Commons Sitting of 23 October 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 970 (Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Report for 1917) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of Receipts into and Payments out of the Road Improvement Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1918, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 123.]

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Report of the Controller of the Department for the Development of Mineral Resources in the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of an Agreement between the Ministry of Munitions and S. Pearson and Sons, Limited, for management of Petroleum Development [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED LIST).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state the result of his consideration of the subject of allowing senior officers on the unemployed list of the Indian Army to be placed on the retired list?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have decided to allow
      744
      a lieutenant-colonel who has reached the age of fifty-five, or an officer of higher rank who has reached the age of fifty-seven, to retire on pension if there is no prospect of his being further employed in work under Government carrying pay of £400 a year or more. I have sent my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the circular that has been addressed to officers of the Indian Army on the unemployed list.
      Colonel YATE: I presume that these orders are to have retrospective effect?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I should not like to say from memory. I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to put down a question.

      POLICE (PAY).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what recommendations have been received by the Government of India from the local governments regarding the increase of pay to the Indian police, both British and Indian; and whether a substantial increase of pay will now be granted to all ranks with retrospective effect?
      Mr. MONTAGU:I have made further inquiry, and find that the recommendations for all the local governments have not yet been received. The Government of India desire, as I do, to expedite the matter.

      ARMY PAY (EXCHANGE).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what difference the orders contained in Army Instruction, India, dated Simla, 16th July, No. 756, altering the rate of exchange compensation allowance for officers serving in India has made in the pay of lieutenants now serving there; and whether this alteration in the allowance previously given has been made by his direction or by whose?
      Mr. MONTAGU: In the case of lieutenants of Infantry of the Indian Army the effect of the Instruction was to reduce the exchange compensation allowance admissible to them by Rs.8 7a. 6p. a month. The Instruction was issued by the Government of India under the Standing Orders relating to this allowance, which falls as the exchange value of the rupee rises.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman compensate these officers by urging an increase being granted when once they are paid? They cannot live on

      745
      their pay as it is and unless some relief is given there will be no candidates for the Indian Army at all.

      CONSPIRACIES (ROWLATT REPORT).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India has taken to carry into effect the recommendations made in the Rowlatt Report for enabling that Government to deal effectively with conspiracies when special temporary legislation lapses?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I understand that the recommendations of the Committee are engaging the attention of the Government of India.
      Sir J. D. REES: Can my right hon. Friend explain the delay in the receipt of this Report?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I explained last week in the House that the delay appears to have arisen from the fact that the copies of the Report for dispatch to the Houses of Parliament were given to the proper official, but, through a misunderstanding, he did not catch the ship on which they were supposed to go.
      Colonel YATE: Is it not urgently necessary that the recommendations of the Rowlatt Report should be given effect to immediately by legislation without any delay?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Clearly my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the very important recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee must receive careful consideration. It is for the Government of India to make recommendations to me, and not for me to make recommendations to them.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite these recommendations?
      Mr. MONTAGU: In a matter of such urgent importance I am sure the Government of India will not delay.

      RAW MATERIALS (CONTROL).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Report rendered to the Imperial Conference by the Special Committee appointed to consider questions regarding the control of raw material after the War was communicated to the Government of India, as requested therein, in order to ascertain its views thereon; and, if so, whether the Government of India has reported to the Secretary of State?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have not yet received the views of the Government of India.

      MILITARY FORCES (COST).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India what action has been, or will be, taken on the motion moved in the Governor-General's Council by the financial member, and carried by the votes of the non-official members, to the effect that the prolongation of the War justifies India taking a larger share than she does at present in respect of the cost of the military forces raised or to be raised in India?
      Mr. MONTAGU: A scheme in accordance with the motion is under consideration. A statement will be made later; and it will no doubt be necessary to submit a Resolution to both Houses of Parliament.

      CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for India whether local governments have reported to the Government of India their opinions on the proposals contained in paragraphs 212 to 295 of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms; if not, when such reports may be expected; and when such reports and the draft Bill which is being prepared will be laid before Parliament in order that they may be considered and discussed?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have asked the local governments to communicate their views, if possible, by the 1st November. I am afraid I am not able to assign a date by which copies of these papers will be in the hands of Members, or Parliament asked to undertake the necessary legislation, but not, I think, this Session.

      COTTON GOODS TARIFF.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the effect of the rise in the Customs tariff on cotton goods imported into India?
      Mr. MONTAGU: I have no special information on the point, and conditions have been so abnormal since the new duties were imposed that I doubt whether the Government of India could say what effect, if any, they have had on imports. But if the hon. Member wishes I will ask for information.

    INDIAN TROOPS IN PALESTINE.

      STATEMENT BY MR. MONTAGU.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the part taken by Indian troops in the recent victorious operations in Palestine?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The General Staff inform me that they have as yet received no detailed reports or dispatch from General Allenby regarding the recent operations, and therefore I am not in a position to add materially to the published accounts regarding the gallantry and dash shown by the Indian troops in the operations referred to.
      General Allenby's force includes over 100,000 Indian troops. All accounts that I have seen testify to the courage, discipline, and endurance of all ranks. It is particularly gratifying to note that the new Indian units which have replaced European troops sent for service to the Western Front rivalled the conduct of veteran troops and fought in a manner worthy of the high traditions of the Indian Army.
      General Allenby himself has telegraphed to me that Indian Cavalry and Infantry have taken a leading and brilliant part in the fighting, and I am proud to say that Indian Cavalry formations figures prominently in the long-distance ride which has led to the fall of Damascus and Homs.
      I am confident that when full dispatches are received they will be found to endorse the high opinion of the Indian troops that has already found expression in the Press.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.

      SHIPYARD LABOUR.
      Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now give the assurance that all the shipyards are fully equipped with an adequate amount of skilled and unskilled labour and material for the outturn of a maximum output of merchant ships; and, if not, what number of men and what amount of material is lacking?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): With regard to the first part of the question, I can assure my right hon. Friend
      748
      that all the shipyards are at the moment provided with all the unskilled labour which can be utilised under present conditions, and with all the material required to obtain the best possible output. There is a shortage of skilled labour in certain trades and in certain districts, but this matter has received and is receiving constant attention in order to relieve this shortage as far as possible.
      The Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding estimates that fully to man the maximum capacity of the existing yards and the extensions thereto, when complete, we should require to increase the number of men by between 70,000 and 80,000.
      Mr. LAMBERT: What steps are the Government making to give effect to this increase?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: They could not be all occupied at once. Months may elapse. With the earlier supply I have said we are taking steps. For the rest, the Controller of Merchant Shipping has direct access to the War Cabinet. My right hon. Friend knows the claims of man-power are very insistent.
      Mr. LAMBERT: How many skilled men have been returned from the Army to the shipyards in the first two months?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have a statement showing the returns this year to 18th October: Skilled or semi-skilled, 11,800 odd.
      Mr. ROCH: What were the medical categories of that 11,000?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say, but it is interesting to know that in the period, and including the unskilled, whom I have not given, the number of men who have been found unsuitable is only 239.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (CHEPSTOW).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what housing scheme has been approved at the national shipbuilding yard at Chepstow; and will he state the number of houses that have been provided up till now, the number of persons they house, and at what rents they are let?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Standard Shipbuilding and Engineering Company had already in hand a scheme for the construction of 130 houses, and I am advised that thirty-five of these have been completed and are in actual occupation. The Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding has prepared a further scheme for the provision of 2,080 houses, and request for Treasury sanction for the expenditure involved was made in August. Meantime 220 of these houses are practically complete. I cannot give the number of persons living in the houses, as the number in each house varies with the size of the family. The rents range from 7s. 6d. per week upwards.
    Mr. WATTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed an estimate when the 2,000 houses indicated in his answer will be finished?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot without notice.

    NAVAL RECRUITING OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the pay of naval recruiting officers in 1913 and at present; and when the period of consideration in regard to an increase in pay to these officers will be terminated and a decision arrived at and announced?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of naval recruiting officers, in 1913 and at the present time, is £200 per annum, in addition to their retired pay, which they receive in full. They are also eligible for special awards of £50 each, which are awarded annually to the four officers obtaining the best results for the year. The question of an increase of pay is under discussion with the Treasury.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are we to understand that these salaries have not been raised since 1913, although the salaries of all other departments have been raised, and also that this matter has been under considertion for many months and no decision arrived at?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid the former proposition is true. They are as they were in 1913. I cannot say how long they have been under consideration.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.

      MAIL BOATS (PROTECTION).
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, at the time that the mail steamer "Leinster" was sunk by enemy submarine, the wireless installation at Kingstown was out of order and did not immediately receive the S.O.S. calls; and whether, although many Government craft, including destroyers, were in Kingstown Harbour at the time the "Leinster" was sunk about twelve miles only from the harbour, a considerable time elapsed before any Government vessel reached the scene of the disaster?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty is not aware that the wireless installation at Kingstown was out of order, and as I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for East Mayo, all available vessels were clear of the harbour within ten minutes after the senior naval officer, Kingstown, received the message. My hon. Friend will realise that a certain proportion of the vessels in harbour are undergoing boiler cleaning, and so on, and cannot be kept permanently at sea.
      Mr. HOUSTON: I trust my right hon. Friend will forgive me, in view of the very pressing request made to me by survivors and relatives of those lost, and the owners of the "Leinster," if I ask the following question: Whether he is aware that on Thursday last, 17th inst., he stated that the S.O.S. from the "Leinster" was sent out at 9.25 a.m., and was received by the senior naval officer at Kingstown at 9.50 a.m., and can he explain why twenty-five minutes were required in conveying that Marconi message from its receipt to the naval officer in charge at Kingstown; does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he also stated that the scene of the disaster was only twelve miles from Kingstown, and that the rescuing craft sent out only arrived on the scene of the disaster at 10.40 a.m.—that is one hour and fifteen minutes from the time the S.O.S. was sent out; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the "Leinster" had been escorted by destroyers that very probably a great many more lives than were saved would have been saved, and that not only minutes but seconds are of importance when human beings are drowning?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has correctly stated the facts that the

      751
      times were 9.25 and 9.50, when the S.O.S. message was respectively sent out and received.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Why was it so?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It may be that the wireless installation on the "Leinster" was injured, and that the message received at Kingston was not from the "Leinster" but another vessel—I can not say!—I will make inquiries; and the twelve miles distance is also true. The weather was very heavy, but all the vessels available in the harbour put out within ten minutes. There were, when they arrived, two torpedo boat destroyers which had been engaged in patrol operations on the scene. With regard to the question of continuous escort I have done my best to answer that in response to the request of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that a Marconi message is about instantaneous in its delivery, and that the message did not come from the "Leinster" at all, but from the "Ulster"; and if it was received at 9.50 why did twenty-five minutes transpire before it was in the hands of the officer who was supposed to be on duty?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have said I recognise the time occupied (twenty-five minutes) in the receipt of the message by the naval officer, but I have suggested that possibly it was due to the fact that the message came from some other vessel because of the failure of the Marconi apparatus on the "Leinster." I do not know—that may be the reason; but I have already said I will inquire.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I persist, as this is a most important question. Will he inquire carefully into the reason why the message took twenty-four minutes—because I assume the sending out would take a minute—from 9.25 to its receipt, by the senior naval officer or his substitute?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said I will make inquiry?
      Mr. DILLON: Is it possible that the senior naval officer at Kingstown in his report of this disaster, did not go into full details as to why the wireless message had not been received directly at Kingstown but handed from another vessel?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as I am aware, no; but I shall make inquiries.

      SUBMARINES IN NEUTRAL WATERS.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official information showing that enemy submarines find their way from Antwerp to the sea through the neutral waters of the Scheldt; and, if so, whether representations have been made to the Government which controls these waters?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no information, official or otherwise, to the effect that German submarines are finding their way from Antwerp to the sea through the neutral waters of the Scheldt. The Admiralty has no doubt but that the Dutch Government will fulfil its obligations to prevent such exit should the necessity arise.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that eighteen months ago the then First Lord of the Admiralty stated in the House that the Government had grave reasons for suspecting that enemy craft had made use of neutral waters—as I suggest—and could my right hon. Friend say whether representations have been made to neutral Governments, seeing that British war vessels are, by international law, prevented from following these enemy craft through these waters?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My recollection is that that related to suspicions of other neutral waters.
      Mr. HOUSTON: No; to these.

    BOMBS IN SHIPS' HOLDS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the sinking of the steamship "Pentland Range" about 150 miles east of Cape Polonio, Uruguay, was due to the explosion of a bomb placed on board the vessel by enemy agents while loading at Buenos Ayres, whether he is aware that the fire which occurred on the vessel "Fiona," loaded with hessian bags consigned to the British Commissioner of Wheat Supplies, was caused through inflammable substances thrown down the ventilators into the hold; and whether representations have been made in the proper quarter to prevent the recurrence of these outrages?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the "Pentland Range," a British ship, the Report of a naval inquiry held locally does suggest the possibility of loss being due to explosion from bombs placed on board by enemy agents. If my hon. Friend has any information which he thinks would be useful to us, I shall be glad to have it.
    As regards the Danish ship "Fiona," though there is no direct evidence, there are grave suspicions of intentional incendiarism; again, if my hon. Friend has any evidence whatever that would help us to follow these matters up, he will, of course, place it at our disposal.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Buenos Ayres is, unfortunately, a centre of enemy activity and espionage, and I may ask whether any representations have been made to the Argentine Government regarding this; if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say what reply has been received?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say. I am not aware of it.

    WEST AFRICAN PORTS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that vessels lying in certain West African ports foul very quickly; that in some instances the bottoms become covered in a day or two with large quantities of barnacles; that these barnacles grow rapidly and greatly retard and reduce the speed of the vessel to which they attach themselves; that at times vessels are kept in these ports for a week or ten days awaiting convoy; that in many instances these vessels rapidly foul and after joining convoy are unable to maintain convoy speed, with the result that they fall out of position and sometimes out of convoy, or, alternatively, compel the whole convoy to reduce speed; and, with a view to more economical and better use of merchant ships, will he make representations to the proper quarter that better arrangements should be made for convoy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the earlier parts of the question, the Admiralty are, of course, fully aware of the effects of marine growths on ships' bottoms. As regards the suggestion that vessels have been unnecessarily kept in these ports for a week or ten days awaiting convoy, my hon. Friend is misinformed. Vessels have no doubt been
    754
    kept waiting, but for reasons not connected with the convoy system. And it would not be true to suggest that the convoy system has been responsible for any abnormal delay. As regards the last part of the question, the number of vessels that fall out of convoy for any reason is remarkably few; and it has, so far as I know, never happened that a vessel has had to fall out of convoy because of the state of her bottom, the same resulting from detention at these ports. But here, as elsewhere, if my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make regarding arrangements for convoy, we shall be only too glad to consider them.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he has introduced the word "unnecessary"? I did not say there were "unnecessary" delays in the convoying. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have deep sea harbours for vessels at islands belonging to our Ally Portugal, the use of which would prevent the fouling in West African ports, and that these islands might have been used?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The suggestion, as it seemed to me, was that the use of these ports involved unnecessary delay.

    ADMIRALTY AND TRADESMEN'S ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the tradesmen's accounts connected with the Admiralty Hostel, Jordanhill Demonstration School, Glasgow, have not yet been paid, although applications have again and again been made to the architect and measurer, and to the Admiralty Department in the Adelphi Hotel there; and will he say what is the reason that these officials delay so long to take action?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It may very well be that applications for payment have been made locally. My hon. and learned Friend is not correct in saying that repeated applications have been made to the Admiralty. The first information we received that local accounts were outstanding was on the 10th September, and within forty-eight hours the accounts were settled, less 10 per cent., which was held in suspense for purposes of further investigation. There is this much to be said for

    755
    the local delay, that whilst the building was first requisitioned for Admiralty purposes, it was ultimately considered that it could be more usefully employed as a War Office hospital. I imagine that the architect in charge deferred passing on the accounts pending an adjustment between the two Departments as to the share of the cost to be borne by each.
    Mr. WATT: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the point that his Department does not seem to realise the necessity for money for those at work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Within forty-eight hours of the receipt by us of the accounts from the locality they were settled—less 10 per cent., as I have said.

    SOUTHERN NIGERIA (MR. EDWARD FALK).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Edward Falk for some time District Commissioner at Owerri, in Southern Nigeria, is of German nationality; whether he was recently appointed to a post in Opobo but was withdrawn under protest of the residents there; and whether it is necessary that he should hold a Government appointment under the Crown?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The officer referred to is not of German nationality. His father was a Hanoverian who came to England when Hanover was annexed by Prussia, and was naturalised in 1880. Mr. Falk was interned at Ruhleben, and was one of the first two to escape to England. Nothing is known of the alleged incident at Opobo. The third part of the question does not arise.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked whether Richard Starcke, an unnaturalised German in Togoland, has been taken over by the British Government in the Public Works Department; and, if so, whether, in addition, he is permitted to undertake private work as a builder and contractor in any part of the British zone and has full permission to travel there as he may think fit?
    Mr. HEWINS: I have not yet received the Report on this matter which I asked the Governor to furnish in July. It is possible that the Report was lost at sea, but I will inquire.

    UGANDA RAILWAY MARINE.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to answer favourably the petition of the Merchant Service officers of the Uganda Railway Marine, which was presented on the 30th April last, and relates to certain grievances which these officers ask to be removed?
    Mr. HEWINS: The petition is under the consideration of the local commission which is inquiring into the conditions of the public service in East Africa, and I must await the receipt of the Commissioner's report.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      STERN REPRISALS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to an Order issued by the enemy to the effect that British aviators who drop leaflets over the enemy lines will, if caught, be sentenced to death; and what steps he proposes to take in regard thereto?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): His Majesty's Government have received no official corroboration of this Order, which appeared in an, Austrian newspaper. We are, however, informing the Austrian Government that should such an Order as is described have been issued and be carried into effect, the sternest measures of reprisals will be instantly taken.

      DENTAL TREATMENT (SWITZERLAND).
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made for the dental treatment of British prisoners of war in Switzerland during the last two years, and how many of such men have been dentally treated there; also, if this treatment has been at the public expense; and, if not, at whose expense?
      Mr. HOPE: Since August, 1916, Mr. Joseph A. Woods, of Liverpool, assisted by his wife, has without remuneration afforded

      757
      dental treatment to all our prisoners interned in Switzerland who needed his services. In two years Mr. Woods has treated over 1,200 prisoners, not including mere examinations, and has supplied gratuitously over 600 dentures, special appliances, and other requisites. I am glad of this opportunity to express on behalf of the military authorities their cordial appreciation of Mr. Woods' services and those of his wife.

      ILL-TREATMENT BY GERMANS.
      Colonel C. LOWTHER (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued brutality to British prisoners, he will immediately inform the German Government that at the close of the War all those responsible for the ill-treatment of our men shall be handed over to justice?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am sorry I have not received any notice of that question.
      Colonel LOWTHER: Can I have an answer now?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should not like to answer that question without notice.
      Colonel LOWTHER: I will put it down.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES, ABERDEEN.
      Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of Stats for War if his Department will consider the convenience of soldiers' wives and mothers in the Aberdare district, South Wales, by arranging with the post offices to pay out moneys on Friday or Saturday mornings, Saturday being the market day, when these people could spend the money to greater advantage; whether he is aware that at present the soldiers' wives and mothers are paid out upon the Monday and Tuesday, and that they cannot get fresh vegetables, fish, etc., at market prices; and whether his Department will move in the matter at once?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In addition to separation allowances the post office pays Army and Navy pensions, old
      758
      age pensions, and other allowances, and it is necessary to distribute these payments over the days of the week. It would not be possible to undertake the payment of separation allowances On Friday, on which day old age pensions are payable, or on Saturdays which is always a particularly busy day at post offices. I gave full details in my speech on the Post Office Estimates on 12th June.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend seriously ask the House to believe that because he has to pay old age pensions on Friday to a very limited number of people as compared with the wives of soldiers, he cannot transfer them from the Friday to Monday and allow the wives of soldiers, who are the greater number, to have the more convenient day?
      Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If the hon. Member will look at the answer of the 12th of June he will see that I gave full reasons for it.
      Mr. STANTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that my information came from the residents, who happen to know that the local post office authorities could conveniently arrange to pay on Thursday or Friday? This means everything to the poor people to whom these scanty allowances are paid.
      Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed. It is not possible to pay them on the same day.
      Mr. STANTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?
      Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will make inquiries again and see if it is possible. I am only too anxious, as everybody else is, to do whatever is possible in the matter.

      SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will take steps to arrange that separation allowance is paid for all the children of officers in the Army; if he is aware that, under the present regulations, separation allowance is paid for four children only; and if he is aware of the effect of this regulation and the hardships which it imposes on young officers with large families having no other income but their Army pay?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This question has been fully considered in all its

      759
      bearings by the War Cabinet Committee. They have not seen their way to recommend the change suggested.
      M. BYRNE: Why not? Can the right hon. Gentleman say why young officers with large families should be treated in this way?
      Mr. FORSTER: The arrangement was fully explained at the time it was brought into effect. I think if the hon. Member will refresh his memory he will see the reasonableness of the arrangement.
      Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the practice of paymasters only to pay separation allowances to dependants, Class A, from the date of the forms which they acknowledge to have reached them, and that it is not uncommon for forms to go astray, with the result that the dependants are told that no forms have been received by the paymasters, whereupon the respective soldiers have to sign forms a second time, and on receipt of these the paymasters commence payment of separation allowances, with the result that the dependants lose the money due to them from the date of the first papers; and what remedy does he propose for this state of affairs?
      Mr. FORSTER: If there is satisfactory evidence that a claim was made and the form was lost, the practice is to pay the allowance from the date of the original claim.

      PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES.
      Major BOWDENasked whether a soldier transferred to Class P from Class W is entitled to his pension, and may continue to find work in civil employment such as his state of physical fitness will permit him to undertake?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): A soldier transferred to Class P has the same rights of pension and gratuity as a man discharged from the Army through medical unfitness, and may also obtain civil employment.
      Major BOWDENasked whether soldiers placed in Class W and working in civil employment under the conditions of that class but who are unable to maintain regular work owing to disability caused when on service, and are therefore placed in a position of want and hardship, may
      760
      transfer, or be transferred, to Class P; and, if so, what steps the soldier concerned must take to obtain that transfer?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If brought to notice all cases, such as those referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, are carefully considered, and if the man is found to be eligible for transfer to Class P the transfer to that class is carried out. The man should report his case to the officer in charge of records concerned or to the local war pensions committee.
      Major BOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman have that information circulated to the men concerned, either as an instruction or in some way that will reach the men who are suffering?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions on these two points has already been circulated, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will come to me at the War Office I will see what further steps can be taken.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      SOLDIERS TWICE WOUNDED.
      Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOODasked whether, in view of the improved war situation, he is now prepared to give effect to the desire expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Service in January last that no man who had been twice wounded should be sent out to France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret very much that the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question must be in the negative.
      Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not time that the War Office or the Ministry of National Service took some of the healthy men engaged on munitions, instead of sending these men who have been twice wounded back to France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend had better put that question to the Minister of National Service.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this question has been reconsidered since Lord Derby considered it after receiving deputations when he was Secretary for War?
      Mr. WATT: Are there not men at home who might be sent in substitution?

      CASES UNDER INVESTIGATION.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, concerning Private R. D. Paterson, No. 18348, Highland Light Infantry, who has served in Mesopotamia three years and who for the last 1½ years has been constantly in and out of hospital on account of malarial fever, frequently being carried back to hospital after he had lain for hours where he had fallen out on the march, if, having regard to the fact that Private Paterson is said to be a mere wreck and, when his parents last heard of him, was in hospital again, he will have inquiries made with a view to his discharge, or at all events his return home on sick leave until it has been ascertained whether he can be restored to health and made fit for service in Mesopotamia again?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry into this case, and will acquaint my hon. Friend of the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will inquire into the case of Private F. Bushfield, No. 67020, D Company, 4th Reserves, King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, one of five sons who have gone into the Army, two of whom have been killed and the remaining three being still on active service, with a view to his release on compassionate grounds, having regard to the further calamity which has recently fallen upon the household through the death of the soldier's father?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry into this case is being made, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

      BRITISH SOLDIERS (PAY).
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing opinion in this country that British soldiers who are paid at the rate of 1s. 6d., 2s., 3s. 1d., and 4s. 3d. per day for privates, corporals, sergeants, and sergeant-majors, respectively, should be paid at the same rate as Australian soldiers, who are paid at the rate of 6s., 8s., 10s., and 12s. 6d. per day for privates, corporals, sergeants, and sergeant-majors, respectively; and whether he intends to pay the British soldier at the same rate as the Australian soldier?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. The emoluments
      762
      of the British soldier have been considered from time to time by the War Cabinet, and been fixed after very full consideration of the whole subject. The matter is again under consideration by the Cabinet Committee.

      MEN OVER FORTY-THREE (TRAINING).
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked whether the undertaking that men over forty-three should not be required to go through the severe course of training required from younger men, but should be allowed to go through a modified course of drill and physical training, is being generally adhered to; and, if so, why a number of English recruits over forty-three have been sent to a training camp in county Galway, Ireland, and are required to go through the ordinary course along with young men, though some of these older men are graded B2?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. I am not aware of the conditions suggested at the camp referred to in the last part of the question, but, if fuller particulars are furnished, I shall be happy to cause inquiry to be made, if necessary.

      IRISH WORKMEN (CONSCRIPTION).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of National Service the result of his inquiries into the cases of Privates Kiernan, Hewson, Walsh, Higgins, and Joyce, Irish workmen, who were illegally conscripted; and if he is aware that the latter three are now in prison at Warrington?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Full inquiries have been made into the case of Kiernan, and no trace can be found that on reporting he either claimed or produced any evidence that he was excepted or otherwise protected from the operation of the Military Service Acts. When, however, it subsequently appeared that he had been sent over by the Employment Exchange, the War Office were requested to release him, and I understand this has been done. With regard to Hewson, I have ascertained that when he came up for medical examination no card was produced to show that he was in possession of any form of protection, and consequently he was graded and called up for service. The man's card has now been produced, and representations have been made to the War Office asking for his

      763
      discharge. The other three men, Walsh, Joyce, and Higgins, as I recently informed the hon. Member by letter, came to England subsequently to the Press communiqué of the 12th July, and were rightly enlisted.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter three men who are detained in prison were only three weeks in England in their lives? Surely they are not liable to military service?
      Sir A. GEDDES: The moment they landed in England they became liable to military service.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is now able to make a statement as to the number of soldiers who have been sentenced by court-martial for concealing venereal disease in cases arising out of a complaint by a woman that she had been infected by the soldier?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend on the 13th June last, I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of the facts, does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain his statement that there is equality of treatment between soldiers under the King's Regulations and women under Regulation 40D?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do.

    CAST HORSES.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked if, in view of the shortage of horses in this country, he would make arrangements for the return to this country of all Army horses, whether cast or not, on the termination of the War, and of all cast horses at the present time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Arrangements have been made, in consultation with the "Advisory Council for the Disposal of Surplus War Stores," for the repatriation of a very large number of the Army horses in France on the termination of the War, but it is not anticipated that shipping facilities will be available to bring back any large number of animals from other
    764
    theatres of war. It has been decided, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, not to return to this country horses now cast in France.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the undertaking given by the Government about one and a half years or two years ago that no cast Army horses would be destroyed will still be adhered to, and whether, in view of the great shortage of horses in this country, it would be possible to return to this country horses now cast in France?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that it would be extremely difficult to do so because of the enormous demand for transport facilities for men and munitions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will it be possible to do this in the Eastern theatres of war?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not dealt with that question in my answer, but I will go into it.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS, IRELAND (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
    Captain STEPHEN GWYNNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the difficulty which discharged soldiers experience in finding employment in Ireland; and whether, in view of this difficulty, he will take steps in remount departments, pay offices, and other departments in Ireland which are directly administered by or come under the supervision of the War Office, to replace male civilians by discharged men except in the case of such Civil servants as are indispensable in these establishments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is already the practice to give preference to discharged soldiers for employment in the departments mentioned, but I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion to displace in every case well-tried and trained men.

    SHROPSHIRE AND BUCKS LIGHT INFANTRY.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain H. J. Inman, late Oxfordshire and Bucks Light Infantry, after serving in Gibraltar, India, and Gallipoli, resigned his commission at

    765
    Trimulghery on the 31st March, 1917, as a protest against what he considered unjust treatment by his commanding officer; whether, receiving no notification as to whether his resignation would be accepted or not, this officer obtained leave to England on private affairs in September, 1917, and on arrival offered his services to the War Office in France, the Mediterranean, or Egypt, provided he was granted an exchange from the battalion in which he was serving; whether he was then informed that he would be held to his resignation of the 31st March; and whether any inquiry into the case is to be held, as desired by Captain Inman, seeing that he came forward and offered his services voluntarily in the early days of the War and served for three years and four months.?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed. It was considered that some of the officers of the 1st Garrison Battalion were not up to the required standard of efficiency, and in some cases were too old for their rank. Captain Inman was one of these officers, and, as a result of an interview with the Brigade Commander, he applied to resign his commission. It was decided to accept his resignation, and he was informed, both verbally and in writing, of this decision on his arrival in this country. He was not sent home on leave, but because his services were no longer required. I am afraid it is impossible to re employ Captain Inman, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, I see no reason for any further inquiry.

    LECTURER IN RUSSIAN.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. Aylmer Maude has been appointed lecturer in Russian to the forces operating in Russia; whether he is receiving any War Office remuneration or expenses; and whether he has proceeded to Russia?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative, and I have no information as to the last part.

    BAKU EXPEDITION.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the expedition to Baku was ordered by the
    766
    Imperial General Staff; and whether it had the full and considered approval of the Versailles Allied Council?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The Supreme War Council is only concerned with matters of general policy. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    WAR DEPARTMENT (HOTEL ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Under-Secretary for War if his Department proposes to take over the two largest hotels at Aldeburgh, Suffolk; if so, if he is satisfied that the provision of additional accommodation by this method can be justified in the present circumstances on grounds of military necessity; and if he will take into consideration the loss and inconvenience which the closing of these hotels will cause to the town and neighbourhood?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Owing to military necessity, the acquisition of certain hotels at Aldeburgh is under consideration. The representations contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's question are being fully considered.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether during the winter months in this summer seaside resort it will be possible to provide accommodation cheaper than this very expensive method of commandeering hotels?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having the whole question looked into.

    MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has made any inquiry into the taking on of men at the military works at Cippenham, Slough; whether he is satisfied that none but indispensable men are being employed on the work; and will he what supervision is being exercised to enforce some economy in the number of men employed and in the arrangement of working hours, etc.?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All civilian labour at Cippenham is engaged in the prescribed manner—namely, through the Labour Exchanges. I am not quite clear as to what my hon. and gallant Friend refers to in the second part of his question, but I would inform him that there is a very great shortage of labour, especially carpenters, for the work required to be done. As regards the last part of the question, the officer in charge and the resident engineer watch very closely the question of economical employment, and the working hours have been so arranged as to secure the maximum progress possible.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of a French polisher who was stated to have been taken on at these works, and to have obtained exemption from service in the Army last July because he was engaged on military work, and can he say whether work at this place is considered to be essential and indispensable, and whether men, therefore, are to obtain exemption from service in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the work is of very great national importance.

    SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (ALCOHOLIC RATIONS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what were the average quantities of beer and of spirits, respectively, issued weekly per 100 officers' beds and per 100 soldiers' (non-commissioned officers and men) beds in the London general hospitals and in the Orthopædic Hospital, Hammersmith, during 1915, 1916, 1917, and to June, 1918?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that this information is not available, and to obtain it would throw an enormous amount of labour upon the staff of the hospitals, which I do not think would be justified in present circumstances.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that these statistics are published yearly?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; they are not.

    ALIENS.
    Sir H. GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that thousands of alien men and women have
    768
    been deported or interned on the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey on the ground of their hostile origins or associations; and whether, in view of the fact that persons so interned or deported are not likely to be well disposed towards this country, he will at once introduce legislation to set up an authority with power to deport from or refuse admittance to the realm all those aliens now interned or deported and all other undesirables of all countries, especially having regard to the fact that as the law now stands there is nothing to prevent alien enemies from resuming their former occupations, and thus detrimentally affecting the interests of men and women serving with the Colours and unable to return to civil life until demobilisation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey on Monday last.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (RE-EMPLOYMENT IN IRELAND).
    Captain S. GWYNNasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulty which, despite the existence of Employment Exchanges, discharged soldiers experience in finding employment in Ireland, either from public Departments or private employers, he will cause a special Government bureau to be instituted which shall keep a register of all discharged officers and other ranks seeking employment in Ireland and endeavour to find suitable positions for these applicants?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Government are anxious to do all they can to assist discharged soldiers in finding employment and the suggestion made in the question will receive careful consideration.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his statement made on 5th July last, that if the Kaiser and his advisers accept to-morrow the conditions of President Wilson he can have peace not only with America but also with Great Britain

    769
    and France, holds good as regards the negotiations for an armistice which President Wilson is at present engaged upon?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is inadvisable to make any statement on this subject whilst negotiations are pending between President Wilson and the German Government.
    Mr. KING: Does that imply that the Prime Minister says things one month, repeats them the next, and then runs away from them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It implies exactly what it says, that it is very ill-advisable to discuss such matters at present, and I should have thought that every Member of the House would have recognised that fact.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement of the peace terms of the British Government in response to the appeal made by President Wilson in his speech of 27th September?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.
    Mr. DILLON: I submit that no previous reply has been given to any question on these lines. When does the Prime Minister think he can make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already myself given many replies that in the view of the Government this is not the time to discuss a question of this kind.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are agreed and determined that the four principles of peace laid down by President Wilson in his Address to Congress on the 11th of last February shall be applied to Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is nothing in the four principles referred to which do not already form part of the policy of His Majesty's Government towards Ireland.

    BRITISH MARITIME SUPREMACY.

      AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether the United States have
      770
      now some 565 shipbuilding yards within their own territory actively engaged in building ships with modern methods and appliances and with the strenuous zeal of their workmen; and how many efficient shipbuilding yards there are in the United Kingdom?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. I am not in a position either to confirm or contradict the figures given in the earlier part of the question. As regards the United Kingdom, there are 198 efficient shipbuilding yards, and while it is obviously not desirable to specify the class of work on which the yards are engaged, I may say that at the moment appreciably less than half are engaged exclusively on merchant work.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does my right hon. Friend include in the number of British yards the Government's Chepstow yards which have been dismantled of their machinery, and would he like to have the names of the 565 American yards, because I shall be very pleased to give them to him?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be very pleased to receive any information which the hon. Gentleman cares to give me. I should think the Chepstow yard is included, but I am not aware that it has been dismantled.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Pirrie has removed the machinery from the Chepstow yard to other yards?
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the danger of Great Britain losing the maritime supremacy she has hitherto possessed by reason of the losses of British merchant ships and the failure to replace these losses with new ships; whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Hurley has definitely stated that America's post-war intention is to own 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 tons of shipping; whether he is aware that the total tonnage of British shipping before the War was under 20,000,000 tons and is now considerably less; and what steps are being taken to maintain or regain our maritime supremacy in view of the competition with which we are faced?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are fully alive to the necessity of maintaining our maritime position, but the winning of the War must be the first consideration.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that we have to consider the condition that this country will be in after the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my answer shows that we do consider it; but, as I say, we must consider, first, the winning of the War, and, secondly, what we will do after the War.
      Questions Nos. 52 and 53 also stood in the name of Mr. HOUSTON.
      Mr. SPEAKER: These are the ninth and tenth questions standing in the name of the hon. Member.
      Mr. HOUSTON: On a point of Order. I was not responsible for questions 12 and 13 being placed upon the Paper, and, therefore, I have only eight.
      Mr. SPEAKER: These are the ninth and tenth questions on the Paper, and the hon. Gentleman has already asked fourteen questions.

    HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister if he has been made aware of the discontent that prevails among working people on account of the fact that, whilst the amount of coal allowed for houses containing not more than four rooms under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order is totally insufficient to provide heat for washing and drying of clothes, cooking, baking, and all other domestic requirements, provision is made in the Order for heating houses containing as many as twenty-one rooms for the use of one family; and whether he will take steps to reduce the number of rooms that may be heated for rich people in order to increase the coal ration in the homes of working people?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley):I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. I am not aware of any general discontent as to the allowance of fuel for houses of not more than four rooms, and I do not think that the scale laid down in the Household Fuel and Lighting Order discriminates unfairly between large and small houses.
    Mr. JOWETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of resolutions passed by public bodies, trade
    772
    union branches, and so on, protesting against this Regulation on the grounds mentioned in the question?
    Sir A. STANLEY: No; I am not aware of them.
    Mr. KEATING: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us if it is a fact that 3 tons of coal per annum are allowed all small houses in England and only 1 ton per annum for houses large or small in Ireland?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will inquire.

    MINISTERS' STATEMENTS.

      CABINET RESPONSIBILITY.
      Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether the recent interview accorded by Lord Milner to the "Evening Standard" purports to represent the views of His Majesty's Government; whether the report of this interview was telegraphed to Holland on Thursday afternoon; and, if so, whether this was done with or without the knowledge of the Foreign Office?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In answer to the first part of the question, the statements of my Noble Friend were, of course, made on his own responsibility. The interview was dealt with in the usual way by the Press, and no special action was taken by the Foreign Office.
      Mr. DILLON: Are we to understand that for the future, when a member of the Government; makes statements—
      HON. MEMBERS: War Cabinet!
      Mr. DILLON: No, he is not a member of the War Cabinet now; he is the Minister for War. Are we to understand, when a member of the Government makes statements, that they have no more relation to the policy of the Goverinment than if they were made by an ordinary Member of the House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly not; but the hon. Member, who has had as much experience as anyone in the House, knows that it is not the business of the Cabinet to censor beforehand the speeches of members of the Government.
      Mr. DILLON: This is a very serious matter, and I think we are entitled to know whether, if it is not the business of

      773
      the Government to censor beforehand the speeches of Ministers, it is not the business of the Government to let the world know whether a member of the Government speaks for the Government or not?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member knows perfectly well what the custom has always been, and it has not been in the least changed in that respect. Cabinet Ministers make speeches without consulting their colleagues, and the hon. Member has no right to conclude that all his colleagues do not agree with the statements that the Minister makes.
      Mr. DILLON: Do they agree? It is a very fair question, because the whole of the American Press are now asking that question. Do they agree?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question. It is not on the Paper.
      Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government so to amend the Constitution as to necessitate the sanction of Parliament for all treaties which may be concluded in the future and to vest in Parliament the power of declaring war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obviously impossible to deal with a subject of this kind by question and answer.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Will the Government see, as other European nations are adopting a more democratic system, that we do not lag behind?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think the Government are glad to find that other European nations are falling into line with us.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is not this the very demand that we are making upon Germany now?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; not in the least, unless the hon. Member suggests that we have not a democratic Government.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists on account of the administrative concessions to existing old age pensioners not applying to applicants for pensions; and will he take steps to rectify this state of affairs?
    The JOINT FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): As I have repeatedly stated, these concessions could not be extended to applicants without legislation to amend the Old Age Pension Acts, which in present conditions His Majesty's Government is not prepared to introduce.
    Mr. WING: Is it not possible for a concession to be made on the same lines as other concessions have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, which have created very much greater differences?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid not.

    RAILWAY SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the accumulated funds of the sundry railway superannuation funds are now under supervision of the Government along with the railways themselves; whether these funds include about £8,000,000 sterling invested with the Government on public security returning about 5¼ per cent. per annum interest; whether the rate of interest allowed to the contributory parties is about 4 per cent. per annum; and whether he will render the whole or part of the margin of 1¼ per cent. per annum available for the pension purposes for which it was subscribed?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The administration of railway superannuation funds is not affected by the present control of the railways and I have no knowledge of the manner in which these funds are invested. Any alteration in the rates of pension can only be made in accordance with the rules of the particular fund concerned.

    WOMEN'S UNITS OVERSEAS.

      COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES.
      Mr. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many

      775
      women have been injured in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and other women's units overseas, by shell-shock and other causes, due to military operations; and what compensation or allowances have been paid to them in lieu of pension?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is—

      Officials.

      Drowned at sea owing to enemy action

      2

      Members.

      Killed (enemy air raid)

      8

      Died of wounds (enemy air raid)

      1

      Wounded and shell-shock (enemy air raid)

      12

      Cases of death or injury specifically attributable to service overseas are dealt with under the scheme framed under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Section 2), and I understand that various claims have been met.
      Mr. HARRIS: Have all these cases been paid compensation?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have just stated that various claims have been met.
      Colonel WHITE: Is it not a fact that these deaths were caused in one area?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that is true.

    MESOPOTAMIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

      HOME LEAVE.
      Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that troops of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force have had no home leave for four years, the Army Council will consider the possibility of allocating a priority of transport upon demobilisation for these men, so that they are enabled to return home as soon as possible?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have already stated, everything possible is being done to grant leave to as many soldiers as possible in Mesopotamia, and I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to my Noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (South). In the scheme of demobilisation provision has been made for priority to be given to
      776
      these troops who have had the longest service in the field. Each draft for dispersal will normally comprise a percentage of soldiers who have served longest in a theatre of active operations.

    SOLDIERS' LETTERS AND PARCELS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, concerning Private R. D. Paterson, No. 18348, Highland Light Infantry, who during his frequent illnesses in hospital has not received letters or parcels, but has found as many as seventy-five letters awaiting him on his return to the front, and about a dozen of whose parcels have been returned unopened, the contents spoiled, on the plea that the soldier could not be traced, the last of these returned to his parents on the 10th instant being endorsed by the authorities with the words, "Cannot be traced, return to casualties for particulars," whether he will give instructions to ensure that this man and other men who are retained in Mesopotamia, although they are frequently under treatment in hospital for malaria, may be specially recorded, so that they can receive their parcels and letters as if they were fit and well?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This question should have been addressed to the India Office, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to give the following reply on his behalf. There already exists at Basra a Returned Letter Office for the Mesopotamia Force to which reports of all admissions to and discharges from hospitals and convalescent depots are sent, in order that the correspondence of invalids may reach them without undue delay. I will have inquiry made as to the reason for the failure of the arrangements in Private Paterson's case.

    OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recent decision to call upon Civil servants to swear the oath of allegiance applies to workmen employed in Government establishments; if so, will he state the form of the oath; whether he is aware that opinion is forming amongst the workmen that the

    777
    oath will be subversive of their freedom as workmen and trade unionists; and whether this matter will be reconsidered?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I defined those to whom it was intended to apply on Monday in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for purposes of assessment to Excess Profits Duty, sums contributed towards the endowment of a chair in Edinburgh University as part of the institution of a degree in commerce (B.Com) will be treated in the same way as sums devoted to the promotion of research and allowed as a proper deduction in accounts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Sums expended for research are allowable as deductions in a trader's accounts for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty when they represent the cost to the trader of carrying on research work for the purpose of his own business either directly or through the medium of an association of traders who combine for the purpose.
    Sums contributed towards the endowment of a chair at a university are on an entirely different footing. They do not represent annual working expenses, nor are they wholly and exclusively expended for the purpose of the trade.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in respect of taxation for excess profits, capital invested in War Bonds is treated as employed in the business in cases in which such capital would have been so treated had it remained on deposit at a bank?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative. This is the test which has throughout been applied to dealing with cases in which this question arises.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount the Excess Profits Tax was estimated to realise budgeted for, and the total amount received by the Exchequer for the financial years ending 1915–16, 1916–17, and 1917–18?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The particulars of the Excess Profits Duty (and Munitions Exchequer Payments) are as follows:—

    Year.

    Budget Estimate.

    Exchequer Receipt.

    £

    £

    1915–16

    6,000,000

    140,000

    1916–17

    86,000,000

    139,920,000

    1917–18

    200,000,000

    220,214,000

    The smallness of the yield in 1915–16 was due to the late date at which the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, was eventually passed into law, and to the length of time allowed under it for rendering returns and paying duty.
    Mr. D. MASON: Has any progress been made with the adjustment between the Dominions Treasuries and ours with regard to excess profits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that steps have been taken, but I do not know the result. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will enquire.

    WAR LOANS (RUSSIAN STATE COUPONS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the French Government accept 50 per cent. of payments to war loans when made in overdue Russian State coupons; and whether he intends to take the same course?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Why cannot the Allies all act on the same lines in matters of financial policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not a question of acting on the same lines. It is a question of what each Government thinks best in the interests of its country.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the forms issued this year for the return of income for assessment for Income Tax made any provision for claims for relief in the amount of their assessment on account of

    779
    their wives by married men; and, if not, by what form of procedure is it expected that those who are entitled to this relief will, in fact, obtain it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Supplementary forms for claiming the wife allowance have been issued in the cases where the total income of the taxpayer is within the limit prescribed for the relief. The hon. Member will realise that the preparation of the ordinary forms of return for Income Tax purposes has to be undertaken well in advance so as to enable their issue to taxpayers at the commencement of the Income Tax year to which they relate.
    Mr. JOWETT: What procedure can be adopted by those who have not received supplementary forms in order to get the allowance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They can always get them by applying to the local surveyor of taxes.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the gross assessments of Income Tax for the financial years ending 1914–15, 1915–16, 1916–17, and 1917–18?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The gross income brought under the review of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in each year was as follows:—

    Year.

    Amount.

    £

    1914–15

    1,238,313,397

    1915–16

    1,322,684,843

    1916–17

    1,662,724,028

    1917–18 (estimated)

    1,890,000,000

    FLOATING DEBT.
    Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Floating Debt, i.e., Treasury Bills, Ways and Means advances, and Treasury currency notes and certificates; and whether, in view of the prospects of peace and the probable increased demand for loanable capital, His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps for the funding of the above Floating Debt before such an event takes place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Floating Debt outstanding on 19th October, 1918 (i.e.,
    780
    Treasury Bills, Ways and Means advances and War Expenditure Certificates) was £1,470,088,404; the currency notes and certificates outstanding on 16th October amounted to £283,771,841. It is not possible for me to make any statement at present in reply to the last part of the question.

    TREASURY CURRENCY NOTES.
    Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the large and continuous increase in the issue of Treasury currency notes accentuates and increases the cost of living, which in turn leads to strikes and unrest throughout the country, His Majesty's Government will take steps to contract these issues by the gradual redemption of these notes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 10th April last to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs.

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      SOLDIERS AS CANDIDATES.
      Viscount WOLMERasked whether, in view of the circumstances likely to exist at the forthcoming General Election, it is proposed to modify in any way the King's Regulations respecting the participation of officers and soldiers in party politics?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch on Monday last, officers, non-commissioned officers, and men serving at home or with an expeditionary force will be granted leave eight clear days before the issue of the writs, so as to enable them to appear before the duly accredited committee or association of the recognised party or body of persons proposing to adopt them.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the election is to be?
      Viscount WOLMER: Will soldiers or officers be able to associate with any political candidate publicly?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My answer was referring to candidates.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (GUARDING).
    Mr. GILBERTasked what is the usual method of guarding German Prisoners of War who are engaged on various kinds of work in this country; are all such prisoners under the control of an armed guard or is it the practice to allow small parties of prisoners to be under the charge of soldiers without any fire-arms; and does he consider this is sufficient.
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed that prisoners of War are always under armed military guard by night, except where they are in the employment of farmers and reside with them. When prisoners of War are employed on agriculture in small parties, they are handed over to the employer for the day, who is held responsible for their custody and behaviour. Where parties of prisoners of War are employed on ploughing under the Food Production Department, an unarmed soldier, who is himself a skilled ploughman, remains with the prisoners during the day. In all other cases prisoners of war are under armed military guard, and the present system is considered satisfactory.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that escapes are very rare and that fugitives are almost immediately and inevitably recovered?
    Mr. HOPE: Speaking generally, that is so.

    LONDON MILITARY HOSPITALS (FOOD).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he was aware that there are many complaints as to the way food is cooked in the London military hospitals; whether his Department has had any inquiries made about the same; if any reports exist suggesting improvements in the method of cooking the food supplied to our wounded men; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter with a view to improvement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Some complaints of the nature mentioned have been received, and an officer from the War Office has been sent to investigate the matter and make suggestions with a view to improvement. I would add that the whole question of cooking in military hospitals is receiving close attention, and the
    782
    appointment of expert lady cooks to act as inspectors of cooking in military hospitals is at present under consideration.

    CEMENT SUPPLY, DUBLIN.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. Richard A. Balfe, of Nassau Street, Dublin, on the 25th May, 1918, purchased from Messrs. Batchelor, Limited, of Halling-on-Medway, 2,000 tons of cement. 500 tons of which was required for the contractors for an aerodrome, and the remainder for rebuilding work in connection with the destroyed area in Dublin, for which a licence has been issued; that the Controller of Contracts refused to let the firm mentioned deliver any cement to Ireland although the firm when they offered the cement in May last fully calculated that they had ample to supply the Order apart from what the Government might require for their own purposes; that in consequence of the Controller of Army Contracts refusing to grant a permit for the release of the cement Mr. Balfe was unable to carry out his contract for the aerodrome contractor and that the War Office supplied the cement in question through another house; that, in addition, Mr. Balfe was unable to supply the cement required for rebuilding operations in Dublin; that this failure on his part was due to the direct action of the Army authorities in taking over the cement bought by Mr. Balfe, and which he has been unable to replace, as the Class B permit now issued to cement merchants is of no use, as all the supplies are taken up by Class A permits; and that in consequence of this action of the authorities Mr. Balfe has suffered considerable loss; and if he will state whether reasonable compensation will be given to Mr. Balfe for the loss which he has sustained?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiries necessary to enable me to answer this question are not yet complete, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      CEREAL HARVEST 1919 (GUARANTEED PRICE).
      Mr. TURTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the appeals made to farmers to

      783
      extend the area of cereals, and with the view of stimulating and increasing production, he will obtain a definite promise from the Government and will give a guarantee that the prices allowed for the harvest of 1919 shall not be less than those fixed for the present season?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The question of giving a guarantee that the prices of corn allowed for next year's harvest shall not be less than those for this year's harvest is at present under consideration by the Government.

    ORDNANCE SURVEY, DUBLIN.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that Mr. Edward Murphy, of 1, Green Street, Dublin, who qualified at an examination held in Dublin Castle in 1872 as a permanent Civil assistant in the Ordnance Survey, was retired in the year 1891 on medical grounds on a pension of £24 2s.; whether this man's salary at the time he was retired amounted to £85 a year; whether as a permanent Civil assistant this man was entitled to a pension amounting to two-thirds of that salary; and if he will take steps to see that the man's pension is now adjusted to the proper amount, and that he is fully compensated for the amount which has been withheld from him since he was retired?
    Colonel GIBBS: Mr. Edward Murphy was not retired from the Ordnance Survey on medical grounds but for general inefficiency. He had then served for twenty-two and a half years, and his salary on retirment was £97 16s. 7d. He was not qualified for a pension under the Superannuation Act of 1859 as he had not attained the age of sixty, but, after consideration of the full facts of the case, he was awarded a reduced retiring allowance of £24 2s. per annum under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887. His case has been fully considered on several occasions since 1891, but no new facts have come to light which would justify any modification of the original decision.
    Mr. NUGENT: Has it taken twenty-two years to find that this man was inefficient?
    Colonel GIBBS: I will put that question to my hon. Friend.

    COAL SUPPLIES.

      BARON SCHROEDER'S STOCK.
      Mr. TURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in Poor Law institutions steam-heating is being severely curtailed, thereby increasing the sufferings of the aged and infirm; will he direct that the coal now stored by Baron Schroeder be commandeered by the Coal Controller and distributed by him amongst those institutions; and will he state the date when the Coal Controller first became aware that Baron Schroeder was receiving and storing these consignments of coal?
      Sir A. STANLEY: So far no representations have been made to the Controller of Coal Mines that any reduction in the steam-heating in Poor Law institutions has increased the sufferings of the aged and infirm. Under the Coal Rationing Order the local fuel overseer has power to deal with any case of hardship, and this would apply to any such institution. Baron Schroeder's excess stock of anthracite coal is being held at the disposal of the Controller, and arrangements are being made to remove it to points where this class of coal can be used.
      Mr. TURTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
      Sir A. STANLEY: It would be very difficult for me to give any exact date when this was first known. This coal was stored before any rationing Order existed covering the area in question.
      Mr. TURTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the "Morning Post" it was stated by a representative of the Coal Controller that they were not aware of this until May, whereas in truth and in fact representations were made in January, and we had three letters from the Coal Controller's Department asking for information on the subject?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot explain that, I did not see the item referred to in the "Morning Post."

    FEDERAL DEVOLUTION.
    Mr. J. MASONasked the Leader of the House whether he could now give time

    785
    for discussion of the Resolution (Federal Devolution) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor and others?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: At an early part of the Session I received a petition in favour of this Resolution signed by a large number of Members, and I think I gave a conditional promise that I would give time in this part of the Session. If the hon. Member will put the question to-morrow in connection with business I will give him an answer.
    HON. MEMBERS: What is it about?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Federal Devolution.

    Ministry of Health.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if communications have reached him from the friendly societies and trade unions expressing opposition to any proposed Ministry of Health and local government which would place the Health Insurance Department in association with the Poor Law administration; and what answer he has given thereto?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that resolutions have been received from these societies, but I hope that when the Bill has been discussed this opposition will not be maintained.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they saw a copy of the Bill before they declared their irreconcilable opposition to being associated with the Poor Law?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I was not aware of that.

    Income Tax Bonds.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of making balances kept at a bank for the purpose of paying Income Tax available for the Treasury by the issue of Income Tax Bonds, to be used for payment of Income Tax when due, seeing that the Exchequer in that case would get the money and the taxpayer would get his interest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This suggestion has been carefully considered and we do not think that it is workable.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken to-day after the two Resolutions on the Paper have been disposed of?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If time permits we shall take No. 1 and No. 5.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the House sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I think it will not be necessary.
  Mr. D. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Supply will be taken to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Police Vote will be taken first, and afterwards the Vote for Expenses under the Representation of the People Act, and the Vote for Registration Fees.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the case, as rumoured, that the House is only to sit three days next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not heard the rumour.
  Mr. GULLAND: Is it intended to take the Vote on the Ministry of Information morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think the other Votes that come first will occupy the whole of the time.

  WOMEN AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

    MR. H. SAMUELS' RESOLUTION.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Bill be passed forthwith making women eligible as Members of Parliament."
    This Resolution is the natural consequence of the action taken by Parliament earlier this year in enacting the enfranchisement of women. It has now been decided that sex is not to be a bar for citizenship, and it follows from that, I suggest to the House, that sex ought not to be a bar against taking part in Parliamentary life. You cannot say that
    814
    6,000,000 women shall be voters, but that not one shall ever be a legislator. By our deliberate action in passing the Representation of the People Bill we have given up the old narrow doctrine that woman's sphere was the home and nothing but the home. We have given up the old theory that woman's interests were not on a level with man's interests, that woman, in fact, was nothing but an adjunct to man, or, as it has been well expressed, the doctrine which laid down that woman was not a noun but an adjective. That principle has been frankly surrendered, and I would suggest to hon. Members that the risks which have been faced in enacting that women may be elected to Parliament would be far less than those which were deliberately undertaken when we enacted the enfranchisement of women.
    For my own part, I have always been in favour of the principle of women's suffrage. I have held the view that the perfect State would include both men and women as its citizens. Life is on a two-sex basis. You cannot put politics only on a one-sex basis. But for many years I had doubts whether the degree of public interest which had been taken by women on the average made it safe at that time to enact a large measure of woman suffrage. The War, however, has brought great changes. It has made women familiar with many aspects of public life. It has drawn the attention of vast numbers of them to questions of industrial employment, of prices, of international politics, and of many matters on which previously they had held aloof. And many of us have been ready during the War to modify our previous view, and to join in the enfranchisement of women. To those, however, who are still doubtful as to the wisdom of the enfranchisement of women and to those who think we have taken, as undoubtedly we have, considerable risks in adding this vast new electorate to citizenship, I submit this argument, that when you deal with enfranchisement you cannot discriminate. You deal with a class in the mass. You have to take into account the capacities of the average person. But when you deal with representation you are not dealing with the average woman. You are dealing with the exceptional woman, and you have to take into account the capacities and character of the woman who will be elected, not the average of the many millions who may be brought in under an Act of Parliament, but the particular qualifications of the individual

    815
    woman who has such capacities as to command the support of some great party or some body of supporters in a constituency, and, having first been adopted as a candidate, has then won the suffrages of some 10,000 or 15,000 of her fellow countrymen and women. That differentiates the proposal for woman representation from that for woman enfranchisement, and many of those who regard with alarm the sweeping measure passed earlier in the year must realise that this further proposal involves fewer risks and no dangers in comparison with that which has already been adopted.
    We, however, in this House, I hope, are a very practical body. The British nation prides itself sometimes on not being logical. If we were to base this case solely on the ground of logic, it might receive short shrift at the hands-of the House and of the country, but we have to consider also whether the measure is in itself desirable, and I would submit to the House that anything which renders this body more thoroughly representative of the nation, anything which enables every point of view to be fully and freely expressed here within these walls, strengthens the House of Commons and adds to its utility to the country. Its representative character is its strength, just as the lack of representative character is the fatal weakness of the other House, in spite of the many high qualities which its membership possesses. Women undoubtedly have their own distinctive point of view, and their distinctive point of view ought to be expressed in Parliament and not expressed at secondhand by men who, with the best will in the world, cannot appreciate in its fulness the woman's point of view; it should be expressed by representatives of women themselves. Many of us realise now, however much the idea would have been scouted by our ancestors, that this House gains greatly by the presence here of direct representatives of labour who can, when labour questions arise, state the workmen's standpoint from the workmen's own experience. It is the same with respect to the distinctive standpoint of women. Particularly do I believe that the presence of a certain number of women within these walls would be of advantage in assisting the work of our Committees.
    The public at large, misled by descriptions in certain organs of the Press, are
    816
    under the impression that the real work of the House of Commons consists in a long succession of rhetorical debates, variegated from time to time by disorderly scenes. They do not realise the immense mass of work which is performed week in and week out, year in and year out, in the many Committees that sit upstairs. It is a weakness of our Select Committees that they cannot be so thoroughly representative as the Departmental Committees which are appointed by Ministers. We are accustomed in these days to the examination of any question of difficulty by a Committee before action is taken. Sometimes it is a Departmental Committee, and sometimes it is a Committee of one or the other House, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses. Whenever a Departmental Committee is appointed to deal with any question touching closely the lives of the people, one or more women are always appointed to it, and most useful members they are of Departmental Committees; but if a matter is to be referred to a Select Committee, the Select Committee cannot be representative in an equal degree, because women can be given no direct representation. That is why on many occasions—I speak with some experience in these matters—it has been found necessary to appoint not a Select Committee, although it was known that the House of Commons was interested in the matter, but to appoint a Departmental Committee in order that women should be appointed upon it.
    4.0 P.M.
    Recently, indeed during this Session, we have made a new precedent in the case of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and authority has been given for the appointment of outsiders on its Sub-committees, and the same course was adopted in the case of the Luxury Tax Committee, where one or two women were appointed on a Sub-committee of the Select Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "They resigned!"] Nevertheless it was thought necessary that they should be appointed. It is not obligatory on me to go into the unhappy domestic history of that Committee, but the fact remains that in that case, and in the case of Departmental Committees, it is found desirable that women should be appointed, and if women were Members of this House they would increase the authority and strengthen the representative character of those Committees. This would be

    817
    particularly the case if women rendered service both within these walls and in the Committee Rooms, in dealing with the new tasks which will devolve on Parliament in the days that lie before us in an ever-increasing degree, with reference be questions closely affecting the lives of the people. Health, housing, education, child welfare, employment, the cost of living—all these matters will occupy a great deal of attention in our Parliamentary life. They occupy, and increasingly so, the foreground of our politics. The old controversies which used to rage are passing more and more into the background. Ecclesiastical and constitutional controversies, questions as to the growth of our Empire, the extension of commerce and industry, these matters will no doubt play their part in the future as they have done in the past, but in a decreasing degree compared with matters affecting the condition and life of the people. In earlier centuries our politics have centred round the Church, Parliament, the Colonies, commerce. In future our politics are likely to centre more and more around the home. It is for that reason essential that the assistance of women should be invited, not only in the electorate but also in the representation.
    For many long years past we have, experimented with respect to local governing bodies. Women have been made eligible for membership of local governing bodies and they have served on a very large number throughout the country. For my own part I have been for many years a member of an association which has been formed to promote the election of women on these bodies, and I was fortunate enough, when I was President of the Local Government Board, to secure the passage through Parliament of a Bill which removed the last of the barriers to the election of women to town councils. I think the universal experience of those who have made a study of this matter is that women on these local bodies have rendered most valuable service. Hon. Members who have served on town councils, members of the London County Council, and other bodies, will I am sure unanimously bear testimony to the value of their work on those bodies and on their education and other committees. At this moment a woman occupies the important office of deputy-chairman of the London County Council. I think there is no one who for a moment
    818
    would consider a proposal for the repeal of the law which allows women to serve upon local government bodies.
    My complaint is rather that there are too few who have yet come forward for election and have secured scats on them. I submit that that is the danger that we are likely to be faced with here. It is rather more probable that too few will be elected to this House than too many. I am well aware that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends take a different view and look with alarm to the prospect that these benches in the future may be tenanted largely or even mainly by ladies. I am not going to argue whether that be desirable or not, for I think the common sense of the House and of the country will agree that it is not in the least likely to happen and that the number of women who are elected in the near future is, I am afraid, likely to be fewer than many of us desire. In any case the matter is one which, as I will point out later on, should be properly left to the decision of the electorate itself. There is one other argument that may be advanced in this Debate by the opponents of this Resolution. It will be argued, no doubt, that even if the principle of the proposal is sound it is at all events premature, and that right as it may be in theory it is wrong in time. It will be said that we are proposing this measure too soon and that women having been so recently enfranchised we should digest the one meal before we are asked to consume another. It will also be pointed out that this change was not proposed in the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference, that it was not raised on the Representation of the People Act, and that in any event this is a moribund Parliament and it ought to be left to our successors to decide a question of so much importance. From the approval these remarks have met with, I gather I have correctly interpreted the idea in the minds of those who are opposed to this Resolution.
    With respect to Mr. Speaker's Conference, I would remind the House that this matter was wholly outside the terms of reference, and could not therefore in any case be considered by that Conference; and with regard to the Representation of the People Act, this question was outside the scope and title of the Bill and any Amendment raising this point would at once have been ruled out of order. There are several replies to the contention that this proposal is premature. In the first place,

    819
    it is certain that at the next General Election, whether it comes sooner or later, the matter will be put to the test. There is no Statute which regulates the inadmissibility of women to Parliament. There is no recorded law case, I believe, which decides the matter. It is regarded by the Law Officers of the Crown as part of the common law that women are not eligible to sit in Parliament, and I am informed that it will be the personal responsibility of any returning officer to decide whether or not a nomination paper handed in on behalf of a woman shall be accepted. If he refuses to accept it he will be liable to legal proceedings. In this way the matter will be put to the test. I would suggest to the House it ought not to leave this matter in a state of uncertainty now that we know that it is certain that the question will be raised in practice. Neither should it be left to the decision of the Courts. This is not a matter of law. It is a matter of policy. It is not proper for settlement in the Courts, but it is proper for settlement in Parliament. Further, it is equally certain that if this Motion should be rejected to-day, or if no Bill is passed by this Parliament making women eligible for Parliament, it will be made a test question in every constituency at the next General Election. I think one can safely prophesy the result. It is a foregone conclusion that a vast majority of the candidates will promise their support at the next election, and when the Parliament comes into being a Bill in the sense of the Resolution which I am moving will be passed into law. But this will mean that women will be excluded from the next Parliament—unless they get in afterwards at a by-election. The General Election would result in the return of no women if it were held they were not eligible. But it is in the next Parliament especially—the Parliament of Reconstruction—the Parliament which will deal with so many of these questions of home policy and social reform, that the assistance of women would be of especial advantage.
    The last point which I would address to the House in answer to this contention, and indeed on the case generally, is this, that in essence it is not for Parliament to decide whom the people shall elect: it is for the people themselves to decide who their representatives shall be. The Legislature has its functions, vast and
    820
    important as we know them to be. But it is the function of the electorate to decide who shall be its members. There are indeed some agreed conditions which must necessarily be imposed by law, and which will give rise to no controversy. For instance, felons should not be members of the Legislature, nor undischarged bankrupts, nor unnaturalised aliens, nor persons suffering from insanity. These are matters proper for legislation. What we claim is that in general the electorate should be free to decide for itself whether or not certain individuals should be returned, and Parliament would be going beyond its functions if it were to say, "It is for us to decide whether you shall elect a particular class of persons to this House." Whenever Parliament or the law has overstepped these lines it has always been compelled by the people to withdraw. There was a Parliament long ago, called "The Unlearned Parliament," because, wisely or unwisely, it was decided that no lawyer should have a seat in it; and I remember occasions on which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) has treated with proper scorn the un-wisdom of the legislators of that day. That rule was very soon abrogated. There was a period not long afterwards in the fifteenth century when Parliament enacted that no one should be elected for a county who was not "a gentleman born." I presume that borough representation was regarded in those days as being beyond redemption. There was a famous Statute in the reign of Queen Anne which provided that no one should be elected to this House for a county constituency who had not a qualification in land of £600 a year or should become a borough Member who had not a qualification of £300 a year. There have been attempts to exclude Catholics, Quakers, Jews, and Atheists. There was the famous case of John Wilkes, whom the House endeavoured to exclude on the ground that he published a seditious libel. In all these cases the people have resented the action of Parliament and have insisted that it was their function and not the function of the Legislature to decide the classes which should be chosen by them to represent them in Parliament. In every case the usurping attempt has been defeated.
    All these barriers have now been swept away, whether class or religion or

    821
    political opinion, and but one remains, and that is the barrier of sex. It is that barrier which I ask the House this afternoon to decide shall be abrogated also. There is nothing compulsory in this Motion. We do not say that women shall be elected to Parliament; we merely leave it free to the constituencies to elect women if they so desire, and those who oppose this measure would put fetters on the electorate and say that "even if you wish to elect women admirably qualified to be legislators by a long career of public service and after long experience on local authorities, holding opinions agreeable to the constituency, women of capacity, common-sense and energy—even if you have such women among you, you are not free to send them here to Parliament, and shall not be permitted by law to do so." I submit to the House that that is an impossible position to take up, and that you must leave it free to the electorate to decide who shall be or shall not be their representative.
    I trust there will not be any attempt to limit the choice, if it is decided that women are to be eligible, in the way that women have been admitted to the electorate only beyond a certain age limit—a limit of thirty years. That obviously is an artificial and arbitrary distinction made in order to prevent too large a number of women being enfranchised in the first instance, and to prevent the number of women electors being greater than that of men electors. But the fact is that we recognise that these distinctions are arbitrary and artificial. In accordance, with the principle which I have submitted to the House that the electors should be left free to choose as their own representatives whom they desire, I urge that the age limit should not apply in this case. In an earlier period, it was the law that persons could only be elected who were themselves electors, but that has been for many generations repealed. I was myself a candidate for Parliament some years before I was a voter, and probably other Members of this House are in the same case, and what is the rule with regard to men should also be the rule with regard to women. These are the arguments on which I rest the case for the Resolution, which I now beg to move: In the first place, that it has been recognised by the law that sex is not a ground for exclusion from political life, and that the rule which applies to citizenship should also apply to
    822
    representation. Next, that this House would be strengthened and rendered more efficient for its work if all points of view were represented here, particularly the point of view of the womanhood of the country, and that the work of the Committees would be more valuable if details of Bills and questions had the discriminating attention of women as well as of men; that the politics of the future will more and more centre around the home, and that on these matters women are particularly qualified to speak. The experience of all our local governing authorities amply justifies this further extension of the sphere of women. The House should not leave these matters uncertain, to be decided by Courts of law. Neither the Courts nor the Legislature should decide who are to be chosen as Members of Parliament. That the electorate should be left to its own free will to choose its own representatives is the first essential principle of democracy, which all parties are now, happily, loudly declaring to be the one sound rule for the government of nations.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend, in moving this Resolution, stated that as the House had given women the power to vote it naturally follows that they should be allowed to sit in this House. I do not deny that there is considerable force in that argument, which I myself have advanced in times gone by. I stated that if women were given the vote it would have to be followed immediately by a demand that they should sit in this House. That is the statement I made so far as my recollection goes. I have not looked up the Debate, but that statement, at the time, was denied or minimised by those Members who were in favour of giving the vote to women. It was said that the two things did not go together, and that it did not follow that because women received the vote they would be permitted to sit in this House or even in your Chair, Mr. Speaker. I think there is some force in that argument, and I will give reasons very shortly why I think the House should resent this Motion. I do not want to go into the question as to whether or not it is right or wrong to extend the franchise to women. That has been done. But I do not think anyone would deny that it was a very revolutionary proceeding. I am not using the term "revolutionary" in the bad sense; I mean it would have very far-reaching results. It has already added to the number of voters more than

    823
    was anticipated when the Bill was before the House. No one knows, not even my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel), or my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), what the result of this great change will be. It may be a change for bad, no one knows; this House does not know what will be the result of giving women the vote, and I venture to say that we should not proceed further in great changes of this sort. It may be the result of giving the vote to women will be such as to return to the House extremely capable, able women who would assist the House in very excellent legislation. But it has not been shown why giving the vote to women ought also be a reason for women being returned to this House. Until we have ascertained what is the result of extending the franchise to women, I submit that the true policy would be to wait and see. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman on my left will support me in waiting to see what the result of this great change may be?
    Further, there is constitutional objection to which my right hon. Friend did allude, though very gingerly, namely, that this is a moribund House, a House which has already greatly extended its life, and I submit that it ought not to enter upon far-reaching questions of this description, which might entirely alter the character of this assembly. It ought to be left to the new electorate to decide as to whether women should be brought into Parliament, and whether measures of this kind ought to be passed. My right hon. Friend alluded to the work which women had done on local bodies and local councils, but he made no mention of how many of these women have been elected to those bodies; I noticed that my right hon. Friend very carefully avoided giving the number, but if I am correct in my surmise I think the number is so few that you really cannot draw any conclusion from the work of these particular women. You cannot draw from a small number, any inference as to what the result would be if a large number of women were returned to this House. I saw in the "Times," to-day, a very curious argument. I do not know whether it has any weight with right hon. and hon. Members. The argument was that this has already been tried in the Parliaments of Australia, and a lady named Miss Eva Goldstein, had already tried to get returned to every Parliament in Australia, and had been rejected. No steps for any legislation had been
    824
    taken on the ground that no women would be elected even if it were passed. Are we going to pass this Motion because we are quite certain that no woman will avail herself of it and come forward for election, or are we to pass it because we think that no woman ought to be in this House? Whether that argument is correct or not, I hope hon. Members will vote against the Motion on the ground that we have already had a great revolution of this sort, and that this proposal ought to be carried out by the new Parliament or not by this Parliament. My right hon. Friend laid great stress upon women being voters, and the right of the voters to return such people as they think fit; but all women are not voters, No woman under thirty is a voter, and yet my right hon. Friend wishes younger women to sit here. But why does he wish to have younger women sitting in this House? Is it on the ground that they have greater experience? The older the woman the greater her experience.
    But I will not go into that proposal of my right hon. Friend, who desires younger women to be Members of this House. The fact that women under thirty are not allowed to vote is a block to that proposal. I myself, when the Clause was under discussion on the Franchise Bill, said that if you admit women you cannot limit the age to thirty, and if you reduce the age to twenty-one, and make them the same as men, the result will be that you will have more women voters than men voters. That is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. My argument was met by saying that nobody wished to do that, and that thirty was the proper age; but the moment the Bill has become an Act my right hon. Friend comes down to this House and desires to have younger women to sit by him, and the result of such a course, if adopted, would be that the age of the women voters must be also reduced, and we should have a larger number of women voters than of men voters. That is a prospect which, with all my respect for the other sex, I do not look forward to with very great confidence. I have endeavoured to put before the House a few arguments, which seem to me reasonable arguments, and should lead to the rejection of this Motion by the House on the ground that it is premature. I do not put it on any higher ground than that it is premature,

    825
    and that this House is not fit, by the very fact of the extension of the franchise, to make such a great revolution, and it should be left to the next Parliament to make such a revolution should it so desire.
    The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I should like to say a word or two in answer to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), from whom I differ always with the greatest possible reluctance, but unfortunately the occasions multiply when I have to experience that reluctance.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It was not always so.
    Lord R. CECIL: I know that my hon. Friend never says in this House what he does not honestly believe to be true, and what does not honestly represent his opinion His presence in the House indeed is of the highest possible value, because he represents a particular point of view, a point of view with which the majority of this House generally disagrees, but one which certainly ought to be stated in this House, that ought to be representative of all classes and of both sexes. What is my right hon. Friend's argument? It is purely an appeal for delay. He says we have given the vote to women, and let us see how that works. How long are we to wait? He does not seem to think of the time that has elapsed since the experiment of allowing women to be elected on local governing bodies, and how that has turned out. That has been in operation for twenty years, or something of the kind, and are we to wait twenty years more before we proceed to let women come into this House? The truth is that the argument is not one which really has any validity, and my right hon. Friend knows that very well. His object is to stave off the evil day as long as he can.
    The real thing that we have got to consider in this case is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. If we think it is a good thing, then the sooner it is done the better; and if we think it is a bad thing, then it ought not to be done at all. I venture to apply the same kind of answer to his argument that this is a moribund Parliament. It is a Parliament, it is a House of Commons, it is the constitutional Legislature, and as long as it exists it cannot, without neglecting its duty, refuse to express its opinion on any matter that is brought before it. It has
    826
    no right to say: "Because we are at the end of a Parliament we will refuse to discharge what is our constitutional duty." Here, again, I think, the only question we have to consider is whether this is a proper thing to do, or whether it is not. If it is, then the fact that this Parliament has been in existence for an unduly long time should not prevent it from expressing an opinion. I do not think that there is any constitutional objection which prevents Parliament from extending the franchise, or doing anything else during its existence. The only other argument used was that it is not proposed to impose an age limit of thirty in this case. Why was the age limit imposed in the case of enfranchisement? It was imposed entirely to meet the fears of people that otherwise there would be a danger, and I thought it was a very absurd fear, that the male voters would be swamped by the female voters. No such danger applies to the question as to whether women of thirty or younger are to sit in Parliament. The number of women who will come to this Parliament will depend entirely on the number of women who are able to secure election; that is the approval of the majority of the electors in any constituency. It does not in the least matter where you put the age.
    I confess my difficulty is in really understanding what possible argument, what reasonable argument, except, if my right hon. Friend will pardon me for saying so, the purely reactionary point of view, can possibly be suggested against this proposal. I confess I look in vain for any such argument. I understood the argument against woman suffrage. I understood the point of view that you had a very large number of women who were not willing to exercise the franchise you were about to give wholesale to the women of the country, and that that was an improper extension of so important a public duty. But here what are you going to say? All you are going to say is that there may be some women in the country whom it would be desirable to see in this House, and that we do not desire to exclude those women from sitting in Parliament. If you are against this proposal you must come to the conclusion that there are no women in the country who would be capable of exercising the function of the least satisfactory Member of the House of Commons at the present time. That is the proposition you have got to maintain.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

    827
    —That, at all events, seems to me to be the proposition that underlies any possible objection to this proposal. To my mind that is an absurdity. I do not think that a very large number of women will be elected to Parliament, at any rate, for some considerable time, as a result of this change. But I do believe, and I certainly hope, that some women will be so elected. I think it of great importance that some women should be in the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend said just now that those who supported woman suffrage used to deny that it would lead to the election of women to the House of Commons. I do not think that I ever was so foolish as to do so. Certainly I agree with the earlier opinion of my right hon. Friend, that once you have given them the vote you cannot refuse to them the right to sit here. To my mind, the great and important thing you have got to look for in the interests of this House is to see that every kind of opinion, as far as may be, shall be represented in the House. I believe that is true very largely of the male population of this country. I think it is true that if you want to find somebody who knows a great deal about any particular subject, that you will find him amongst the Members of this House. I believe there is scarcely any subject as to which you will not find someone who is in the nature of an expert in this House. The one thing you have not got here is the woman's point of view. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland pointed out, there are many questions such as those affecting children, affecting food, affecting pensions and the treatment of soldiers and sailors, all of which intimately affect women and the domestic economy of the home. Those are just the kind of subjects on which there are certain women in this country who would speak with greater authority than any man. Those are the kind of women we ought, I think, to allow the voters to choose, if they so desire.
    That is the case for this change, and it seems to me to be absolutely overwhelming. I cannot at present understand on what ground this Motion should be rejected. I do understand of course the broad lines on which objection is taken. But the whole attitude of society has changed and has done so progressively. No doubt there were times when some ecclesiastical opinion doubted whether women had souls, and there were certain times when lawyers
    828
    treated women as mere chattels. They were undoubtedly under the earlier Roman Law very little removed from the condition of slaves. Then came the period in which the attitude that they were lower than animals was abandoned, and it was recognised that they were human beings. But it was thought that they were either incapable or dangerous and all sorts of restrictions were put on them as to the management of property, and all sorts of provisions were made, sometimes with the best possible intentions by which their activities in earning their own bread were limited. There was also that group of legislation which forbade them to exercise any public functions, even that of a Parliamentary voter. I understand that point of view which rests on distrust of women. I think the House has definitely broken with that point of view, and now I think we should treat them as human beings with absolutely equal rights to men and with no disqualification in consequence of their sex. I should have liked, I confess, to have seen this Resolution go much further and sweep away all the disqualifications which at present prevent women from competing on equal terms with men, even in my own profession, and also in the profession of solicitors, as to which I believe their case is absolutely overwhelming. I should have liked to have seen this Resolution extended to cover all those cases, but at the very least I do urge the House to do away with this absolutely indefensible position that because a woman is a woman she is incapable of exercising the duties of a Member of Parliament and of giving advice to fellow-Members on questions in which she is particularly interested.
    Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made one or two statements which I think require some answer. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) produced no argument except the purely reactionary argument. I desire to put before him one argument, whether it has been brought forward or not inferentially in the speech of my right hon. Friend, and which I think he will agree has a certain amount of weight. We have heard the arguments advanced so eloquently by the Noble Lord and by the right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) for the women who want to come into this House, but we have not heard

    829
    any argument on behalf of what I regard as probably 90 per cent. of the womanhood of this country, who have not the slightest desire to enter this House or to be ruled and guided by members of their sex in this House. There is a later Motion on the Paper showing the trend of mind of those who are in favour of these revolutionary proposals in a very small matter, namely, the opening of all the galleries of the House equally to men and women. In that Motion, as in the main Motion, there is no regard paid to the great mass of womanhood who appreciate and value their position, and who have not the slightest desire either to sit upon the bench below between the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Member for Cleveland, be their age that of nineteen or any maturer age, or to have the rights and privileges of their particular place in the Galleries of the House invaded by what used to be termed the "sterner sex." This House was elected eight years ago, when there was no thought of war, and composed of Members whose duty it is to represent equally the rights of the women who did not contribute to their election as of the male voters who returned them to this House. I say that until the women who are now enfranchised have this question of the right of women to sit in this House before them as one of the questions at at least one General Election, if not more, we Members of this old House of Commons have no right whatever to decide that women are eligible to sit here."
    The Law Officers of the Crown have given us their decision that, so far as there is any law on the matter, the law is that in their opinion women are now ineligible to be elected, and I submit it is for the men and women now enfranchised to have the opportunity of saying whether they desire to see that changed. I do not want to dwell on the question which it seems to me must be present in the minds of every hon. Member, and that is how extraordinarily incongruous it is that we should be debating this question at the present time. It is quite true, as the right hon. Member for Cleveland said, that the Conference over which you, Sir, presided, had not got any authority to decide this question. That is true, but I venture to say that, if the majority who were in favour of the enfranchisement of women at that Conference had had it in mind that it was to be taken as an axiom almost that sitting in this House must
    830
    logically and inevitably follow from the decision that women were to vote, then the voting upon the question of whether women would be eligible as voters would have been very different from what it was. We had, it is true, only to consider the question of the franchise, and if we had had in mind that it was certain that the claim would be not only put forward but immediately met, and that legislation would be asked for and agreed to by this House during the continuance of the War before any woman had had an opportunity of registering a vote, that they were to have the right of sitting here, I think that the right to vote would never have been granted to women during the present Parliament.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin made use of one other argument to which I want briefly to refer. He said that those who are opposed to this measure say, in effect, that there is no woman in the country as capable of sitting in this House as the least satisfactory male Member of it. I venture to think that that shows that the right hon. Gentleman is not only right honourable but learned, because that is specially a legal argument, and it is really in the nature of special pleading. Surely some of us may say that, although we frankly admit there are women of great and outstanding ability, there may be other reasons, beyond the fact that we maintain that they are not as capable as men of legislating, which make it undesirable that they should be here in this House acting as legislators! I am quite sure my right hon. Friend can realise at once, without my saying it, that there are a whole number of arguments, with which perhaps he does not agree, that would make it perfectly tenable to say that, although a woman may be quite as capable as a man of exercising all the duties and responsibilities of a Member of this House, yet in the public interest it might be exceedingly undesirable, and in the interests of the home it might be undesirable, that they should be here as Members of this House. He says that really our arguments mean that we distrust and despise women. I say the absolute opposite of that. I say that it may well be, and it certainly is my argument, that I not only do not distrust and despise women, but I honour and admire women, and I want to be quite sure that they are not brought into all this dirty business of politics, and that if, as the right hon. Member for Cleveland said,

    831
    our political questions are to centre more round the home in future it shall not be taken, as he takes it, as a necessary corollary that we should drag the home into all the political arena over which we dispute in this House.
    May I refer to one or two questions that the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion dealt with. He said it might be thought that if we opened this Chamber to women as Members the bench on which he sits will be crowded with women, and he said that was not the least likely to happen. I quite agree, but that argument appears to me to be a most extraordinary argument. I agree with it, because only the other day I was speaking to the representative of New Zealand in this country, who has great experience of politics there, and he told me that for twenty-five years women had not only been voters, but had been eligible to sit as Members there, and that so far not a single one had been elected. But that does not really appeal to me as an argument why, at the present moment, we should consider any question that is brought before us at the present time, moribund or not, and that therefore, because in New Zealand, for example, in twenty-five years no single woman has entered the Legislature, although empowered by law to do so, the matter is of such urgency that we must now pass this law, when the best argument that can be put forward for it is that it is not likely to make any difference in the representation of the people at all. If that is so, surely it is better to wait at any rate until the women themselves, whom we have so recently enfranchised, have had some opportunity of expressing their opinion on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it was a conclusive proof of his argument for this Motion that it had been attended with the most admirable result that the direct representation of labour by Members who are specially able to put the labour point of view in this House is now an accomplished fact. May I ask whether hon. Members who specially represent labour would all agree that though they can represent the wage earner they are quite incapable of representing the wage-earner's wife, and whether we are to really to carry this sex question so far as to assume that there must be always another point of view of the wife of the wage earner that is unrepresented
    832
    in the vote of her husband? I would ask this House very seriously to consider not only the point of view of whether it is opportune that this Motion should be brought before us at all and that a day should be given to its debate, but to consider the point of view that the acceptance of this Motion involves the introduction of a Bill, because that is what the Motion asks for, and consequently not only one day, but probably several further days of the time of this House being spent upon it.
    If the matter were confined to the time of this House, I might agree that since it has been decreed by those who control our time here that a day can well be spared for this preliminary canter we might still spare three or four days in the course of the War in passing the necessary legislation, but the matter will not end there, and I ask the House to take into consideration the further view that we have never had put before us the strong opinions and the rooted objections of what is undoubtedly the vast majority of the women of this country to this forcing of them, by a small minority of the sex, into the political arena. We should be utterly overstepping the limits of our authority, our rights, our duties, and our responsibilities if at this time we said to the women of the country, "Whether you like it or not, you will have women candidates put before you, and if any of your sex vote for them, be it on a side issue or a main issue, and they get a majority of the votes, they will be entitled to come to the House of Commons and on a close Division cast the absolute casting vote, except the equal division casting vote which it is your privilege, Mr. Speaker, to give, and may absolutely decide, yea or nay, whether certain legislation should be the law of the land or not." Indeed, it is obvious, from the nature of the Motion, that the matter would not be confined to that. Once admitted to this House, there is no possible reason why a woman should not be the Speaker or the Speakeress of the House as well as occupy any other position. I am certain that this matter has not been given really the thought that it ought to have been given by Members of the House except those few who are keenly interested, and I do not believe there has been any real consideration as to what would be the absolutely revolutionary upheaval, not only in our politics, but in our homes, and in the whole constitution of the country, and in

    833
    our individual life, if this great change were made; and when you think how vast the change is and what is really involved in the point of view, I am certain hon. Members will hesitate on this, one of the last days of a Parliament that has long outstayed its mandate, to pass one of the most revolutionary proposals that has ever been put before the House.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I rise to support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. So far as I know, there is no opposition to it from any of those organised forces which for years conducted a campaign against the enfranchisement of women. We have listened to speeches this afternoon in opposition to this Motion, but so far as I know—at all events, no communications have reached me to that effect—they do not reflect any widespread opposition on the part of those large numbers who opposed the grant of the franchise, but who, once that was granted, regard this as the inevitable consequence and view it either with approval or with indifference. How has that result come about? This battle was fought and was decided in the Reform Bill of last year, and it was fought and decided on an intelligible principle. I think my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin has done us who fought that battle less than justice in saying that the principle on which we joined issue was that we despised and distrusted women. That was certainly not our standpoint, but if I may summarise our point of view then it was this, that there were two extreme points of view of the position of women in society and in the State. There was the Oriental point of view, which made of her an inferior and in some respects a servile being, and there was the advanced radical and feminist point of view, which made her in all respects the complete social and political equal of man. Our point of view in the series of battles which was terminated last year was that you had to make a boundary somewhere between those two extremes—that somewhere, so to speak, between the Woolsack and the harem you had to draw the line—and that the line which human nature dictated and public policy demanded was the line which separates Imperial from local and municipal affairs. That was a logical and an intelligible case. It was considered by the country and debated in Parliament and Parliament decided otherwise. When Parliament
    834
    has so decided, what use is there to retreat to a perfectly untenable line of trenches in the rear and take up a position utterly inconsistent with everything which we have ever said? We have always pointed out that the concession of the vote would carry with it the right to have a seat in Parliament. Mr. Gladstone foresaw it, and uttered it in memorable words, and I have listened in vain to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and those who have opposed the Motion to-day for any principle on which you could intelligibly oppose something which flows directly from what was done last year. If I may refer to one point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who made this Motion, I noticed with interest, but without any surprise, that he abandoned the age limit of thirty, in so far as women Members of Parliament are concerned. It cannot be defended, but it was only done, I think, for the purpose of getting the measure through Parliament. If I may make a humble suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, it is this, that if he succeeds in making women over the age of twenty-one eligible for Parliament, he should proceed to the next step, and make women over twenty-one also entitled to the Parliamentary vote. Those being, so far as I have been able to ascertain and collect them, the views of those, or many of them, who were opposed to the grant of the franchise last year, we feel that further resistance would be ungenerous, would be futile, and would be based on no intelligible principle, and that we are accepting nothing more than was decided already in principle by Parliament last year.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member who has just sat down said he spoke for an organisation which opposed votes for women. He is as perfectly aware as I am that that great organisation is now broken up. He has no right to assert, on behalf of that organisation, any such unanimity of opinion, which, to my mind, is certainly not the case. I have been in communication with many of those who were the strongest advocates of votes for women. They have told me—they were certain persons of weight—that they would rather have some two or three years' delay. I know I am speaking as one on the side which is not the popular side in regard to this question. If I were to

    835
    study probabilities of election, I would probably remain silent. I have many graduates in my Constituency, and I know that they never can think I have been in Parliament a strong advocate of votes for women. But I pay them the respect of thinking that they will choose between me and another candidate for other reasons. There are abundant and most satisfactory reasons which they may find for preferring another candidate to myself, but I am quite certain that they will take it on broad issues, and they will not respect me more if I try to make, at the last moment, a palinode of Stesichoros. The Noble Lord stitting on the Treasury Bench committed what I might almost call an outrageous libel on his fellow Members by attributing our opinions to the fact that we looked down upon women. That, I can tell the Noble Lord, is an absolute falsehood in my case. It is not right that any Minister standing from that bench should attribute motives of that sort to Members who happen to hold different opinions from himself. I remember the Noble Lord himself—if he will pardon my recalling early days, when we were sitting as colleagues opposite—making a speech to the effect that he had no decided opinion on the question of votes for women—and I can bring forward the OFFICIAL REPORT to prove it—but that his conduct would be decided by whether he thought the women would support him or not. He cannot deny that, because some two or three years ago I put the passage in his hands.
    Lord R. CECIL: My right hon. Friend's recollection of the passage is quite inaccurate.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I assert again, my recollection of the passage is absolutely accurate. I am prepared to justify my action on this question to my Constituents. I opposed votes for women for one reason and one reason only—a reason which has moved the women of France never to ask for them—because it would derogate from the influence of women and would injure, not help, them. I may be wrong. I try to learn new lessons, but I would be very sorry that the repentance should take place so rapidly as is reflected in the change of opinion on the subject in this House. That is a sort of repentance which I should be inclined to call cataclysmal rather than sincere. But I have taken the situation as it now stands. I am quite ready, and with every respect for them, to
    836
    welcome women into the new position as a powerful element in our elections. I shall go to them not on my past opinions on one question. My Constituents are not such fools as to decide great questions on that ground. I shall go before them on the broad question, whether they think my services to my Constituency have been consistent, whether they think I am worthy to represent them, and whether they hold the same opinions on broad questions that I do. But what I say now is that this new proposal is offered to us at the most inopportune moment. Surely we have had a rich, full and overflowing meal of constitutional change. The right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Motion said he wished further changes—a change from thirty to twenty-one. Did he support me when I made a Motion to that effect and was defeated? Had I any real support in this House when I moved that Motion? A handful only voted for me. Now the right hon. Gentleman repents again.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend is mistaken. I said nothing about the franchise.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the restriction of the women as a thing that might be changed.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was suggesting that if this change we are now proposing were carried out, it ought not to be limited to women over thirty, as is the franchise.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks women are worthy to sit in this House surely, à fortiori, they are worthy to be given a vote. But I do not propose to ask that the whole question should be reopened. Is legislation to be of such a break-neck fashion that before a few months are past, before a single step has been taken to carry the Act into operation, we must at once revise a great constitutional change of this sort, at a moment when our minds arc, or ought to be, otherwise occupied It is a far stronger view that I wish to urge upon the House very earnestly. I am not discussing this matter of women's votes on its merits just now. That is finished. I have said all that I could say. I have bowed my head to that decision. I have cordially welcomed my fellow voters of the other sex, and I shall ask with perfect confidence, and I shall go before my Constituents for their judgment. I want to point this out. Before women have

    837
    yet had the opportunity of taking part in politics to any large extent, you are going to force upon them the most serious part of politics. What sort of women will be representatives at first? Do you think they will be women who are most worthy to represent the womanhood of England? What opportunity had the vast mass of women—women of wisdom, of moderation, of calmness, who have exercised in other spheres a very strong and an effective influence—what chance have they of showing what part they can play in public life? How long will it take before they have played such part in politics that they can assert their position, that their weight and value as political advisers is readily recognised and admitted, and they have proved that they are really worthy of the confidence of their fellows?
    The next election will be taken when the nation is occupied with the War. Can Members run over in their minds those women who are likely to be representatives? Will not the militant suffragette, who is no great favourite one side or the other, be in that position, and do you think the women of England want to be represented by them? [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not be!"] I do not suppose they will, but is it fair to start in this way with women candidates whom the great mass of women of this nation would not support? Would it not be likely to inflict a wound to the chances of women hereafter winning seats in this House? Would it not be better to delay until certain women of character, influence, ability, large powers of influencing their fellow-men and fellow-women have begun to assert themselves? When they come forward, then, I think, women will look upon it in another light. They will look up to these outstanding and influential ladies. They will be glad to see them as their champions, and they will give their votes under much less prejudice than they would if they were forced to give a vote amongst the very noisiest who are likely to remain powerful for a time. I am performing an unpleasant and rather invidious task in rising in a House where I fancy that deep in their hearts more Members have a little lingering sympathy with my views than they are inclined to give vocal utterance to. It is unpopular, it is disagreeable, it is invidious to do so, and if I have by anything I say forfeited the approval of constituents I cannot conceive
    838
    anyone so constituted as to derive pleasure from a scat which he thinks he holds from his constituents only because he cringes to their opinion. I do not think my Constituents are framed in that way, and, if they are, I am afraid I cannot claim the pleasure of continuing to represent them. I have done my best for them, and I have based my position on the coincidence of my general views with theirs in the past. I have taken part in controversies not from any such motives as those attributed to me by the Noble Lord the Under Foreign Secretary (Lord R. Cecil), but because honestly, though perhaps mistakenly, I thought this change would injure the position of women. In that I was judged to be wrong. I accept fully that judgment, and nobody will accept women's suffrage more loyally than myself. But for the reasons I have stated, the inopportuneness of time, the injury it will probably do to the progress of woman's representation, we ought to be spared the hurry of a new upturning and reopening of the grave constitutional questions we settled so fully last year.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I was one who for many years, within the knowledge of the House, opposed the extension of the suffrage to women, and I must associate myself with the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for West Herts (Mr. A. Ward), a few moments ago, against the suggestion that those of us who took that line did so, either avowedly or in spirit, to use the language of my Noble Friend who spoke a few moments ago from the Treasury Bench (Lord R. Cecil), because we despised or distrusted women. That was not my argument, nor, so far as I know, the line of argument taken by any responsible opponent of woman's suffrage. I do not wish to go back—it is totally irrelevant to the present Motion—to any argument for or against the extension of the suffrage to women, except to say that so far as I am concerned I never failed to point out to this House, and whenever I had occasion to allude to the matter elsewhere, that if you once gave the vote to women, you could not possibly, logically or in policy, refuse to those whom you had enfranchised the power to be eligible to sit in this House. The one step inevitably involved the other. It was just as though, when the Parliaments in past days extended the franchise among what are commonly called the working classes when they removed the various property qualifications and disabilities which

    839
    excluded a large number of our fellow citizens from the power of the vote—it is as though when they had granted that measure of enfranchisement they had continued or revived—as a matter of fact I believe the property qualification for members had already disappeared—they had revived that property qualification. When once you have declared that a class of persons is worthy and qualified to exercise the franchise, I cannot see any possible reason in logic or in policy why those persons should not be entitled, if they can get constituencies to elect them, to sit in this House. [Sir F. BANBURY: "What about the clergy?"] My right hon. Friend refers to the clergy. I should not in the least mind qualifying the clergy. I believe it would be perfectly logical to give the clergy the right to become candidates for Parliament, but I doubt if many would be elected.
    The principle is perfectly simple, and seems to me to be one the application of which cannot possibly be mistaken. If you say a person or class is fit to exercise the franchise, you must at the same time say "You are fit to be a representative." It does not seem to me that the case really admits of contention, and the only argument that has been advanced is that brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—an argument not dealing with the merits of the case, but urging that it was inexpedient because it was premature. In support of that argument he pointed to the fact, the undoubted fact, that this Parliament has several times prolonged its existence, and is what is popularly described as "moribund," and ought not under these conditions to sanction further constitutional change. That is an argument which might be and was used with considerable effect against the legislation of last year. But a Parliament which holds itself qualified to extend the electorate by eight or ten millions of electors cannot be held to be disqualified from, at the same time, or in immediate sequence, supplementing it by action which all considerations of justice and expediency show to be desirable, by extending to persons who are qualified to vote the right to represent those who are enfranchised.
    Talk about the old simile of the gnat and the camel! You have the camel; you ought not to strain at the gnat. I will say one thing more. I have
    840
    myself the greatest possible faith, and always have had, in my fellow-citizens that they will not choose in the long run unfit persons to represent them in this House. Sometimes they make mistakes; sometimes they make very serious mistakes, but my hon. Friend the Member for the University (Sir H. Craik) has used a classical phrase—they compensate for it by what he called a "cataclysmal repentance." In that case they reverse the decision which they had made in a fit of impetuous but misguided enthusiasm. So it will be in this case, and I have not the faintest fear that these new constituencies, with their infusion of women electors, will show themselves less qualified than constituencies have in the past to send to tills House persons to represent, not merely particular classes of interests alone, but people who are really qualified to speak on the great matters of legislation with which this House deals. There is a dilatory plea, but there is no argument against this Bill. The dilatory plea is disposed of by what the House has already done, and I should be glad if this Resolution were unanimously carried.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I have no occasion in supporting this Resolution to stand in a white sheet or to make a deathbed repentance, cataclysmal or otherwise. I have the easy conscience of one who is now supporting the views which he has always expressed in this House. I have during the years I have been in this House had occasion to make a number of speeches in opposition to woman's suffrage and on almost every occasion when I have made such an opposition I have expressly stated that I saw no theoretical objection whatever to women being elected as Members of this House and to their taking their seats in this House like any other elected person. Opposition in the past to women being Members of this House has come, not from the opponents of woman's suffrage but from the advocates of woman's suffrage I am happy to have a very apposite quotation in regard to that on this occasion. In the first year in which I was a Member of this House there was a Woman's Enfranchisement Bill introduced by Sir George Kemp. Speaking on that Bill on 5th May, 1911, I said, "In the course of his speech he, Sir George Kemp, said that while he was
    "in favour of women having the vote, or at least some women, he was altogether opposed to women being returned to, and sitting in, this House."

    841
    Sir George Kemp then interrupted me, and said, "May I contradict that? I did not say that. I said that at the moment it was not under discussion. I might have views in regard to it. I did not intend to oppose it." I continued:
    "The hon. Member at this point prefers not to venture an opinion, and that is significant. I, as an opponent of woman's suffrage, say that I see no theoretical objection whatever to women being Members of this House."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1911, col. 791, Vol. 25.]
    I do not know whether any individual in this House has ever done me the honour of giving his attention to the case which in the past I have endeavoured to make against woman's suffrage. If there be anyone who has done me the honour of giving his attention to that case, he will not think there is anything paradoxical or anything self-contradictory in the attitude which I now adopt. The argument against woman's suffrage was not an argument which applied to the question whether women should sit in this House, and whether it was valid or whether it was invalid, it could have no such application. The two cases are quite distinct. The two functions are quite distinct; and the reasons why women should or should not exercise the vote were quite other reasons from those whether they should or should not sit in this House. It is a familiar and cherished delusion on the part of many of the advocates of woman suffrage, including the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) who spoke from the Front Bench a while ago; a delusion, I say, of theirs, that those who opposed woman suffrage in the past based their opposition upon some supposed intellectual or educational inferiority on the part of women on some supposed incapacity of women to form a political judgment. If that had been the objection to women suffrage, if there had been any ground for supposing that there was a universal, intellectual and educational inferiority on the part of woman, I agree that that would have been a valid argument against women sitting in this House. I agree also that those who hold that view might have been properly described in the language of the Noble Lord as despising and distrusting women. But that was not the view held by us who opposed women suffrage in the past. That is a view which is humiliating and disrespectful to women; and it was that very view which the Noble Lord described as the view of those who distrusted and despised women, it was that very view which dictated that humiliating and disrespectful
    842
    provision in the Representation of the People Act which prevents women from exercising the vote until they have reached the age of thirty. That very view was introduced into the Act, not at the request, or not with the support of those who opposed women suffrage, but entirely at the instance and with the support of those who advocated women suffrage.
    An HON. MEMBER: No, no!
    Mr. SCOTT: But it was. The Noble Lord referred to that matter, and he said that this Clause was introduced at the instance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. Fortunately I have got here the Division List for that occasion, and I find that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), along with a considerable number of others who had opposed women suffrage in the past, voted in favour of removing that restriction, and for giving the franchise to women on the same conditions as men and at the same age; whilst on the other hand the Noble Lord who states that that provision was introduced at the instance of the right hon. Baronet, voted in favour of maintaining the restriction of the age of thirty. I say distinctly, on behalf of those who take the other view, that whilst we have been in the past opposed to women suffrage for reasons that we have stated, once the House had made up its mind and had decided the main question—that of principle—we accepted the verdict of the House unreservedly and without equivocation, and all our efforts thereafter were directed to securing that the franchise which had been given to the women should be on the most democratic lines, and should not be a franchise which would militate against and counteract the democratic franchise enjoyed by the men.
    I do not propose to enter into any reasoned statement now as to what were the views which led one in the past to oppose women suffrage. I merely state briefly that the view I took was that the right to exercise the franchise should be restricted to those who had the capacity, or the potential capacity, to defend their country in arms in time of danger. The experience through which we have passed in the last four years has undoubtedly enlarged the views of all of us as to the extent to which women are able to serve their country in time of war. It has undoubtedly enlarged the views of all of us as to the extent to which women are able to

    843
    exercise, and influence the ultimate result, when it comes to the ultimate appeal to physical force. However that may affect the argument which we formerly put forward against women suffrage, it is quite clear that arguments of that nature have no bearing on the question of whether women are entitled to sit in Parliament, if they are duly elected thereto by a majority of the electorate. On other grounds which I can conceive as applicable to the circumstances—on the ground of intellectual and educational qualification, on the ground of practical experience, on the ground of national service, I think that women, if and when elected, are equally entitled with men to sit in Parliament. The argument that women are intellectually and educationally inferior to men I reject now, as I have always rejected it; and not merely in this application, but in its applications to all those spheres in which women claim entrance, whether to universities, the learned professions, or to public bodies. In putting forward that view I merely claim that I have consistently followed the views—which are on record—that I have expressed ever since I entered this House.
    Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: It is just a few remarks that I propose to address to the House, and on this, the first occasion, I would pay a tribute to the memory of my predecessor the Right Hon. Sir George Reid, whose work in three Parliaments of the Empire will long remain in the memory of the people who had an opportunity of knowing him. The distinction of being elected a Member of this noble House is one which carries with it very great honour, more especially in a time like this, when we are engaged in solving so many very great problems. We are to-night considering a measure which is quite familiar to me. I am not in the position of some hon. Members of having to make an apology for my previous utterances with regard to women's franchise. It is very gratifying indeed, in spite of the pressure on the Legislature of this country during the last four or five years, to find that reform in electoral matters has not been neglected. The vote for women marks a very distinct advance on the restricted franchise which obtained prior to the War. That reform, to my mind, has been long postponed, but it is not on that account the less acceptable to the community. The magnificent work
    844
    already performed by women during the War, even if that were the only reason—which it is not—is a complete justification for the action taken by Parliament in recognising their claims and extending to them the full rights of citizenship. Bitter opponents have been completely converted. The manner in which the most active members and leaders of the woman's party have put aside their propaganda in order to devote their full energies to any schemes for the prosecution of the War is worthy of our warm admiration. Their actions have gained advocates from amongst their strongest former opponents. It certainly stands to their credit that the cause, for which they had fought so long, was subordinated to the needs of the War. I feel I must take this opportunity of registering my vote in support of the Motion which has been proposed giving women the right to be elected Members of Parliament.
    For those who view this reform as something revolutionary I would say, as has been pointed out by the Mover of the Resolution, that we have no occasion to be very much alarmed. In Australia, although the franchise has been in the possession of the women since the inauguration of the Commonwealth—some eighteen years ago—there are not, I think, more than six women who have stood for Parliament, whilst up to the present date there has been no single woman elected to Parliament. Several hon. Members have spoken in appreciation of the work done by women during the War. I have had exceptional opportunities of witnessing the part women have played, whether it has been near the firing line or the casualty or clearing stations; whether they have acted as drivers of ambulances or motor wagons; or whether their work has been nearer, in munition works, or in the great Departments of the State. In all these women have, indeed, played a noble part. We also lift our hats with gratitude to those women at home who often with sad hearts have carried on the duties of their households—very often under circumstances which call for the greatest admiration. While speaking in this connection I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much we appreciate the sympathy and care that has been extended by the women of this country to the gallant lads from the Overseas Dominions. Gratifying indeed as it has been to the recipients, I can assure hon. Members that to the mothers

    845
    and sisters far away it will be one of the strongest links in the bonds, now more closely woven than ever, between the Motherland and her daughter nations. I am making these observations because of the great advance that has been achieved in the very interesting political position of women. As I say, for twenty years I have advocated and been a supporter of votes for women in Australia, and I have assisted in securing this reform.
    The women of Australia have had the vote in the two Houses from the inauguration of the Commonwealth. They have not exercised the franchise as fanatics. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know that in all probability 90 per cent. of these women have voted with their menfolk, have voted the same as their husbands, fathers, and brothers, so that I cannot see that that can be used as an argument against the Motion before the House. To those who are doubtful as to the wisdom of throwing open our illustrious Hall, I would say, as I have already said, that notwithstanding these facilities being granted the women apparently have considered that, all things being equal, the man is the better candidate to represent them. I take it that the women in Australia are not very different from those women electors in this country who will be called upon to make their selection here when the General Election comes. I quite understand that there are some hon. Members who think that these reforms should go slowly, and that women, having secured the right to vote in Parliament, should rest content with that for the time being. In normal times I would have agreed with them, but with the record the women have put up during the last five years we can afford to go further and extend to them the fullest recognition of their rights upon an equality with men. I think the granting of this right is only the natural corollary of the granting of votes to women in the Bill which has been recently passed. There are a number of questions in which women are eminently fitted to act in the capacity of legislators, such as improved health laws, housing legislation, factory and marriage laws, preservation of infant life, and various other social questions. I am aware that in several of these spheres women share the administration of existing laws, and it would appear that they have an equally strong claim to make their voice heard in enacting those laws. Is it too much to hope that such an overwhelming expression
    846
    of opinion will be given to-day in favour of this proposal as to justify the Government bringing in a measure to give effect to the principle included in the Motion which has been brought forward?
    Sir J. D. REES: It is quite evident from this Debate that palinodes are no longer confined to Prime Ministers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Herts opposite stated a simple fact when he said that the supporting of this Motion was in no way inconsistent with the action of those who have hitherto opposed the granting of women suffrage in this House. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel), in supporting this Motion and urging that women should be eligible for election to this House, state that the common sense of the country would prevent the return of women in any large numbers. That seems to me to be a very singular argument with which to support this Motion.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not what I said.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am within the recollection of the House on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that if this Motion is passed and legislation follows there would not be women to the right of us and women to the left of us, but, on the contrary, he said, the common sense of the country would prevent the election of many women to this House. Once you abolish the sex bar you cannot, and should not, hope that there will be few women Members in this House. We live in a new world, and if women are to vote it follows naturally that they should be made Members of Parliament, and certainly it is rather inconsistent to take any comfort from the fact that the common sense of the electors will not allow them to be returned in any large numbers. The hon. Member who spoke last, in his interesting maiden speech, supported this Motion with the fact that in Australia no single woman, and, I have no doubt he meant, no married woman, has ever been returned to Parliamnt. I shall endeavour on this occasion to deal with my subject more in accordance with the rules of logic. My Noble Friend said that the object was to get different interests represented in the House of Commons, and therefore he argued that women should come in. Perish the thought! If women are merely to come here to represent some

    847
    interest opposed to the interest of men, I think none of us would support them. The fact is that we support them because we regard them not only as our equals, but as our superiors, for we know that there are amongst women as acute intellects and as many different characters and varieties of mind as there are amongst ourselves, and we do not look forward to their being Members of Parliament in order to represent female interests, but rather as a complementary force to men in every interest which comes before Parliament.
    My right hon. Friend behind me (Sir H. Craik) seemed more concerned to justify his position with his constituency than to deal with the immediate problem before the House, and he said that he was prepared to go before his constituents on this subject. I believe, as a matter of fact, his constituents are all men. I submit to the House that a man's politics are far more a matter of temperament than argument. Before the late Reform Act was passed, women's suffrage was supported by Radicals, Reformers, Socialists, and Sentimentalists. The last is a large class, for Members incline to fall into the hands of the dangerous Delilah, who is sufficiently strong to shear Parliamentary Sampsons of their sense. It might be supposed, therefore, that those who were formerly opposed to female suffrage would on this occasion be inclined to oppose the Motion before this House. The fact is that they opposed woman suffrage on the ground of sex, but, once that bar is removed, there is no further ground, I respectfully submit, for imposing any bar upon the other sex, as to the offices which they should be able to fill in this country.
    We live now in an entirely new world to that in which we lived when this question which has now been settled was one of acute controversy in this House. That was before the era of social reform and the days when a man's income was more or less his own. It was the time when women were confined to certain occupations. Several hon. Members to-night have been inclined to deal rather with the merits of woman suffrage, but that would not only be wrong on this Motion, but it would be irrelevant. Women have proved themselves sufficiently capable controversialists and powerful antagonists to force woman suffrage through Parliament without even the formality of consulting the country, and it is absurd to suppose
    848
    that, having got this vote in enormous numbers, they are now going to display patience, not the virtue for which they are most famous, and wait until the House is pleased to give them what is the natural corollary of the vote they have already got, that is the right to sit where they have a right to send others to sit. Is it likely that enfranchised woman will sit like a "Peri at the gate," of the Parliamentary "Eden, disconsolate"? Although I have never voted for women suffrage, I am bound to say now it is here and in operation that it obtained in Finland, which, governed by its Grand Duke, the Czar, was one of the most forward and advanced countries in Europe until it fell under the Bolsheviks, and there women were not only Members of Parliament, but they filled the most important offices, and I am bound to say they acquitted themselves right well—a fact which I have hitherto concealed, until I knew that women had got the vote in this country. I happen to be the head of a large Government Department where we employ over 500 women, and the way they carry out their duties is beyond all praise, and I should feel it a most ungrateful and ungracious necessity, if I felt bound to vote against this Motion. Therefore, it is with the utmost consistency that I feel perfectly justified in supporting the Motion before the House. Many things have changed in the new world. We no longer live in days when Members of this House compose long essays at home and come here to deliver them in the dinner hour, to the complete satisfaction of hon. Members having their dinner elsewhere. Now it behoves us not only to speak closely to the point, but having done so immediately to resume our seats.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The speeches which have been delivered up to the present time have been largely from those who are supporters of the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel). I desire to associate the members of the Labour party with this Motion. So far as the Labour party is concerned, the opening of the doors of this House to the women folk of this country is simply the logical outcome of all their efforts for the enfranchisement of women. During the years of effort which have been necessary in order to secure the enfranchisement of women, every member of the Labour party has no doubt argued that in securing the vote for

    849
    women it would at the same time carry with it the right of the womenfolk to sit in this House. I even go further, and I say that when this question of the granting of votes to women was under consideration there were very few Members who had any doubt that it would carry with it the right of women to sit in this House. We have been delighted in every other phase of our national life to have women associated with us. Why should we stop short of opening the doors of this House to them? If there were any section of our people who had any doubts as to the wisdom of giving full political rights to women, I think the magnificent way in which the women of the country have entered into every phase of our national life in the last four years should have largely dispelled those doubts and fears. Hundreds of thousands of women are to-day rendering valuable service in every phase of our national life, and particularly in every part of our industrial system. The entrance of women so fully into industry will give rise to one of the greatest of our after-war problems. When that problem comes to be considered in this House, are we to refuse to allow the women's point of view to be presented? It would be a profound mistake if the House refused an entrance to women and so prevented them putting their point of view on this very great problem. The entrance of women so fully into industry has already to a considerable extent revolutionised our ideas regarding the conditions of the workers. We have had to consider from an entirely new point of view the question of the relationship of the wages of men and women. In many quarters it is recognised that women, when they are able to render equal service, are entitled to equal remuneration for the services so rendered. We have also had set up since they entered the industrial system in such large numbers well-organised canteens where good food well cooked can be secured at moderate prices. That is a great advance on anything that we had previously. We have also had set up welfare supervisors to look after the comfort and convenience of the workers. Rest centres have been established, and many other arrangements have been made for giving a human touch to our industrial relationship. Wherever women have entered the human element has played a much larger part, and I submit, as Parliament is the great welfare supervisor for the nation, that by opening the doors of this
    850
    House to women we shall be taking the first step towards giving future legislation just that human touch which has hitherto been absent.
    Let me for a moment look at some of the problems with which Parliament will have to deal after the War. I place, first, the question of the pensions which are to be paid to the women, the children, and the dependants of our men who have unfortunately lost their lives in the course of this great War. Who is better qualified than our womenfolk to name the sum that will be necessary in order to give the dependants of our fallen men the same degree and standard of comfort as that enjoyed by those who have had the fortune not to be engaged in this terrible conflict? Take next the question of wages. I do not mean that women are better qualified to deal with the question entirely from the point of view of the wages paid to women. I include both the wages paid to women and to men, and I suggest that the women who have filled the positions of chancellors of the exchequer in our homes are better qualified to determine the amount of wages that are necessary for keeping the homes in a degree of comfort than even the men themselves. Then take the question of housing. Women have to spend a far greater portion of their lives in our homes than the men. Consequently, they are in a better position to deal with the type of house and the amount of accommodation that should be provided than the men. I take next the question of demobilisation. It will present many difficulties which will strain and try the industrial relationship of the sexes to a degree hitherto unknown. Surely the House and the country will be all the better for having women here presenting their point of view helping us to deal with the many intricate and difficult questions that will necessarily arise. Again, no section of our people are better qualified than the women to speak with regard to the care of children. There are many other problems with which one could deal if one cared to take up the time of the House in which the House and the country would do well to have the woman's point of view presented, but I have no intention of standing long between the House and the taking of a Division if the right hon. Baronet opposite means to press the matter to a Division. I hope, having heard the House, which almost universally agrees to the proposition, that he will think more wisely of

    851
    it and allow the Motion to go through without a Division, but should he persist in his opposition I hope that by a very large majority, indeed, the House will carry the Resolution and so pave the way for opening the doors of this House to the womenfolk of the country.
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: Unlike the majority of Members this afternoon, I rise to oppose this Motion. I oppose it not for the reason that I do not love the female sex—I adore them—but for the reason that I do not want to see them here. I do not think this House is a fit and proper place for any respectable woman to sit in. We have heard distinguished Parliamentarians tell us that there are no practical objections to it. I say that there are very great objections. Just consider the routine of the House. We meet at three o'clock, or we ought to meet at three o'clock for prayers, and we go on till eleven or twelve o'clock at night. Is that a thing for any woman to do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
    Mr. ADAMSON: Then insist on meeting at a reasonable hour—ten o'clock in the morning, for example—and do not sit till eleven at night.
    Sir H. MEUX: It is quite true that women sit on county councils and those sort of things, but only for two or three hours, and I say that no woman is fit by her physical organisation to stand the strain of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: How about all-night sittings?
    Sir H. MEUX: As the right hon. Baronet says, what about all-night sittings, sitting up till two or three in the morning? "Who goes home?" It will be a question of "Who will take me home?" Do not let anyone think I am not perfectly cognisant of what women have done in this War. They have done marvellously well. I am a pretty good judge, and I say that after the strain through which they have gone, the women of this country are more beautiful than they ever were before. If one goes back into history, it is quite true that there have been many great women, but the more you study the lives of the great women who have ruled as well as reigned—there is a great distinction—the less you are inclined to let those lives be known to a class of Sunday school girls. I have been told, and I have no doubt
    852
    it is perfectly true, that if I say a word against the women I shall lose a great many votes, and very likely my election. I cannot help it, but I do not believe it to be the case. I know that women are the only real judges of men, and I believe the women of whatever constituency I may stand for will say, "This man is not afraid of saying what he thinks. He is not like a great many Members of the House, who only voted for this because they thought that otherwise they would not get in." We have heard Members say that the women have had the vote in Australia and New Zealand for many years and they have never yet elected a woman. I do not believe that there is a single Member who in his heart of hearts hopes to see a woman sitting in this House. My Noble Friend opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) even does not deny that. I do not know whether he really wants to see women sitting here.
    Lord R. CECIL: Certainly!
    Sir H. MEUX: Well, I do not. In all the affairs of life it is the right of women to choose what men shall represent them. Therefore it is perfectly logical to give them the vote. But this is an entirely different thing, and I do not believe the majority of the women of this country have any desire whatever to be represented by women in this House. What women really think about each other in affairs of this sort was well expressed by a very distinguished and versatile woman called Cleopatra, and those who would like to know what she said I refer to Shakespeare. But surely there is a very great difference between a woman choosing what man shall represent her and a woman being asked to vote for women to come into this House! I cannot believe that in the Army and the Navy, which have never been consulted on this momentous question at all, this will be at all popular, and I have certainly not received any mandate from the constituency for which I now stand to vote for it. The, people of the country ought to have been consulted. This has been sprung upon us. I look upon it as political strategy, and I call it political trickery. There was not a word said about having women to sit in the House when the Franchise Bill passed. If it had been said, hon. Members know perfectly well that it would probably never have passed.
    Mr. HUGHES: In spite of the very brilliant and rather discursive speech to

    853
    which we have just listened, it seems to me there has been nothing really said against the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) which needs answering. The Debate has been almost all one-sided. One of the few who would have opposed the Resolution, the hon. Member (Mr. Peto), said he did not want women dragged through the dirty business of politics in order to come into this House. But is getting into this House necessarily a dirty business? I thought this was an honourable House. I thought it was sometimes called the "Grand Inquest of the Nation," and that the ambition to get a seat in this House was a laudable ambition. There may be dirty incidents in getting in here. Let other Members speak for themselves. I do not confess on my own behalf. But when we are discussing whether women should sit here or not we may for one moment remember on what conditions we got in. I looked up the law, when I was first a candidate for Parliament, regarding sanity. I thought it was just as well to be safe, because I had heard many Members before then at heated political meetings described as idiots. I found that to call a Member of Parliament or a candidate an idiot is technically incorrect, because the law, according to Blackstone, is this:
    "An idiot or a natural fool is one who has had no understanding from his nativity, and is by law not regarded as likely to attain any. He is not allowed to be a candidate for Parliament as being incapable of executing the trust."
    I have thought that over, and it occurred to me that that might be the law, but perhaps it had not always been rigidly applied. Then I found the law draws this fine distinction:
    "A lunatic is one who hath had memory and understanding and judgment but by reason of disease or accident has lost the use of the same. He hath lucid intervals during which he is of sound memory and judgment and sometimes he is not. If in a lucid interval he is a candidate he can stand."
    The same law applies to the voter. An idiot or a natural fool cannot vote, but the vote of a lunatic during a lucid interval must be received if the returning officer recognises that he is sufficiently compos mentis to distinguish between the candidates, and that takes some doing sometimes. We see to what that comes. One lunatic enjoying a lucid interval may vote for another lunatic who is also enjoying a lucid interval, and the result is a Member of Parliament. How can any hon. Member, knowing that, meet a brilliant, gifted, experienced woman, or even a dull
    854
    woman if it comes to that, and say, "You are not capable of sitting in Parliament, but a lunatic voted for by another lunatic is capable of sitting if that lunatic be only a male"? It is absolutely unanswerable. As for this not being the right time, which has been pleaded sometimes, now that we are near the end of the great War, no reform was ever timely to those who do not want it. You have only to read Sydney Smith's "Orations," which I recommend to hon. Members for careful study, to find that one of the greatest arguments is, "Sir, is this the time?" A thing may be right or it may be wrong, but it is never the right time to do it. I think this is a very proper time to carry this reform, and I hope to see it agreed to very shortly, without even a Division.
    Sir J. WALTON: I warmly welcome the Resolution, because I have always advocated equal rights and privileges for women with men. I welcomed the admission of nearly 7,000,000 of women to the electoral roll of this country, and I only wish we had gone a step further and given them the franchise on precisely the same lines as men enjoy it. I welcome this Motion because I think there are many questions to be dealt with in the immediate future in which the women and children of this country are specially concerned, and in their settlement I am perfectly certain it would be an advantage, not only to this House but to the nation as a whole, to have the point of view of intelligent, educated women, whom I am certain the constituencies would only return, superior perhaps in average mental ability to the majority of men in this House, and that that will be an advantage to the country and will add to the progress and prosperity of the State.
    Mr. HAZLETON: The most sensible thing the House has done this evening is to call for a Division, because anyone who has been here throughout the Debate must have felt how entirely unnecessary it was to have the Debate at all. Only a very few speeches have been made against the Motion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir H. Meux) put forward two arguments. The first was that women ought not to be asked to come here and undergo the strain of the long hours which this House has to sit, but he did not think of the hundreds of thousands of women who have to work from morning till night, and very often all night, and he did not think that the House, as long as it has

    855
    been confined merely to the sterner sex, has not done as much as perhaps it might have done for the women who have to work those long hours. The other argument was that the Army and the Navy had not yet been consulted about this measure. It is news to me, and I am sure it will be to a great many Members of the House, that before we undertake legislation we have to go to the Army and the Navy to ask for their permission. I do not think that is a doctrine which this House could accept for a moment, and I am sure it is not put forward seriously. It has been taken all along that this Motion only referred to making women eligible as Members of the House of Commons, but hon. Members are quite wrong in that. There is nothing about the House of Commons in the Motion. It is making women eligible as Members of Parliament, and the House of Lords is included in Parliament. Therefore the mandate to the Government, if the Motion is passed, will be to bring in a Bill not merely to make
    women eligible as Members of this House, but to enable them to sit in the other House as well. I hope it will be clearly understood by those who are going to support this Motion that that is what they are voting for. At this time of the day it seems to me to be absurd for a Government to consider that it is necessary to occupy the time of the House for an afternoon to discuss a Motion of this kind at all. If they wanted to give a little real life to a subject of this kind I would suggest an extension of the terms of the Motion to cover women being made eligible not merely as Members of Parliament, but as members of the legal and other professions as well. I join with the rest of the House in hoping that the discussion, which really ought never to have taken place, may now conclude.
    Question put, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Bill should be passed forthwith making women eligible as Members of Parliament."
    The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 25.

    Division No. 85.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Addison Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Alden, Percy

    Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Alfred

    Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Anderson, W. C.

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Calvin, Colonel

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hackett, John

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Currie, George W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dillon, John

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Doris, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

    Hills, John Waller

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duffy, William J.

    Hinds, John

    Boyton, Sir James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Holmos, Daniel Turner

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Brookes, Warwick

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Horne, Edgar

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Finney, Samuel

    Hudson, Walter

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Buxton, Noel

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. E.

    Byrne, Alfred

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Carnegie, Lieut-Col. Douglas G.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Cator, John

    Flavin, M. J.

    Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fleming, Sir John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Smallwood, Edward

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Somervell, William Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    King, Joseph

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Swift, Rigby

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Law, Rt. Hon A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

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

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Tickler, T. G.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Tootill, Robert

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent St. Augustine's)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Magnus Sir Philip

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Moore, Major-General Sir J. N.

    Royds, Edmund

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Muldoon, John

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

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

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Dickinson and Mr. Adamson.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

    Stanler, Captain Sir Beville

    Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

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

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Meux, Adml, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Peto.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Gretton, John

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Bill should be passed forthwith making women eligible as Members of Parliament."

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' GALLERY).

    ADMISSION OF WOMEN.
    The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIG: "That this House is in favour of all available galleries being opened to
    858
    men and women equally and impartially and requests Mr. Speaker to make arrangements accordingly."
    Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIG: After the overwhelming majority in favour of the Motion which you have put from the Chair, I rise to do what I consider to be the only right thing, and which I feel confident Members in all quarters of the House will support, and that is to throw open the Members' Gallery equally and impartially to men and women. The House of Lords have passed a Resolution of that kind. I obtained a

    859
    record of their proceedings on 21st July, and I noticed that all it says in regard to the Strangers' Gallery is,
    "The Committee agreed to the proposal made by the Lord Chairman of Committees that ladies should be admitted to the Strangers' Gallery."
    I also referred to the report of the Committee which has sat on this question in connection with this House, and I ascertained that evidence was given by various Members, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and also by the Serjeant-at-Arms. In 1908 that Committee, which was a very representative one from all parts of the House, issued their Report. If hon. Members desire to look at the record they will find it in Volume 9, page 1. In paragraph 15, which is the part of the Report affecting the Motion which I have now made, they come to a unanimous conclusion. I will quote their opinion, as it represents really all that need be said on this subject:
    "We also think that it would be desirable for men and women alike to be admissible to the Members' Gallery. It is a common experience of Members that a man and his wife or daughter constantly apply or come for admission at the same time. The man gets a place in the Gallery and the lady has to be taken into the Ladies' Gallery and brought back again. When applications are made by letter a ticket can be sent to the man, often not to the lady. We believe that the admission of both sexes to the Gallery will be a convenience to the public and will be favourable to order and its maintenance. It is already the practice in several foreign Assemblies. Before being adopted, however, it would be right, as Mr. Speaker in his evidence suggested, to obtain the consent of the House to the change."
    Since then, I think, nothing has occurred in any sense to affect the decision which was then come to by that Committee set up specially for the purpose. It is quite true that my Motion is worded a little wider than that suggestion, and I would ask the leave of the House to alter the Motion standing in my name, to read
    "That this House is in favour of the Members' Gallery being opened to men and women equally and impartially, and requests Mr. Speaker to make arrangements accordingly."
    I have made inquiries from all sections of the House, and Members seem to have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable for the convenience of the public, as well as for the convenience of Members, that the present Ladies' Gallery should remain a Ladies' Gallery, for the simple reason that the wives of Members desire to come down on important occasions to hear the Debate, while single ladies very
    860
    often come to the House without any attendants, and ask for a seat. It would be more convenient on many occasions to give them a seat in the present Ladies' Gallery, instead of putting them into the Members' Gallery. We shall preserve, as at present, the special Gallery under the Gallery, which is very convenient for Members who have friends interested in Bills whom they wish to consult. It is the opinion of the House that that very small Gallery downstairs would be well maintained in its present status. The whole point is that we should throw open the "Members'" Gallery to both sexes alike. I am sure Members will agree with me that it has been somewhat irksome that when men and women come here—sometimes it may be a father and daughter or a husband and wife—they have to be separated.
    We know that in the most interesting Debates one has to leave his place to seek out friends in a crowded Lobby. He has to talk to them for a little while, and then discovers that there is a desire to come into the House to hear a Debate. One has to separate them and make a special request to the Sergeant-at-Arms for tickets. He may or may not be able to give them, or he may give a ticket for a lady and not for a man. If he does give both you have, first of all, to pilot the man to the entrance, whether the entrance to the "Members'" Gallery or the "Special" Gallery, and then to take the lady round the back of the Lobbies to the Ladies' Gallery, find a place for her, and then return to your seat. This often occupies—I have timed it myself—from a quarter of an hour to twenty minutes. At a busy period of the Session, especially in summer, when one's friends are passing through London, it is sometimes a serious hardship on a Member to occupy so much of his time, in order simply to see that friends may get seats in the Gallery. My suggestion is that women would apply at the ticket office, as men do at present, and everybody should be able to take his or her place in the Gallery without having to trouble a Member at all. That is a great convenience to many who very often do not desire to trouble a Member, but want to hear a Debate. I hope that the House will appreciate the course which I suggest. I do not desire to make any very radical change in the matter, but I desire to make a change which will convenience all concerned, and meet with the

    861
    approval of the outside public, as well as of Members of the House, I therefore propose my Resolution in its altered form:
    "That this House is in favour of the Members' Gallery being opened to men and women equally and impartially, and requests Mr. Speaker to make arrangements accordingly."
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I beg to second the Motion.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
    Colonel YATE: May I point out that ladies are at present allowed to come into the Ladies' Gallery while prayers are going on. If my brother and sister come to the House, my sister is allowed to go into the Ladies' Gallery and be present at prayers, but my brother is not allowed to go into the Members' Gallery until prayers have concluded. If ladies are now allowed into the Members' Gallery I would ask if those who go into the Ladies' Gallery will be allowed to be present during prayers? I think it advisable that they should.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the House accepts this Motion I do not think that it means that the Members' Gallery is to be opened before prayers. No change is proposed in this respect, and under the suggested arrangement ladies who wish to go into the Members' Gallery would only have to wait five minutes until prayers have concluded.
    Mr. RENDALL: Personally I much regret the alteration which has been made in the Resolution. I think it most unfair to give ladies a preference in this way. Equality will not be obtained if you give ladies a preference in the Ladies' Gallery and give them an equal chance with men in the Strangers' Gallery. Therefore, I propose to ask the House to agree to the reinsertion of the words which have been omitted.
    Sir J. CRAIG: Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the hon. Member that there might be considerable difficulties, but that later on, if it were desired, it would be a very simple matter to do, and perhaps the hon. Member would allow the Motion to go without amendment. I have consulted a good many Members on all sides of the House, and I have made the change at their request, as well as at the request of some of the officials of the House.
    Mr. RENDALL: I quite realise that there may be difficulties, but I think that some protest ought to be made to let the public understand that it is not our intention
    862
    to make permanent this arrangement that gives an advantage to women over men. I have always been in favour of women exercising equal rights with men, but not of giving them a preference. Members' wives do not come in large numbers to the House, and personally I think that we shall find the Ladies' Gallery often empty while the other Gallery is overcrowded. That would be very disadvantageous. As the hon. Baronet has taken some trouble over the matter, and has gathered opinion from all quarters, I will not move my Amendment.
    Resolved,
    "That this House is in favour of the Members' Gallery being open to men and women equally and impartially, and requests Mr. Speaker to make arrangements accordingly."

  SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SPECIAL COMMISSION (BELFAST PRISON) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Commissioner.)
    (1) The Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland, is hereby appointed Commissioner for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting upon, such complaints as to the treatment of prisoners in Belfast prison in the months of June and July, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, as may be presented to the Commissioner in accordance with the procedure which he may prescribe.
    (2) In the event of the said Right Honourable William Huston Dodd dying before the completion of the Report or being unable through illness or other sufficient cause to enter upon or to complete the inquiry and report, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland may, with the consent of any other judge of the said court, appoint that judge Commissioner for the purposes aforesaid or such of them as have not been effected, in the place of the said Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, and may exercise the like power if and so often as any such event occurs in the case of any Commissioner appointed by him.
    (3) In this Act the expression "the Commissioner" includes the Commissioner appointed by this Act and any Commissioner appointed by the Lord Chancellor in pursuance of this Act.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in," and to insert instead thereof the words "Lord Chief Justice of."

    863
    I do not wish in the least degree to reflect on the learned judge whose name appears in the Bill on any ground personal to him. I make the Motion solely on religious grounds, because of a promise made publicly by the Government that this inquiry would be conducted by a Catholic official, namely, The MacDermott, who at that time was, and I believe still is, a member of the Prisons' Board. I have not seen The MacDermott for the last fifteen years, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in a public speech, invited suggestions as to the proper officer who should be appointed to conduct this inquiry. I suggested in this House the name of The MacDermott, son of the late Attorney-General for Ireland and for a long time a member of the Prisons Board, and the Government in a letter published in all the Irish papers accepted that name and stated that The MacDermott would be proposed in the present Act to conduct this inquiry. Then, without any explanation being offered, the Government bring in a Bill appointing a Presbyterian judge to conduct an inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman stated was to be conducted by one of their own Catholic officials. I consider that a monstrous reflection has been by this change cast upon a blameless official, a man of ancient lineage, of fine country family, who has conducted himself in his official position, so far as I know, without reproach. Why is he to be set aside?
    I also object on this ground. I know very well that Mr. Justice Dodd is a man of liberal opinion, who, as Members who cast their minds back seven or eight years will remember, was an honoured and distinguished Member of this House, returned here by the Catholics of Tyrone. Therefore it would be understood that I am not in the least degree objecting to him on any personal grounds whatever, but I propose my Amendment because of the attempt to cast a slight upon a public servant, for no reason that I can see except because of his religion, by the appointment of another gentleman in his place. You could have got Catholic judges if you wished. I have no authority whatever for suggesting the name of the Chief Justice of Ireland. I only put down his name in order to enable me to make this protest. The Chief Justice of Ireland has been entrusted by the late Government, and indeed by the present Government—you never know what to
    864
    call it—but by the Asquith Government, with the conduct of an inquiry into a matter which attracted much attention at the time—the shooting of the men at Bachelors' Walk by the Scottish Borderers in July, 1914. It is very public-spirited of Mr. Justice Dodd to undertake this inquiry which involves much trouble and work, but a Catholic judge could be obtained to conduct the inquiry on the same lines. That does not exhaust the matter, because the Government can easily get other Catholic officials if they take objection to The MacDermott. The Solicitor-General is a Catholic. I certainly would not object to him. There is also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. Henry), a Conservative and Unionist: I would not object to him. He has conducted inquiries for the Government, and he has conducted himself with such ability and impartiality that I am surprised that he has not long since attained high office.
    7.0 P.M.
    Therefore, I shall not be suspected for a moment when I suggest that a Protestant is not a suitable person for conducting this inquiry of trying to take any advantage either with regard to politics or personally, but I suggest that the matter of this inquiry is one affecting the rites of the Catholic religion and Catholic practices, and when the allegation is that over ninety prisoners were herded into confession manacled and herded to Holy Communion manacled, a Catholic official should be the person to inquire into it. The right hon. Gentleman owes, I think, an explanation to the public. He did send down a Catholic official to inquire into this thing—Major Henry Owen Lewis. I would make him a Commissioner. I have made three suggestions: I have suggested three gentlemen, Unionist in colour. We all know the hon. Member for South Derry is a Unionist; that will not, therefore, be challenged. I think The MacDermott is a Unionist, although really I do not know what his politics are, and I believe that Major Lewis also is a Unionist. This matter is one which hag attracted the keenest interest and attention in Ireland. I hold it should be inquired into by someone who understands the nature of the outrage committed on our religion in the persons of these ninety unfortunate prisoners. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should not persist in demanding that a gentleman, however eminent, of a different faith

    865
    from that outraged in this case, should sit on an inquiry into the nature and extent of the outrage and the reprobation attaching to it. The inquiry should be conducted by someone who understands what this indignity meant to the ninety men in question.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) has asked for an explanation why, after having announced that The MacDermott should hold the inquiry, I made an alteration in the arrangement. I will tell the House exactly why it was done. On the 5th of August last this question was raised by the hon. and learned Member himself. Treating him as a Member of Parliament, I discussed with him the constitution of the tribunal, and I think I was justified in doing that with an independent Member of Parliament. Correspondence passed between us about it. Then I saw in a newspaper that the hon. and learned Member was counsel for one of the parties whose case would come before the tribunal. Obviously it was impossible for me to discuss the constitution of the tribunal with the counsel for one of the parties without the other party being present or knowing anything about it. I asked the hon. and learned Member if the report was true, and he did not deny it; consequently I was obliged to cease to discuss the matter with him, and obviously I could not keep the promise I had made on his suggestion when he is going to be counsel for one of the parties, the other party knowing nothing about it. I was bound to set up some other tribunal. The only reason for the change was that I found that the suggestion had been made not by an honourable Member in his capacity as an independent Member of Parliament, dealing with a matter of interest to him and his constituents, but by counsel for one of the parties. That is the sole explanation, and I say without hesitation it was my bounden duty, when I found that to be the case, to make an alteration in the tribunal which I intended to set up. With regard to the proposal to substitute the Lord Chief Justice for Mr. Justice Dodd, may I point out that in these cases, when it is proposed to appoint a judge as a Commissioner it is necessary to consider the work of the Court and to ascertain which judge can best be spared. The Lord Chancellor is the proper person with
    866
    whom to consult on these points and Mr. Justice Dodd, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, was asked and has consented to act. There is no question of politics or of religion in the choice of a Commissioner to preside over this tribunal. If the suggestions made in the allegations are true it will not require a Roman Catholic to know that the treatment to which these men were subjected to was outrageous. From the way in which the hon. and learned Member talks one would imagine that the prisoners are being put on their trial in this matter. But the fact is that they are the persons who are making the charges; those who are going to be tried are not the prisoners but the prison officials—the governor, the doctor, and the police—and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that whether they are Roman Catholics or not, because they are really bringing charges against these prison officials, they are to choose the colour, religious and political, of the persons who are to constitute the tribunal. It is perfectly monstrous that anything of the sort should be suggested. Nothing whatever can be urged against Mr. Justice Dodd, and, under the circumstances, I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to do him very much credit. He has given the House an account, wholly inaccurate as far as I am concerned, of what has taken place. When this matter was under debate the right hon. Gentleman at that Table asked for suggestions from me—I am quoting his words—and the next day having given the matter consideration, I got up on my legs in this House and suggested the name of The MacDermott. I was not counsel for the prisoners, I have never been appointed counsel for them, I am not counsel now for them, I have never been given a brief for them, I have never had a retainer for them, and the right hon. Gntleman who is in receipt of a great salary seizes upon a newspaper paragraph, months after this had occurred, and turns round and because I had suggested the name of The MacDermott, and because I might be counsel for the prisoners, says he cannot carry out his promise to appoint him. I think the right hon. Gentleman has some reason for shame in this transaction, because he closured his own letter to me. I sent the right hon. Gentleman's letter to the Press, the letter in which he asked me that question. I sent my reply to him

    867
    to the Press, but evidently the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that his own letter was unfit for publication.
    Mr. SHORTT: No.
    Mr. HEALY: Why did you not allow it to be published?
    Mr. SHORTT: I did.
    Mr. HEALY: You did not allow it to be published. Will you now allow it to be published?
    Mr. SHORTT: It was published.
    Mr. HEALY: What was?
    Mr. SHORTT: My letter to you.
    Mr. HEALY: Certainly not. Really the Irish air must have an effect on the right hon. Gentleman. The only letter which was published was the letter announcing the appointment of The MacDermott. The right hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter, I will not characterise it now, but I gave a fitting reply to it, and those two letters were closured.
    Mr. SHORTT: That is not correct.
    Mr. HEALY: I say it is absolutely correct.
    Mr. SHORTT: No.
    Mr. HEALY: You have never allowed the letters to appear in the Press.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong. The first letter from him was closured by my direction, but the second letter was not closured, and it can be published at any time.
    Mr. HEALY: It can be published. Why has it not been published? I sent the letter to the Press with my reply some six weeks ago, and not a single Irish paper, by direction of the Censor, has been allowed to publish either the right hon. Gentleman's letter or my reply. I have the letter in type, marked by the newspaper people, "Refused to be published by the Censor." On making inquiry I was told that the Censor was the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. SHORTT: I say it is not so.
    Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that my statement is absolutely correct. The right hon. Gentleman just said the letter was published. In what paper was it published,
    868
    and when was it published? I say it was never published. I say, too, he was ashamed to publish it. And why? Because I gave it a suitable reply. He has now stated, as I understand—and I hope the Press will take notice of that fact—that his letter can be published.
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. HEALY: Therefore, as he is the master of the Censor, I hope the Censor will take notice of that. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to agree that my reply should be published?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.
    Mr. HEALY: I hope the Irish Press will take notice of that. I suppose both letters can be published?
    Mr. SHORTT: Certainly not. The first letter prejudges the whole case.
    Mr. HEALY: A Member of Parliament is entitled either in this House or outside to comment on the action of the Government. I was dealing with the action of the Government. I do not want to insist too much upon personalities. I do not want to wrangle with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it to the Irish public to judge between us. The Irish public include the electors of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and when they see these letters published for the first time, as they will be, I hope, this week, I hope they will compare the right hon. Gentleman's original statement that one letter was published with his present statement. His suggestion is this—and I ask hon. Members to observe the position taken up by the Irish Government—that if an Irish Member in this House invited by the Government to submit a name for an important Commission acts on that invitation and submits a name in public and not in private, that is a good reason why that person should not be appointed. The invitation came from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he was insincere in giving me the invitation. My suggestion may not be the best in the world, but it was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman some days after he had had an opportunity of consulting his colleagues at Dublin Castle upon it. Nobody took any objection to it. His letter was published throughout the length and breadth of Ireland proclaiming that The MacDermott was to be the prison commissioner to inquire into this matter. Out of 5,000,000 of the population of Ireland nobody

    869
    dreamt of taking any exception to the right hon. Gentleman's nomination of that distinguished man. Subsequently the Chief Secretary saw a paragraph in the newspapers which turns out to be quite erroneous, quite untrue, absolutely false, that I was the counsel for these prisoners. There was not a word of truth in it. He wrote me a letter which he did not allow to be published; I sent a reply which he would not allow to be published, and then without a word he cancels his own published undertaking, and after three months he puts forward a wholly different judge. It is not the prisoners, he says, who are on their trial, it is the officials. Does that make it any better? These officials were in the first place to have a Catholic inspector to consider the matter. They are now to have a Protestant judge to consider it, and there is not a man in Ireland who will believe the story of the Chief Secretary as to the secret of this appointment. Here I have the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and his invitation to me, and certainly I say publicly that so long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office I will not accept any invitation which he may offer to me. He says, I will quote the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th August, col. 1024—
    "If my hon. and learned Friend who is always as reasonable and courteous as any man could be—"
    Mr. SHORTT: That was the hon. Member for Somerset.
    Mr. HEALY: The Report says "My hon. and learned Friend," and in parenthesis "Mr. T. M. Healy." It goes on to say—
    "who is always as reasonable and courteous as any man could be, thinks I treated him at all unfairly, I very much regret it. On Thursday I had not made up my mind one way or the other. I wanted to see what the answers were, and who exactly had given the answers. I found there was such a grave difference between the two, that I felt the only proper thing to do was to have a really proper inquiry to decide which of the two was right. Of course, whichever side is right, and whichever side is wrong, the natural consequence of what is grave perjury on one side or the other must follow. That is the position. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, with his great knowledge of both the Irish and the English Bars, will assist me in deciding whom I should ask to conduct the inquiry, in order that the tribunal, whatever it is, may command the widest possible respect both in Ireland and in England."
    These are the words of the Chief Secretary who held me up to public admiration and invited me, as a person "entitled to
    870
    respect," and as a "reasonable and courteous man," to give him a suggestion as to who was the proper person to conduct this inquiry. I replied I should have very great pleasure in giving any assistance I could, and the next day I suggested to him the name of The MacDermott as a suitable person from this Bench in this House. Having responded to the demand of the right hon. Gentleman to give him assistance, the fact that I did so is made a ground for setting The MacDermott aside, and appointing a totally different gentleman in his place. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has been ashamed to allow my letters to appear. The first one is never to appear as prejudging the case. Every speech a Member makes is a prejudgment. We are not judges here; we are partisans; we are agitators in this House. I am not here in any judicial position. I was not asked to give judicial advice as to the appointment of The MacDermott; I was giving my advice in this House as Tim Healy, the Member for Cork. Everybody knows who I am. I am a partisan—a political partisan; but this is a matter affecting the treatment of prisoners, whether in Germany or in Ireland. It does not bring in party politics I hope. If the Germans had taken ninety English prisoners, and compelled them to attend the Protestant Holy Table handcuffed, not once, but twice, what would we have had to say to the Kaiser? That is the case I cited and that has been sworn to on oath. The right hon. Gentleman sent Major Henry Owen Lewis to investigate and report, and had the report before him when he asked me who I thought was the proper person to investigate this matter, and I named one of his own prison officials. The right hon. Gentleman has had a very long experience of promises, and this promise will be treated by the Irish people just in the same way as promises of Home Rule, land for the soldiers, and all the promises that he has made since he has been in office. The reason I go into the matter is that when a gentleman is appointed to a great position he owes something to the dignity of that position to which he is appointed. He is the author of the charge which has brought 100 of these prisoners into internment in England, on an assurance given in this House that they had been guilty of participation in a German plot. The Irish people at all events now know what to think of his word on this small incident affecting the position of one of his own officials.

    871
    Of course, he will not accept the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, a Catholic official, to conduct this inquiry. A Protestant official is to do so. Of course, that does not surprise me, seeing how the Board of Midwives, with one exception, consists of Protestants. As the right hon. Gentleman has taken that line, of course I do not intend to divide in favour of Lord Chief Justice Moloney, but I say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Commission will command no more confidence after what has occurred than his word.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "And such inquiry shall also extend to complaints as to the transfer of said prisoners at any time in Belfast Prison, and to the charges made, and the sentences inflicted on them by visiting justices, and the circumstances of the remission of any such sentences."
    By this Amendment I propose to provide that all complaints of prisoners in the month of June shall be investigated at this inquiry. The reason why these abominable charges as to these prisoners have taken place is because they were sent to Belfast, and because the Government knew that there they were Orange visiting justices, and that if an inquest was necessary in the case of Ashe in Dublin, the murdered man, the friends of the murdered man would only have an Orange tribunal to appeal to, if a coroner was required. He has herded together all the prisoners of Ireland into one concentration camp in Belfast, far away from their homes, imposing upon those persons disability in regard to visits. They cannot be visited in the ordinary way because they are so far removed from their friends. What we want to do is to try and find out the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman has selected Belfast as the venue in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday stated, on another point, that the judge would have power in certain matters—that is habeas corpus, I take it—as to expenses, but the right hon. Gentleman has put down no Amendment. The Bill has been on the Paper now for a couple of days, but he has put down no Amendment. He has left it to us to make a suggestion, and therefore, simply with a view to having this matter investigated by a gentleman who now he admits and proclaims has been selected by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—
    Mr. SHORTT: No, I said with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has appointed him with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and, I now think that it is not too much to ask that the grievances of prisoners, experienced from their being herded at Belfast from Southern districts, should also be included in the inquiry.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the inquiry is into certain matters of fact. A question of policy, like the movement and transfer of prisoners from one prison to another, can be discussed in this House, and should form no part of that inquiry. With regard to the sentences the judge will have power to inquire. This Amendment is totally unnecessary and involves a question of policy and incidentally gives the hon. and learned Member the opportunity of attacking officials who cannot answer him.
    Mr. HEALY: With regard to the charge of attacking officials, is the right hon. Gentleman so delicate in his career that he has never ventured at any stage in this House to criticise persons outside it? We are here for that purpose. That is our function. Officials cannot be here to answer. We are here to criticise them. He is there to answer for them. He is paid for it. That is his function, and to suggest that I got up for the purpose of criticising officials who cannot answer—no, Sir, I am criticising a Chief Secretary who cannot answer me!
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commissioner.)
    The Court held by the Commissioner for the purposes of the inquiry shall be a Court of Record, and the Commissioner for the purposes aforesaid shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland or in any judge thereof, on the occasion of any action save as respects judgment, execution, or costs, and in addition shall have power, if he thinks fit, to enforce the attendance of any person who, in the opinion of the Commissioner, should be examined as a witness, and to examine such person on oath, and the procedure shall be such as may be prescribed by the Commissioner.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end, to add
    "(2) No claim of privilege shall be made to or allowed by the Commissioner in respect of any Report made to the Prisons Board or any books or documents relating to the treatment or punishment of the said prisoners."

    873
    This is a matter which affects the credit of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am moving it because I want to get the Report which Major Henry Owen Lewis made to the Government, and which was before him when he made his speech denying that these prisoners were handcuffed going to Mass, I want to know, Is that Report to be withheld from Mr. Justice Dodd? Major Henry Owen Lewis is the son of an old Member of this House—I think a Conservative Member. He is a major in the Army and a prison official. When this affidavit was made by Mr. Kenny stating that the prisoners were handcuffed going to Mass, Major Henry Owen Lewis was sent down to Belfast to report on the credibility of that and other statements in the affidavit. The prisoners have informed me—and in this matter I should like to make it clear to the House that one of the reasons why I interfere in this matter is this: you gave my nephew five months in this gaol after his brother had offered his life for you in Flanders. That was his reward. He was one of the men whom you handcuffed going to Mass, whom you handcuffed going to Confession, and whom you handcuffed twice going to Communion. The fact that his brother was killed in Flanders did not save him from those indignities. Yet I am told that I am rising in this House to attack officials who cannot be here. The right hon. Gentleman got up in this House with Major Henry Owen Lewis's Report before him and he stated that no such incident had taken place. I am now moving an Amendment to provide that privilege shall not be claimed for this Report. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be in his position the first man to be anxious for its publication, for it will either support him in saying that the story was false, and that Major Henry Owen Lewis denied it and reported that no such thing took place, or it will not. If it does, he at least will have some better chance of having the statements accepted generally by this House and by the people; but if, on the other hand, Major Henry Owen Lewis's Report sets out that the prisoners were handcuffed going to Mass and were handcuffed at Confession to prevent them making the Sign of the Cross, and were handcuffed going to Holy Communion on two occasions, then what will become of the position of the right hon. Gentleman as a man of credibility or as chargeant and author of the suggestion of the German plot. I therefore
    874
    move this Amendment in order to detect whether the word of the Chief Secretary can be always accepted as absolutely accurate in every respect. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, at all events as regards this Amendment, will cordially accept it in order that Major Henry Owen Lewis's report may be given to the world.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have no intention of accepting this Amendment. Mr. Justice Dodd will preside over a Court of Record where he will have all the powers of investigation vested in the High Court. It will be in every sense a judicial Court and a Court of justice, and I am not going to hamper him in his discretion in any way whatever. With regard to the statement made by the hon. and learned Member, this Bill is setting up a Court, with a judge presiding over it, to try the question as to the truth of the assertions he has made. Therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of the House in discussing whether or not those allegations are true or false. That is what the judge will decide.
    Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman will not ride off so easily as he supposes. He knows very well that at the Ashe inquest the Prisons Board claimed privilege for these Reports, and that privilege was allowed by the coroner. He therefore knows that, of course, he will instruct the Prisons Board to claim privilege for Major Henry Owen Lewis's Report. He knows also that it is the invariable practice of judges in Ireland to grant privilege when claimed by a public department. When the Crown come forward and pledge their oath, as they do invariably, that it would not be in the public interest that a particular document should be given, the judge always allows that statement to prevail. Therefore, Major Henry Owen Lewis's Report will not see the light of day, and therefore I will not have the opportunity of proving from a public document that the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew, when he suggested perjury in Kenny's case, that the allegation as to the prisoners being handcuffed was absolutely accurate, and that his statement was a little perhaps inaccurate. I am moving the Amendment for this object. I want it to stand on record as having moved it, because the right hon. Gentleman, with a lack of imagination, perhaps not for the first time shown by holders of his office, does not seem to be aware that what is going on and has gone

    875
    on in Russia for the last six months, or five months at all events, has been largely due to what has been going on in Ireland. Your prisoners have suffered there, I believe, to a great extent. The Irish Chief Secretary is responsible for their torture. Of course he does not see it, but perhaps it will interest him to know that the Russian Ambassador whom they recently put into Brixton Gaol and deported in the end out of London and out of England, spent a very long time in Ireland in the county of Monaghan, and in his dossier always going out from this country was an Irish dossier of what was going on in Dublin and in Irish, gaols on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, let the Committee take notice of the fact that just as when you drop a stone in the pond and the ripple widens so your Irish policy has hit you abroad. It has hit you in German prisons; it has hit you in Russian prisons, and in this case the right hon. Gentleman is taking up the very stand which is taken up in despotic countries when prisoners have been cruelly ill-treated and when reports have been made exposing the cruelty, and he has denied the cruelty and has sup pressed the reports which would disaffirm his own statement.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Examination of, and Indemnity to, Witnesses.)
    (1) A person examined as a witness under this Act shall not be excused from answering any question put to him, or from producing any document, on the ground that the answer thereto or production thereof may criminate or tend to criminate him, but any answer so given shall not be evidence against that person in any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) at any time thereafter instituted against him, and any document so produced shall not be evidence against him in any such proceeding unless the production of that document could be enforced in those proceedings or evidence of that document could be otherwise obtained in any such proceedings.
    (2) Nothing in this Section shall apply to the case of proceedings for having given false evidence before the Commissioner, or for having procured, or attempted or conspired to procure, the giving of such evidence.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end, to add
    "(3) It shall not be lawful to employ any of the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Acts to prohibit the publication of any statement made, or evidence given, before the Commissioner, and no order made by or in the name of the competent naval or military authority shall apply thereto.
    876
    (4) The inquiry shall not be held in the county of the city of Belfast."
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a prince of closurers and that there is no hope of this Amendment being accepted. But he is also on record as stating that this would be a public inquiry. He has made that statement in the case of the inquiry which was to have been conducted by The MacDermott. Public inquiries in Ireland take this shape. The Press are admitted to the presence of the judge, and when anything unpleasant for the Government appears in the evidence the competent naval or military authority, as the case may be, strikes out the passage as to what has happened in the Court of Justice and do not allow it to appear. I am, therefore, taking this precaution in order to advise the public that the reports of this inquiry will be a sham. My proposal is that the evidence shall not be closured or censored. I would remind the House of what happened in the case of another public inquiry, namely, the inquiry into the murder of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington. The Government, although they presented a Report, have not allowed the evidence to be published. The English papers give very slight accounts, naturally enough, of all that goes on in the country. That is the great saving of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not be able to stand on a platform in Newcastle-on-Tyne if the people knew the way he was carrying on in Ireland. It is because he can control the Press and prevent Members from knowing what is going on that he of course is saved for the time being by taking that course. We have memories of other Chief Secretaries whose downfall has been witnessed year after year, and while it would be a very poor satisfaction to anybody to hear of the downfall of the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time it is necessary for all purposes, and for the purpose of making the historic protest which the Irish race have carried on in the House to expose the pretences of the advocates of small nationalities, in order to enable the public at large to see how much wisdom or how much hypocrisy there goes into these declarations. I therefore move my Amendment to give the public an assurance of knowing that at all events they will get some inkling of what is going on in this proposed Court.
    Mr. SHORTT: The first of these Amendments apparently amounts to this, that I should accept an Amendment giving

    877
    power to any person who chooses to break the law of the land. The Defence of the Realm Regulations are the law of the land. People can publish anything which does not contravene these Regulations, but it is impossible for me to accept an Amendment which is in effect to give power to anybody that chooses to contravene these Regulations, and therefore to break the law of the land. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the learned judge would himself have complete control over the venue, and I do not propose to accept any Amendment which takes that control away from him.
    Mr. HEALY: I would not propose anything to enable the law of the land to be broken, but I propose an Amendment to enable what witnesses swear in a Court of justice to be published, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was sufficient of a lawyer to be able to understand that Amendment. All my proposition is that the witnesses giving evidence in a Court of justice on oath should have the privilege of having their side of the story told to the public. The Censor will not publish their side of the story. I want to take that power from him, and, forsooth, that is to break the law of the land!
    Mr. SHORTT: This has nothing to do with the Censor.
    Mr. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman is in such close touch with the censorship, if he assures me that the Censor will not intervene to prohibit the publication of these Reports, that will entirely meet my view. That is what I want to ensure. He suggests that that is breaking the law of the land, and that this has nothing to do with the Censor. I do not pretend that my Amendment is drafted with that aptness which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would bring to it if he drafted it himself, but at all events my object can be met by his statement that he controls the Censor. He prevents his own letters being published. He now says he releases the Censor. I ask him similarly to say to the Censor that this evidence may be published, and I go no further than that. Remember that this is evidence upon oath, which a man will give at the peril of a prosecution for perjury—a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has trumpeted up and down in every phase of the Debate. He said here yesterday that provision would be made which would enable Mr. Justice Dodd to obtain the evidence of the
    878
    prisoners in England and English prisons, but he has put down no Amendment in that sense. Does he intend to do so?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is not necessary.
    Mr. HEALY: Mr. Justice Dodd has power then to obtain by order the release of these prisoners and to bring them over? Has he also power to provide the expenses of witnesses from any part of the country? The right hon. Gentleman is so liberal in the matter of releasing these prisoners from England and in providing the expenses of the witnesses, that I would ask him while in mild mood to say that he will extend to the Censor his benediction in allowing the evidence in a Court of justice to be published.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words,
    "nor shall the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, apply to the case of such proceedings."
    The evidence of these prisoner witnesses is not to be allowed to be published, but that of the prison witnesses, the warders, will of course be blazoned in all the newpapers, and in due time the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he is to have prosecutions for perjury by the prisoners. Mr. Kenny is one of those who is to be prosecuted for perjury if, as I understand, he is contradicted by a prison witness. The Government have issued a Proclamation during the last few months providing that all trials must be tried in such venue as they select, if they choose to intervene, and before a special jury. They have sent one prisoner in the South of Ireland—they have tried to send more—to Belfast for trial. In the long history of Ireland, except in accordance with the Statute under a venue site Act, no Government until the right hon. Gentleman came into office as a Liberal has sent a prisoner from the South of Ireland to Belfast for trial. He did that under the Crimes Act, and I am now moving that if these prisoners or any of them are indicted for perjury—because that would be one of his devices in order to show the equality and impartiality of British law—because they are contradicted by the warders, the recent Proclamation shall not in their case be operative and they shall be tried in a venue which would be the natural venue in their case.
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not yet fully understand what the point of the Amendment as put forward by the hon. Member is, and I do not see that it is in the least necessary, nor do I see why these people, whether officials or otherwise, should be in a different position from anybody else in Ireland.
    Mr. HEALY: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to follow the words of my Amendment. I will not therefore trouble him with an explanation of them, but I would only say that they are at least clearer than his own policy.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. HEALY: I object. There is no reason why the Third Beading should be taken immediately after the Committee stage.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A single ob-pection before Eleven does not stop the Bill being taken.
    An HON. MEMBER: I object.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Objection does not stop the Bill being taken.
    Mr. HEALY: I am sure that except by general consent it has been frequently laid down that the two stages of a Bill cannot be taken at the same sitting. It is quite true that with general assent it can be done, but the result in this case is that it deprives us of consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's lucid statements for the purpose of considering to-morrow our attitude towards this Bill. I therefore suggest to you, Sir, that the true course is to postpone the Third Reading. There is no hurry about this Bill, because it has been delayed for over three months already, and therefore to suggest that there is any hurry for the Third Reading to-night would be entirely baseless.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not really in my jurisdiction. It is for the House to decide whether or not the Bill shall be read the third time.
    Mr. HEALY: With great deference, Sir, that is not the question. I submit that it is in your discretion to say whether you will put that question on the same day that you have allowed the Committee stage to be taken.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no point for the Chair to intervene upon. If the Third Reading is named, it is a question whether the House will refuse to take the Third Reading or not.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 3.

    Division No. 86.]

    AYES.

    [7.58 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Pratt, John William

    Barnston, Maj. Harry

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

    Rees, Sir J. D

    Bigland, Alfred

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hibbert, Sir Henry

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub. U.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Shortt, Edward

    Boyton, Sir James

    Holmes, D. T.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Horne, Edgar

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G.

    Hudson, Walter

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Cator, John

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Weston, John W.

    Cheyne, Sir William W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kenyan, Barnet

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Colvin, Col.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon Sir James B.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Colonel Sanders.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Finney, Samuel

    NOES.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    King, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Byrne.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork City)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read a third time, and passed.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the administrative expenses of any local or joint committee (including the expenses of any subcommittee thereof) established or appointed under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better administration of the enactments relating to naval, military, and air force war pensions, grants, and allowances."
  Mr. BOOTH: The House having arrived at this stage of the Resolution, I must again ask the Government to observe the pledges of their Leader. It is almost beyond belief that time after time one should have to reproach the Unionist Ministers of the Government with entirely ignoring the pledges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a very close observer of the customs of the House, is here, I had hoped that, at any rate, he would take the proper steps under this Resolution, and it is with a great amount of sorrow that I draw the attention of the House to the fact that he has not offered to make any comment to the House about this important Resolution. What was the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? My hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of this Motion will remember that time after time this House hung up the Resolution relating to the Emigration Bill on the point of expenses, and, in deference to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, is conspicuous amongst the Ministers, always anxious to gather the spirit and intention of the House, had to come down to settle that controversy, and he then gave to the House his own view of what the procedure should be. It was to this effect, that wherever possible a limit should be put in these Financial Resolutions. Where that was not possible—it may be so in this case; I do not know. This is a
  882
  Resolution which is not on the paper, but which one can get by going to the Clerk of the Table; otherwise we cannot see it—but where it was not possible, it was desirable that the Minister should explain to the House why he did not advise the insertion of the limit. I am never unreasonable. When a Minister came down and suggested £5,000, I immediately moved £10,000, so that he should not be crippled through inadvertence, because it was no desire on the part of the Committee that he should be penalised by the House. I mention that to show that if my hon. Friend said his Resolution did not admit of a limit, or if he did insert a limit, I, for one, would not hold him to too narrow a margin. But it was a pledge to this House, which, I think, ought to be observed, that either the Minister himself should say within what monetary bounds he would like to be held, or, if that were not possible, he would explain to the House why he did not advise a limit.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): I have no desire to contravene the spirit or intention of the House, and the only reason I did not get up before was that I knew my hon. Friend was going to speak, and I thought the House would like to hear him first. The sole object of this Resolution is as follows. As things are at the present time, in accordance with an Act passed last year, two-thirds of the administrative expenses of any local or joint pensions committee fall on the State and one-third on the local rates. It is proposed, by a Bill read a second time yesterday, in future that the whole amount shall fall on the State and no part on the local rates. That will involve a certain additional charge upon the State. It is necessary, therefore, that we should get this Resolution, the reasons for the change having been fully given during Debate yesterday and generally accepted. But it is really impossible for me to give a limit. These administrative expenses naturally vary from year to year, and as more men are discharged it is almost impossible to estimate precisely what the addition will be. In order that we may get the Bill, and in order that proper control may be exercised by the Pensions Ministry,

  883
  which cannot be exercised now, owing to the fact that part of the expense falls on the local rates, and that control has to be exercised by the Local Government Board, which does not profess to have a complete knowledge of pensions' administration, I think it is only reasonable that I should ask the House to agree to this Resolution so that we may proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill next week.
  Mr. BOOTH: I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy, and for his very straight reply, but surely some estimate has been formed by the Department as to what this cost will be. I will say now that if he can indicate some of the limits I shall be satisfied. Is it £500,000, £100,000, or £50,000, or what is it? If such an estimate has been formed, and he can give us any idea whether it will be a large or a small sum, I do not intend on this occasion to move for the limit to be inserted. Therefore I will not take any advantage of any suggestion he gives, but I do think we are entitled to know what his view is. Will he give us some indication whether it is a moderate sum or a very heavy sum? I will be content with that.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I can assure my hon. Friend it is not a heavy sum. At the same time, it is really impossible to give any estimate. It is not like a new charge, but is only adding to an existing charge. There is a charge of two-thirds now.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BOOTH: I will not detain the House very long. I want to take the earliest opportunity of informing the Government of the serious risk they run in threatening the future existence of the great friendly societies. The answer on
  884
  behalf of the Prime Minister to-day, on a very serious subject, was that communications had been received by the War Cabinet that the friendly societies and trades unions of this country were prepared to offer the strongest opposition to any so-called Ministry of Health Bill, which is nothing but a sham and which links them up with the Local Government Board and the Poor Law. I want to say that that opposition will be maintained throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Really the hon. Member is now discussing a question of legislation, and it is not in order on a Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not wish to propose legislation. What I want to deal with is the answer to the Minister. What I want to point out is this, that in the present administration of the Insurance Act the voluntary principle is preserved. The position is challenged. What is the consequence of that? Negotiations are going on behind the back of this House—I do not know to what effect, and I am putting a question on the Paper—but it seems to me that the Government ought to be warned that the friendly societies and trades unions of this country require more definite recognition than what they have had.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is directing his criticism to some answers to a question relating to legislation. You cannot evade the Rules of the House in that way.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg your pardon. I am directing my remarks with regard to negotiations, and what I want to make clear—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That will not do. These negotiations are in connection with legislation proposed, or likely to be proposed, to the House. That is not in order on the Adjournment of the House.
  Mr. BOOTH: Very well, I will leave that and I will state to the House what the position is with regard to administration. In the administration of the Insurance Act, as he House well knows, the voluntary principle is observed, and it seems to me quite clear that the friendly societies and the approved societies must exist only upon that voluntary basis. What has been the case with regard to this administration?

  885
  They find that the institutions granted by the House are formed of National Commissioners. There are National Commissioners in Ireland, National Commissioners in Wales, National Commissioners in Scotland, and by consequence, though not directly, perhaps, we get Commissioners in England. Now these societies have been going on for some time on this voluntary basis, and there is no doubt have commended themselves generally to the country. On administration in this House one of the Whips usually answers, or in this case the Comptroller of the Household. Now we find that these matters are being taken charge of by another Government Department. I protest against that, and I say that all matters relating to these societies ought to go through the Comptroller of the Household, who represents the Insurance Commissioners. Those Insurance Commissioners were at first objected to on the ground that it would lead to increased expenses, and to a certain extent would lead to divided accounts. My view upon that was this, that although in the case of Wales her people if by having separate accounts their experience would not be as good as if there was an International Association, yet if it evoked a national spirit that it would amply repay for any financial loss the actuaries might find. What has been the case? It has been the case that in Wales patriotic citizens have come forward in a national spirit, and have liberally found money for the treatment of tuberculosis among the South Wales miners. I venture to urge upon the Government that this is not a time to withdraw their confidence from these National Commissioners. What they may propose I do not know, but I wish to give my testimony at once that I think they have done very good work in all the four countries. I claim that the Government ought to pay the greatest attention to the representations of these great societies which they created. Men have not been paid for their services. No one could say that the remuneration in the Insurance Act is a proper reward for the amount of time and energy which has been put into this question, and, while I
  886
  have never been an advocate in this House for vested interests, I say that the friendly society officials, the trade union officials and industrial insurance agents who have given ample time to this work should receive proper payment and be entitled to consideration when their future is at stake.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already three times drawn the hon. Member's attention that he is not in order and I shall not call his attention to it again.
  Mr. BOOTH: I quite see, of course, that the Rules of the House do prevent me from anticipating legislation, but it was because there was an added danger that I think I am entitled to protest. It is not mere fear of legislation, but I think there is a fear of altered administration, and I think I am entitled to warn the Government against an alteration in administration. The point is this: This great insurance scheme was put under the Treasury. By being put under the Treasury it lost what other schemes get in the way of an advocate in this House, because the Treasury stands, of course, for economy, and is a great critic upon all spending Departments. The Local Government Board, the Home Office, and the Education Office, have their spokesmen in this House, and the Treasury is a critic who has care of the public purse. But unfortunately for the Insurance Act the administration was placed under the Treasury and I want to make a complaint on that ground. What I think is seriously at fault is that when the Government comes to consider the future administration of this Act it has not got a spokesman while every other Government department has. Therefore I think that is all the more reason why the Government should pay attention to the great friendly societies, the great approved societies and the trade unions, who in this matter are going to start a campaign which will ring from one end of the country to the other.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Eight o'clock.