CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords] AND SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 16 July 1918)

§ Mr. KING
I would ask your ruling as to whether the Amendment of which I have given notice is in order. In its effect it is an ordinary negative, but I would prefer to move it as an Amendment if I am in order.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think that it would be in order for the hon. Member to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in his name.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words it is undesirable at this stage of the Session to enter on consideration of a subject which will be better undertaken after women have exercised the franchise at a General Election. The Motion on the Paper is a very remarkable one in many ways. The House of Lords message came to us on the 7th of May, and I am surprised that the Homo Secretary did not give us some explanation in moving it as to why, after more than two months' delay, we are now taking up the suggestion of the House of Lords. If a Select Committee examination of the two Bills was necessary, why have two months been wasted? Perhaps the reason is this? It has been the repeated policy of the Government to avoid contentious legislation, and only yesterday the Leader of the House refused to proceed with the Bill which would have enabled women to act as solicitors—a very good thing in these days—on the ground that it was contentious, though it was a small Bill, which at the most would have taken only three or four hours of our time. Yet to-day they put down a Motion, which means that we are to embark on the consideration of two Bills on a most contentious subject which was dealt with in a Bill which was before the House last Session, and which, after a long Debate, was sent upstairs to a Grand Committee on which the Govern- 1006 ment were repeatedly defeated, and which, when the Bill came down in a totally different form again to this House on Report, there were two long days of discussion, and the Government dropped it. They did not get half-way through the Amendments on the Report stage. That is the sort of matter which is to be taken up by the Select Committee at this time of the Session. If the Select Committee reported, presumably the Bill would have to come back here to be passed by this House and the other House.
The action of the Government on this matter is perfectly bewildering. I think, however, I can suggest the key to this mystery. The War Cabinet has found itself in difficulties. I do not want in any way to dwell upon the distress and difficulties incidental to this time, but one set of difficulties is pretty obvious, and it was endeavoured to get out of them by recalling the Home Secretary from The Hague before his work was over there—work which we are glad to think has been successfully achieved, owing to his great services and the foundations which he laid. They recalled him from The Hague to put him at the head of a special Home Cabinet to deal with home affairs. That was only last week. We have now the first proof in this Bill, which could not be proceeded with last year, and which the Government has been for two months and more unable to take up in either House, and the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the new Home Cabinet, has said that this legislation must be passed. I honour him for it. He has faith in his own ideas, and he will persist, in spite of his own Leader, and in spite of the evident feeling that still exists, and the opposition of this House, and still more in the country. I say that I respect and honour the man who in that position can say, "I will proceed with this legislation." We honour him for taking this line, we honour him for putting new work and increased labours on the House as soon as he becomse the head of the Home Cabinet. But what is the prospect of this legislation really being successfully carried through I believe none at all. I believe that if these two Bills are sent to a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, the proceeding will never result in legislation this year, and it will not result in legislation next year, or it ought not, for the reason that we are in the last stage of this Parliament. We all hope that a new Parliament will be elected 1007 before long, a Parliament more vigorous and of a different complexion altogether. If so, what is going to be one of the great features in it? Women are going to vote for it, and I am quite sure that any legislation like this with which this Committee is to deal ought not to proceed, especially when we have a very close prospect of a new Parliament elected largely by the votes of women. I say, therefore, without hesitation, that the work of this Committee, if it be set up, is not likely to produce legislation this Session, and is not likely to produce it next Session.
10.0 P.M.
Why, therefore, waste time over questions which are very contentious, for I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matters connected with this legislation are most contentious. I will just indicate a few of the difficulties which arise in connection with this subject. We are going to embark on the consideration of Bills which have not been before this House at all. They are both long Bills, each having eleven Clauses, and therefore cannot be considered small Bills in the ordinary acceptance of that word. They deal with a very difficult subject—I think I may say a painful subject, and one which has recently had a great deal of public attention and discussion, more especially owing to Regulation 40D, in regard to which a large number of questions have been put in the House. A large number of public meetings have been held against that Regulation, and a large number of resolutions of protest have been sent up by the women's organisations all over the country. I receive almost every day communications on the subject from women's organisations. Owing to this 40D Regulation, the question has become one of acute controversy. It certainly has excited violent feeling, and an hon. Friend of mine has intimated that if there is going to be legislation of this kind brought forward, he did not mind if he had no Recess at all; he would try to prolong the proceedings to any extent, so that he could prevent this proposed legislation going through. The Home Secretary, I am afraid, does not recognise the intensity of the feeling that there is upon this subject. He does not realise that some hon. Members of this House would really strain their powers of opposition, and even of obstruction, in a way that has not been 1008 done for years past in resistance to such a measure. I therefore ask the Government most seriously to reconsider this matter, and to wait before they proceed upon a course which I believe will do no good, while there may be a great deal of feeling over it, and much controversy and discussion. I attended a meeting at which Regulation 40D was discussed. It was a meeting outside this House, and I addressed it, but I am not anxious to protract or ascerbate the controversy at the present time, because I think protest has been sufficiently made. I believe the matter is receiving the anxious attention not only of the Home Office and the War Office, but of the War Cabinet too. I therefore submit that this matter is much better left as it is, than to proceed with the idea of this legislation being passed into law this Session or proceeded with in such a way as to get it into order to be passed in the next Session. It is a futile policy, and I wish to utter my strong protest against it.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to second the Amendment, and in so doing I would like to point out that the Government's policy on this Resolution is exactly contrary to that on the last Resolution. I suggested on the previous Resolution, which will deal with these topics, because it will deal with the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and they include Regulation 40D, that there should be a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. The Government could not accept that, but now, on the very next Resolution, dealing with the same subject, they want a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. The paradox of the English Education Bill contradicting the Scottish Bill in so many points is almost outdone by the Notice Paper to-day, because the Government have never ventured to put both those Bills on the Notice Paper, but here they are actually taking up a directly opposite line of conduct in these two Resolutions. The Minister for Reconstruction, who led upon the first Resolution, has gone away and deprived the House of the privilege of his presence upon this Resolution. He could not very well have stayed and heard his colleague argue the very opposite of what he had been arguing. On the merits of the question, I suggest that the Government must know they are only wasting time. This is a very thorny subject, upon which people 1009 are prepared to sink a great deal of their own preference for ease and to sink their aversion to taking part in a political struggle rather than to be beaten on this question. It is one of those questions upon which I would leave any party or any leader rather than be committed to some of this legislation. The Government know very well that unless they rush these Bills through this House in this Session they will have no earthly chance after the women have got votes. All kinds of women, whether rich or poor, have no uncertain views on this question of legislation which is always against them, and the women of the country will not stand it. I suggest that any Members who serve on this Committee must know when they go that they are wasting their time, and I do not think any Government will have the courage to try and legislate on their Report. I appeal to the Government that we have had enough of domestic legislation to satisfy anybody. Why should we prolong this disagreeable controversy when there is not the faintest possibility of anything maturing from it?

§ Sir G. CAVE
I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, or, if pressed, will not be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) inquired why there had been the delay in moving the Resolution, and he expressed the opinion that the delay was connected with the Committee on Home Affairs. He is mistaken in that. But for my absence, this Resolution would have been on the Paper weeks ago, and it is only because I was called away elsewhere that it has not been proposed before to-day.

§ Mr. KING
May I point out that it was on the 7th of May that the Lords made this proposal?

§ Sir G. CAVE
It would have been pro posed here early in June if I had not been called away. The question is

Division No. 66.]	AYES.	[10.14 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Clyde, J. Avon	Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)
Baldwin, Stanley	Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)	Haslam, Lewis
Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Barnett, Capt. R. W.	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hibbert, Sir Henry F.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Higham, John Sharp
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas	Elverston, Sir Harold	Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)	Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Foster, Philip Staveley	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Boyton, Sir James	Gibbs, Col. George Abraham	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Brassey, H. L. C.	Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Greig, Col. J. W.	Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)
Butcher, Sir John George	Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William	Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Cave. Rt. Hon. Sir George	Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.	Kenyon, Barnet
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Pratt, J. W.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Layland-Barratt, Sir F.	Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.	Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert	Rattan, Peter Wilson	Tootill, Robert
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert	Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Watt, Henry A.
Maden, Sir John Henry	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Whiteley, Sir H. J.
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)	Robinson, Sidney	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Mount, William Arthur	Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)	Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)
Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)	Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur	Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)
Parkes, Sir Edward E.	Somervell, William Henry
Parrott, Sir Edward	Spear, Sir John Ward	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.
Perkins, Walter F.	Stewart, Gershom
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
NOES.
Jowett, Frederick William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. King and Mr. Booth.