of military service. If the need of the State be so supreme, if the law of its safety be so cogent, will not some people at any rate ask " How comes it then that you are exempting twenty or thirty times as many people in Ireland,
  1220
  because they are Irishmen, while you are not exempting merely a few in England because they are religious"?
  Mr. KEATING: The argument is false.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Very few are religious.
  Lord H. CECIL: Even those few my hon. Friend does not propose to exempt. There are other persons who escape not because you have not imposed the Military Service Acts, but they are persons who are highly disobedient to the State and quite as disobedient as the conscientious objector There is the whole body of Sinn Feiners. There are the more amiable Sinn Feiners, animated by a great desire to establish Irish nationality, and tile less amiable ones who are perhaps moved by German money, but they are all to have votes. There are also the persons who have been actually convicted in the course of the rebellion; those too, I apprehend, are to have votes. There are a great many other persons. I find it difficult to read without a cynical smile my hon. Friend's Amendment, because there is such an air of absurdity in the language of it. The second part of the Amendment reads:
  "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."
  That reminds me at once that there are a great many other people who have been court-martialled besides conscientious objectors. The disqualification is there carefully limited, and it must only be for refusal to obey orders, and only if that refusal has assigned to it a conscientious cause. There are also those who have been insubordinate, and deserters, and all those who have been sentenced for various military crimes and for crimes not merely military but civil, those guilty of criminal vice of the worst and most atrocious kind—all those may have votes. All those who have been sentenced by civil tribunals, such as pickpockets, robbers, all those concerned in fraud, acts of violence, and those animated by the most odious lusts, the names of whose offences must not pass honest lips—all those may have votes. And why not? There is, at any rate, nothing conscientious about them. They are free from the damning taint of a strong but unenlightened conscience. Even if I accepted the basis of my right hon. Friend's argument, I should still feel this Amendment was a scandalous absurdity. If you are really going to disfranchise

  1221
  persons who, because they are disobedient to the State, are to incur this penalty, you must certainly disfranchise all those who have been disobedient by way of crime as well as those who have been disobedient by way of a conscientious objection. To draw a distinction by which you admit all the worst people in the world, the thieves, the miscreants, and only exclude the conscientious objectors, will not commend itself to the religious bodies of this country.
  I think my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends profoundly misjudge public opinion. They listen to a vocal, excitable, almost hysterical outburst, but they do not hear the much deeper sentiment of the great body of the moral and religious people of this country, who, whether they worship in church or chapel, will hear with indignation that conscientious objectors are to be disfranchised, while every criminal is to have a vote. Even if you accept my right hon. Friend's basis of argument I Should argue thus, but I do not accept it. I say that we must proceed to ask what the higher law to which the conscientious objector appeals does require. Let me remind the House of some of the cases which will be included in this disfranchisement. They will include the Quakers who are working with the ambulance units abroad. How is it possible to justify setting them below all those bad people of whom I have been speaking. They have gone out and they are serving. They are even running great risks. I do not agree with the scruple which has led them to refuse military service, but who can say that they are not well and honourably employed? I want the House to fix its mind on those and other objectors of the Quaker sort. I do not mean only those who belong to the Society of Friends, but those who belong to other religious bodies, simple-minded people, perhaps, under the influence of a mistaken scruple who say, " We are sorry that we cannot fight in the War, because the guilt of shedding blood will lie at our door." The first observation I will make about that is, that according to the common religion we believe, holding the view that they do, they are bound to act as they do. To those who in all sincerity think it is wicked to fight in war—for them it is wicked to fight in war—it ceases to be a mere delusion, and it becomes truly operative upon the conscience. As I pointed out during the Committee stage, this is a prin-
  1222
  ciple which we are bound to recognise, and we do recognise it in our government of other races. We do not impose on them what they foolishly and superstitiously believe to be wrong. We never require Mahomedans, or Hindus, or any other race which has a different moral standard to our own, to violate their own conscience. We do this not only on the ground of policy, but because we think it right to do it. Although some particular scruple may be superstitious, we think that to violate it is in truth wrong. On the first point, then, of going before a higher tribunal, we find that objectors are right, and that they are bound to obey their conscience. What, then, can we say in this case? We can only say their conscience is mistaken. I say it, and I can assure my right hon. Friend not at all less vehemently than he—and I have written it to a great number—I am sure they are thoroughly and utterly mistaken, but are you going to disqualify people and punish them for being mistaken in their opinions? If you do you are surely back again to the old familiar ground of religious persecution. Certainly if I held that view, that you might disqualify for opinion, I should not begin with the conscientious objector. I should begin myself with Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and many other classes, and I am not sure that my right hon. Friend himself would escape before my disfranchisement was complete. It is to me quite as clear that the Presbyterians are mistaken on the points in which they differ with the Episcopalians as that conscientious objectors are wrong about military service. Both propositions seem to me to be perfectly plain.
  That is always so in these matters. Very good people have over and over again felt bound to impose their views because they were so certain that they were right—and I do not think that they were always wrong—but the point is that we have come surely to the conclusion that it is both impolitic from the point of view of the State and also inconsistent with the best interests of religious truth to punish people for erroneous opinions.
  Sir J D.REES: What about the War and the Army?
  Lord H. CECIL: Perhaps if my hon. Friend will make an effort he will be able to follow a consecutive argument. I say, therefore, when we come to argue it on that ground, that we must either

  1223
  adopt the position of religious persecution or we must say, as I say, " Yes, you are mistaken, but I am not justified in forcing your conscience, because it is against my own conscience to do so, and therefore I give you exemption." I thought that was the position that Parliament took up, and I am persuaded that it is the right position for Parliament to take up. We must not refuse the vote to people who are doing what they sincerely believe to be right upon moral or religious grounds merely because we think that these moral or religious grounds are mistaken. If you do not adopt that position you must disfranchise a great many people besides conscientious objectors. But, above all, I feel most strongly—and this, I confess, is why I care about the controversy apart from the strength, as it seems to me, of the case—the danger of the particular error into which my right hon. Friend for a moment slipped last night. I am most anxious that this country should maintain the proposition that there is a higher law, that we view with admiration any appeal to that higher law, and that we will not listen to the doctrine that the State's interest is to be supreme, but on the contrary that we will make our authority conform to the higher standard and keep the State within its proper function, and within its proper scope.
  Belief in the State cannot help us to bear the sufferings or control the passions of the War. It is a barren faith, as well as a degrading faith. It does but encumber us and shut out from us that higher world in which we ought to live. It is like a mist that hangs round the surface of the earth, and beyond which the sunlight and sky of the higher life shine serene. I was taken up in an aeroplane on a misty day, and all was hazy and dark below. We passed through, and there was the sun shining in strength and the sky radiant and brilliant; the mists were no more than a white carpet beneath our feet. So we ought to rise, if we are to face the dangers and difficulties of this War, above the belief in the doctrine of the State. We ought, on the contrary, to maintain that the State must conform to this higher law, and so we say as against the Germans. But shall we even retain to ourselves that self-respect which is essential in maintaining a great moral cause if we do not act up
  1224
  to our own principles for which we are fighting in the face of Europe if we do not say to ourselves and in our own country when people are acting conscientiously that their conscience must not be forced, and when they obey their conscience that they must not be punished and disabled for so obeying, because that is the allegiance we owe to the higher law we obey, and because so we must act as citizens of the true city, of the new Jerusalem, above which is the mother of us all?
  It is in the belief in that higher region of allegiance, which imposes upon us something more than the State can ask from us, and which gives us something that the State can never give, that we should vindicate the great cause that we have in hand. We are fighting, we sometimes say, for civilisation. I would rather say that we are fighting that civilisation may remain a Christian civilisation, and certainly, according to a Christian civilisation, it is wrong to force the conscience of the sincere. It is wrong to impose upon them a duty which they believe to be contaminating and corrupting. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be rejected. I hope it, first of all, because it is a retrospective law, and so contrary to all sound principles of legislation. I hope it still more because it appears to enforce the law of the State as superior to the moral law, and I am certain that if we give countenance to that way of thinking, we run the danger of becoming, as I fear that the Germans have some of them become, idolators of the State, so that it is, indeed, the abomination that maketh desolate, a blood-stained idol, the Moloch of our time.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to pay my humble tribute to my Noble Friend, but I think I am right in saying that probably there is no other man in the House who either would or could have made the speech to which we have just listened. If such a speech had been made by anyone else, I doubt whether it would have had the same profound effect upon the House. Beautiful as was the language, and elevating as was the thought which inspired the speech, I do not think the argument which he addressed to us, although profoundly true as a matter of philosophic exposition, had any real, practical bearing upon the humdrum, commonplace proposal which is embodied in this Amendment. When the Bill was in Committee it fell to my lot to propose

  1225
  an Amendment pratically identical with that now under discussion. On that occasion I endeavoured to explain to the Committee the grounds upon which, in my judgment, consistently with the highest ethical position, the Amendment was to be justified. I have no intention to-day of renewing the argument which I then addressed to the House, but I should like to repeat with emphasis that I did not then and I do not now base the case of this Amendment upon any insinuation whatever against either the courage or the sincerity of the conscientious objector. On that occasion my Noble Friend made a speech in reply to my own on the same high level of thought and feeling, a speech which very highly impressed the House.
  Even if I had the smallest ability to meet my Noble Friend on that sort of ground, I should be very sorry to attempt it. I do not think the level to which he raised the discussion is one on which any of us would like to follow him. But when my Noble Friend said on the last occasion, and repeated by implication though not in the same terms to-day, that the law of the State must give way to what he then described as the higher and Divine law, I do not think any part of the House would like to accept the antithesis implied in his language, and if we are not prepared to argue the point in that way, it is only because we all feel that really in the last resort the supreme benefit of the State cannot be separated from a due regard for the Divine law. The difficulty, just as much from my Noble Friend's point as from ours, is that the ascertainment of the Divine law is as difficult as to ascertain the supreme benefit of the State. I confess that on that part of the subject my Noble Friend adopts an extreme Protestantism in which I cannot follow him. He elevates the right of private judgment in the decision as to what is or is not the Divine law in a way which surprises me as coming particularly from him.
  The position that we ought all to assume is that there is no such antithesis at all. When we speak of the supreme interest of the State it ought to be implied, and of course it always is implied—I am certain it was implied by my right hon. Friend who spoke last night—that in obeying and following and seeking to promote the best interests of the State you are not thereby departing from the Divine law so far as it is known to the humble seekers of it in this wicked world. That is the
  1226
  position which we ought all to assume, and it is because my Noble Friend raises the antithesis in a way which is unique to himself that I say his arguments are really not germane to the Amendment which we are discussing. There is really no question here of religious persecution. My Noble Friend on the last occasion said that the argument which I had addressed to the House had been used by those who persecuted the followers of Wyclif, and he gave other examples. He implied that we were discussing some penal action against these particular people. We are not doing anything of the sort. There is no question of persecution or punishment. We are not talking about a penal Statute; we are considering whether men are or not qualified under the Statute which we contemplate passing of exercising the franchise.
  There have been numbers of Amendments proposing disqualifications on the Paper, and I dare say when the Bill becomes law it will include numbers of disqualifications. Only now, for the first time, we are sweeping away the disqualification of women. A great many of us, too, think that naturalised persons ought to be disqualified. Will my Noble Friend get up and say that if we were proposing to disqualify a man who had been naturalised for a number of years we would be pursuing the same course as the persecutors of the early Christians? When you reduce the thing from the high level on which it was placed by my Noble Friend, when you bring it down to the realm of actual fact—and that, after all, is what we have to face—the atmosphere into which the Noble Lord attempted to lead the House disappears amongst the clouds to which he so eloquently referred.
  Let us approach this question from a practical standpoint and get rid of anything in the nature of such questions as that of religious persecution. There were two arguments put forward by the Noble Lord which I think require some answer. He objected to this Amendment because it was imposing a retrospective disability. My Noble Friend said that if, rightly or wrongly, the disability was to be imposed on conscientious objectors they ought to have received notice of it at the time their exemption from military service was secured. My Noble Friend is a very experienced Parliamentarian. Can he tell us how possibly that notice could have been given? Does he imagine that if anyone had attempted to put a proviso of

  1227
  that nature into the Military Service Act, a proviso that if men were exempted they would be in danger of being disqualified from the franchise in any future Franchise Bill that might be brought in—does the Noble Lord suggest that any such proviso would have been in order? How could notice have been given? Who was to give the notice?
  Mr. T. E. HARVEY: The Government might have announced their intention in the matter.
  Mr. McNEILL: Who was in the position to give a notice of that kind?
  Lord H. CECIL: The Government.
  Mr. McNEILL: How could the Government possibly have done it? This Bill now before us was not contemplated at the time the Military Service Act was passed. No one knew that it was to be brought in. Was the Government to pledge their successors for all time that whenever and if ever a new Franchise Bill was introduced, whatever its terms might be, the Government of the day was to take steps to disfranchise these people?
  Lord H. CECIL: The Government prepared the Bill, and of course they could have put in a proviso to the effect that any persons claiming exemption under the provisions of the Bill should be disqualified from the Parliamentary franchise. That would, of course, have applied to those already enfranchised, as well as to new voters.
  Mr. McNEILL: And if the Government had done that, what would have been the result? I should have thought that any provision of that nature would have been ruled out of order. But I do not ground my case on that point. I entirely disagree that there was any obligation to give notice. It would mean that if there were such an obligation, at no time in any Franchise Bill would it be possible to introduce disqualifications of any class or any individuals unless that class and those individuals had at some previous stage received notice of the intention to introduce the disqualification. The very proposition seems to be an absurdity, and I cannot imagine therefore how there could possibly be any obligation to give notice beforehand of what might happen in the future—an event which no one at the time contemplated. Another proposition put forward by my Noble Friend
  1228
  was that in which he asked: What are you going to do about the people in Ireland? You are not proposing to disfranchise all the men of military age in Ireland, neither are you proposing, he said, to deprive of their vote a number of other classes which he described in a forcible and entertaining way. He suggested that all these men would get votes, because, although they were tainted, they had not the damning taint of having a conscience. That was a very interesting argument, but has it any force? Of course it is quite true, and unfortunately it must be true that among the many millions of people who have been enfranchised by this Act, there are a great number not of the highest moral worth and a great many who may have been guilty of all sorts of affences against the law. But does the Noble Lord mean to say that the disqualification should include everybody unworthy of having a vote? Does he suggest that when you have a clear-cut class of men with whom you can deal you are not to disqualify them because you cannot carry your disqualification further so as to cover every individual who, for one reason or another, may be unworthy of the full rights of citizenship? My Noble Friend used one expression in the course of his speech, which did not surprise me, coming as it did from him, although it did surprise me when it was used last night by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Whyte). The hon. Member, when describing the language which he suggested would be used by the Leader of the House, and also by supporters of this Amendment, said that our attitude was that we thought it unwise to resist popular opinion. I should like to ask the opponents of this Amendment whether they agree with my Noble Friend that resistance to popular opinion should be one of the functions of the Government and of this House? I was always unenlightened enough to think that we were here not to resist popular opinion but to represent it. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth last night was very angry with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for promising to take off the Government Whips. He said " You are giving way to clamour," and that sentiment was very loudly cheered by hon. Members on the benches below the Gangway opposite. What is so strange is that many Members in this House, to judge from their speeches, imagine that we should model ourselves on the experi-

  1229
  ence of the Soviets, and that the Government should show a strong, persistent and haughty disregard of public opinion outside. Surely our duty in this House is to represent public opinion outside, yet both the hon. Member for Perth and the Noble Lord the Member for the Oxford University, strong opponents as they are of this Amendment, seemed to be agreed in this, that, at all events, whatever the merits of the Amendment may be, public opinion out of doors strongly supports it.
  Lord H. CECIL: I did not say that.
  Mr. McNEILL: If the Noble Lord did not say that, then I do not know what he meant by saying that the attitude of the Government and of the proposal of the Amendment was that it was unwise to resist public opinion any longer.
  Lord H. CECIL: My hon. Friend may think that public opinion is in that direction. I do not assent to it myself.
  Mr. McNEILL: I see now the attitude of my Noble Friend, but that does not seem to be the attitude of the hon. Member for Perth. He talked about clamour bringing pressure to bear on the Government; he used that taunt regarding our attitude towards this Amendment. There is popular opinion of some sort outside.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Some sort!
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to divide public opinion into two departments—worthy and unworthy?
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I say it is for the 'Government to do that, and not merely to follow the popular opinion of the moment, but to study popular opinion.
  Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is the duty of the Government not to follow the popular opinion of the moment, but to prophesy what may be popular opinion next week.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Not at all.
  Mr. McNEILL: I am much more simple-minded. I am not frightened by this taunt about clamour. I have an idea that this proposal is widely supported throughout the constituencies of the country. I know it is very largely supported and desired by my own constituents, and I think it my duty to represent my constituents in this House. Some hon. Gentlemen take a different view of
  1230
  their duty to their constituencies, and they may adopt a different course. I do not know if the hon. Member for Perth has received, as many of us have received, a great many letters and communications, pressing us to support this Amendment. I hope, after his speeches last night, he will send a reply to any communications from Perth to the effect that he intends to resist the clamour of his constituents, and I trust, too, at the proper time those constituents will have an opportunity of expressing their views upon his action. If it is our duty at all times to represent public opinion, I think it is a special duty to-day, because the House has long outstayed its welcome in the country. Owing to the exigencies of the War—a reason which I think quite sufficient—the House has had to renew its existence time after time, and now it is very much out of touch, not only with the constituencies, but with the ordinary channels of public opinion. We ought, therefore, to be more than ever sensible to the changes that have taken place in the country and to the attitude of our constituents with regard to the policy of this House. We are now constructing an entirely new situation by this Bill. The constituencies which are existing at the present moment are practically unrepresented. The new constituencies are still less represented. We have any amount of indication as to the trend of public opinion with regard to this Amendment. The hon. Member speaks of the public opinion at the moment. That is good enough for us. The popular opinion of the moment is largely in favour of this Amendment. I believe it to be overwhelmingly so, and I believe there will be profound dissatisfaction throughout the country if the Amendment is defeated. I hope, therefore, it will receive large and general support.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I wish to give the reasons which lead me to accept this Amendment. In my mind the difficulty that arises in matters of conscience is that the man who possesses a conscientious belief often belongs to some association which focusses a variety of opinions, but you do not know that he may not be deceiving himself. and that a complexity of opinion may be influencing him when he thinks that he is only driven by one clear call of conscience. In the matter of conscience, undoubtedly the

  1231
  State cannot judge; neither can Courts of inquiry nor tribunals; and if a man honestly says he cannot in the sight of God do a particular thing, I quite agree that he should not be compelled to do it. But we all see an inconsistency even in the best of these men. There is no doubt that in resistance to evil, or in taking the law into one's own hands, and resisting force by force, there is no limit you can put to that argument, and, as has been said again and again, the civil law and conscience are just as much at stake as the War itself. The resistance to the enforcement of law by force stands on a level with objections to fighting. You ask a man to do something on behalf of a community called the State. He says his individual conscience clashes with that demand, and you say, "Very well; but are you to take all the advantages of the State? Are you to remain a member of a society in which you have protection, which contributes very much to you, and which in ordinary times makes comparatively small demands on you in return? Are you to deny the right of that State by a majority to call upon you to defend it? The least we can say is that we will not persecute you "—and I very much object to a great deal of the persecution that has taken place—" but you can no longer belong to our society. We are very sorry to part company with you, but every society has its rules—the State above all other societies—and there is something in regard to the State that has an element of responsibility and imposes a duty different to all other forms of association." We have had quotations from the highest laws. I very much enjoyed the appeal that has been made to us, but the State has a certain claim. The evolution of society is a Divine movement of humanity, and the State itself has its rights to decide and may be more right than the individual. " Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's " is not a commission but an injunction as direct as that to " Render to God the things that are God's," and I think that although there are distinctions—and I should like distinctions to be made, if that were possible, in the case of those who are exposing themselves to the risks of war and yet are not countering blow by blow—if one looks at the matter broadly as a main question, I am strongly in favour of depriving, and I urge this House to deprive, those who are not fulfilling their duties to the State of their vote.
  Sir EDWARD PARROTT: Any Member who intervenes in this Debate must pay a tribute to the extraordinarily high character of the speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). I desire to add my very feeble voice to that very powerful plea. I venture to think that when the Noble Lord comes to read that speech ten years hence he will do so with, very great satisfaction. When the passions engendered by this War have passed away, and he is able to approach it again with that calmness and clearness of outlook which we all hope to recover in time, I am perfectly certain be will be quite content with what he has said to-day, and that his speech will remain for ever a tribute to those principles which actuate his public conduct. I wonder whether the same can be said of the speech delivered by the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) last night! We all recollect that only a few months ago he was in the Lobby leading the House in opposition to an Amendment of similar intent to this which is before us to-day, and I have no doubt whatever in my own mind that those who walk by sight and not by faith will follow him into the. Lobby in quite a contrary direction. I imagine that when the right hon. Gentleman's biographer comes to collate his. speeches, many years hence I hope, the speech of last night will be omitted altogether and the incident will be passed over. I am speaking to-day on this question simply because I hate to give a silent vote. The question does not depend in the least degree upon the fluctuating circumstances of the hour, but on immutable principle. I say frankly that I dislike the conscientious objector as much as any Member in the. House. I think he suffers from apoplexy of conscience, and that he is wrong-headed in his present view, but at the same time, because I dislike him and because my emotions are aroused, I am bound to consider his case as coolly and calmly as possible. I am strongly opposed to placing a stigma upon a man at a time when I am actuated by an emotional impulse, the most fatal impulse for legislation. One has only to recall Greek history to know how perilous it was, in those times, as it has been ever since, for men to legislate under the influence of feelings such as those which are engendered by present conditions.
  Surely the crux of the whole problem is that you have a Military Service Act

  1233
  in which there is a definite enactment that a man may obtain a certificate of exemption from combatant service on the ground of conscientious objection. There he is acting under an Act of Parliament, and you now propose to place a disability upon him because he has actually accepted that Act and acted accordingly. It is very much as if you said that any citizen may walk down Whitehall, and you then proceeded to add that if he does so the first policeman he meets will be entitled to take his watch. The subsequent provision nullifies the preceding enactment. One can easily understand the repealing of that Section and the setting up of a new condition of things, but simply to inflict punishment on a man because he takes advantage of an Act of Parliament is surely something that cannot be defended. One might almost call it the legislation of lunacy. I suppose there is no one in this House who denies that there are conscientious conscientious objectors. Reference has been made to the Friends, and to the magnificent work they have done. Yet this Amendment proposes to lump together sincere and insincere, genuine and sham, good and bad; to treat them all alike in the spirit of Donnybrook Fair—when you see a head, hit it. I wonder, as a newcomer, if this is the manner in which the Mother of Parliaments legislates. Surely we want at this time cool, and calm, and ordered reason. We know ourselves to be agitated very considerably on this question, and certainly every man ought to bring his mind to pause and consider most carefully what he proposes to do. In the First Schedule of the Military Service Act you have a series of exceptions laid down, and amongst them are those in Holy Orders and regular ministers of any denomination. The remarkable thing is that because those men are scheduled they are not to have this disability put upon them. There does seem to be a grievous anomaly there. How many men are there lurking in uniform in Government offices at the present time who have not the remotest intention of fighting at all and who are probably there for the purpose, in a large degree, of evading service? They are not to be touched by this Amendment. They are doing national service, and so are very many conscientious objectors.
  You have a further and quainter anomaly, namely, that you are going to take away the vote from the conscientious
  1234
  objector, and at the same time are, going to leave him free to come into this House, where he would presumably be of very much more value than as a simple voter. It is not necessary to be a voter in order to come to this House. Then again, one looks back and wonders what would have happened in past times had there been Conscription, and along with it the attempt to cast this stigma on a man who had taken advantage of the benefit the Act conferred on him. Let us go back to the Boer War. If this Amendment had been carried during the Boer War the Prime Minister himself, who was then of military age, would have lost his vote altogether. Let hon. Members carry their minds back to the Crimean War. The House would have stigmatised Cobden and Bright, and many another great man whose position is now fixed in history. Every one would wish to beware of creating martyrs, but there is no doubt that these men in the future will go about in a gabardine, as it were, and will by virtue of the disability which you are imposing on them to-day be able hereafter to claim that they were martyrs for conscience sake. You have only to look at history to see what the martyrs for conscience sake have done. The very privileges of this House have been built up by men who were martyrs for conscience sake. Conscience may not appeal to you, or it may not appeal to me, but at the very same time, as has been pointed out clearly and powerfully to-day, it is the one guiding principle which everybody would wish to foster and strengthen, and not to weaken. Reference has been made to the new conditions after the War. Surely in those times you will want conscience. Surely you will wish to say to a man, "Stand up for what you believe to be right, even though you suffer for it". It seems to me by placing this disability on these men who have acted in a manner that does not please you, and does not please me, you are distinctly discouraging men for the future to act upon the highest and noblest of moral and spiritual impulses.
  Captain BARNETT: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) in one of those brilliant dissertations which always interest, and sometimes influence the House, has given us a réchanffé of the speech he made in Committee on this subject. He has to-day spared us the early Christian martyrs, the persecution of Wycliffe, and other evil

  1235
  deeds, but everything else we have had, including his devotion to the Divine Will as superior to the safety of the State. I wish to bring this question of the conscientious objector's vote down from the cloudy mountain tops of ethical and religious speculation to the solid tableland of dull. cold, prosaic fact.
  Is it or is it not desirable in the interests of the State that these men should have votes? The Noble Lord asked that question, and also asked who were the people who were going to lose their votes if this Amendment were carried. Let me take the first class—namely, those people found to be sincere by the tribunals. Perhaps the most complete of all examples is the Society of Friends, which was exempted under the old Militia Ballot Act. The Society of Friends is an institution which has led a peaceful existence under the protection of our Army and Navy; it has acquired great wealth, and it has carried on many works of benevolence. If all the funds of the order have not been given to works of benevolence, and if, perhaps, some of them have gone to political associations, at any rate no one can deny the great benevolence shown by members of that society. What is the proper line for Parliament to take at this great juncture of our national history? Surely it is to say to these people, so far as they are of military age, "For your religious views, we respect you; for your benevolence, we thank you; but for your failure to discharge the first duty of a citizen, we disfranchise you." That is the only logical way in which this matter can be approached. We have had to-day, especially from the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir E. Parrott), the doctrine of the original contract, which is supposed to have been made when we allowed these people to claim exemption on conscientious grounds. I suggest that there is no such contract. It is perfectly true that when this Bill was in Committee the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, did say something which seemed to justify the idea that there was an undertaking that the vote should be given, but it was an obiter dictum. In the Debate the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) raised the same point. He said:
  "Does my right hon. Friend seriously suggest that a Clause of that sort disfranchising the conscientious objectors could in any circumstances have been combined with the Military Service Act?"
  1236"
  The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was:
  "Indeed I do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,26TH June,1917,col.333,Vol.XCV.]
  I hope that was only an obiter dictum. If it was not, I, for one, strongly and vehemently protest against it. There was no such contract. Where is the consideration for it? It is not as though the conscientious objector had been doing anything that the State wanted him to do—very far from it. The conscientious objector was doing something which he claimed the right to do. The State was good enough to let him do it, but how can it be said that there was any obligation, either expressed or implied, to give that man a vote? Never since the original contract of Jean Jacques Rousseau has there been such a travesty of a contract. We have been told that we are exploiting opinion outside, and that we are yielding to popular clamour, when we vote for this Amendment. That has been very well answered by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division, who has told the House, and every Member knows it, that in his own Constituency there is overwhelming public opinion behind this Amendment. [Hox. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I have not had any communications.
  Captain BARNETT: I have been inundated with letters and telegrams from people asking me to vote against the enfranchisement of conscientious objectors. If my hon. Friend has not had similar letters or telegrams, he is unfortunate in his constituency.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: They do not read the "Daily Mail."
  Captain BARNETT: The instinct of the people here is a perfectly right one. We in this House are, perhaps, inclined to think that we can judge better than the people outside in a matter of this kind. In taking off the Government Whips and allowing us to have a straight vote on this question, which we did not have last time, and in throwing open the doors of the Lobbies so that the vivifying and bracing breeze of public opinion can come through them, the Government is taking the right course. I believe that this Amendment will be carried by a substantial majority. Last night the Leader of the House said there was only one point he desired to criticise, that was the question of a time limit. I have on the Order Paper an Amendment

  1237
  suggesting that twenty years should be the period of disfranchisement. I have put another Amendment on the Paper which I propose, with the approval of the House, to move now as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, namely, after the word "disqualified" to insert the words "for a period of twenty years."
  Mr. DENMAN: On a point of Order. I have a prior Amendment to that. I understood that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Barnett) was speaking on the general question, and if I had known that he was going to move his Amendment I should have moved mine first.
  Mr. SHERWELL: On the point of Order. In view of the large number of Members who desire to take part in the Debate on the general Question, would it not be more in conformity with the sense of the House that we should continue the general Debate now and take the Amendments afterwards?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I did not appreciate that. the hon. and gallant Member was rising to move his Amendment. I think it will suit the convenience of the House if he did not move it now and would get some other hon. Member to move it for him formally later on.
  Captain BARNETT: I will bow to your ruling, Sir. My only desire was to save the time of the House. Through my ignorance of the Rules I thought that in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs I should be able to move my own Amendment. We have had all example quoted to us of the disfranchisement of the conscientious objector. Canada, a great, free nation, of her own accord has disfranchised conscientious objectors, and I do not think that this House, the Mother of Parliaments, ought to be afraid to follow the example of one of the daughter Parliaments. It is perfectly clear that it is the impression of all sane and healthy minds that a man who is not prepared, from whatever cause, to do his duty in time of stress and danger like the present, should not be allowed to vote. If there is apostolic authority for the view that if a man will not work neither shall he eat, in times like the present we may fairly enact that if a man will not fight neither shall he vote.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: What about you?
  Captain BARNETT: I am quite prepared to meet that question. I have done
  1238
  two years' service in the British Army on the General Staff. I have trained 45,000 men in musketry in this country, and I am prepared to fight if my age would allow it, so that the gibe of the hon. Member leaves my withers unwrung. It is irrelevant, and a personal digression. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, in his appeal to the higher law, referred to the case of Nurse Cavell, and seemed to think there was some lower law which would have allowed the Germans to execute her and that it was only the higher law that made it a crime. That is an extraordinary proposition. I know of nothing of which Nurse Cavell was accused which, by the law of any civilised country, would have allowed her to be put to death. I desire to make a protest against the suggestion that it was only under the higher law known to the Noble Lord that her execution was murder. I hope that when we go into the Division Lobby unhampered by any direction from the Whips we shall show by an overwhelming vote the determination of the Parliament of Great Britain to follow the good example set by Canada and disfranchise the conscientious objector, at any rate, for a term of years.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: It will be evident to hon. Members that the proposal contained in this Amendment raises very deep issues, and that whatever be the result of the vote to-night the suggestions that have been made here to-day will have their influence afterwards. If this Amendment is carried in the form in which it is placed before us. I want the House to realise that it will enact one law for those below forty-one and another for those who are above forty-one. I want the House to realise that the conscientious objector who has been exempted because he is in a certified trade will get his vote, while a man who has pleaded his cause before a tribunal is refused. It is exactly the same with regard to business exemptions and just the same with regard to the man who is in the regular ministry. Those are all exempted. The conscientious objector in the ranks of the regular ministry will have his vote. Lastly, the man who has been medically rejected and who is a conscientious objector will receive his vote, while a man who has gone before a tribunal will not. It has been pointed out that those men who have been exempted have broken no law, but have merely accepted what Parliament gave them the right to accept. In this connection I

  1239
  would ask the House to consider the men to whom they are going to refuse to give a vote. Reference was made again and again during the passage of the Military Service Act to the work of the Friends Ambulance unit There are at the present time in France 600 men in that unit, under the Red Cross, doing what we have been told is work of the utmost value. We have, purposely said very little about them, and I dislike mentioning this fact, but I am bound to do so after some of the things which have been said to-day. The Society of Friends has raised £250,000 and has its representatives in France, in Holland, in Russia and in Armenia. These men, many of them before the Military Service Acts were ever introduced, have now for over three years been giving their services, receiving no pay, in work which, from the testimony of the Red Cross and the English War Office and the French War Office, has been of enormous value. Every one of them you are going to disfranchise if this Amendment is carried. The French have given some of these men the Croix de Guerre.
  Mr. STEWART: if the ambulance parties went to the Front before the Conscription Act was passed I do not think this Amendment will disfranchise them. At any rate the proposers do not wish to do so.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I think it will apply to these men because after the Military Service Acts came in the men who were out in these different countries had to receive exemption at the hands of the tribunals. It is quite true that in the case of most it was done by correspondence and was freely granted by the tribunals concerned. I frankly admit that a large number of Members have told me they have no intention of disfranchising these men, but if the Amendment is carried they are disfranchised and I think that would be an act unworthy of this House. Some men of the same opinion have been operating in the Italian theatre, those who were the first in Gorizia and were the last to leave it, who were in that disastrous retreat and did what they could to steady the retreating army—under the terms of this Amendment you are going to take away the vote from these men, who have given all the service which was possible and which they felt they could render in conformity with their conscientious belief.
  1240
  But there are other types of men that you are going to disfranchise, and I doubt whether the House really wants to. Are you going to disfranchise, do you wish to disfranchise men who have left prosperous businesses and accepted practically the pay of the soldier and a mere maintenance allowance for work of national importance in regard to agriculture? I know scores of them. Many of them have sacrificed large pecuniary gains in order to do what they felt was valuable service to the State. Just the same with the men who have come up before the Pelham Committee. Those men have asked to do service. They have been told to leave their business, to get on to the land or to get into some flour mill. They have done it. They have received a maintenance allowance, and if they were able to earn a higher sum than that they have again and again given the balance to some Red Cross Society or charitable society of that kind. Do you want to disfranchise those men? Do you want to treat them worse than you treat the criminal? The man who has been fined or sent to prison for profiteering you let out and allow to have the vote at the end of the War.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Two votes.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: And often two votes. And these men who have sacrificed their pecuniary positions and opportunities and have done the national service that you ask them to do by the administration of the Military Service Act are going to be disfranchised. I do not believe it. I believe the sense of justice and of honour is too high in this House to allow of that being done. If it is done, I believe it will be altered very quickly by the balanced judgment of the people. An hon. and gallant Gentleman representing a division of London said he thought the right thing was to disfranchise all Quakers. It may be so. That may be the right thing. Those of us who belong to that body are very conscious indeed of the failures of that society. And yet, I think that body has added something that is substantial and real to the national life in this country. I am afraid there have been large differences of views amongst members of the society. There have been statesmen, and there have been idealists. If this country had accepted in 1693 the advice of William Penn, who was, I think it is admitted, practically the originator of the league of nations, you would have been saved many

  1241
  wars, and I think you would have been saved this War. It may be the right thing to disfranchise all members of the Society of Friends under forty-one. That is really what you are doing. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says many members of the Society of Friends are fighting, and I entirely accept that. Why are they fighting? Because they believe that this is a War for freedom, because it is a War for small nations, because it is a War for personality and individuality, and there is not one member amongst those who are fighting to-day who would not deplore the fact of the House passing this Amendment, and would not feel that it was not going against the very thing that they are fighting for at present. For these men that I have spoken about there is an unanswerable claim that they should be allowed still to have their vote.
  I pass to the class that most Members of the House feel far more strongly about in some ways. I find it easier to speak about these men, because I disagree with the attitude that they have taken, and I have done my best to argue with them and to suggest another course. I know perfectly well that it is the absolutist that so many Members of this House really feel should be dealt with in this way. It is a profound mistake to think that many of these men have not in the past rendered ungrudging service to the State. I believe the real test of a good citizen is the voluntary service he renders to the community. The Leader of the House last night mentioned the case of Stephen Hob-house. Anyone who knows Stephen Hob-house knows that he holds this view profoundly, that he holds it so strongly that he has discarded the opportunities of wealth and asked his people not to encumber him with any property, and, after serving as a civil administrator, he went down and lived in voluntary poverty in the East End of London. He has done invaluable service in the past. You do not allow that man the absolute exemption that is provided. You put him in prison; you keep him, I regret to say, as a third-class prisoner. You do not allow him to have pen and ink. You do not give him the chance that John Milton. or John Bunyan had of writing while they were in prison. You keep him in for three years, and at the end of that time you say, "You are not going to have the vote." My right hon. Friend says to the House that Nonconformity approves that kind of thing.
  1242
  Let me take another case—Malcohn Sparkes. He left his business, gave himself to the important work of reconstruction, and worked out for the building trade a scheme practically on the lines of the one which is so honourably associated with your name, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Thu building trade asked, " May we keep this man to work for us, because we want him to carry this scheme further?" You did not allow him to go on doing valuable service of that kind. You thrust him into gaol as a third-class prisoner, and you kept him there doing hard labour. You have not allowed him pen or paper to write with. He cannot go on with the work which he was doing and which was of such value to the nation, and now you say, in addition to that, " No vote for you." I believe these things go on because they are not known. When they are known people are astonished and unhappy. Few men have done more to bring the United States of America into association with us at this time than Gilbert Murray. What is his view, after going through the cases of a number of these men He says:
  "However wrong-headed, conceited, and unpatriotic. and the rest of it, the objectors may originally have seemed to us, the long and fruitless and illegal persecution of these men leaves on the mind of the coldest observer an impression of some moral heroism on the side of the culprits and some moral and intellectual vileness on the side of their oppressor."
  No one has spoken more strongly in favour of this War or worked more arduously for it than Gilbert Murray, and that is, his verdict as he surveys what has been done in regard to these men. On the top of all that, the proposal is that you should take away their vote. As I understand it, their real testimony is that they have nothing to do with Conscription. Take the case of Clifford Allen, who says:
  "I have chosen to suffer sentence after sentence of hard labour rather than secure my discharge from prison by effecting a bargain with Conscription."
  As the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil). says, that may be an absolutely wrong view, but it is a sincere view, and I am not sure whether in after days, when the history of this War comes to be written, you will not find that some of these men who refused to bow to Conscription are not some of the pioneers in trying to rid Europe of this awful system of Conscription. You may not believe it. At any rate, that is what these men think. This question raises the deepest principle of all. These men, mistaken though you feel they are, would have been wrong if they had taken any other action. We have tried to convince them and to get them to take some

  1243
  other action, but they would have been wrong according to the principles laid down by the Noble Lord if they had taken any other action. A well-known Member of this House said:
  "It seems to be the Divine will 'that light upon great subjects' should first arise and be gradually spread through the faithfulness of individuals in acting up to their own convictions."
  Will this policy help in the prosecution of the War? Will it help in rebuilding after the War? Will it diminish the influence of these men? I believe that it will enormously enhance their influence. Some of you have said that they can hardly get a hearing now, but after this one-third of the people, if not more, will feel at once that an injustice has been done to them. You will have made martyrs of them, and you will have made it extremely difficult for some of the truest servants in the State. Look at the question of the Society of Friends. If there is one principle which is taught in our schools, if there is one thing which is said to the young in that body, it is this, "You have a duty and a responsibility to the State. You are to serve the State to the best of your ability, and just because you cannot take arms it is all the more incumbent upon you to serve fully and completely in other ways." What are we to say now to every one under the age of forty-one? What are we to say to the young boys in our schools? The same advice, the some counsel, the same injunction will be given, but we shall have to add, "Unfortunately, though all these things you do, the State is not prepared to give you a vote." I do not believe that the House desires that; I believe the House would be profundly uncomfortable if that came about. I do ask hon. Members, before they vote on this Amendment, to ponder most carefully as to whether that is really the result that they desire.
  One of the great difficulties we feel at the present time in debating this question is that we are so sensible of the awful losses that all of us have had in this War. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to keep one's balance and one's judgment in such circumstances, but there is growing up in this House and in this country and amongst all the civilised countries of the world a profound desire that some way should be found of getting rid of war. Our leading statesmen have said during the last few days that this is a War to end war. My belief is that every one of us
  1244
  in this House desires that, but the very men whose fathers have for generations tried to suggest ways in which that can be brought about are by this Amendment told, "We have no further use for you in the service of the State" I do not believe that such action will weaken the influence of these men; I believe it will enormously strengthen their influence. I do not want the State to make a mistake. Their advocacy in future is going to be supplemented by the advocacy of some of those who have seen most of the horrors of this great War. One of the most noted correspondents in this War has been Philip Gibbs. Have you read how he closes his book on "The Soul of the War"? He says:
  "There will be no hope of final peace until the peoples. of the world recognise their brotherhood and refuse to be led to the shambles for mutual massacre. If there is no hope of that— if, as some students of life hold, war will always happen, because life itself is a continual warfare and one man lives only at the expense of another, then there is no hope, and all the ideals of men striving for the progress of mankind, all the dreams of the poets and the sacrifices of the scientists are utterly vain and foolish. and pious men should pray God to touch this planet with a star and end the folly of it all."
  If Christianity does not destroy war, war will destroy Christianity.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I shall not make a long demand on the patience of the House; but I am unwilling to give a silent vote upon this question. I find my position equally far removed from those. of the two hon. Gentlemen who have last spoken, who represented rather the extremes on either side. I hope the hon. Member for York will not think that any of us in this House will be insensible to the appeal made by a member of his society for consideration for the large measure of public service which the Society of Friends renders in this country. I am not a member of that society; but I belong to another, I think a smaller religious community, the members of which have often been linked with the members of the Society of Friends in public work, without distinction of creed, and I feel the difficulty which necessarily arises when a man who has given real public service to the State or the community in which he lives is confronted by a demand for a kind of service which he is unwilling to give when we are asked to decide how we shall treat such a man My hon. Friend has taken us rather far from the question which is before us, in the account which he gave of individual cases. The prison treatment of these men

  1245
  is a thing quite apart from that which we are now discussing. It may be quite wrong. At any rate, it raises, as we all admit, one of the most difficult questions of political sagacity with which a community can well be confronted. Here are people—I hope I may say this without offence—afflicted with a certain blindness, a certain incapacity as it seems to us to see what their duties and obligations are. How are we to treat them? Are we to punish them? Are we in some other way to try to convert them? I am not here to advocate the prison treatment. That is a distinct thing. I am not saying that there may not be very good grounds for the suggestion which my hon. Friend threw out that a man who has proved himself a bad citizen by having been convicted of a criminal offence should himself be disfranchised for a period. I think that there is a great deal to be said for it.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I did not make the suggestion.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend would not like to see that suggestion adopted, but if so it is not quite fair to taunt us with inconsistency because we have not done it. I am quite willing to consider an Amendment of the kind if my hon. Friend will put it down; but those are not the questions which we are discussing now. We are discussing now whether a man who cannot render to the State the service which in this emergency the State is forced to call forth from him should have a vote, and I do not think it a reasonable suggestion that, if we decide that, as he is unable to fulfil the obligations which the State would desire him to fulfil, he cannot therefore enjoy all the rights which other citizens possess, therefore we are making a martyr of him. We may be making a martyr of him by the prison treatment, and that may be a reason for changing it, but you really will not make a martyr of him by telling him that for a period of years or for life he will not have a vote. If everybody who has not got a vote was a martyr what a nation of martyrs there would be even at the present time! I do not approach this question from quite the same point of view as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, I approach it from the point of view of what the vote is. I do not regard the vote as a birthright. I regard it as a privilege, a trust, and I say that we have a right to attach conditions to it. It is not sufficient to say, in answer
  1246
  to that, that some of those conditions are such as certain conscientious people cannot accept. There are people of eccentric or unbalanced minds who find objections to many laws which in the interests of the community as a whole we are obliged to enforce. We are obliged to restrain those eccentric individuals. In some instances we are obliged to compel them, but we do not make martyrs of them. We have the right to say, in conferring this privilege, in giving this trust, that we will attach to it certain conditions. A condition which is suggested is that if a man has been called upon in a great emergency for a certain kind of service and pleads conscientious objection, and: on that ground secures exemption, then we have the right to say that as that was the service which was required by the State above all things, as this is the time, in the whole of our long history, when the State has the greatest need of what its citizens can give, he who has been: unable to give what is asked and what the State requires has no inherent right to claim a vote which we think proper to withhold.
  My hon. Friend said, in the opening passages of his speech, that in the result you will have one law for men over forty-one and another law for men under forty-one. Yes, you will. You will have one law for the man who, being a conscientious objector, is exempted by reason of his occupation, and another for the man who, being a conscientious objector, on that ground and that ground only is granted exemption. Further, you have one law for men over forty-one and another law for men under forty-one now. You require men under forty-one to go and fight, and you do not require men over forty-one. The State in that matter has adjusted the law to what it believes to be the exigencies of the conditions, and the circumstances of the help which the individual citizen can best render. We come back always to the same point. In a great crisis, in the greatest we have ever known, you have asked men to serve. They have refused. You have a right to limit the extent to which they share in privileges of citizenship. The emergency in which we have asked them is one in which our whole existence as a nation is at stake. We are waging the greatest War we have ever known. It is at that moment that they find themselves unable to give the assistance which the State requires. If they are unable to give that assistance, by what right can they claim to decide the

  1247
  future of the country. I will not pursue the matter any further. I have said enough to make my position quite clear. I am going to vote for this Amendment, or at least I am going to vote for the principle. As far as I understand the position, the first question which you will put: from the Chair will enable us to vote upon the principle in some form or another. At any rate, whenever the principle is raised I am going to vote for it.
  But now I want to make an earnest appeal to my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, to those who support it in its present form, and to the Government themselves. My hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) says that the movers are prepared to accept a time limit. I supposed that they would, but I want to do something more. The real deficiency of these men, in the conditions for citizenship, is that they have refused essential service that was asked for. I am going to vote for the principle, but I do want some form of words found which will save, at any rate, the most striking cases which may be brought forward of men who, although not fighting, are taking all risks, are not shirking, and are not sheltering behind their conscientious objections, but are giving real service. Many members of the `Society of Friends would not be disfranchised even under the Amendment as it stands, as they are rendering service, just as years ago, in the war of American independence, many members of the community felt that their general abhorrence of war must give way to the holiness of the cause for which the war was waged. Many members of the Society of Friends would, therefore, be found among the combatants. But take another case, that of a gentleman not personally known to me—I am not pleading for a friend—a member of the Society of Friends, who at the outbreak of the war said, "Owing to my convictions I cannot fight for you," but who, there and then, went for service on a mine-sweeper in the North Sea. That is not shirking. That is not choosing a soft job. That is not looking about to see where something easy and safe can be found. You may think that that is a narrow point of conscience. Some of us may not be able to see it. What they would not do was to take life, but they would take all the hard work, and they would take all the risk, and, therefore, if we are to assert the principle against
  1248
  others who will not do the work that they might do, against men who are not like those for whom my hon. Friend has been pleading, but are, as we all know shirkers, who have refused to serve the State in this crisis—if we are to do that, we must find some words which will save the case of such a man as I have mentioned, or the case of the ambulance men of the Society of Friends, men who are doing really good work, who are risking their lives as freely as any of their compatriots and against whom I think no one desires to leave, as it were, any bad mark on their record during the War. The House will see that I take up a position between the two speakers who have last addressed it, who put very strongly and forcibly the more extreme views. I shall vote for the assertion of the principle. But I will then support and I hope the Government will show themselves willing, if the principle is adopted, to introduce some words to protect these cases to which I have referred.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The House will note that the exceptions which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the Amendment make so large an inroad into the principle of the Amendment that his conclusion ought to have been rather that he would vote against the Amendment and move some other Amendment to carry out his proposal rather than that he should vote for this Amendment which, as I understand it, will be put from the Chair in the form in which it has been moved by the hon. Baronet. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the whole of the Debate last night and this afternoon. If he had he would realise that the object of this Amendment, and most of those who are supporting it, is to exclude from the franchise all those who refuse military service to the State. I do not see how, in recognition of other servants of the State on a level with them, he can refuse to vote against this Amendment. I hope, however, that the Leader of the House will have come to recognise from to-day's Debate that he took somewhat false ground last night when he said that he was going to leave this question to the decision of the House because the decision of the Women's Local Government Vote Amendment had also been left to the House. The right hon. Gentleman stated that as that Amendment had been left to the House—and we are grateful to him for having left it to the House—he would, in similar circumstances, leave any

  1249
  other Amendment, where it might be deemed desirable, to the House. But I think the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is no similarity between the two Amendments. In regard to the Women's Local Government Vote Amendment, the Home Secretary will remember that speeches, for many hours, were delivered from all quarters of the House by members of every party in the House, who pleaded with the Government to take off the Whips. That was done, and the Debate concluded without any Division. How can the Leader of the House suggest that there is any resemblance between that Amendment and the one now under discussion? We are here face to face with one of the most fundamental issues that can divide us. There is deep division between those who are supporting the Amendment and those who are against it, though you are proceeding with what is supposed to be an agreed Bill, and one the Home Secretary recommended to the House as an agreed Bill.
  The Home Secretary himself admits that on this question there is a deep division of opinion which might imperil the prospects of the Bill. I do not think he was putting it too high—indeed, I am not sure that those Members are not widening that division as much as they can because they do not very much love the franchise Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is piloting through the House. I am not complaining because the Leader of the House has taken off the Government Whips; I only wish they would do it always; but, as the Home Secretary is going to Whip us into the Lobby, I hope he will not lead us there, I would venture to remind him of a speech which he made to the House on the Committee stage. Members of the Government rather repudiated the doctrine put forward by earlier speakers, that it was too late to move this Amendment, and that if this penalty was to be imposed upon the conscientious objector, or the other class who are not recognised conscientious objectors, but who are within this Amendment, it ought to have been moved upon the Military Service Bill. I shall read the words used by the Home Secretary on the Committee stage of the Bill, because I think they have as much force to-day as the right hon. Gentleman considered they possessed on the Committee stage. I should be astonished if, having spoken those words on the Committee stage, the
  1250
  Home Secretary can bring himself to go into the Lobby in support of the hon. Baronet's principle. These are the right hon. Gentleman's words:
  "Let us consider the position. A very short time ago, within the last two years certainly, Parliament passed an Act which allowed a man to claim exemption from military service on the ground of conscientious objection to military service. If it had been desired to impose a penalty upon him in consequence of that claim, that was the time, that Bill was the place, when such a provision ought to have been inserted."
  The right hon. Gentleman was challenged by an hon. Member as to whether he would at that time have inserted such a provision in the Bill. In reply the Home Secretary expressed his opinion that it could have been done. His words were:
  "Indeed I do. If you are going to impose this disability in consequence of that claim you should have said so, and said so in that Statute at the time."
  I submit that the Home Secretary in that speech, made in Committee, put the justice of that case before the House, and I think the House would be going very far astray from fairness and justice, which are always pursued in legislation, if it took retrospective action by going back two years, and imposing penalties on men to whom it was intended to grant exemption.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that if notice had been given at that time the conscientious objector would not have been subject to this penalty?
  Mr. JONES: If it had been brought forward, the House would never for a moment have considered the proposition. I am dealing with two distinct classes here. The first class are those who have claimed and received recognition from the tribunal that their objection to military service was rightly based upon conscientious objections and that they came within the provisions of the Act, and therefore were granted exemption. A good many of them are doing non-combatant service and some of them are employed in very dangerous service. Many of them are in the Friends Ambulance Unit in France, and Members know what valuable service that unit has rendered. It seems to me a monstrous proposal that people who, having taken advantage of an opening provided by Parliament itself, and then have rendered valuable service to the country during the War, should be excluded from the franchise, as they will be, if this Amendment is carried. At any rate let the hon. Baronet modify his Amendment so far that these people shall not be

  1251
  excluded from the franchise. There is a certain class touched by this Amendment, those who have not been exempted as conscientious objectors before a tribunal, but who, being compelled to join the Army against their will, have refused to admit that they were obliged to submit to military discipline. They have been held guilty of disobedience to military orders, and have been repeatedly and heavily punished for that offence. Hon. Members talk about the strength of public opinion against conscientious objectors and men who will not go into the Army, but it should not be forgotten that a very great amount of ill-feeling is created throughout the country by the repeated punishments inflicted upon these men for what is practically one offence. It is really contrary to the British sense of justice to punish men again and again for what is to all intents and purposes a single offence. The offence of these men is their refusal to undertake military service, and it is because of the method which this House adopted in putting the demand for military service before the citizens of the country, that those who refuse military service are subjected to these repeated punishments. I always felt that the proper course for the House to pursue was this, that it was the duty of every man to offer himself for military service, and refusal to join the Army would then have been the offence committed. The man who refused would have committed that offence once for all and should have been punished once for all, as heavily as you chose, for that offence. But now you are further going to punish him by disfranchisement, and if that was to be part of the punishment for refusal of military service I submit that then, and not now, was the moment at which it should have been done.
  But some Members want to go further. Some of them said to-day that they really desired to see these people outside the law; because they are not ready to serve the country in the way desired do not let them have the benefit of the franchise and make them practically outlaws. I do not think I am putting it too strongly. I think that punishment is out of date, and I think it is a great deal too severe for the offence committed. I would ask the House to carry back their minds to the time when compulsory service was enacted in this country. A very large part of the country resorted unwillingly to compulsory service.
  1252
  It was a slow conversion on the part of the great majority of the people of this country, and some have never been converted. If the House will carry its mind back to the temper and atmosphere of the discussion on the Military Service Bill, I think they will realise that had this proposal for disfranchisement been put forward the House would not for a moment have agreed to it. It is a punishment which you have not inflicted on the worst criminal guilty of the most disgraceful crime. You have traitors to the country at large to-day, but you do not propose to disfranchise them. There are Members of this House who profess no allegiance to the British State. You do not propose to turn them out of the House. This is a particular punishment for a particular offence, but unfortunately proposed after punishment has been given for the offence. I want to protest as strongly as I can against the House imposing this further punishment upon these men. It is a penalising measure which is being adopted against them. If I protest against it, it is not that I share the views of the conscientious objector. I do not. I disagree with them. I think they are illogical, and have great difficulty in even understanding their point of view. I do not mean that I do not understand the point of view of the orthodox Quaker in objecting to military service. I can well understand his saying that you will never overcome evil by force, and that the only way to overcome evil is by non-resistance, or that you will never overcome evil in this world by war. But the case of the man is much harder to understand who, in the present crisis of the country's fortune, refuses all national service of any kind. That, I think is illogical and difficult to understand. After all it is an opinion held by a great many people, that the State has not the right to dictate to them the services they should render. In this connection I think in a great number of the cases where national service has been refused by men who would not give military service, the decision of the objectors has been largely due to want of management by the tribunals in dealing with the men. Those who have followed the working of the tribunals must admit that when these men were claiming an exemption which they held that Parliament had granted, there was a great deal of unwise questioning, and even I will say harsh treatment by those who should have

  1253
  been there to hold impartially the scales of justice and administer the Act. I do not want to attack the tribunals generally, because they were administering a most difficult Act and the almost impossible task of determining what a man conscientiously thought. In a great many of these cases you might never have reached the extreme stage had they been more wisely handled by the tribunals.
  In this Amendment, I put it to the House that you are fighting opinion, and I claim, and it is a claim which Englishmen have always made for many, many years, that all opinions, however obnoxious, ought to be tolerated. I would go further and claim that they are entitled to representation among the voters of the country. There is a point I want to put to the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment. He based his argument upon the ground that these subversive opinions were spreading widely throughout the country. Of course they are spreading, and the treatment meted out to these people is the very way in which to spread those opinions throughout the country. The country is reaping in this matter part of the fruits of its own mishandling of the question. You cannot suppress obnoxious opinions by force. The very attempt to do so spreads the opinions you wish to put down. The remedy for obnoxious opinions is to meet them with righteous opinions. Let the obnoxious opinions come into the daylight, do not force them underground, for if you do you are courting the very danger and difficulty that you wish to avoid. The Leader of the House said that these doctrines are subversive of the State. Some of these people do hold doctrines which are subversive of the State. All the persecutions of history—or nearly all the persecutions—have been directed against doctrines which the rulers of the State claimed to be subversive of the State. It was the one charge which was levelled for centuries against the Early Christians. We are taunted with raising the analogy of the Early Christians. We do so because the treatment which this country is inclined to mete out calls forth the analogy. It is true that you do not use the same persecutions that were indulged in in those days, but it is the same old remedy, and the same idea: that you can crush obnoxious opinion by putting your foot down and stamping on it. It cannot be done.
  1254
  The effort to suppress individual opinion by way of Government authority smacks too much of German origin. I venture to say that the spiritual home of this Amendment is Germany. The claim that the State is to dictate to the individual conscience what it should think is entirely a German doctrne. Is it not against that doctrine we are fighting in this War? The reason that the free nations of the world are united against Germany is the assertion of Germany that the State is supreme—even in the domain of conscience—whereas the belief I should have said of all Englishmen was that in the ultimate decision the individual must determine by the light of his own conscience what his conduct shall be; and when the State trenches upon the ground of conscience it is going outside its proper sphere, and the individual rightly and wisely disregards even the mandates of the State if they conflict with his own individual conscience. That, I believe, has been the historic doctrine in this country not of one party, but of all parties for hundreds of years, and one of the most regrettable results of this War is that a discussion like this can be carried on in the House of Commons to-day. I never was afraid, when this War broke out, that Germany would conquer this country; I have never feared that; but I have always been afraid that we should be infected by German doctrines here. I ask the House, before it comes to a decision on this point, to recognise that in the successive steps which the Government have been taking in various directions there is a real danger that British freedom may be sacrificed before the War is over. We see in every direction growing claims by the Government to interfere, to control, to regulate, to dictate, to individuals what their conduct should be. We have set up a governmental machine for turning out proper provender for the people in the shape of the political opinion which it is suitable for them to receive. You are setting up a new censorship over pamphlets and publications before they are issued, instead of doing what Englishmen have done practically since the days of the Revolution, namely, throwing on the authors of the pamphlets the responsibility for what they write and bringing them to book if they do wrong. In every direction the Government are trenching more and more upon the rights of the individual, and this wish to disfranchise the conscientious objectors is another step in that same

  1255
  downward course. I ask the House with great sincerity and speaking from the very bottom of political convictions, which have not been formed to-day, but which have been formed in what is now a long political past, and I implore the House to look beyond the passions and the controversies of the hour and to remember the great traditions of British freedom in the sphere of opinion, and to be content to fight error with truth. It may be that the House will reject my plea and disfranchise these men, and even be applauded by a Press which is no longer free to express public opinion, but which represents manufactured opinions to the country. The appetite for repression and persecution grows, and I begin to fear when peace comes we shall indeed have won the War, but have lost the cause for which we fought.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I do not desire to intervene in this Debate for more than a few minutes, but I feel, however, that unless the party with which I am associated made its position clear that we might be misunderstood regarding this matter that is under discussion. We will vote against the Amendment, and I want to say that no modification of the Amendment will modify our attitude regarding this proposal. In taking up this attitude I do not want our position to be misunderstood in any shape or form. We do not agree with the conscientious objector; we disagree with him; we think he is wrong; but at the same time, on the very highest Christian and moral grounds, we cannot refuse to the conscientious objector the same right that we claim for ourselves, namely, the right to make our own choice on this question. During the course of the Debate attempts have been made to divide the conscientious objectors into two or three different classes. Personally I cannot see any room for the divisions that have been made. Some hon. Members said that the man who is a conscientious objector on religious grounds has some claim to the sympathy of the Members of the House. I think that even the Mover of this Amendment took up that position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in the course of his speech said among other things that we are in the midst of a great War, and that the conscientious objectors had been asked to assist and that they had refused. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why did
  1256
  they refuse, and the answer which I will give will at the same time explain my view as to the various divisions that certain Members try to make. Take the man who objects on religious grounds. Why has he objected? It is because he feels that as a follower of the Prince of Peace he cannot have the guilt of shedding the blood of his fellow man upon his head. If we take the case of the conscientious objector who objects on political or moral grounds, why does he refuse to render assistance to his country in its day of struggle? He does so exactly on the same data. He says, as one who believes in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, that he cannot be guilty of shedding the blood of his fellow man. So that, going down to the bottom, the reason is exactly the same among all these parties who take conscientious objection to military service.
  There are two considerations to which I think the Members of the House would be well advised to give serious thought before they cast their votes. The first is, do not let us forget that in all ages of the world's history the blood of the martyr has been the seed of the Church. We had better be careful as to our action to-night. At the present time we have a very small proportion of our people who are taking up the position of conscientious objectors.
  General CROFT: What would happen if a large section of our countrymen took up that position?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I was going to point out that a very small section of our people take up the position of the conscientious objector, but let us be very careful that we do not turn that small portion into a large portion. That is my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. That is the first consideration which I want my fellow Members to weigh carefully. The second one is this: Let us be very careful that in our desire to punish the conscientious objector we do not raise serious industrial trouble in this country. I can assure those hon. Members who object to the statement that I have just made that there is a real danger of serious trouble if this Amendment is given effect to to-night. The effect of the trouble, in view of the small number of conscientious objectors in the country, would not be serious. There are, however, many other matters. There is dissatisfaction in the country, which is not only on the ground of what would be done with the conscientious objector. Mankind who have the spirit of dissatisfaction

  1257
  have an ugly knack of joining forces with those who, like themselves, also are dissatisfied. We ought not to give them an opportunity to develop this. Do not let us act foolishly in our desire to punish these men for taking up an attitude of which we cannot approve. I hope the Mover and the Seconder will see fit to withdraw the Amendment, so that a vote may not be taken on this question. If they refuse to do so, I hope that by an overwhelming majority this Amendment will be defeated.
  Captain O'NEILL: I rise for a few moments to call the attention of the Mover of this Amendment to some further defects which I propose to explain to the House, largely from the point of view of how, if carried, the Amendment will read in connection with the Army Act, and offences created by the Army Act. This Amendment proposes, first of all, that any person who has got exemption on the ground of conscientious objection shall be disqualified. It also puts in a second class, namely, those who, not having got exemption, allege conscientious objection to military service as a reason for refusal to obey orders. It seems to me that what this Amendment does is, beyond a question of doubt, to penalise a man who is exempted upon conscientious grounds, and thereby has, before the tribunal, established the fact that his conscientious objections were sound. But, as I will point out in a moment, it lets off a large number of men who have not satisfied the tribunals, and who have escaped out of the net which is sought to be spread. The only people in the second class with whom this Amendment deals are men who refuse to obey orders. "Disobey lawful commands" is the proper legal expression of the Army Act. This is not the same thing as refusing to obey orders. I have, in the capacity in which I am now working in connection with the Army, been at numbers of courts-martial. I have seen these conscientious objectors. I have read, I will not say all, the proceedings, but a very large number of them. The conscientious objectors are not only—I am talking about the second class—the class of men who cannot get the tribunal to exempt them. They are not only men convicted of disobedience to orders, but they have been convicted of numerous other military offences.
  1258
  Men have alleged conscientious objection as a defence, for example, in desertion. Let me explain. A man fails to answer his notice calling him up. He disappears. He may stay away for months. Then he is found. He is arrested, brought back, and tried by court-martial. What is he tried for? Desertion. That man is a conscientious objector. He points out, in defence of his desertion, the fact that he does not recognise that the Army has any rights over him because of his conscientious objection. That is the technical point. I am sure it will be appreciated by the House, so that the wording of the Amendment certainly requires amending in this respect. There is another class of men. The second part of the Amendment proposes to deal with those who have alleged, as a reason for disobeying orders, that they have a conscientious objection to military service. In those courts-martial are numerous cases of men who, when they have been tried for whatever the military offence may be, have said nothing at all. They have raised no defence of any kind. They have simply remained dumb. Yet from the knowledge of the authorities of how these men have been accustomed to go about, what they were, and the way they were brought up, the authorities know, in fact, that they are conscientious objectors, although really they do not allege it at the time of trial. Therefore, this Amendment does not catch those men. Further than that. Those men are very often treated subsequently as conscientious objectors, although, in fact, they have not alleged conscientious objection in defence to the charge for which they have been tried. These men, again, will escape under this Amendment. You have, too, got men who have been tried by court-martial and who are now employed in work of national importance under the scheme. So far as I can see, those men will not be caught by this Amendment, unless the particular charge with which they are charged is disobedience to lawful commands.
  Lastly, there is one further class of men whom I do not think will be caught under the provisions of this Amendment. These are the men who have possibly gone abroad and been in France. I have seen cases. Possibly for many, many months they have been there. They have suddenly developed a desire to raise as a defence in their trial the excuse of conscientious objection. I have, I hope, said enough to

  1259
  draw the attention of the Government and the Movers of this Amendment to the fact that the wording of it must be materially changed if the object which the Amendment desires to bring about is to be attained. So far as I am concerned I very cordially agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I do feel that this Amendment, as now drawn, quite apart from the defects to which I have drawn attention, carries out more than, at, any rate, I wish to see carried out; because it is going primarily to hit men such as those belonging to the Society of Friends and others, who are doing work of national importance, although it may not be work, technically of a military character; while it is not going to catch in its meshes a large number of those who have not succeeded in persuading the tribunals that their conscientious objection is a good one. As the Amendment stands now, personally, I could not vote for it. I hope before the question is put the Amendment will be altered to such words as will truly carry out the desire of those who brought it forward.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CARADOC REES: The difficulty I feel in most things of this sort is that of judging others. If I were to say anything to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment it would be this: that the result already brought about is not the result they desired. There are a number of us in this House who have no sympathy with the conscientious objector, but this will drive us into apparent sympathy with him, because you put down this Resolution, which we cannot support, and as has been said by other speakers, the result is not what you anticipate. You are going to make it appear, or, if we come to the vote, you will make it appear, as if this House were in favour of the conscientious objector, when really what we want to say is this: We refuse to see the men of the Society of Friends deprived of their votes. The next point is this: It is so easy to misjudge people. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras was speaking someone interrupted about his age, and somebody on the opposite benches shouted out: "What about Rees?" In paying me a compliment he was doing me an injustice. I am in my fiftieth year, and consequently do not come under the Military Service Acts. It is, however, so easy to
  1260
  misjudge people, and motives, and it is so difficult to get into the skin of other people and find out really how they work and how their conscience moves. That is the difficulty. It is so easy, carelessly and heedlessly, to do harm to other people, and to hurt them, perhaps when we did not intend to do so, but rather intended to pay them a compliment. The main objection I have to this Amendment is that no distinction is drawn between conscientious objector and conscientious objector. They are all treated on the one plane. The members of the Society of Friends, to take an example, under forty-one, are to be deprived of their votes. Why not deprive their fathers who taught them to be conscientious objectors of their votes? Or the mothers—for they will be getting the vote? An Act passed in this House, provided that if a man should satisfy a tribunal that he was in. reality a conscientious objector he would be entitled to do work other than that in the actual fighting line. That is the law of this country, and the conscientious objector who has taken on non-combatant work is obeying the law of this country, and surely it is wrong to penalise a man for obedience to the law. I draw a distinction between him and the other conscientious objector who says, "I will neither go into the trenches nor will I do non-combatant service." I cannot understand his position. I do not want to judge him, but that is the only man I would disfranchise. I take it that what he is in reality saying to this House and country is, "I refuse to obey the laws of the majority of the people of the country." Now, if he refuses to obey the laws of the majority of the people of the country, then we can surely say to him, "You must not expect to make laws which you expect the majority to obey." If the Amendment were limited to depriving of the vote the conscientious objectors who refuse to do non-combatant service, one could support it, but I cannot support in this broad way depriving those who obey the law as well as those who refuse to obey the law.
  There is one further point. It would be as well, I think—and I commend this to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment—if these Amendments were not put down, because they are doing a great deal of harm to what they have in mind and what they have in heart. This discussion to-day cannot do good to the attitude they want

  1261
  to see forwarded, and I do hope this House will be saved any Vote upon this, and that it will be withdrawn freely and readily, because, taking myself for example, I do not want to vote for it and I do not want to vote against it, but, owing to the bigger number who will be deprived of the vote who are entitled to it, and the smaller number who, I think, ought to be deprived of it, on balance I am bound to say I shall vote against the Amendment.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I should like to say one or two words upon this matter, all the more because of the very difficult position in which very many of us find ourselves owing to the form in which this is raised in the Amendment, and, if I may say so, in the policy of the Government itself. Here, very nearly at the end of the Debates on this Bill, we have an Amendment moved which raises some of the most difficult and most far-reaching problems that can possibly be raised in Parliament, and in that moment of extreme difficulty the guidance we have had from the Government up to now appears to have been uncertain, indefinite, and without that power of moulding discussions in the House which in this matter might be of great help and of great importance. It is obvious now from the Debate that has taken place that this Amendment as it stands cannot possibly do. With all that has been said by the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire I entirely agree. It is not fair to Members of this House, and it is not fair to the public outside that the issue should be so presented that every vote given for it or against it is given under a sense of confusion, with no possible way of knowing exactly what is meant by any vote on either side, because here, grouped together in one Amendment, are the most different kinds and categories of people. There are those who, as has been pointed out with much force by the hon. Member for York and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, are doing work of the utmost danger and self-sacrifice, as much as that of any soldier or sailor, but who, under this Amendment, would be deprived of their vote, and with them are grouped persons who, rightly or wrongly, decline all duties of citizenship in connection with the War at a time when the country needs the help of every citizen in the hour of its peril and its trial. How can we be asked to vote on so confused an issue as that?
  1262
  The suggestion has been made that this should not apply to members of the Society of Friends and others engaged in war work on land or sea. How can you possibly draw the line there? Much of my time in the last eighteen months has been spent in sitting on tribunals. We have had conscientious objectors of every variety before us, and what do we find? You cannot draw the line between those who are serving in France in the Friends' Ambulance unit and those who are not. Men have come forward and been perfectly willing to serve in the Friends' Ambulance unit, but at the time there was no room, and they were sent to do work on the land at personal inconvenience. You cannot draw the line, except to a very limited extent, by saying that this disfranchisement shall not apply to any person who has taken the alternative service which has been allowed by the proper authority before whom he has come. If you do that you at once dispose, as we all know, of the great majority of persons who are intended to be disfranchised by the Mover of this Amendment and by the Press campaign which is being engineered on the subject outside the House. if you stop short of that line you are giving a different treatment to persons of the same opinion willing to do the same work, because it is arranged that one is to go for war work abroad and it is not possible to make such arrangements for the other man. The Amendment is absolutely full of gaps and holes; it does not hang together; it would be absolutely unworkable, and would defeat the object of those who propose it. I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last that if you could—I think it would pass the wit of man to do it—bring in an Amendment to this Bill which carefully segregated and set apart those, and those only, who decline all duties of citizenship in connection with the War—and I wish you could include those who, without conscience, are shirkers from all duties of citizenship in the War—if you could frame some Clause which got hold of those two types, and no other, then I, for one, would agree that they should have no vote for the next ten years or so, because they have made the great refusal of citizenship in the hour when citizenship is more than ever a duty. This Amendment does nothing of the kind. I cannot see any Amendment to-day which would enable; it to do that and to do nothing more.
  Therefore, I join in the appeal that has been made by many Members of this

  1263
  House for the withdrawal of this Amendment. None of us—at least, I hope there are none of us—wish to countenance or strengthen or do anything but reprobate the men who are unwilling to discharge any civic duties with regard to the War. But it would be a very great pity if, for that reason, we allowed ourselves to disfranchise many persons who are risking their lives day by day in the interest of the country, and many other persons who have accepted, under the faith of the Military Service Act, the decision of competent tribunals, and are carrying out those decisions at no little self-sacrifice in a large number of cases. I wish it were possible to deal with the very small and special class. I do ask the Government, after this Debate, frankly to tell the House that the differences are far too great to admit of any Amendment that really will have permanent value, that this matter, like many other matters, is beyond the scope of Amendments to this Bill, and that it therefore had better be allowed to drop.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I certainly hope most earnestly the Mover of this Amendment will not withdraw it. With a great deal of what the hon. Member who spoke last has said, I find myself in a considerable measure of agreement. I admit there are certain cases at present comprised in this Amendment for whom, I think, you can make a very good case for taking out of this Amendment. There is nobody in this House who has ever heard the real story of what happened at Gorizia who will not have the strongest feeling for the Friends' Ambulance. If ever men have served their country, it is the men who drove those ambulances. But that is no reason, because you have to draw the line, for rejecting the principle, and it is the principle of this Amendment, namely, whether a man who refuses to discharge his duties to the State is to have all the rights and privileges which the State gives to its citizens, which is at stake. It is not on the actual wording of the Amendment that I take my stand. If the hon. Member, and those who think like him, believe that the actual wording of the Amendment is wrong, they can move to amend the Amendment. The hon. Member thinks it cannot be done. I think it can be done, and I see no reason whatever, from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, subject
  1264
  to Mr. Speaker's ruling, why it should not be done. So far as I am concerned, I hope it may be done, but do not make that a ground for rejecting the principle. This is the first opportunity the House has had, I understand—I have not been able to follow the procedure as closely as at one time—of arriving at a decision on this question in a free Lobby, and I confess it was with a feeling of extraordinary amazement that I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) pressing the right of free private judgment up to the hilt, and complaining that the Government have decided to take off the Government Whips. That appears to me exceedingly illogical. There are really in this Debate, as everyone must recognise, fundamental differences, and there are fundamental differences between hon. Members who are opposing the Amendment. There is a fundamental difference between the two hon. Members who spoke last and some hon. Members on this side. As I understand, the two hon. Members opposite would disfranchise a conscientious objector who refused to do non-combatant work.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I should disfranchise a person who refused every kind of work of national importance put to him by an appropriate authority. In that case I say he has declined to act as a citizen during the War. If you can limit it to him, I am with you.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not want in the slightest to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. That is his point of view, but there are other hon. Members in this House who regard that man as the most conscientious of all conscientious objectors. They think he is carrying the conscientious principle to the highest possible point. Therefore, there are not only these fundamental differences, but there are differences between the hon. Members themselves who are prepared to vote against this Amendment. I want to say a word about the speech made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), and I also wish to mention a point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones). I think it is a wrong point, and one which is not worthy of them—I mean the point that you ought not to make any penalty of this description retrospective, and that you ought to have given notice of it to the

  1265
  conscientious objector, and put it in the Miliary Service Acts. I am only speaking from memory, but so far as the Military Service Acts are concerned, I do not think we put it in because Mr. Speaker ruled that we could not do so.
  I remember an Amendment of this description or a new Clause being proposed, and I think it was ruled that it ought to come as an Amendment to a Franchise Bill and not as an Amendment to a Military Service Bill. We have been told that we ought to have given the conscientious objector notice, but would it have made any difference if we had? I have always been a great admirer of the genius of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University, but I was surprised to hear him make a speech of the kind he has delivered in defence of the, conscientious objector. I do not think he would have made that speech with regard to the Education Bill of 1902. He did not show the same feeling for the conscientous objector in regard to that measure, and as far as I can remember his views of that occasion, they were not those which he has enunciated to-day. The view he put forward to-day was that of an extreme individualist, and it was a philosophic justification of anarchy, and, after all, the anarchist is only the individualist in a frock coat.
  I do not understand the position of the Leader of the Labour party on this point. I understand the position of the Internationalists, but the one party I should have thought who would have been strong supporters of this principle is the Socialist party, because, except for those Socialists who are Internationalists, all those who adhere to the principle of a Socialist State I should have thought would have been the strongest supporters and enunciators of the rights and duties a man owes to that State. My Noble Friend, as he proceeded, appeared to perceive his difficulty, and he began to distinguish between different kinds of rebels. He said some of them were good and some of them bad, and it all depended whether you took action against the State or refused to discharge your duty to the State from a good or a bad motive. My Noble Friend is arguing for a position in which the individual is to be a judge as to whether he has or has not the right to discharge duties to the State. If he elects to take that position he cannot in the same breath maintain that he has an
  1266
  inalienable right to the privileges given to those who obey the State. There are people whose religious convictions are perfectly logical, and they say "we refuse to grant this claim upon us by the State, and we refuse to discharge what the State calls our duty, and we take no concern of the State. We do not care whether they give us the vote or not, and we refuse to exercise the vote when we have got it." There are religious people who argue in that way. I remember upon one occasion spending a considerable time canvassing a gentleman who held those particular views. I was trying to secure his vote and interests, and he persistently took the point that we had no permanent habitation on this sphere, and had no concern with questions of voting either for A or B. I could not persuade him even that he had a lodger vote. That is a perfectly logical position, but the position being maintained by the opponents of this Amendment to-night that a man can in the same breath, by an appeal to the higher law, say, "I refuse to discharge what the State has decreed to be my duty, and at the same time I claim all the rights and the privileges of those men in the State who have discharged that duty and who have given their lives or their health to discharge it, some whose sons have given up their lives." I say that that is a principle which this House ought not to accept, and I earnestly hope that the House will not accept that principle.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I have listened to the greater part of the speeches made on this Amendment, and I am glad to say that throughout the Debate that there has been very little disposition to quarrel with the decision of the Government to leave this question to the free vote of the House. The House rarely complains of having too much freedom given to it. In respect of this question, whatever course we took in Committee I have long felt, and the Leader of the House takes the same view, that having regard to the intensity of feeling upon this matter both in the House and in the country it would have been wrong to attempt to put upon Members such pressure as is exercised by the use of the Government Whips. Apart from that consideration the House will remember that a few days ago I indicated the course which would be taken by the

  1267
  Government. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) pressed us very strongly to take off the Whips upon the question of the women's municipal vote, I said then, and I made it a condition of that decision, that we should be quite free to take a similar course upon this very Amendment. Having made that promise I need not dwell upon this point, for I think the House will agree that the vote should be a free one upon the merits of the Amendment.
  The vote being free, my own view on the matter is, of course, of small importance, but as my speech in Committee has been referred to I hope the House will permit me to say that I do not depart in the least from what I said on that occasion. The principles and the conduct of the conscientious objectors are to me odious. I differ very widely from my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University, whose brilliant speech will long be quoted by anarchists in all countries as justifying disobedience to the law. I think the conscientious objector when he refuses to obey a military law is rightly punished and rightly imprisoned. I cannot, however, get rid of the opinion which I have expressed before, that when you have by Statute, whether wisely or unwisely, permitted a man to claim exemption before a tribunal from military service. you cannot a little more than a year afterwards impose upon him a legal disability, however slight, for taking advantage of his statutory rights. For that reason I cannot vote for this Amendment.
  I did not rise in order to argue the merits of this Amendment but there is one other thing I would like to say. I would like to ask—how can the Government assist the House under present conditions? I think all of us would like to know the opinion of the House upon the wide question of principle involved. There is the very serious obstacle to this Amendment which many hon. Members have pointed out, that in its present form it is open to very grave objection. To begin with it does not go nearly as far as those who support it would wish it to go. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has already pointed out that as regards the latter part of the Amendment it only applies to men who have been sentenced by a court-martial for refusal to obey orders, and
  1268
  that would not catch more, I suppose, than half of the conscientious objectors who claim protection on the ground that they are conscientious objectors. Some of them have been dealt with as deserters and for other military offences, and unless you amend this proposal in that respect you would fail to a great extent to carry out the purpose you have in view. But in other respects the Amendment would go much too far. It might disqualify those who have accepted non-combatant service; it would disqualify those who have been exempted on condition that they accepted work of national importance; it would disqualify the men who have been unwilling to fight, or disabled if you please, by their conscience from fighting but who have accepted medical work and acted as stretcher bearers in Flanders. Who wants to disqualify them? You would disqualify men who have acted as mine-sweepers, after being actually exempted from military service under the provisions of the Military Service Acts. Who wants to disqualify them? No one, not a single Member of the House. Therefore, it is quite plain that in that respect, and perhaps in others, the Amendment will really not do. There is also the question of the limit of time which has not been provided for.
  I believe that what the supporters of the Amendment really desire is to disqualify a man who on the plea of conscience has refused not only to fight, but to do any service whatever to his country in this War. Those are the men to whom they would wish this disability to apply. What can we do in this state of things? If this Amendment is rejected, of course there is an end of the matter, but if it should be passed I think our duty would be to accept the vote as a vote upon the principle only, and to introduce in another place words so limiting the Amendment as to exclude cases of the kind I have mentioned. Some hon. Members say, "Why not do it here?" The Government are not taking charge of or supporting this Amendment, and the Government cannot do it here. Of course, if hon. Members like to remain and insert Amendments to it, they are at liberty to do so. But I am desirous, for reasons which the House will understand, of coming to a decision upon the matter now, and I would appeal to the House, if they take that view, to vote upon the main principle, in which case we should be quite willing, as indeed it would be our duty, to go carefully into the form of the Amendment and

  1269
  make proposals in another place. I cannot, of course, tie the House, and I only make that proposal in the interests of time and for the general convenience of the House.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: We are all anxious to adopt the course that may be convenient in order to get at the real opinion of the House, but I am afraid that some of us cannot accept unreservedly the suggestion of the Home Secretary that the House should be invited either to accept or reject this Amendment as it stands now in the expectation, or it may be only the hope, that in another place the Government may succeed in introducing Amendments which will fulfil the purpose that the Home Secretary has just mentioned. The House of Lords, of course, frequently prides itself upon its independence, and, although the Government in this House at all events are able to secure acceptance of Amendments to which they attach importance, I am not sure, however sincere, and I have no doubt that they are sincere, the intentions of the Government may be, that they will have the means at their disposal in another place to introduce precisely the limiting Amendments which the Home Secretary has adumbrated. I feel sure that there is a feeling in many quarters of the House that we should rather retain control of this matter in our own hands, vote upon the Amendment in the ordinary course, and, if necessary, upon Amendments to the Amendment as they may come forward.
  Commander WEDGWOOD:I have been impressed with the importance of putting two points of view that have not been dealt with during the whole of the after-noon. The hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) and another hon. Member who spoke after him said that there has been a great deal of agitation in the country, that the constituencies are unanimously in favour of this Amendment, and that, therefore, whatever our opinions are, we ought to bow the head and accept those views. Personally, I have not received one single communication from my Constituency asking me to support this Amendment, and I can say that not only I, but the majority of the Members in this House, would not change the views we hold if we had had communications from the majority of our constituents. It is one of our privi-
  1270
  leges here to be Members of Parliament and not delegates for the constituencies. We are elected on a wide range of ideals, and we are sent here because our constituents trust us to vote on principle. I should think that the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division is about the only Member in the House who would vote not on principle, but as told by his constituents. We can wash that out.
  There is another point of view that I wish to put before the House. Everybody here has been arguing the question from the point of view both of principle and of expediency Hon. Members have said that because these men are bad citizens, therefore they should have no vote. That, roughly speaking, is the expediency argument. I would ask hon. Members to consider that voting is not the only way in which citizens can affect the government of this country. Representative government itself is on trial at the present time. There surely must be numbers of Members to-day who know that the danger is not that of extreme representation in this House, but of direct action on the part of the trades unions and syndicalist unions in this country. I do not suppose, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) has said, that there is one of these men who would have altered his views on account of his vote being taken away. The vote itself is a small matter, but deprive them of the vote, and they become everyone of them a martyr who is going to be the foundation of direct action. Take away a man's citizenship and make him a pariah so far as politics are concerned, and you give him a fatal weapon to wield against those who believe in citizenship.
  Let me deal also with a point raised by the Leader of the House, who said that the supreme law was the safety of the State. That is always opposed by those who believe that you should do justice, though the Heavens may fall. There is a great deal to be said for the maxim used by the Leader of the House. It is possible that the safety of the State should be the supreme law, but, believe me, the interests of the State are not in the long run served by doing that which is unjust. It may appear temporarily that such and such a measure is in the interests of the State, and therefore must be carried violently over the heads of individuals, but in the

  1271
  long run those States that trample upon the individual and defy justice go down and are no longer heard or.
  Mr. BILLING: There is hardly a Member in this House who has not stated that if this Amendment were amended in some way or other he would support it. Surely it has not passed the wit of all the members of the Government and all the members of the Opposition to so frame an Amendment as to carry out the wishes and the views of the Members of this House. Practically, every speech we have heard, with the exception of one excellent speech by an hon. Member who spoke just below the Gangway (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), has been in favour of conscientious objectors. It is only common justice before we go into the Lobby that it should be made perfectly clear what we are voting on. Are we voting on this Amendment or on the suggestion made by the Home Secretary? So far as I am aware, the matter is still open. Having waited patiently for three hours to hear an Amendment moved which would clear the air a little, I will, with your permission, move an Amendment to this Amendment, which I trust will in some way enable Members to vote, not at the dictation of popular clamour, but on the issue as to whether a conscientious objector, whether he is of military age or not, shall exercise the vote. There is no reason why, just because a man has been called up and has refused to fight, that he should be deprived of his vote, when others who have not been called up, but who if they had been would have refused to fight, are allowed to
  vote. I would, therefore, move to strike out all the words after the word " person " [" any person "], and to insert instead thereof the words " who refuses to sign a declaration stating that he or she will not claim exemption from national or military service on conscientious grounds shall not be able to have his or her name placed upon the register." The Amendment then would not be retrospective, and it would meet the point of the Home Secretary that it would be illegal to take a man's vote away because he had a conscientious objection in the past. We should overcome that difficulty, and we should overcome the injustice—
  Sir G. YOUNGERrose in his place and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, " That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. DENMAN: If this Amendment is carried, will it be possible to recommit this Clause of the. Bill, so that we may discuss the details and exercise control over the Section before it passes from this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member mean directly after?
  Mr. DENMAN: At any time after?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is always open, on the Third Reading, to recommit the Bill.
  The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 171.

  Division No. 116.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner. Sir James Tynte

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Butcher, John George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G.

  Denniss, E, R. B.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood —

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Barnston, Capt. Harry

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  Du Pre, Major W. Baring

  Barran, Sir Row. Hurst (Leeds, North)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Clive, Col. Percy Archer

  Field, William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Benn, Corn. Ian Hamilton

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Billing, Pemberton

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

  Bird, Alfred

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Ganzonl, Francis John C.

  Blair, Reginald

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Boyton, James

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Brookes, Warwick

  Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Currie, George W.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Hall, Lieut. -Col. Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

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

  Harmsworth. R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanley, Hon. Sir Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Stanley, Capt. Lord (Abercromby)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Mildmay, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. Bingham

  Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Mitchell-Thomson, W.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Mond, Rt, Hon. Sir Alfred

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington. North)

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Neville, Reginald J. N

  Swift, Rigby

  Horne, Edgar

  Newman, Major John R. P.

  Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

  Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Nield, Herbert

  Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.)

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir J.

  Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  O'Malley, William

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

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

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

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Tickler, T. G.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Jessel, Colonel Sir H. M.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

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

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Kerry, Lieut.-Col. Earl of

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Westan, J. W

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Ratcliff, Lieut.-Col. R. F.

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

  Rawson, Colonel R. H

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Remnant, Col- Sir James Farquharson

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesalt)

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Rothschild, Major Lionel de

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

  Rutherford, Col. Sir .J. (Lancs., Darwen)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Sir G.

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

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Younger and Mr. R. McNeill.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

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

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

  Alden, Percy

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Edge, Captain William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Armitage, Robert

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Joyce, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Keating, Matthew

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Falconer, James

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Barton, Sir William

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  King, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Finney, Samuel

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Bentinck. Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Lundon, Thomas

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

  McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buxton, Noel

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds West)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Cator, John

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Mallalleu, Frederick William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Manfield, Harry

  Chapple, Major William Allen

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clough, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Millar, James Duncan

  Clynes, John R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hinds, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleopnes

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charier E. H.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Howard, John Geoffrey

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  1274

  1275

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Parrott, Sir Edward

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pratt, J. W.

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Wedgwood, Lieut.-Commander Josiah C.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Shorwell, Arthur James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Smallwood, Edward

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon Sir Thomas P.

  Raffan. Peter Wilson

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Reddy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

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

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Rowlands, James

  Tillett, B.

  Hugh Cecil and Mr. Adamson.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I ask, in view of the Division which has just been taken, if the Home Secretary will consider this suggestion? The Sub-section which has been added to the Bill has been added in a form which, it is generally agreed, is not the right form, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman it would best meet the convenience of the House if, when the Bill is recommitted—as it will be for the Irish Clauses and Schedule—it should also he recommitted in respect of the Sub-section just added, in order that the House may have an opportunity of putting it in the form in which it is desired it should proceed to the other House.
  Sir G. CAVE: We will certainly consider that suggestion, and consider it sympathetically.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector if such person has been interned under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act."
  8.0 P.M.
  The principle embodied in this proposal is very similar to that which the House has just carried. Under the law as it now stands persons who are suspected, or supposed to be unreliable and disloyal, whether they are naturalised subjects of the Crown or whether they are foreigners, are interned and kept under restraint either during the period of the War or until such time as they may be safely released. The Amendment which I now move proposes that these persons shall not have the right to exercise the franchise at either Parliamentary or local government elections. Clearly such persons
  1276
  are not reliable citizens of the State. Whatever may be said as to the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act, I think it will be admitted in all quarters that that Act has not been administered stringently and ruthlessly or harshly, and that the criticism as to the internment of persons in this country has always been in another direction. At any rate, the power has been very carefully exercised. I do not wish, in moving this Amendment, to enter into any long arguments regarding the naturalisation laws, but it is notorious that the naturalisation of foreigners as British subjects in this country has been done under conditions very lax and very unsatisfactory. It has not even been considered necessary to ascertain whether the person naturalised as a British subject has in fact ceased to be a subject or will cease to be a subject of a foreign country, and the result has been that many of these people hold a dual citizenship recognised by the law of this country and not repudiated by the law obtaining in certain foreign countries. It is the case that in the case of war the land of birth makes a very great call upon those in foreign countries. There are many other considerations in connection with our naturalisation laws with which it would not be right or proper for me to deal at any length, but I do wish to call attention to this matter, because many persons are naturalised under the law of this country at the present moment who are not in fact desirable British citizens. Some of these have been interned, and no doubt there have been cases of British subjects of British birth who have been interned; but it is quite clear that this Amendment will not affect any very large class

  1277
  in this country. It may be assumed that persons who have been interned have been interned for very good reasons, and that they are not loyal or reliable citizens of the Crown, and I think they should not exercise the franchise.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment would really have very little effect. The greater part of the persons interned are, of course, aliens who are thereby disqualified from voting. The only persons affected would be those who have been, or may be, interned under Regulation 14 (b) and I suppose there would be not more than 100 in the whole country who would be affected in this respect. Even as regards that 100, I suggest that there is difficulty in justifying this Amendment, because those persons are not interned for any crime or offence but on suspicion, and in order that due precautions may be taken for the safety of the country. I think it is quite right to intern them on suspicion, but I do not think they should be deprived of their vote on suspicion. Most of them, I think, many of them at all events, are naturalised British subjects, and as to all those the Government intend very shortly to introduce a Bill which will enable their naturalisation to be considered and, if need be, to be cancelled. The hon. and gallant Member may be quite sure that that measure will be taken; that is that proceedings will be considered and, if need be, commenced in respect of all naturalised citizens who have been interned, because the very fact that they are interned shows that they are under suspicion, and they will probably be called upon to justify their naturalisation as British subjects. We shall deal with them in that way, and as denaturalisation disqualifies them, we should get rid Of them once for all. That would cover a great part of the very limited area that would be embraced by this Amendment, and for those reasons I hope the Amendment will not be carried.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words:
  "A person shall not be disqualified from voting at any election as a Parliamentary or local government election by reason that he is legally employed
  1278
  for payment by or on behalf of the candidate at any Parliamentary or local government election."
  I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gulland) will know the purpose of this Amendment. I do not know whether he agrees with it or not, but his party is in the same position as my own with regard to this matter, and in the hope that he agrees with this alteration, I move the Amendment.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The point is really not a very large one. The number of persons who may be employed at an election is limited by law. Those persons in many cases feel a distinct grievance that they may not exercise their vote. There is really no question of corruption in this matter. It happens that the very few people employed in each election are by law deprived of their votes, and they desire to vote. It is only at an election of the closest possible character that their vote will turn the result one way or the other, and therefore as there is a certain stigma, or they feel that there is a certain stigma, cast on them, I venture to suggest to the House that this Amendment might well be carried as it would give satisfaction and relief to a certain number of persons in this country without doing any harm to the general welfare of the State.
  Mr. GULLAND: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) that on the whole this is probably quite a fair proposition. I should think that in the future with the very much restricted expenses of elections the number of those employed will be considerably less than it has been in the past. Another point I should like to put, in view of the Amendment, is that I have seen at an election an inferior man appointed as a messenger, or even as a sub-agent, because he is not an elector, and because it is considered that if you appoint a man who is an elector you deprive him of his vote. That, I think, is quite a good argument for the Amendment, and as I do not see any very strong arguments against it I do not desire to oppose it.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I confess that this Amendment seems to me a very startling proposition. As long as there have been elections it has been the law—and, I believe is part of the Statute—that nobody who is a paid servant or agent of the

  1279
  candidate can cast a vote; and there is a very obvious reason for it. It is quite out of the question that anybody who receives remuneration from a candidate would vote against him or can bring an unprejudiced mind to the issues which are tried at the election. He is paid to take one side, and I think, with great respect, that the existing law which says that an elector must be an independent elector is a good law. In the old times, when there were election addresses, they were addressed to the independent elector. Is the paid agent of the candidate an independent elector or not? I say he is not. He is doing nothing at all dishonourable or discreditable. He is earning his bread, and, I am sure, giving good value for the fees he receives; but he is not an independent elector when he becomes the paid servant of the candidate, and it is idle to say that that man can give an honest, or, at any rate, an independent, vote on the issues which are raised at the election.
  Colonel GRETTON: The candidate can vote for himself.
  Mr. HEALY: He is not paid.
  Colonel GRETTON: He is biassed.
  Mr. HEALY: I did not say unbiassed. No elector is unbiassed. The fact that a man goes to the poll and takes a side shows that he is not unbiassed. He has formed a judgment on one side or the other, and to say that he is unbiassed is nonsense. The question is, Did he form his judgment on proper grounds or is he influenced by payment? It is conceded that any man who takes money for his vote is doing a disgraceful thing. There is no disgrace in taking money to assist a candidate at an election, but the notion that a man who takes money from a candidate at an election continues to be an independent elector is, with great respect, arrant nonsense. Can the House conceive a man who has taken a fee voting in any way but one; and is not that the effect of this Amendment? Could he honestly vote for any candidate other than the man who has given him this money?
  Colonel GRETTON: He could.
  Mr. HEALY: Do you think any candidate would employ an agent who was going to vote against him? Such a thing is inconceivable. Take the election agent. He may be a very honest man, a man of the most shining virtue, but is it conceiv-
  1280
  able that if he takes a fee to conduct the election he will vote against his principal, or is it suggested that he will be acting honestly in doing so? The same applies to every man in the hire of the candidate, from the conducting agent down to the lowest messenger. I hope we shall not accompany this great reform and extension of the franchise by introducing into it the principle that a man who is paid to act for a candidate can come up and vote for him. The grievance involved in this matter is quite insignificant. It affects both parties equally, as the hon. Baronet said, and therefore no one suffers. Assuming that both candidates are equally equipped with agents and messengers and all the rest of it, no candidate suffers because his paid agent cannot vote, and what good purpose would be served by this Amendment? So far as it is a disqualification on one side it is a disqualification on the other. Why did previous Parliaments agree that paid agents should not be permitted to vote? Is there any reason but the one that it was a kind of corruption, and it is undoubtedly a kind of corruption. I venture to appeal to the hon. Baronet to think seriously before he asks the House to accept an Amendment of this kind. For my part, I cannot imagine anything more objectionable than that we should now, in introducing this great reform, put into this Bill the principle that a man's paid agents can come up and vote for him. Obviously, the more paid agents a man has the more votes he gets. Obviously the rich man can employ more paid agents than the poor man. It is, indeed, said that there is a restriction on election expenses which consequently limits the number of paid agents that a man has. So there is. That, however, does not alter the fact that a rich man can employ more paid agents than a poor man. No two candidates spend exactly the same on their election. The man who has a considerable sum of money to spend is always at an advantage at an election compared with the poor man. The poor man necessarily spends less money—that is to say that he will have less paid agents. Accordingly, this Amendment puts the rich candidate in a position of advantage as compared with the poor candidate. That, however, is not the most powerful argument.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The expenses are limited by the Act.
  Mr. HEALY: I know they are; I have just pointed out that that is so. But the hon. Baronet has assumed that every candidate spends the maximum. He does not. The poor man spends less than the rich man, and will consequently have fewer paid agents. Up till now we have assumed that the voter was a free and independent elector. That is a trite and a commonplace of every election address. Now, for the first time we will say in our elections that he is a free, independent, and paid voter. There will be those who vote from love of principle, and those who vote from hire.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who is an expert in electioneering matters, seems to think that if we accept this Amendment we shall very largely increase the area of bribery and corruption, and that we shall do much to diminish the independence of the elector. I regard this Amendment, I am afraid, from a very different point of view. I think it is quite a small matter. The law at present makes conditions as to the number of persons, the various classes of agents, clerks, etc., who may be employed by any candidate. Rule 7 of the Schedule of the Act lays it down that those employed for payment, clerks, agents, committee-room attendants, messengers, and people of that kind cannot enjoy the privilege of voting. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment says that he desires that in future, although they are engaged for payment, that these people should not be prohibited from voting. No doubt the law was framed originally with a view to the prevention of bribery and corruption. I think we certainly, as regards elections, live in a very much clearer atmosphere. I want to remind my hon. and learned Friend, who thinks that if we accepted the Amendment it would be very much to the benefit of the rich candidate, that after all you can only employ now a certain number of these polling agents, clerks, messengers, and so on, and that, as we are cutting down expenses to at least half, you will have to employ many less of these paid servants of candidates.
  For my own part my experience in electioneering, as that of my right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Dumfries Burghs, is that very often one has had to take most inferior persons and put them in charge of committee rooms. We
  1282
  have had to take them because in a tight-fought contest one did not want to deprive oneself even of a single vote. My hon. and learned Friend argues against this proposition, but no one will suffer, for both sides will have the same opportunity as now, and both sides now can employ a certain number of polling agents who are disqualified from voting. Therefore, one candidate does not get any pull over the other. I thought I should be justified in accepting this Amendment—particularly as it has been supported by my right hon. Friend opposite, who is also an expert in electioneering—on this ground: the constituencies now are going to be larger, and much more difficult to work, and we want the very best results wherever we get a contest, we want the greatest number of people at the poll, and the most efficient machinery to carry out our elections, and I believe you are not going to get that unless you allow candidates a fuller choice in this respect than is the case now. Unless, therefore, there is some more opposition to this proposal than I see at present, moved and supported as it is by electioneering experts, I am inclined to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9. —(Spring and Autumn Registers.)
  (1) Two registers of electors shall be prepared in every year, of which one (in this Act referred to as the spring register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of January and the other (in this Act referred to as the autumn register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of July.
  (2) The spring register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of April and remain in force until the fifteenth day of October, and the autumn register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of October and remain in force until the fifteenth day of April.
  (3) If for any reason the registration officer fails to compile a fresh spring or autumn register for his area or any part of his area, the register in force at the time when the fresh register should have come into force shall continue to operate as the register for the area in respect of which default has been made.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "fifteenth day of April" ["on the com-

  1283
  mencement of the fifteenth day of April and remain "], and to insert instead thereof the words " first day of May."
  The reason for moving this .Amendment is this: By paragraph 23 of the First Schedule it will be found that it is the duty of the registration officer to publish the spring register not later than the 15th day of April, and the autumn register not later than the 15th day of October in each year. My Amendment seeks to alter this date by a fortnight in each case. It has already been found, I believe, in England certainly, and I am not sure it has not been found in Scotland, rather a trouble if an election is pending on a new register which has only been published a day or two before the election. In this particular case the register has only to he published on the 15th of April and the 15th of October, and I am proposing an interval of a fortnight before it comes into operation, so that no one should have the impossible task of attempting an election on a new register of a six-monthly kind without having some opportunity of seeing who were on it. That is the only reason for proposing this Amendment, and I think I have asked for the very shortest possible interval.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  There can really be very little objection to an Amendment of this kind. The register is made up twice a year. What it really means is that the possible election will be postponed until the register actually comes into force. Clearly, if an election is to take place, you want to know clearly and definitely who is on the register, so that absent voters and so on can be looked up, and all the electors whose names are on the new register, if the election takes place on the new register, will have a proper opportunity of recording their votes. This is really in the interests of ascertaining the real opinions of the electors, and I, therefore, suggest that this is a proper Amendment to introduce into the Bill.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think my hon. Friends have probably omitted to observe that unless they have put down other Amendments to Schedule 1, Rule 23, the result will be that there will be a period of fifteen days, from 15th April till 1st of May, during which them will be no register at all, and
  1284
  another period of fifteen days, from 15th October to 1st November, during which there will be two registers in force. The time-table has been very carefully selected. On 1st February and 1st August the lists are to be published, on 15th February and 15th August claims are to be made, on 21st February and 21st August claims are to be published, and on 15th April and 15th October the register is to be published. I admit that there are reasons why, if we could do it, it would be well to give the registration officer even greater time to make up his register than he has got, but one part of our time-table very much depends on another part, and we shall be reluctant to change it. We shall have to rely, in practice, on Clause 39, which says:
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the first register to be prepared under this Act shall come into force on, and remain in force until, such date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, and His Majesty may, by any such Order, alter, in connection with the first register, any registration dates and direct that this Act shall have effect as so altered."
  That is the first election. I do not for a moment think that we have been so wise and so prescient that we shall have succeeded in framing a Bill, covering the whole electoral law of the future, which will not have to be considerably altered after the first election and the great experience which we shall have got through the making up of the first register. I am fully persuaded that we are going to learn a very great deal in practice from our first register and any election which may take place upon it. These dates have been very carefully thought out. Let us keep them in the Bill, particularly when we have power to alter any of these dates, and to alter the time at which the register can come into force, by compartments, so far as the first register is concerned. That, of course, will be by Order in Council, which can be criticised in this House. It gives great power to the Department which will be mainly concerned in bringing this register into force. I trust my hon. Friends will be content with this explanation and will not press the Amendment.
  Mr. GULLAND: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very unwise at this stage to alter the dates which have been so carefully calculated and arranged, but at the same time I

  1285
  agree with the hon. Baronet in much that he has said. I know, as a matter of experience, for instance, that the municipal elections—because I think that this applies to the local government register also—in Scotland take place by Statute on the first Tuesday in November, which somehow or other has several times happened to be the first day of November. I have seen in my experience that it is almost impossible to get the register ready for a day or two before that. It has happened in my experience that the numbered register has not been ready until the actual polling day, and, therefore, the candidates have not been able to send to the electors the poll cards with the number properly marked on them. That is a very serious defect in electioneering machinery. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give effect, at any rate, to the spirit of the hon. Baronet's Amendment in connection with the first election held under this register, because we shall have such an enormous number of electors that it will be an absolute necessity that the register should be published at the earliest possible moment in order that the electors may be circularised. Especially as the Government and the House have adopted the principle of paying pre-postage, it is only right that that free matter should reach them in good time. So far as I know, there is no statutory election for any body that takes place in October.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Sometimes county council elections.
  Mr. GULLAND: I thought they were in December. But, so far as Parliament is concerned, there are, at any rate, triennial school board elections in Scotland which have to take place during April, and if the Amendment were carried it might bring it about that these elections would be held on a dying register. I am not quite sure of that, but I think there is something in it. and it is right, therefore, that we should back up the right hon. Gentleman in his desire that this Amendment should not be accepted, but that he should give effect to the spirit of it.
  Mr. M. HEALY: I think there is something in the point made by the Mover of the Amendment, but I should have thought the proper way to cure it would be by providing that the register should be published some days before it comes into force.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: That is rather too short a time.
  Mr. HEALY: It is possible that you may have an election on the very first day that the register comes into force. If the register is only to be published on that date, it will be quite impossible to conduct the elections efficiently. But whatever Amendment is made in this Clause in the direction the hon. Baronet desires, the same difficulties would arise if he did not put the date of the publication of the register some days before the day the register comes into force. It is a defect not in this Clause, but in the Schedule, which provides that the register shall only be published on 15th April and 15th October. If the dates are such that it is impossible for the officer to do his business within that time, then you run it too short. If you are putting the officer in this position, that he cannot possibly have his register ready until the very day it comes into force, that is creating a defect in the time table. But the defect is at the end and not at the beginning. There is some substance in the hon. Baronet's point, but the Amendment will do no good whatever. The way to get satisfaction is to amend the Schedule and alter the date, not when the register shall come into force, but shall be first published and ready. The Act should provide that the-register should be ready some moderate time before it comes into force, otherwise you may have an election on a register which no candidate has ever seen.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: After what the right hon. Gentleman said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word " area " [" register for the area "], insert the words "or part of an area." —[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

  CLAUSE 10.—(Registration Officers and Areas.)
  (3) Any of the duties and powers of the registration officer may be performed and exercised by any deputy for the time being approved by the Local Government, Board, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to any such deputy so far as respects any duties or powers to be performed or exercised by him as it applies to the registration officer.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I beg to move, at the end of sub-section (3), to insert the words,
  "Provided that in every municipal borough the town clerk, unless he is the registration officer, shall, if he is willing to act and subject to his being approved as aforesaid, be the deputy registration officer in regard to the area of that borough."
  In asking the House to accept this Amendment I should like to say that the general arrangements that have been made by the Government are satisfactory, but in respect to the smaller boroughs our object is to secure such a system as will guarantee that skilled and trained men, generally solicitors occupying the position of town clerks, should be entrusted with the work which is left to be done by deputies appointed by the registration officer, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. It is well known that regard to the lists prepared by the overseers for local elections in the past the town clerks have already acquired a considerable amount of experience in dealing with these matters, and under the new arrangement, seeing that two registers will have to be dealt with during the year, it seems to be advantageous that where the selection of a deputy registration officer has to be made that the town clerk in the small municipalities should be entrusted with this work, which is to be done under the Bill in the larger boroughs by the town clerks. Sub-section (3) is highly satisfactory otherwise, and it is merely in the matter of detail that we propose our Amendment on the ground that the town clerks, having had experience, are the most likely men to prove efficient officers, and to perform the work successfully. The Courts where the revising barrister sat to deal with the preparation of the county or borough lists will be done away with, hence it is that we claim that, as the town clerks in the larger boroughs are to do the work, the men occupying a similar office in the smaller boroughs, with their experience in dealing with local affairs, should be entrusted with this work, and that it should be given to such men as are willing to act, subject to their appointment being approved by the Local Government Board. Under these circumstances, I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
  Sir C. SEELY: I beg to second the Amendment, and to press it strongly upon
  1288
  the Government. I think the town clerks of the smaller boroughs feel it to be a little of an imputation upon them that while the town clerks of the larger boroughs are to continue as registration officers they are not to be put in the same position in their borough. I think the Government will find that there will be no difficulty in carrying out the Amendment, and if it is carried it will be very much appreciated by these men, who would be very grateful.
  Mr. FISHER: Nobody has a higher opinion of the efficiency and capacity of town clerks than I have. At the present time and ever since the War began there is no body of public men who have been doing better service to the State and service which has compelled them often to work long hours beyond the time on which they are employed on their usual work. There is no body of men on whom not only the Local Government Board but other Government Departments are depending more at the present time than the town clerks. I believe that in almost all cases town clerks will be appointed and that they will be the most efficient deputies that could be appointed. I am very glad to be able to say that, but at the same time I think the choice must be left with the registration officer as to who he will employ as his deputy. If this Amendment is accepted it will give a statutory right to the town clerk to be appointed, and although, as I say, the main body of town clerks are gentlemen of great efficiency and great capacity, yet here and there you might find someone singularly unfitted to be appointed. If we accept the Amendment it will give a statutory right to town clerks to be appointed in every case whether they are fit for the position or not, and it would not give freedom of choice to the registration officer. While I have indicated that the town clerk will in all probability be the person to be appointed as deputy, I cannot accept the Amendment because it is of too positive a nature.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 11. —(Registration Duties.)
  (1) It shall be the duty of the registration officer to compile the spring and autumn register, and to place, or cause to be placed, on the register in accordance with the rules set out in the First Schedule to this Act the names of those entitled to

  1289
  vote as Parliamentary electors or local government electors in his registration area.
  If a registration officer refuses, neglects or fails without reasonable cause to perform any of his duties in connection with registration, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
  Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (1), insert the words " and to comply with any general or special directions which may be given by the Local Government Board with respect to the arrangements to be made by the registration officer for carrying out his duties as to registration." —[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

  CLAUSE 12. —(Appeals.)
  (1) An appeal shall lie to the County Court, as defined by rules of Court, from any decisions of the registration officer refusing to place or placing any name on the register or in any part of the register, or refusing to place or placing any mark against any name in the register, and rules of Court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to County Courts and the procedure therein.
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "refusing to place or placing any name on the register or in any part of the register or refusing to place or placing any mark against any name in the register," and to insert the words "on any claim or objection which has been considered by him under this Act affecting the entry of any person on the electors list including the Absent Voters List or on the register."
  Mr. GULLAND: Is this really the same thing, only that it is necessary to have an addition for the Absent Voters List? There will be a right of appeal on the Absent Voters List?
  Mr. FISHER: That is as I understand it. It is a very small matter. The only object is to make it clear. On consideration, I think that it would be better not to put in these words here, but to move the Amendment as it is on the Paper and then to add a proviso.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Amendment made: In place of the words left out, after the word "officer," insert the words "on any claim or objection which has been considered by him under this Act. "—[Mr. Fisher.]
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words " Provided that an appeal shall not lie where the claimant or objector has not availed himself of the opportunity of being heard by the registration officer on the claim or objection."
  Colonel GRETTON: I do not want to obstruct, but I really think that we should not put in words at present which the Government have not considered fully. I think that this matter must be postponed, as we shall have to send the Bill to another place, and that the additional words can be inserted when the Minister in charge of the Bill has had time to consider what is really intended.
  Mr. GULLAND: I rather agree with the hon. Member. It is a little difficult to follow this Amendment. It sounds as if it were intended to deprive people of the right of appeal if they have not been able to be present in the Law Court
  Mr. FISHER: As my hon. Friend knows, small clarifying Amendments on these matters are sometimes put down rather suddenly, I admit, and adopted. A few minutes ago I looked into the words, and I do not think that they altogether fit in and I thought it better that they should be in another form. If my hon. Friend sees any difficulty in understanding the words now proposed or thinks that there is some deep hidden meaning which would deprive anybody of the opportunity of voting, I should not think of pressing this on the present occasion, and the Government would take the opportunity of dealing with the matter in another place. But I can assure my hon. Friend that this is no real or substantial modification of the law. It is merely clarifying the law in a way which he can very well accept. If objection is still taken to it, that objection shall be looked into in another place.
  Colonel GRETTON: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13. —(Expenses of Registration.)
  (1) Any expenses properly incurred by any registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care and attention in the performance of those duties, and any costs incurred by him as party to an appeal, shall be paid by the council whose clerk the registration officer is, subject, in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the area of that council to such contributions by the council of any other county or borough as the Local Government Board may direct.
  Any such expenses shall be paid in the case of the council of a county out of the county fund, and if the case requires as expenses for special county purposes, and in the case of a council of a borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, or, where there is no borough fund or borough rate, out of the fund or rate out of which the ordinary expenses of the council of the borough are paid.
  (2) Any fees or other sum received by the registration officer in respect of his duties as such officer other than sums paid to that officer in respect of his expenses under this Act, shall be accounted for by that officer and paid to the credit of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of that officer are paid.
  (3) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of any county or borough in aid of the fund or rate out of which any registration expenses are paid by the council, where those expenses do not exceed the maximum amount under a scale to be settled by the Treasury, one-half of the amount so paid by the council, and where the expenses exceed that maximum amount, one-half of the maximum amount.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "appeal," insert the words "(in this Act referred to as registration expenses)." —[Mr. Fisher.]
  Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert,
  "(2) The Treasury may frame a scale of registration expenses applicable to all or any class or classes of those expenses, and may alter the scale as and when they think fit.
  Any expenses incurred by the registration officer of a class to which the scale is applicable shall be taken to be properly incurred if they do not exceed
  1292
  the maximum amount determined by or in accordance with the scale, and so far as they do exceed that amount shall be taken not to have been properly incurred unless the excess is specially sanctioned by the council and the Treasury either before or after the expenses have been incurred.
  If any question arises whether any expenses incurred by the registration officer of a class to which the scale is not applicable have been properly incurred or not, that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Board on the question shall be final."
  Colonel SANDERS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state what difference this Amendment makes in the Bill as we passed it in Committee. I have not studied the Amendment before, and I want to know whether it really makes any substantial difference?
  Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment carries out a promise made in Committee, and I think it meets the views of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), leave out the words " expenses under this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "registration expenses."
  In Sub-section (3), leave out the words " where those expenses do not exceed the maximum amount under the scale to be settled by the Treasury, and insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with this Act."
  After the word " council [" by the council "] leave out the words " and where the expenses exceed the ,maximum amount, one-half of the maximum amount."
  At the end, insert the words " (5) On the request of the registration officer of any registration area for an advance on account of registration expenses, the council whose clerk the registration officer is, may, if they think fit, make such an advance to him of such amount and subject to such conditions as the council may approve." —[Sir G. Cave.]

  CLAUSE 14. —(Special Provisions with Respect to Urban Districts and London.)
  (1) Where an urban district is coterminous With a registration area or is wholly contained in a registration area,

  1293
  this Part of this Act shall apply to that district as it applies to a municipal borough, with the substitution of the clerk of the urban district council for the town clerk, of the urban district council for the council of the borough, and of the general district rate for the borough fund or borough rate.
  Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word " area " [" registration area or is wholly "l to insert the words, " which is a Parliamentary borough."
  As the Bill stands now, the Clause is by no means clear, and the object of this Amendment is to make it workable. It has been contended that any urban district which is coterminous with or wholly contained in a registration area becomes autonomous for registration purposes without regard as to whether or not it is in a Parliamentary borough. Such a condition of things would make the Bill unworkable and would lead to confusion, as it cannot be intended that there should exist a separate registration officer and acting returning officer for every urban district, as the result would be that a large number of such officers would exist in one constituency. In my own county there are a number of urban districts in one constituency. As this Clause now stands confusion would undoubtedly arise, and I earnestly ask the Home Secretary to consider the matter, if not at this moment, at any rate, in another place.
  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend who moves this Amendment anticipates that there will be difficulty in the interpretation of the Bill. Perhaps for the sake of absolute harmony the Amendment might turn out to be an improvement, but at any rate we could afterwards rectify any difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend anticipates.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word " with " ["coterminous with "], leave out the words, " a registration," and insert instead thereof the word "such." —[Mr. Nield.]

  CLAUSE 15. —(Compensation to Existing Assistant Overseers.)
  Every existing assistant overseer, vestry clerk, or rate collector who suffers any
  1294
  direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him by the council responsible for the payment of the expenses of registration, as provided in Section thirteen of this Act, and in determining such compensation (a) regard shall be had to the conditions and other circumstances required by Sub-section (1) of Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, in regard to cases of compensation under that Section, and (b) the compensation shall not exceed the limit therein mentioned, and (c) the expression in Sub-section (1) of that Section " The Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service" shall mean the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, and (d) the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section one hundred and twenty of that Act shall apply with such modifications (including the substitution of the "Local Government Board " for the "Treasury") as may be required, and including in Sub-section (2) the substitution of the words " next before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen " for the words " next before the passing of this Act."
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after the word " existing " [" existing assistant overseer "], to leave out the word " assistant."
  Colonel SANDERS: May I ask for some explanation of this Amendment?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is to simplify the definition, and does not alter the effect of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Leave out the words, " vestry clerk or rent collector."
  Leave out the words, "the expenses of registration, as provided in Section thirteen of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words, "registration expenses." —[Sir G. Cave.]
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "in this Section the expression ' overseer' includes any person executing any of the duties of overseer."
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. know whether, with the omission of these

  1295
  words, the overseer will be some public officer. By the Amendment now proposed it would appear that the appointment would be without restriction, and that apparently anybody could be appointed registration officer. At any rate, I think it should be some public officer who has already some responsibility. The Amendment might lead to considerable confusion, and it may be necessary that the matter should be considered in another place.
  Sir G. CAVE: If the point is raised in another place it will be considered, but there is no idea of bringing in anyone as overseer, but only to deal with cases where the duties of an overseer are transferred by him to some official who is bound to perform them.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 16. —(Register for University Constituencies.)
  The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to university constituencies, but the governing body of every university forming, or forming part of, a university constituency shall cause a register to be kept in such form as they may direct of persons entitled to vote in respect of a qualification at their university, and shall make the register available for the purpose of university elections for the constituency: Provided that the governing body may direct that a person who before the passing of this Act has received a degree, but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof, shall have no right to be registered unless he makes a claim for the purpose.
  The governing body of any such university may charge such fee as they think fit, not exceeding one pound, for registration to any person who receives a degree at their university after the passing of this Act.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "or forming part of."
  I move this Amendment with the idea of a joint register for the universities which are grouped in the Schedule—the University of Durham, the Victoria University, Manchester, the University of Wales, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham,
  1296
  and the University of Bristol. As the Bill stands, and as I read it, there is no provision to form a joint register of these universities, which are spread over a great part of England and Wales. Many of these universities are at the present time in the habit of co-operating in the work of matriculation examinations; they act together in setting the examination papers, and the examinations are conducted in a joint manner. It is thought by the University of Manchester that it would be very desirable that a joint register should be formed so that when the time of election comes that joint register shall be in the hands of those who are interested in the university election. It is from that point of view simply that I put down this Amendment, and I have a subsequent consequential Amendment on the Paper. It may be stated that the whole of the purposes provided for by paragraph (5) of the Sixth Schedule, but the matter is one we want to be very clear about, and is one of considerable importance in this case, where the new universities have not, so far, had the opportunity or privilege of forming a register for a university election. These grouped universities stretch over a wide geographical area, ranging from Durham to Bristol, and their position, therefore, is different from that of the Scottish grouped Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews, and is one which requires consideration.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any representations from the other grouped universities, such as the Scottish universities? I have no special opinions as regards this matter, but the effect of the Amendment seems to me to be that there would have to be a joint register in which all the grouped universities would co-operate. There is no reason why they should not do these things along those lines at present, but the Amendment proposes to make it mandatory. I suggest that this important step ought not to be made mandatory until the universities have been communicated with and have expressed their views to that effect. If that opinion has not been received perhaps the right hon. Gentleman between now and the time when the Bill is in another place would take the opportunity of communicating with the universities on the subject.
  Mr. FISHER: It is no doubt necessary to supply these grouped universities with some efficient and proper machinery for carrying out the registration of voters and giving those voters the opportunity to exercise the franchise. I think that my hon. Friend would be tying the hands of the universities far too much if we were by this Amendment to make the matter mandatory before the universities had the opportunity of considering the position as to forming one joint register. The fifth paragraph of the Sixth Schedule says:
  "In order to provide for election and voting in any university constituencies constituted under this Act where the election and voting in the constituency are not regulated under existing Acts, the Local Government Board shall apply thereto such provisions of any existing Acts relating to elections and voting at any university constituency in Great Britain as appear to the Board expedient for the purpose with such modifications as seem necessary."
  The matter is regulated in Scottish' universities under existing Acts. It would be for the Local Government Board to adapt such Acts and to take such portions of the Acts as are applicable to the new universities and to apply them, as far as they would apply, to the new universities. We have an analogous case in the group system of Scottish universities, which may afford us very profitable examples as regards the particular kinds of machinery that can be best introduced in the case of these universities. I can assure hon. Gentlemen we will most gladly receive any information which they may wish to place at our disposal or any hints as to the best possible machinery by which the newly enfranchised electors shall be best able to exercise their votes. I think this Amendment would compel us to adopt one particular system, and that it would be far better to leave the elasticity which is allowed by the paragraph of the Sixth Schedule.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: May I ask whether the Local Government Board under that paragraph 5 would, in fact, communicate with the universities in any proposals. which they were considering, so that those universities might have the opportunity of putting their opinions before the Board before anything of a mandatory character was arranged?
  Mr. FISHER: Yes, certainly; just as we have communicated, and are still in com-
  1298
  munication with, the ancient universities, so undoubtedly we will communicate with these newer universities and listen very carefully to any representations they may have to make.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir JOSEPH LARMOR: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "or who has received a degree before the passing of this Act but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof."
  The object of the Amendment is in connection with the method of maintaining the Parliamentary register in the universities. In an ordinary constituency the cost of doing so to a considerable extent comes from the public funds, but the universities have to pay their own expenses. This Clause enables the university to charge £1 for registration to any person who receives a degree at the unversity after the passing of this Bill. In the first four or five years this Clause will be absolutely inoperative because, as we all know, the youth of the country who would ordinarily be at the universities are now in the Army. There will be no new candidates to be registered for some four years after the termination of the War. The great trouble will come with the registering of graduates in the older universities who have not hitherto taken the trouble to keep up their connection with the university. This will be a difficult matter. Unless it is possible to charge a registration fee for them, as well as for the new graduates of the future, the educational funds of the university will have to be applied for this purpose. I am convinced that nobody in the House desires that. I may also say that in my opinion it would be a hardship and a grievance, and the graduates of the future would consider that they had had to pay for the registration of past graduates who have not kept up their connection. On that ground also, even if a practical reason did not exist, I think the Amendment which authorises a fee for the graduates of the past, who have not hitherto been registered, should be imposed.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to second the Amendment. The object of it is to impose a fee, chargeable for registration, and applied to anybody who seeks to be on the register after the Bill becomes law.
  Sir G. CAVE: A good case has been made out for this Amendment. It is true

  1299
  that for some years to come, in consequence of the war conditions, there will be very few receipts from new graduates. Some fund must be provided. It it is not unreasonable that a fee should be charged to those who are already graduates and who for the first time become electors. Why, it may be asked, authorise so large a fee as £1 for these new electors? The Bill provides that the fee shall not exceed £1, and I have no doubt the universities will be reasonable in the matter, and make only such a charge as is necessary in order to meet their registration expenses.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am very sorry that the Home Secretary has accepted this Amendment. I always viewed the Amendment put in on Committee stage with very serious objections. Why should we put a financial difficulty in the way of any graduate of a university becoming an elector of the university? We have put the cost of preparing the other registers upon the State. I do not see why the cost of preparing the register in the universities should not also be a State charge. It is part and parcel of the same matter. In this case, just at the very moment when we want to enlarge the electorate of the universities, because the electorates of the universities are far too small at the present time, and when the whole idea of this Bill is to enlarge such electorates as to get a great volume of educational thought exercising its power in the State through this matter of university representation, the universities step in and put what is undoubtedly a definite obstacle in the way of people getting the vote. There are many people who would not care to spend £1. There are many graduates who could not afford to spend it. We are reducing the value of what may be called the educational vote in this country by putting on this particular fee. I would rather the Home Secretary had taken the matter up really seriously and agreed that the State should bear the cost. It cannot be a large cost, for the expenses of the registration officer are borne, half by the State and half by the local authority. The same, I should have thought, might have been done in regard to the university vote. I regret very much that the Home Secretary has thought fit to put this difficulty in the way of certain persons.
  Mr. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it will be
  1300
  open for a candidate to pay this fee? If so, I imagine it will be a very objectionable thing. Is it to be legal for the candidates to pay? Is there anything in the law which makes it legal or illegal for a candidate to do so? I certainly am not aware that the Corrupt Practices Act applies to university elections. This is a new matter.
  Sir J. LARMOR: For sixty years in the University of London a fee of £1 has been charged for registration.
  Mr. HEALY: That is not the point. Can the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member tell me whether it is legal for a candidate to pay the fee necessary to get a graduate upon the register? If it is legal I shall be glad to be referred to the law, which makes it legal.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. Samuels): In reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, may I say that the Corrupt Practices Act does apply to university elections, and unquestionably for any candidate to pay, or offer to pay, the registration fee of an elector would be a corrupt practice.
  Mr. HEALY: Under what Section?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I have not got. the Section here. I was not prepared for such objection being made, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, at any rate, it would be a corrupt practice under the Act. One must recollect that the older universities were under their charters, in the position of ancient corporations, and it was only the corporations who originally elected Members to represent them in this House. Under the Reform Act of 1832 and subsequent Acts the right of voting was extended to those who took the higher degrees, and the universities are entitled to charge fees, and do charge fees for the higher degrees which cover the registration expenses. In the Scottish universities under the Scottish Universities Representation Act they are entitled to charge a fee of £1 for every person on the register who is a graduate in a Scottish university, and becomes entitled to vote.
  Now, the object of this Amendment is to place the English universities and the University of Dublin in the same position, that a fee not exceeding £1 shall be charged for registration Under the ancient charters of Oxford, Cambridge,

  1301
  and Dublin, if I recollect the words, they were that the universities should, at their own expense, return to this House two members of their own body to represent them. That expense, ever since the reign of James I., has aways fallen upon the universities, and the universities have no desire whatever to be relieved of that obligation. They consider it a very great privilege and a very great honour to be represented in this House, and they are quite prepared that the electorate should bear the expense of the registration. Now the register to be brought into being under this Act will be a very expensive register. At present we have in Oxford something like 7,000 or 8,000 voters; in Cambridge perhaps about 6,000 voters; and in Dublin between 4,000 and 5,000 voters. The expense of keeping up the register was met by placing it, on the taking of the higher degrees. Under the present Bill everyone who gets an Arts Degree, or any other degree, will be entitled to vote. How is the expense of keeping up the register to be borne? It is anticipated that in Dublin there will be between 14,000 and 15,000 voters, in Cambridge a larger number, and in Oxford something like 18,000 voters. It will be very difficult to keep a perfect register, and there are not funds in the hands of the universities which will enable them to do so.
  Everyone knows that the pressure of the War has very deeply struck at the universities. As the hon. Member for Cambridge has pointed out, for several years to come there will be no graduates. Everyone who has been to Oxford or Cambridge knows that the courts are absolutely empty. The same with the University of Dublin. I attended service in the chapel there last week. There were twenty young fellows there instead of several hundreds, and those twenty, the moment they obtain military age, will be passing out. How are we to meet the expense of preparing these registers? Is it not reasonable that gentlemen who have taken their degrees—and ladies, too, who have taken their degrees—should have this great privilege, which in former times cost anything from about £12 to £15 to get on the register They now are entitled to get on by merely paying £1 for the purpose of preserving their vote not annually, but for all time for as long as they live. Once you get on the university register you remain there for the rest of your natural life. I do not
  1302
  think that is a heavy tax. I am sure that nearly every member of the university who wishes to vote—I think nearly all of them will vote—will be very glad to meet this small sum of £1, not only to obtain the great privilege of taking a more active part in the legislation of the country and the representation in this House of the university to which they are all so loyal, but also to have the honour of appearing on the register which has been created in this great time of war, and in this time of difficulty and stress, to help to create a fund which will in the future meet the expense of keeping this register in order.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 17. —(Modification of Method of Voting in Certain Constituencies.)
  (1) If at an election for one Member of Parliament there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act.
  (2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there are two or more members to be elected, any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.
  (3) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame Regulations prescribing the method of voting, and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transferable or of the alternative vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to Parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith; and any such Regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
  (4) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided herein, affect the method of conducting Parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert,
  "(1) In a constituency returning three or more members any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote, as defined by this Act."

  1303
  This is a proposal to restore the provision in the Bill as introduced—a provision which embodies an important part of the compromise mixed up with the whole of this Reform Bill. It was a part that was unanimously recommended by the Speaker's conference, and inserted by the Government in the Bill they introduced, but left by them to the House. I desire to emphasise the fact that it was part of the unanimous recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, because that fact has been denied—I think most improperly denied—and I cannot think how such a mistake could have been made. The proposal was that proportional representation should be the method of an election in constituencies returning three, four, or five members. The subject of this was, of course, that, as far as possible, each of the political parties in such a borough should be represented in proportion to its strength, and, moreover, that any very strong independent candidate should be given a chance of getting representation for that borough if supported by an adequate number of voters. The way in which that object was proposed to be carried out was by taking as undivided constituencies all boroughs which were large enough to have three, four, or five members, but with regard to larger boroughs they should be divided into two constituencies, each returning three, four, or five members, or, in the case of very large boroughs, into three constituencies returning each three, four, or five members. The method of voting defined by the Bill was simply the method of putting the figure 1 against the elector's first choice, the figure 2 against the candidate he would wish to vote for if he could not get No. 1, and the figure 3 against his third choice, and so on. It is exactly the same form of voting as we shall have in single-member constituencies if we adopt the alternative vote, which was also in the Bill as brought in, and which stands in the Bill now as it has passed through Committee.
  Therefore, the suggestion that there is any complexity about the way the voter would have to vote under proportional representation has no more foundation than if anyone were to suggest that it was beyond the elector to put 1, 2, 3 against the names of a single-member constituency where there is the alternative vote. Those proposals were struck out of the Bill
  1304
  in the Committee stage, and struck out by a very small majority, the Committee declining to have any proportional representation in boroughs, while leaving it to a certain extent in the universities. I now ask the House to reinstate these provisions, and, of course, I must state very briefly upon what grounds I ask for it. I am not going over all the arguments for proportional representation itself, and not even the chief arguments. I am only going to give the arguments for my Amendment. My arguments are, in the first place, that the majority was very small; in the second place, that the idea was an unfamiliar idea, and I have very great reason to believe it has become much more familiar to hon. Members since then. Thirdly, that there is very great evidence that opinion has been growing, both in this House and in the country, in favour of proportional representation since the matter was considered in Committee. I would remind the House that when this matter came up in 1885 in the House of Commons it was practically, if not absolutely, the first time that proportional representation was ever suggested in this House. It is quite true that there had previously been proposals for minority representation as it was called, but proportional representation is essentially different from minority representation, for this reason. The first principle of proportional representation is that the majority of votes must get the majority of the seats, while with minority representation we find that in its anxiety to represent minority it sometimes forgets what is justly due to the majority.
  In 1885 there were thirty-one votes given for proportional representation in a House practically the same size as this, and then the matter was forgotten for some years. In 1910 a Royal Commission was appointed to consider electoral systems, and proportional representation was before that Commission. We are told that the Royal Commission did not report in its favour. That is in a sense true, but if you look into the Report of the Royal Commission it says distinctly that they did not recommend it to be accepted here and now. They admitted it would work, and admitted almost everything in its favour, but they did not recommend it here and now. They went on to say that under certain circumstances it would be desirable to adopt it, and one of the things they mentioned was in the case of a

  1305
  great increase of the electorate. That is exactly the position which is in front of us now.
  In 1912, 1913, and 1914 the Home Rule Act, and subsequently the Home Rule Amendment Act, were before this House, and in those Acts proportional representation in the form we are now asking for it was given a large place for the Irish Parliament, both in the election of the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons. Then we came to July, 1917, when proportional representation for this Imperial House was almost carried in Committee, for the majority against it was only thirty-two. Since then we have plenty of evidence that there has been a change of opinion in favour of proportional representation. Hon. Member after hon. Member have told me that the tide is turning in that direction, and quite a number of hon. Members have said that they themselves have determined to vote for it now, although they voted against it formerly. Therefore I think we are surely justified in believing that the flowing tide is with this movement in this country, and we are justified in bringing the matter forward once more for the judgment of this House.
  With regard to the flowing tide I will not weary the House with the experience of foreign countries or our own Dominions over the seas, but if I did I could show you that the tide is flowing as strongly in those countries in favour of proportional representation as it is in this country. Those of us who follow the movement all over the world closely know that there is never a month without some evidence that the principle of proportional representation is making headway it every great civilised country, and particularly in one of the Dominions of our own Empire. Therefore I say again we are well justified in asking the House to reconsider this matter, all the more so because it seems to me that the House fails to realise in June or July the effect of striking out proportional representation, and the effect it would have on the rest of the Bill. We discussed that last night, but the fact that the Bill with proportional representation introduces plural voting into certain boroughs, namely, into fifteen borough divisions, and without proportional representation the Bill would introduce plural voting in 213 borough divisions, the law hitherto having been that there should be no plural voting in boroughs. That is a tremendous change.
  1306
  I suppose you may put it roughly that plural voting within the boroughs will be multiplied tenfold by striking out the proportional representation provisions. I do not believe that that was in the mind of the House when the Committee gave that vote. I am certain it was not intended by Liberal, Labour, or the Irish parties, and I ask myself whether it was really intended by the Conservative party. Of course, personally, I have no right to speak for them, but this I will say, that every public speaker of experience in the last few years knows how hateful plural voting is to the majority of the great mass of our people, and how damaging it has long been to the Conservative party. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University last night urged upon those of his own party how much more to the interests of true Conservatism it would be to rely upon proportional representation giving them the just representation to which they are undoubtedly entitled, rather than to rely upon an artificial proportion, such as plural voting would be. I am completely convinced that he was right. I believe that the majority of our people of all classes want steady progress, and neither reaction nor violent, rash innovations. Since proportional representation gives the majority of seats to the majority of votes, it should give to that steady progressive majority the power which rightly belongs to it, and if that is not the true interests of Conservatism in the truest and best sense of the word, then I am afraid I do not understand it.
  It is said, however, that the alternative vote would do what proportional representation claims to do, and would do it very much simpler. The alternative vote would give representation to only one party in each constituency. We should have a series all over the country of three, four or five-cornered fights, and one of the parties at or near the top of the poll would get the seat in each case, while the other parties at the bottom of the poll would not be represented, but in exchange they will have the right of saying which of the candidates they had opposed should get the seat and which of their opponents should be represented and which of their opponents should go unrepresented. The consequence would be that we should have scores of members returned to this House by the votes of their political opponents. When we met here we should have Conservatives returned by purely Conservative votes, and we should have Conservatives

  1307
  who did not get in at the first choice but who were put in by Liberal votes on the second choice in order to keep the Labour men out. There would be Conservatives put in by Labour votes despite the votes of Liberals, and you would have Liberal Members dependent upon Conservative votes. That is what has happened in other Parliaments where they have the alternative vote, where one man says, " I depend on blue votes "; another says, " We will try something else "; but that will not suit somebody else because he depends on buff votes. How much better it would be under proportional representation, when you would have hon. Members coming here elected by consistent bodies of opinion behind them with whom they really did agree. I agree that the alternative vote may be better than the present system, which very often gives a seat to the representative of a mere minority. It may be the best that you can do in single-member constituencies, but I do ask the House to say that it is far inferior to that which proportional representation in larger constituencies would give us. There every party would be represented by a man who was dependent upon a consistent body of opinion, and every party in every locality would have the opportunity of being represented by its real choice and by the best man, usually the best local man who could be put forward. The realisation of these facts and arguments is, I am convinced, spreading. We have great evidence to show it, and in these circumstances we have felt justified in giving the House the opportunity of reconsidering the vote that was given in Committee.
  This Amendment would reinstate exactly the words that were in the Bill when it was introduced. Its acceptance would bind no one to any details, because it contains practically no details. It asks the House to affirm the principle of proportional representation by applying it to those town constituencies which are large enough to admit of sharing the representation among two or three parties; that is to say, for practical purposes any constituency returning three or four or five members. It does not lay down which boroughs are to be constituted as constituencies returning three, four, or five members. That will be for decision on Schedule IV. It is true that we have down Amendments which reconvert into undivided constituencies those boroughs which are just large
  1308
  enough, being neither too small nor too big, for three, four, or five members. As the Bill stands, they were arbitrarily divided into single-member areas. It was necessary for us in putting down the Amendment to provide some constituencies to which it would apply, because as the Bill stands there are no constituencies to which the Amendment could apply. It was therefore necessary for us to put down Amendments to the Schedule saying that there should be such and such boroughs to which it should apply. It does not mean by putting down a limited number of Amendments as we have done that we ask the House to confine proportional representation to the twenty-two boroughs against which we have put down Amendments. In addition to those twenty-two boroughs, which are exactly the right size for proportional representation, the Speaker's Conference recommended, first, the linking up of small adjacent boroughs and, secondly, the sub-division of every large boroughs, such as Glasgow or Liverpool, into two or three divisions. We, as private Members, could not put down Amendments covering those points, because they involve the linking up of areas or the sub-dividing of areas. Only the Boundary Commissioners can do that, and as we were not Boundary Commissioners it was impossible for us to do it. We have put down those Amendments that were within our power, not intending to limit the House to those boroughs or to ask the House to say precisely the boroughs to which it should apply, but leaving it absolutely open for the House on the Schedule to decide whether it should be applied to the whole extent to which the Speaker's Conference recommended it.
  As advocates of proportional representation we, of course, accepted the Bill as it was originally introduced, and we accept it still and stand by it. At the same time, no individual Member who votes for this Amendment to-night will commit himself to demanding the whole of that which the Speaker's Conference represented or that which the Bill as introduced gave us. We are not asking the House to commit itself to the policy of all or nothing. If this Amendment should be carried to-night, as I hope it will, it will be for the Government at once to set their Boundary Commissioners to work and to decide what they will do. The work that the Boundary Commissioners will have to do will be of the simplest character, and will only take them a very few hours. The work will not

  1309
  be heavy. With regard to those constituencies—and they are the great majority—which are already of the exact size entitling them to three or four or five Members there will be nothing for the Boundary Commissioners to do except simply to wipe out the lines of divisions which they have already made. In the case of linking up of small boroughs, of course it will be for them to consider which boroughs shall be linked up, and in the case of dividing Glasgow, Liverpool and so on—they have already divided those boroughs into single-member divisions, Glasgow to take an example into fifteen—it will be for the Boundary Commissioners to show how those divisions are to be grouped together into three or four groups or whatever they may decide. There will really be very little to do, and very little of the work which they have already done will be thrown away. Of course, they will have nothing at all to do with county divisions.
  I wish to touch upon two of the main objections that have been made to this principle. One is a supposed difficulty as to by-elections, and the second is as to expenses. I do not know how far it may be in order on this Amendment to discuss those questions at length, but fortunately it is not at all necessary for me to do so. I only desire to point out that those two questions will come up separately for the decision of the House on later Amendments. That is a fortunate circumstance connected with the form in which I am able to present this matter. We are able to-night to take the broad principle. The question of by-elections, the question of the expenses, and the question of areas will come up on subsequent Amendments. If the House accepts the principle of compulsory representation, there are two ways of dealing with the by-elections. One is to poll the whole constituency, and, as the Bill is introduced and as the report of the Speaker's Conference was framed, it was implied that method was recommended. We proportionalists were perfectly willing to accept that and we are willing to accept it now. At the same time there is another system which has been proposed and which received some support in Committee, and that is dividing boroughs into wards, each big enough for one Member, and in the case of a vacancy 'only polling that one ward to which the late Member was attached. There is an
  1310
  Amendment down later on which will give the House a complete opportunity of dealing with the by-election question.
  10.0 P.M.
  The second objection which is very often made is on the ground of expense. It is clear that the expense would be heavy, but we have always argued that the expenses of elections are what Parliament likes to enact that they shall be. The limit of expense fixed by this Bill as originally introduced was, it was said, unnecessarily high for those large constituencies returning three, four, or five Members. There is down an Amendment to Clause 1 which would limit the expense falling upon a candidate, and would put him on very much the same level as a candidate in a single - member constituency. If that Amendment be accepted when we come to it, and in these large boroughs we give two free postages instead of one, the limit of expense of the candidate in the largest possible constituencies the Bill provides —of a candidate standing alone—would not be more than about £1,100, and in the smallest constituency the candidate standing with two others would only have to spend about £300. Therefore you may say that if this other Amendment is accepted the expenses of the candidate under proportional representation will be almost exactly the same as those of a candidate in an ordinary single member constituency under the Bill as it stands now. Consequently expense is not an insuperable obstacle, and I believe that the money provided would be, together with two free postages, sufficient to enable any candidate to put his views adequately before the electors. A man standing alone in a large constituency, as the Bill is at present drawn, might have to spend rather more than £1,100. The House will have every opportunity of deciding upon these points later on. I only ask it now to decide on the question of principle—to say whether or not it desires that proportional representation shall be applied, reserving all these points of detail for later Clauses and for the Schedules. I hope I have explained our proposals clearly, and I certainly have tried to do it as briefly as possible, in view of the bigness of the subject. I am only going to add a very few words. I venture to ask the House this question, What is it that gives this House its strength? It is when it is believed to reflect the true mind and will of the country. If ever this House

  1311
  seems to lose autnority it is when it is suspected that it does not truly represent the mind and will of the country. Under our present system one cannot say with absolute certainty that even in a newly elected House of Commons the majority of the Members do represent the majority of the people. Even on one of the greatest issues of the day it is sometimes doubtful whether that is so or not. In the 1906 Election it was extremely doubtful what the voice of the country was on some of the biggest issues. In different parts of the country elections were fought on very different issues, and when you come to the secondary issues it is practically impossible after a General Election to say what has or has not been decided. As soon as we come here we begin to dispute amongst ourselves as to what has or what has not been decided by the General Election. Under proportional representation there can be no such demoralising doubt. Electors and parties would get representation in proportion to the votes they possess. That has been proved again and again by the experience of countries which have used proportional representation. Even on secondary questions their wishes would be accurately represented by their representatives, for each elector would have a choice of candidates before him within his own party, and he would choose the one man who most nearly represented his views not on one particular question, but on all important matters, whereas now he has no choice but to vote or not to vote for the one man whom his party has nominated. There are those in this country who do not want to see Parliament strong; they are not very numerous, but they are active and dangerous men. They want to see Parliament weak in order that sectional and class organisations may be strong and may rule. To my knowledge, one of the leaders of that school of thought the other day declared himself against proportional representation at Parliamentary elections because it would strengthen Parliament—a result which he did not desire—while he was in favour of proportional representation for other organisations which he desired to see strong. We all here, I am sure, desire to see Parliament strong. There is a time coming when Parliament will need all the strength it can legitimately command. That strength cannot come to it from leaning on any undemocratic crutch. It cannot come to it from, plural votes or fancy franchises
  1312
  or hereditary or plutocratic privileges, but our reliance must be on the common sense and honesty of the great mass of the people. Our strength can only come from really and fully representing the people. Government for the people and by the people does not mean for a section of the people or by any section of the people, not even by the majority, and much less by the minority. It means by representatives of the whole people and by representatives of those great sections of the people returned to this House in true proportion to the relevant strength of those sections in the nation.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I rise to second the Amendment which has been moved in so closely reasoned a speech by my hon. Friend. The question before the House to-night has been twice debated during the present Session, and there is no reason, therefore, why I should take up the time of the House at any great length on this occasion. On both of the occasions to which I have referred the principle which is affirmed in this Amendment was rejected, and on each occasion by a very small majority. I should like, therefore, to submit to the House to-night one or two points which may, I hope, have the effect of inducing the small majority by which the issue was previously decided to reconsider the judgment at which they then arrived. I would ask the House, in the first place, to consider very briefly one or two of the objections which have in the course of the last few months most prominently emerged against this proposal. The first, which I have no doubt we shall hear to-night from the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), is that the advocates of this electoral method have not the courage of their opinions, and that they propose a very partial application of the principle to which they adhere. May I venture to point out that this objection has no validity whatever as regards the particular Amendment which we are moving to-night? This Amendment merely affirms a principle. The extent of the application of that principle depends entirely on the acceptance or rejection of subsequent Amendments. I lay no particular stress upon this point. I am perfectly free to admit that if we were logical, perhaps if we were courageous, we should press for the universal application of this principle. But we are not logical. No one except fools or doctrinaires arcs logical in politics; but of this I am quite

  1313
  certain, that if we were logical the very first people to reproach us with pedantic adherence to logical consistency would be the opponents of this Amendment to-night. The blunt fact is that we who believe in the principle of proportional representation are prepared to take as much as we can get, and we will not refuse the least that is offered us. The more we can get the better we shall be pleased; and for this reason. The larger the scale on which the experiment is tried the more triumphant I am certain will be the vindication of the principle it contains, although I believe that the principle will vindicate itself however small the scale. For my own part, therefore, I shall take what I can get. So much for the arguments directed against our courage and our logic.
  There is a second objection, which I am not very seriously concerned to rebut. It is that we are asking the House to impose an intellectual test; that we are asking the House to put a premium on the intelligence of the elector. What is the degree of the intelligence which is demanded by this proposal? It is that the elector should be able to count the fingers on his two hands; that he should be able to, count up to ten, perhaps to twelve, and possiby to twenty; but the degree of intelligence which we ask of the elector is no more than is involved in picking up sides for a cricket match. I know I shall be pointed—I am sure the hon. Member for Westminster will point me—to the White Paper which has been circulated. [HON. MEMBERS " Rear, hear! " I knew that point would emerge, and I will deal with it for a moment. I know that Paper has created a very strong prejudice against the Amendment we are moving to-night; but I hope the House will allow me very respectfully to say that that prejudice is wholly irrelevant to the particular proposal we are making to-night. I admit that, on paper—especially on that particular Paper—it looks hideously complicated; but as regards the voter the argument is irrelevant. The voter has nothing whatever to do with the counting of his own votes. That is a matter for the expert clerk, who will, no doubt, be trained to the business he has to do. A paper has been circulated—it reached me a day or two ago, and I have no doubt it has reached other hon. Members—on the authority of the hon. Member for Westminster, and it contains this sentence:
  1314
  "If only this paper of rules could be distributed broadcast among the electors of England proportional representation would never have a nuance till Doomsday."
  [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear! "] Exactly. Let me put this question to the hon. Members who cheer that sentiment. What earthly reason is there why the paper of which they have made so much account should ever be circulated among the voters at all. Why should they ever see it? It is nothing to do with the voters The suggestion which is made by hon. Members is not an appeal to reason or to serious argument. It is an appeal to prejudice, and to irrelevant prejudice at that.
  I pass to a third objection, which we hear on every side—that this proposal is going to open the doors of this House to faddists and cranks. With all respect, I would venture to ask whether the present system is entirely successful in excluding them? I do not think that anyone who is even slightly acquainted with the proceedings of this House will answer that question with an unhesitating affirmative; but if there are cranks at large in the country —and I am sure it is Utopian to hope to eliminate them—I would venture to ask if this House is not the safest place in which to intern them? I think it is for two reasons. In the first place, if they are mere cranks and bores, if they represent length without breadth, as a great many do, there is no place whatever in the world where their emptiness will be so quickly or so effectively exposed as in this House itself. If they are not mere cranks, then I submit that it is desirable that such substance as their views possess should be examined in this House; for it not very seldom happens that the crank of to-day is the statesman of to-morrow. Then we are told, in the same paper to which I has e been referring, that proportional representation is a demonstrated failure in this country. I venture to say that it has never been tried in this country. We have been pointed to the experiment of 1867 of the minority seat in the three-cornered constituency, but I venture to suggest that that was not really an experiment in proportional representation at all, and it is precisely because that experiment failed to secure the object which it, in common with ourselves, had in view, namely, a due, ,fair, and reasonable representation of minorities, that we now present and ask the House of Commons to adopt a totally different proposal, the proposal which is embodied in

  1315
  this Amendment. In the year 1885 these single-member constituencies were definitely recommended and adopted. I am sure I shall be within the recollection of the House in saying that in 1885 the present system of single-member constituencies was itself adopted as an experiment in minority representation as an alternative to the three-cornered constituencies. Is there a single Member in this House to-night, or is there anyone outside it, who will contend that from that point of view the experiment initiated in 1885 has been successful? Allow me to recall the facts to the remembrance of the House.
  Since 1885 there have taken place seven General Elections. At the first, in 1886, the Unionist party was returned with a majority of 183. On the principles we are recommending to the House that majority ought to have been eighty-seven. I am now speaking not of the United Kingdom, but of England, Scotland, and Wales, excluding Ireland from the computation. As regards those three countries, in 1892 the Unionists ought to have been in a majority of seventeen, and they were in a majority of seventeen, the only occasion on which the result has really tallied with the principle. In 1895 the Unionists were again returned, with a majority of 213. Their majority in that year should have been 111. In the kharki election of 1900 they were returned again, with a majority of 195, which was seventy in excess of their due proportion. In the great " landslide" of 1906, when it was not the Unionist party which was returned, their opponents were returned with a majority of 289. That majority should have been 89; it was 200 in excess. In January, 1910, the majority was 63, when it ought to have been 17, and in December of the same year it was 61 when it ought to have been 5. These are the results so far as England, Scotland and Wales are concerned of the General Elections which have been held under the present system. I turn from these general results to the results in particular localities which have a claim to be regarded as political entities. I take Scotland. In the election of January, 1910, the Home Rule party obtained 394,103 votes and with those votes they obtained 61 seats in Scotland. The Unionist party polled 265,770 votes and they obtained eleven seats, that is to say, one Home Ruler was returned roughly for
  1316
  every 6,500 votes and one Unionist for every 24,000 votes; in other words, the vote of the Home Ruler was worth four times as much as that of the Unionist. [An HON. MEMBER: " They are worth it!"] It might be worth twice as much, but I do not think any hon. Member would contend that it would be worth four times as much. I need not develop the point upon which I am insisting, but there is an even more curious case than that of Scotland Look at the case of Wales. In 1906, out of thirty-four seats in Wales, the Unionist party obtained not one, although they polled 100,547 votes.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: You do not bring Wales in.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I would gladly have put it in. I have said that we have put in as much as we think we can get. If we can get Wales, we will take it. We will not exclude anything we can get. I turn from that point to the theory that is very often urged, namely, virtual representation. We are told that although it is perfectly true that the Unionists cannot get a seat in Wales and that they get miserable under-representation in Scotland, yet as they have over-representation in the home counties —Kent, Surrey and Sussex —that the Unionists of Scotland are virtually represented by the Unionists of South —Eastern England. Is it any consolation to the Unionists of Scotland or Wales to be told that though they are under-represented their fellow Unionists in South-Eastern England have more than their deserts? Besides, does this theory of virtual representation work, even on the hypothesis which is put forward by those who maintain the principle? Take, for example, the election of 1895. There were 484 seats contested in the United Kingdom. The Unionist Party in that year received 1,785,372 votes, with which they got 282 seats. Their opponents received 1,823,809 votes, for which they got 202 seats. That is your theory of virtual representation. It is a mockery of representative Government a mere caricature of democracy.
  I will leave these rather detailed points, though they are details of very great importance, and submit one or two rather more general considerations. The first point I will urge we have heard almost ad nauseam, but not, I think, in this connection. I suppose there is no point which has been more assiduously laboured, whether by politicians or by publicists

  1317
  who have commented upon the working of the British Constitution in the last ten or fifteen years than the increasing autocracy —a phrase which is becoming so familiar —of the Executive. What is the best corrective, assuming that this charge is true, assuming that we are suffering, as we are constantly told, from the increasing autocracy Of the Executive? I submit that it is to be found in the proposal embodied in this Amendment. I know I shall be asked by one of my right hon. Friends opposite whether I really desire to weaken the Executive? To that question I reply I do and I do not. I draw a distinction between the Executive in its executive functions and the Executive in its control of the Legislature, which is an entirely different point. I do not at all want to weaken the Executive in the exercise of the functions which are proper to an executive, but I do wish to limit its encroachment upon the sphere which is proper to the Legislature. That is a distinction which I am entitled to press upon the House —a distinction of some real importance in connection with the argument which I am putting forward.
  When complaint is made by publicists or politicians that the power of the Cabinet has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, it is not of the latter they are thinking. The power of the Cabinet over legislative processes ought to be curtailed and there is no more effective way of curtailing it in its relation to legislation than that which is embodied in the principle of the Amendment which I am seconding. There is one other general consideration, and it is a point which is constantly urged, is the increasing tyranny —I do not associate myself with this charge, but am merely putting it to the House —of party and of party organisation. That is a complaint which is heard on every side, the increasing pressure of the party machine. I think there is some substance in that complaint, though how much precisely I am not prepared to say. Anyway, the complaint comes —and this will not be denied —not from one political party but from all political parties, and especially from the youngest of our political parties to whom I would make a strong appeal to-night, an appeal which in strength is out of proportion to the number of that party. [An HON. MEMBER: " The National party are not here!"] I do not see the National party here. It is said that this evil of the party machine will not diminish but will be increased by
  1318
  proportional representation. If that is the case how is it that the party machines are notoriously against proportional representation? The men who mind those machines are pretty shrewd men. Are they on both sides against proportional representation because they are afraid proportional representation will increase their power? It is an insult to their intelligence to suggest such a thing. I hope we may have an answer to that question before the Debate concludes. At the present time the choice of the electorate is virtually confined to the party selection of nominees, The electors have to vote for a particular candidate or they waste their vote. Under proportional representation no vote can be wasted except by the deliberate action of the voter. That is surely a very great gain if there was no other gain in the proposals which we submit.
  I hope it may not be deemed impertinent or presumptuous if I conclude —because on this question I feel very strongly indeed, and have not arrived at a conclusion on it in the last few months or the last few years —with a very earnest appeal to all parties in this House. As a lifelong Imperialist myself I would appeal to all those who view the political institutions of the United Kingdom in relation to the larger whole of which the United Kingdom forms a component part, to give in this matter of proportional representation a lead to the great self-governing dominions. At this moment it is a really serious matter and I hope the House will take it seriously. In two if not in three of the greatest dominions a mere majority vote is threatening to-day very grievous consequences to the stability of the Empire. The present system, it is notorious, tends to exaggerate those differences of race and creed which in the case of Canada and South Africa are already sufficiently and notoriously menacing. This is a point on which I will venture to quote words which will be listened to with respect in every quarter of the House, words which came from the death-bed of the late Lord Grey. In his last letter to the "Times" on the very subject which we are discussing now he said:
  "In Canada the necessity of the two political parties to obtain an electoral majority in every district is a corrupting influence which poisons the life of the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In South Africa the failure of General Botha to win a single seat in the Orange River Province at the last General Election seriously imperilled the Union. In Australia the caucus is supreme, and it is no more possible to those who are not members of labour associations to be

  1319
  elected in the mining and industrial districts than it has been for Unionists for the last quarter of a century to obtain Parliamentary representation in the South and West of Ireland."
  Whatever the House may think of my words, they will not think lightly of the words of Lord Grey. I appeal, in the first place, to all genuine Imperialists. In the second place, I appeal to all genuine and consistent democrats, to all who pay something more than lip-homage to those principles which lie at the root of the policy which they profess to affirm. How anyone who calls himself a democrat can be satisfied with the present system I am personally at a loss to comprehend. In the third place, I make a very earnest appeal to members of the Unionist party, to those of them at any rate who have any concern at all for their fellow Unionists who are so flagrantly unrepresented in Scotland, almost wholly unrepresented in Wales, and totally unrepresented in the South and West of Ireland. Finally, I appeal, and this is the root and essence of my appeal, to the more moderate, more reasonable men, not of one party but of all parties. I do not, because I cannot, appeal to the extremists of any party. They may win in the future, as they have won in the past, their crushing, overwhelming victories. Each in turn may win them. They may win, they will win, that sort of victory under the majority system. I wish the country joy of those crushing victories on the one side and the other. My appeal is not to the extremists. But I would appeal, and with all the earnestness I can command —and I would that my powers of persuasion were equal to the strength of my convictions —to all the more moderate men, and to the more reflective members of all parties and of every party, to think very seriously indeed before they reject the Amendment which is now before the House. From the bottom of my heart I believe that, if they do reject it, there is not a moderate man of any party who will not soon repent in sackcloth and ashes of the vote which he gives for its rejection. Everybody agrees that there are grave and difficult days ahead of us. We do not know what the immediate future may bring forth. What we do know is that under the Bill, to which this is an Amendment, and under the circumstances of the hour, we are launching the ship of State upon a very dark and stormy and uncharted sea, and, in my deliberate judgment, it is the height of
  1320
  unwisdom to decline to take advantage of any one of the safeguards which either science or prudence may suggest.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I agree with the concluding words of my hon. Friend. that by this Bill we are launching this country on an uncharted sea. We are enormously adding to the electorate, and. we are including in that electorate a very large element of those who have never exercised the vote, and that Parliament will be elected by an electorate, vast, uncertain, and of new character. Does my hon. Friend believe that in that great unknown, so to speak, before us, we are justified in adopting a new, untried, and theoretic machinery whereby all this new electorate shall choose their representatives in this House, something that is unknown to them, something which those whom they consult and who have hitherto exercised the vote, will not be able to explain to them, and something which —although I think it was my hon. Friend who derided the comparison and complexity which I attributed to that White Paper —will tell the previous electors and enable them to tell the new electors, that there is some mysterious manipulation, some calculation they do not understand, going on behind what has always been simple and straightforward to them —the vote? I think myself that this is, of all other times, the time when we ought not to commit this country to a new and untried experiment of this sort. I confess that in the earlier part of his speech I felt greatly flattered by the attention which my hon. Friend has evidently paid to a little brochure which I ventured to issue, and I certainly was not aware myself of the strength of the arguments in that production until I heard it attacked by my hon. Friend. But I admit that there was a fly in the amber of my content, owing to the opening remark of my hon. Friend, who moved this Amendment, when he called attention to an error, for which I readily apologise, in saying that proportional representation was not the unanimous recommondation of the Speaker's Conference. That was a verbal error. I was rather misled at the moment by the fact that the Government in charge of the Bill bad always declared that they would leave this question open to the House, as they did the question of women suffrage. I apologise for the error. But when my critics go on to say that proportional representation was an essential part of the compromise effected

  1321
  by the Speaker's Conference, and that the virtue of compromise, so to speak, covers that decision of the Speaker's Conference, and therefore covers this Amendment, I venture respectfully to altogether contest that assumption. The recommendation on proportional representation by the Speaker's Conference may have been unanimous, but it is a solecism in the Bill, and has nothing to do with any other part of the Bill. There are, and always have been, two sides to this question of proportional representation, and two opinions on the principle, diametrically opposed to each other. When you say to one side: "You are to have what you want," and when you say to the other side: "You are to have what you do not want, to put up with what you do not want and greatly object to," surely that cannot be called a compromise? It is exactly the reverse. So much was this the case that the members of the Government in charge of the Bill, who certainly were not backward in supporting the Bill throughout on the theory of compromise, abandoned that theory in the case of proportional representation and in fact —a fact to which my critics do not allude —twenty-five members of the Government responsible for this Bill have already voted against proportional representation in the previous Divisions.
  The object of this Amendment is, as the House knows, to replace in the Bill the same principle, in exactly the same words, which the House, after full deliberation and debate, has twice rejected when it was brought forward at the proper time and at the proper stage in the progress of the Bill. It is now attempted to reverse these two deliberate decisions of the House at an improper time and an improper stage, with results to the Bill, and to the laborious work that has been done by the Boundary Commissioners, and to a portion —an arbitrarily chosen portion —of the electorate of the country which, I submit, are wholly unjustifiable, and which I propose to deal with specifically. Before doing so, as I have never had an opportunity in this House of speaking on the general question of proportional representation, I should like to address myself to a single point that comes under that description. I know the House is weary of debating the general question of the merits and demerits of proportional representa-
  1322
  tion, and I ask permission to deal with the only one point —that is my cardinal objection to the whole of these proposals of the artificial representation of minorities, or what is now called proportional representation. If I confine myself to this one, I would beg the House to bear in mind that there is a very long list of other, and most insistent, objections which present themselves to me whenever I examine the subject, and which I do not Propose to mention.
  What is proportional representation? The essence of proportional representation is to give a better —and driven to its logical conclusion —I do not accept my hon. Friend's disclaimer of leaving out logic, for I feel quite sure that he evidently tries to be logical —to give a full and adequate representation in this House to minorities. I do not think I have made any mistake.
  An HON. MEMBER: Representation of all sections.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: A full and adequate representation of minorities.
  Mr. A WILLIAMS: Of majorities and minorities.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: My hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment made it perfectly clear by the instances given of General Elections that it was intended that the majorities in this House shall reflect, and be in harmony with, the aggregate majority of electors who have voted for them in the country.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Hear, heart!
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I am glad to have that principle assented to. Now it only needs a glance at the statistics of aggregate voters at General Elections —go back as far as you like —to discover that in nine cases out of ten, if proportional representation is successful in its efforts, it will result in a trifling majority to every Government that takes office. No one but a visionary, I imagine, can look forward to Parliamentary government being effectively carried on except under the party system. If we live, as we must live, under a party system, it is the greatest misfortune to the country, not only with regard to its home affairs, but with regard to its status and strength in relation to other countries. that the Government of the day, whichever party it represents, should have a weak and pre-

  1323
  carious majority. It cannot carry out its policies; it cannot pass its measures into law; it cannot even administer existing laws on any definite lines. Progress arrested, stagnation in political life, and instability of the State, are the inevitable consequences of the carrying out of the ideals of the advocates of proportional representation. And I give every man the credit of desiring to live up to his ideals. I do not put these matters forward solely as matters of argument or as postulates. Although we have very few examples of the operation of proportional representation under the single transferable vote, we have one; and I speak of Tasmania, where it has resulted in, I think, four successive elections, in exactly the state of things I have described as attaching to proportional representation, namely, an equal number of members returned for the Government and the Opposition with a so-called Independent Member holding the balance between the two.
  I observe that the advocates of proportional representation have varied their attitude several times with regard to Tasmania. It's a long, long way to Tasmania; but time was when the supporters of proportional representation used to march cheerily along 8,000 miles away, to a little colony of 200,000 inhabitants and 20,000 electors (about 15,000 of whom vote at a General Election) in order to find their Parliamentary millennium. It is a very curious thing that, very soon after, they began to drop Tasmania because they found that the experiment had turned out exactly as I have said. Now, however, when these facts have been put forward again, they have issued a somewhat discursive argument in answer, in which I really cannot see any point. It does not deal with the two salient facts in the case of Tasmania. The first is that which I have stated with regard to the Government and the Opposition being practically equal in numbers in the Assembly; and the other —an equally important one —is the fact that the Australian Commonwealth, with the results of the Tasmanian experiment before them, in framing their new Constitution, declined to have anything to do with proportional representation. Anxious as my hon. Friends may be to drop the case of Tasmania, I do not think that the House ought to drop it out of consideration,
  1324
  because it is the one case where a practical example has shown the results of proportional representation.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Bill is to be introduced in the Commonwealth Parliament bringing forward a proposal for proportional representation?
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Yes, it is always a proposal —for proportional representation. They all say it is going to happen, but they will not be influenced by actual experiments, such as those which have taken place and the results of which are known. I put the results of that experiment quite clearly in the publication to which I have referred. I put the case forward in the shape of an interesting and exhaustive article in the "Times." It is an authoritative article, written by a warm and earnest friend of proportional representation, and he described the results in Tasmania. I added another article by Mr. Gisborne, a well-known resident in Tasmania, who has watched the operations of the simple transferable vote in that country, and from these two articles you will gather what the House ought not to ignore. From these practical experiments which have been made, you will gather also the by-products of proportional representation; the field it opens up for the pernicious work of the caucus; the non-election of well-tried and experienced members; and the return, to the surprise and disappointment of the electorate, of an altogether inferior grade of members. I shall not be able to finish my argument to-night, because I have now come to the point where I wish to deal, not with any of the general principles of proportional representation, but with the difficulties and inconveniences that will arise from putting it into the Bill at this stage in its progress. The first of those difficulties is that it will upset and nullify and waste the whole of the work, or, at any rate, a great proportion of the work that has been done by the Boundary Commissioners, and which has been accepted by this House. All the inner boundaries of the divisions of Parliamentary boroughs, which have been the subject of such long inquiry, and which have been so carefully adjusted to meet the wishes of the electors, and to

  1325
  secure solidarity to each single-member district —all this will be swept away. London, which the promoters of proportional representation offered in the last Debate to exclude if London Members would only sacrifice their provincial colleagues —a bargain which the London Members at once rejected —is now to be included, and nine great Parliamentary boroughs of London are to have this experiment fastened upon them for no one knows how many years. You will have these boroughs chosen here and there, and between each you will have a Parliamentary borough exercising the sacred privilege of its vote upon a totally different principle from its neighbour. I wonder whether the House has really considered this aspect of the case, this partial and divided treatment of the whole electorate of this country?
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

WESTERN FRONT (BRITISH ADVANCE).
Whereupon Mr. SPEARER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, " That this House do now adjourn."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I promised early in the afternoon that if there were any further news with regard to the attack which began yesterday, I would communicate it to the House. I have just received a telephone message from the War Office in regard to the news which has this moment reached them. it is therefore very vague, but I am sure that it will give to the House, as it did to me, great satisfaction. Up to the present the number of prisoners counted has reached 8,000. Of these 180 are officers. At one point we have penetrated five miles behind the German lines, and several more villages, in addition to those already announced, have been taken.
Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.