Sitting of 21 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Silloth Gas.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Northern Junction Railway Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NAVY (BATTLE PRACTICE).
Copy presented of Result of Battle Practice in His Majesty's Fleet, 1912 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5054 and 5055 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 15th April, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 78 of the Act, entitled the National Health Insurance (County Borough of Barnsley Insurance Committee) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance Commission (Wales) Deposit Contributors (Administration Expenses) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 77.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners,

3
entitled the National Health Insurance (Qualifications of Midwives) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 78.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer from Voluntary to Employed Rate) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 79.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Intermediate Employers) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80.]
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 16th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Outworkers) Amendment Regulations (England), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the boroughs of Southport (4), Beverley (2), and Evesham, and the Council of the urban district of Hebburn, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction (Scotland) Order, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SOLDIERS' EMPLOYMENT.
Return ordered, "Of the number of persons holding, on the 31st day of March, 1913, (1) established, (2) unestablished appointments as messengers, postmen, watchers, warders, park-keepers, attendants, porters, and similar situations, other than clerical appointments, in the several Government Departments, showing the number of such persons who previously served in His Majesty's Regular Army and Navy and the percentage of places held by ex-Army and ex-Navy men to the other places in question."—[Colonel Yate.]

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "Showing for each financial year commencing the 1st day of April from 1875 to 1913, inclusive:—

(1) The total amount of deadweight Debt outstanding on the 1st day of April, the amounts which were made available in each year to 1912–13, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and Miscellaneous Receipts, the gross amount of Debt redeemed, the amount of Debt created, and the net increase or decrease of Debt in the year;

(2) A similar Statement in respect of other capital liabilities;

(3) A similar Statement in respect of the aggregate gross liabilities of the State."—[Mr. Gulland.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Consular Service (Russia).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the sums expended in Consular Services in the Russian Empire by Great Britain and by Germany, respectively; and what is the amount, of the additional estimate proposed for strengthening the British Consular Service in Russia and the character and extent of the proposed improvements?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The amount expended on the British Consular Service in Russia for the year 1912–13 was £13,369. I am not in a position to state the sum expended by Germany. Under the Estimates for 1913–14 which have been laid before the House an additional £3,816 is proposed to be devoted to the British Consular Service in Russia. The increase will be expended on increased remuneration to His Majesty's Consular officers, on strengthening the staffs of the Consulates, and on creating salaried Vice-Consulates at Rostov, Novorossisk, and Omsk; and an unsalaried Vice-Consulate at Ekaterinburg.
  Colonel YATE: Will the Consulate at St. Petersburg be raised to the rank of a Consulate-General?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Colonel YATEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the question of raising the requirements of candidates for the British Consular Service in Russia, such, for instance, as the admission of the Russian language as a subject for the consular examinations of the Foreign Office and provision for the special training of student interpreters for service in the Russian Empire?
  Mr. ACLAND: The matter has been carefully examined. It is not considered desirable to adopt either of the alternatives suggested by the hon. and gallant Member's question; but the second suggestion will be in great measure met by sending to Russia to learn the language some of the six redundant Vice-Consuls or probationers provided for under the new scheme recently introduced.

  Irish Lambs (Detention at British Ports).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the British ports at which Irish lambs have been landed this season, the number at each port, the number that were tendered sustenance and partook of it, the number that refused and the number that were forcibly fed, and the means used and the nature of the food tendered at the respective ports; and whether the experience gained disposes him to the belief that detention and forcible feeding is unnecessary and inhuman?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): According to the latest information received by the Board, 510 Irish lambs have been landed this season at Birkenhead, twenty at Cardiff, three at Ayr, and three at Glasgow. All except those landed at Glasgow, which were accompanied by their dams, were offered food—hay, ground oats, or milk—and partook of it readily. None refused food, and none were forcibly fed. The experience gained so far proves that the arrangements made for feeding lambs at the landing places have been completely successful, and that this trade is now much less open to the charge of cruelty than heretofore.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the lambs took hay and ground oats?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, those of them that were able to do so. The majority, however, toot milk.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Had they to be forcibly fed?
  Mr. DELANY: How were they fed? Were they fed out of feeding bottles?
  Mr. CONDON: No, they were fed on oats.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department has made any representations to the President of the English Board of Agriculture as to the loss inflicted on Irish exporters of young lambs by the twelve hours' detention at English ports; and with what result?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The reply is in the negative. No complaints as to losses of the nature referred to have been addressed to the Department.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to issue the Report of the Small Holdings Commission for 1912?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Report is in the Press, and, I hope, will be issued in a few days' time.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the right hon. Member whether, in view of the in structive character of the Report of the Departmental Committee on buildings for small holdings and the plans and specifications annexed thereto and the fact that the sale price of 11s. 3d. places it beyond the reach of a large number, if not the majority, of those most likely to profit by its perusal, he will make arrangements for its publication at a price which will make it more accessible to such persons?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I concur entirely with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman in this question. I have been in communication with the Publications Committee of this House and with the Stationery Office on the subject, and I am informed that a proposal to reissue the Report at a much reduced price is receiving favourable consideration. I hope to be in a position to make a more definite announcement at an early date.

  Elementary School Accommodation.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has seen

  7
  the figures of elementary school accommodation and attendance recently issued by the Liverpool education authority, which show that in Liverpool there are 132,699 school places and 131,620 on the roll; whether he is aware that if the scholars of Liverpool were arranged in class-rooms for sixty children each there would only be one place unoccupied in every second class-room; and whether he proposes to call for an increased margin of accommodation?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The latest available figures show a recognised accommodation of 132,083, and an average number on the books of 131,299. The question of public elementary school accommodation in Liverpool is engaging the close attention of the local education authority and the Board, and, as I informed the hon. Member on 31st March, the Board hope that the steps taken will be sufficient to prevent overcrowding.
  Mr. LEACHasked what is the standard number of square feet per scholar which the Education Department imposes upon school authorities in estimating the accommodation of any school building?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I must refer the hon. Member to the Building Regulations published by the Board. The Board require in public elementary schools 10 square ft. for each older scholar and 9 square ft. for each infant. In higher elementary schools 12 square ft. is required. In secondary schools the Board require 16 square ft. for each scholar. There are no separate Regulations for technical schools or schools of art. In schools certified under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, for mentally defective and epileptic children, 15 square ft. are required per scholar, and in schools for physically defective children 18 square ft. These requirements are subject to modification as the result of various rules as to the minimum area of the room and the maximum size of the classes.
  Mr. LEACH: In how many cases has the 10 and 9 ft. arrangement been set aside?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am not aware of any at the present moment. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars I shall be glad to receive them.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Why is there a difference in the requirement in the case of an elementary school and an acquired elementary school?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: On account of the average age of the children.

  Acting Teachers' Examination.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the right hon. Gentleman (1) whether, in view of the fact that the acting teachers' examination has been made harder during each of the years 1907 to 1910, inclusive, he will explain why a person having passed the comparatively low standard in 1906 should be at a greater advantage for promotion to head teacher than one having passed the higher standard in 1910; and (2) whether Article 9 of the Code states that persons passing the acting teachers' examination in and after 1910 are not eligible for the post of head teacher; whether he is aware that this, if so, greatly handicaps a person in his competition with others; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: The article referred to was first inserted in the Code for 1909–10 for the improvement of the staffing in public elementary schools, foreshadowed in Circular 709. I think that, a distinction between teachers who have and have not received a college training is desirable in the interests of educational efficiency. When the distinction was first introduced it was necessary to fix a date at which it should become operative. Those who obtained their certificates by the acting teachers' examination before August, 1910, enjoy an advantage of which the Board could not have deprived them without creating a grievance.

  School Children (Medical Treatment).
  Mr. WRIGHTasked whether the full £60,000 was granted to the various local education authorities in respect of medical treatment of school children for the year 1912–13, and the amounts of the individual Grants to such authorities?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: The total amount expended was £50,374 16s. 7d. Two hundred and twenty-nine local education authorities received Grant, which varied in amount from £2 8s. 3d. paid to Chelmsford to £13,683 13s. 10d. paid to London. It is not possible for me to give the whole of the figures in answer to a question, but

  9
  I will be glad to give the hon. Member any further particulars he desires.

  Necessitous School Areas.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has had representations made to him by deputations from necessitous school areas to the effect that they consider the Government has not kept faith with them in not making good his promise to pay three-quarters of the education rate in excess of 1s. 6d. in the pound within those areas; and whether he has informed the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the educational interests of these poor districts must suffer if the necessary money for this purpose is not forthcoming?
  Mr. PEASE: Representations have been made to me as to the difficulty in which necessitous areas are placed by the reduction in the amount received this year under the Regulations, but I am not aware that it has been suggested that the Government has broken its promise in the matter. The Regulations for the last five years have provided for a pro rata reduction of the claims of the various authorities in case the total Grant under them exceeded the fixed sum voted by Parliament. The whole subject is under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I say I did not charge the Government with not keeping their promise, but with not having kept faith with the local authorities. May I ask whether they were led to expect that two-thirds of all the expenditure beyond the 1s. 6d. rate would be paid from the Exchequer?
  Mr. PEASE: I think in connection with the original Grant that proportion was agreed upon. Then a rearrangement was entered into by which an additional £150,000 was given to those authorities, and a large number which were included at that time were not included on the first occasion.

  Infant Mortality.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the figures of the recent Census entirely disprove the contention that the declining birth-rate is not compensated by reduced infant mortality; and whether, in view of this fact, he will withdraw the present Estimates and propose others based on correct figures?
  Mr. PEASE: I have seen no figures of the recent Census which tend to show that I have underestimated the number of children in respect of whose attendance at public elementary schools Grants will fall due in the financial year 1913–14; but, on the contrary, since those Estimates were framed I have received further Returns, showing that the slight diminution in the number of children which was noticed last year has still continued. With regard to the relation between the decline in the birth-rate and in the death-rate as bearing upon the matter, I may point out that the schools feel the whole brunt of the fall in the birth-rate, but only experience a share in the counterbalancing gain arising from the fall in the death-rate.
  Mr. KING: Did the right hon. Gentleman approach the Registrar-General for advance figures of the Census in this connection?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes, I have been in consultation with the Local Government Board.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the diminution in the West of England is far more serious this year than it was last?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not any particulars, but I shall be very glad to receive them.

  Auxiliary Postman M'Sweeney (Carriganimmy).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that auxiliary postman James M'Sweeney, of Carriganimmy, county Cork, is the local parish secretary of the secret sectarian and political order known as the Board of Erin, A.O.H.; that this man is frequently guilty of neglect of duty in the delivery of letters by attending funerals of the members of his order during official hours, and that meetings of this secret society have been held in the Carriganimmy Post Office, belonging to his sister; and, seeing that M'Sweeney organised a political invasion from Macroom and Ballyvourney and other outside districts to the Carriganimmy Catholic Church on Sunday, 23rd March, which nearly led to a riot in the precincts of the church, will he say whether it is with his sanction that a Post Office official organises church parades of a political nature which are offensive and provocative to the majority of the people of the district?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have made further special inquiry into this case through an officer unconnected with the district, and have obtained a statement, among others, from the chairman of the local branch of the All-for-Ireland League. This gentleman states that he has never heard of any meetings of the Ancient Order of Hibernians being held at the Carriganimmy Post Office, and does not believe that such meetings have been held there. He also states that he never heard of the postman Mr. McSwiney doing any of the things mentioned in the question, and that there is nothing against him so far as he knows. The sub-mistress and the postman categorically deny the charges made, and the whole of the evidence, which has been obtained from several reliable quarters, corroborates their statements. There is not a single adverse entry in the postman's official record during the whole of his twelve and a half years' service, and I am satisfied that there is no foundation whatever for the charges made against this useful officer of the Department or against the sub-post-mistress of the village.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Did this officer himself deny that he was absent at any time during official hours as stated in the question?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole matter was inquired into and all the points were specifically put. I do not think that point was omitted so far as I remember.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Am I to understand that he has given a denial that he was absent during official hours, because, if so, I can produce evidence that he was?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand there has been such a denial.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Did the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the incident at the church, and whether this officer organised an invasion of a political kind?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have made careful inquiry into that and he certainly did not organise it. A number of people belonging to the local branch of this society attended mass early in the morning and this postman was among them. I understand it was not in official hours, he was not in uniform, and he took no part in organising it.

  Accountant-General's Department.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department is considering any scheme of reorganisation in the Accountant-General's Department which is likely to affect the position or prospects of the sorter-tracers at present employed there; and, if so, whether he will consult the representatives of this staff before finally adopting any scheme affecting their interests?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A scheme is under consideration, and particulars of it have been communicated to the Staff Associations concerned.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of his Department, when an application for the installation of a telephone is received, to require the intending subscriber to sign a contract, binding him to take and pay the subscription for a telephone without receiving any undertaking on the part of the Department as to the period within which the telephone shall be installed; whether the subscriber is frequently obliged to wait for three months and more without his telephone and without any redress; and whether it is possible in each case to indicate in the contract some reasonable period during which the Post Office is bound to supply the telephone which the subscriber binds himself to take?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the fact that an intending subscriber is required to sign a contract for his telephone installation before the work is put in hand. When it is reasonably possible the time within which the service can be provided is indicated, but in some cases it is difficult to do so, owing to the provision of the particular lines being dependent on general extensions of the system, which are subject to uncertain delays, due to wayleave and other difficulties. No payment is required from subscribers till their lines are ready, and if in the meantime they desire to cancel their agreements reasonable arrangements can be made.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Could not the Department adopt a form of contract which would give an intending subscriber some idea as to the time in which he could get a connection and some right to cancel the contract?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Subscribers are told as soon as possible. It does not depend on the Department. Frequently way leaves have to be obtained, and local authorities have to be consulted and not seldom raise difficulties causing delay for which the Department is not in any way responsible.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Could they not ascertain the facts?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, frequently not. I shall deal with the matter fully on the Estimates on Thursday.

  London Postal Service.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General what exceptional reasons are there to justify the extension of the ago limit beyond sixty years for pension in favour of an assistant superintendent at the north-western district office; and whether, having regard to the stagnation of promotion, he will discourage such applications for extension?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is considered desirable in the interests of the Department to retain the services of the officer in question for the present. While I am empowered to call upon any officer to retire on reaching the age of sixty, it is not the rule to enforce retirement at sixty if an officer is thoroughly efficient, and his retention is in the interests of the service.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why a sorter in the London postal service who has been acting as overseer at intermittent periods for the past six years and continuously for the last twelve months, for which latter period he has received substituting pay for the higher class, has recently been informed that he is incompetent; and whether he is aware that such action indicates either that an inefficient officer has been kept to duties and paid for the same, or that he is fully qualified and is being unfairly treated to make room for a junior officer who has done comparatively little acting, but is somewhat of a favourite?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The officer to whom the question is understood to refer has not been informed that he is incompetent. He has performed overseers' duties as substitute with varying degrees of success, and, while he cannot be promoted so long as better qualified officers are available, his trial has been prolonged in his
  14
  own interests in order to afford him every opportunity of proving his fitness for promotion. It is hoped that a definite conclusion will be reached soon. There is no ground for the suggestion of unfair treatment or favouritism.

  Auxiliary Rural Postmen (Boys).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether boys acting as auxiliary rural postmen are required to carry parcels to the weight of 50 lbs. and will not be allowed the use of a bicycle; and whether, if a case of the kind is brought to his notice, he will direct that a bicycle be allowed?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The maximum weight which auxiliary postmen in rural districts may be required to carry on foot has been 35 lbs. for many years. A medical inquiry was made into the question in 1909 and no change was recommended. It is not the practice to employ boys upon such duties. In deciding the question whether it is desirable to allow the use of a bicycle in any particular case, it is necessary to take into account, among other things, the nature of the round and the condition of the roads.
  Mr. FARRELL: If I send the right hon. Gentleman particulars of this case will he, whilst inquiring into it, guarantee that the boy will not be dismissed for making a complaint?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly. I will very readily give that guarantee and shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will give me any facts in his knowledge which show that hardship has been suffered.

  Postal Facilities (Cornglass).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a densely populated district between Longford and Esker post offices has only a bi-weekly delivery, which is an inconvenience to the people residing in the townlands around Cornglass manor; and will he direct that the boy messenger delivery which was given up to recently in this district be resumed forthwith?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has apparently been misinformed. In the district between Longford and Esker there is a delivery of letters each week-day, except in the thinly populated district round Carrickglass, where a delivery on four days a week is afforded. I

  15
  am informed that no change has been made in the delivery arrangements in the district recently.
  Mr. FARRELL: That is the very district about which the question is put. Does the information the right hon. Gentleman has got come from the office in which it was suggested that this four-day delivery was substituted for a weekly delivery?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The information comes from the surveyor of the district.
  Mr. FARRELL: Am I not right in saying it is from the local office in question that the right hon. Gentleman is getting his information?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is a question about facts about which there can be no doubt, whether there is a weekly or a four-day delivery, and an officer of the Department cannot say there is a weekly delivery if there is not.
  Mr. FARRELL: Did he say there was a weekly delivery which has been changed to a four-day delivery? We want the four-day delivery returned to.

  Shetland Mails.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he has received representations from Shetland complaining of the repeated delays in delivering the mails, thereby causing inconvenience to the whole county; and if he will make such representation to the steamship company as will prevent such delays in future?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received such representations and am taking steps in the matter. I will communicate with the hon. Member further.

  West Ham Union (Outdoor Relief).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. R. T. L. Parr, the Local Government Board auditor, recently said to the guardians in the West Ham Union, as to certain cases where the guardians had given out-door relief, that he found it difficult to hold that persons in receipt of out-relief were actually destitute, and that there was no legal definition of that word either by Statute or Order of the Local Government Board; and whether, seeing that by the
  16
  Poor Law Acts of 1603 and 1834 it is the duty of the guardians to give necessary relief to the poor, and that these two Statutes imposing the duty of giving relief never employ the term destitute or actually destitute, but only the terms poor and necessary relief, and that the majority of the Royal Commissioners more than four years ago, after discussing the word "destitute," said that they preferred the term necessitous as more accurately describing those who are at present held to be qualified for relief, he will inform Mr. Parr and other auditors that in future they need not inquire whether a person is destitute or actually destitute, but only whether he is necessitous or, being poor, needs relief?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I understand that the question substantially indicates what was said by the auditor. But I cannot think that the word "necessitous" would have any different meaning from that of "destitute," as interpreted in the Circular to which I have called the hon. Member's attention some days ago.

  Housing of Working Classes.
  Mr. ROYDSasked the number of cottages erected by local authorities under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts for the years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, respectively?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of houses for the erection of which the Local Government Board sanctioned loans under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, during the years 1910–13, is:—

  For the year ended 31st March,

  1910

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  270

  For the year ended 31st March,

  1911

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  471

  For the year ended 31st March,

  1912

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1,021

  For the year ended 31st March,

  1913

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1,880

  Since the 1st instant I have sanctioned loans for sixty-four houses, and there are at the present time applications before me for sanction to loans for the erection of some 1,700 houses.

  Labour Exchanges (Boys and Girls).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of boys under seventeen

  17
  and the total number of girls under seventeen remaining on the registers of the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges on 31st December, 1912, and 14th April, 1913; the number of vacancies notified for which these boys and girls would be eligible between 1st January and 14th April, 1913; and the number of vacancies filled during the same period?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The numbers of boys under seventeen and of girls under seventeen remaining on the registers of the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges at the end of December, 1912, were 3,123 and 2,202 respectively. These figures are much affected by the Christmas holidays. The corresponding figures at the 14th March, 1913, were 4,494 and 4,674. The number of vacancies notified by employers between 18th January and 14th March, inclusive, was 23,575 for boys and 15,978 for girls. The corresponding numbers of vacancies filled during the same period were 14,264 for boys and 10,777 for girls. Owing to a change of the date to which the monthly returns are made up no figures can be given for the first half of January. No figures are at present available for a later date than 14th March, 1913.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Joseph Hart, No. 39/D 133, lodged his unemployment insurance book at the Dartford Labour Exchange and has had his unemployment vacant ticket signed continuously from 24th February to 10th April; that up to the present time no definite decision has been given by the Board of Trade as to whether he is entitled to unemployment benefit or otherwise; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have made inquiries into the question raised by my hon. Friend, and I think that he has been misinformed as to the facts of the case. I understand that Joseph Hart made a direct claim for benefit on the 24th February, which was authorised on the 3rd March; that on the following Friday, the 7th March, he received the amount of benefit due to him, in the ordinary way. On the 10th March he desired to have his claim transferred from a direct to an
    18
    association claim, and, pending a decision on this question, which was being discussed between him and the insurance officer, he did not make a direct claim for payment of the further sums due to him. I am further informed that the full amount, two guineas, due to him in the way of direct unemployment benefit, was paid to him on the 18th instant.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether it is not a fact that when men sign these vacant tickets, it is an indication that they are to be allowed to get their unemployment pay from the associations?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It has been explained several times that where there is an agreement between the Board and an association the Board does not pay independently of the association the men getting unemployment benefit, but under the Act it goes to them periodically.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that William Jones, 53/D 1232, lodged his unemployment insurance book at the Shoreditch Labour Exchange on or about Wednesday, 29th January, and signed daily as being unemployed up to 8th February and up to that time did not receive any decision of the Board of Trade as to whether he was entitled to unemployment benefit; if he is aware that he obtained employment, but again fell out of work and lodged his book at the Shoreditch Exchange on 19th February, and continued to sign as being unemployed up to 15th March, and that up to the present time the Board of Trade has not given a decision as to whether he is entitled to benefit; whether he can state the reason for the delay; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have inquired into this case and am informed that Mr. Jones claimed, as stated, on the 29th January. There were several points to be cleared up before a decision could be given, and, owing to the fact that the workman was claiming benefit through an association and not direct, he did not attend regularly at the Exchange, and though a communication asking him to call was sent to him it was not possible to settle the matter with him till the 6th March. The claim was authorised on the 11th March, and Mr. Jones's union were duly informed to that effect. I am informed that the second claim referred to could not be authorised until the point

    19
    raised in the first case had been cleared up. This claim was, however, duly authorised on the 17th April. I can only repeat what I have already said in reply to previous questions that it was inevitable at the outset, when a great rush of claims had to be dealt with simultaneously that claims on which queries arose should in some cases be delayed. No one regrets any inconvenience caused by these initial delays more than the Department, but so far as I can judge, they have been remarkably few in number compared with the great mass of claims dealt with, and now that decisions have been given on a number of questions of principle that have caused difficulty at the beginning, and the staff are growing accustomed to the work, I hope and trust that these cases may be diminished to vanishing point.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether there is any possible chance of decisions being given more speedily, because in this case which I have before me the man signed as stated in the question, while as a matter of fact it was only last Friday he was paid, receiving then the amount for four weeks and two days?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is one of those cases of which I have spoken. In this case the delay has arisen out of the association agreement, but as I have said it is the desire of the Department that no such delays should take place in future.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in some instances, the decision as to benefit on the claims of members of associations having an arrangement under Section 105 is not given for several weeks, and that it has been the practice of associations to obtain the member's signature on one U.I. 75 form for the whole of the benefit paid during the period of unemployment; if he is aware that Labour Exchange managers are now asking secretaries of associations to fill in a U.I. 75 form to cover each week a member is unemployed and to alter the amount of the receipt signed by the member and divide the amount over the period of weeks covered by the unemployment; and if he is aware that this action of the Labour Exchange managers is causing considerable clerical work and consequent irritation; and if he proposes to take action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The form referred to by my hon. Friend is used commonly for the purposes both of Section 105 and of Section 106, under the latter of which any sum in excess of 12s. per week paid by an association to an unemployed member is excluded from account in estimating the repayment to be made by the State to the association. In any case, therefore, in which a large payment is made in a single week, representing benefit for several preceding weeks, it is essential in the interests of the association that this latter fact should be made clear, so that the payment made for the purposes of Section 106 be treated as a payment for several weeks and not as a payment for one week. Otherwise the whole excess of the payment (12s.) would be excluded from account and the association would suffer financial loss. The action taken by the Labour Exchanges in regard to this matter is taken for the purpose of saving the association from this loss. The question of the revision of the forms is at the present moment being carefully considered.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, when a man signs, the Department insists upon the forms being altered? When, for instance, a lump sum of £2 is sent to a man for four weeks' pay, has he then to date the sheets three weeks back?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of the details, but, as I have stated, the whole matter of forms is under consideration.

    CONTRIBUTORS (NUMBERS).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many employed contributors earning less than 1s. 6d. and 2s. a day, respectively, were assured at any recent date under the National Insurance Act, and how many were male and how many female?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The number of employed contributors of twenty-one and over, whose rate of remuneration did not exceed 2s. a working day and in respect of whom claims have been made for the first quarter for payment of the State contribution of 1d. a contribution, is approximately 411,000—

    Men

    …

    …

    …

    85,000

    Women

    …

    …

    …

    326,000

    No information as to the numbers earning less than 1s. 6d. a day is available. This

    21
    information is not required either by the Commissioners or approved societies, as the difference in the rate of remuneration below 2s. a day only affects the division of the contribution between the employer and the employed person.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say from the returns from the societies how many get under 1s. 6d. a day?
    Mr. LOUGH: Do the figures given include Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: These figures include all portions of the United Kingdom. On the other point I will see if I can ascertain what is desired.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the number of male and female voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act who joined before the 15th January, 1913; and how many of these contributors were already members of friendly societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Voluntary contributors' cards for the second quarter have not yet been received from societies, and information as to the number of such contributors who join before the 15th January is therefore not yet available. With regard to the number of those who joined in the first quarter, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall on the 27th March. I will see whether it is possible, without throwing a disproportionate amount of work on the approved societies, to obtain the information asked for in the last part of the question.

    EXEMPTION CLAIMS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many male and female employed persons, respectively, have claimed exemption from contributions under the National Insurance Act; and whether any scheme has yet been formulated for using their employers' contributions for their benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: One hundred and thirty-six thousand four hundred and thirty-one applications for exemption under Section 2 in all have been received by the Insurance Commissions, and 109,311 certificates have been granted, 69,932 to men and 39,379 to women. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. Further information than is yet available as to the average payments for exempt persons, and the
    22
    proportion who cease to be exempt by becoming insured persons or ceasing to be employed or otherwise, is required before a scheme for the disposal of the contributions can properly be framed.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Meanwhile are the contributions being kept apart so that ultimately some of these people may get something?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that thee record is being kept.

    MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. STANIERasked whether, in the proposed Bill to amend the National Insurance Act, he will include a provision that marriage certificates required for claiming maternity benefits shall be supplied at 6d. each as in the case of birth certificates, and so avoid the hardships of the present charge of 3s. 7d.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question whether it is practicable to make provision whereby insured persons who require copies of their marriage certificates in connection with a claim for benefits under the National Insurance Act may be able to obtain such copies at a reduced charge is now receiving consideration.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in which counties, and county boroughs in Ireland panels of doctors have been formed in connection with the National Insurance Act; and if he can explain why circulars were issued by the Irish Insurance Commissioners stating that panels had been formed in every county and county borough in Ireland when panels had not-been formed in many cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners that no such circulars as are referred to in the question have been issued by the Commissioners. I understand the hon. Baronet to refer to a paragraph in a specimen copy of a form that is intended to be used when the panel system is workings, which was issued to doctors for the purpose of explaining their duties under the panel system. That it was not intended as a statement that panels had already been formed is shown not only by the character of the form, but by the fact that it was issued to the doctors (who alone received it) before the date by which they were asked to have sent in their

    23
    names for the panels. I am informed by the Commissioners that sufficient doctors have already intimated their willingness to serve to enable panels to be formed in the following areas:—
    County Boroughs.—Belfast, Cork, Londonderry.
    Counties.—Antrim, Armagh, Clare, Cork, Donegal, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Sligo.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked under what conditions the insurance committees are to be appointed in the future so as to comply with the condition that they are to be really representative in part of the insured persons in the district?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on Monday last.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the date on which the Wandsworth District Insurance Committee last met?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The district insurance committees for the London boroughs have only recently been constituted, and I am informed by the London Insurance Committee that no meeting of the Wandsworth District Insurance Committee has yet been held. All the members, however, have been informed of their appointments, and the London Insurance Committee are in communication with the borough council on the matter.

    UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the number of persons insured against unemployment under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and the number of claims presented between 15th January, 1913, and 15th April, 1913?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of unemployment books issued to applicants up to the 12th April, 1913, was 2,392,677, and the number of separate claims to unemployment benefit made up to the 11th April, 1913, was 350,780.

    Third-Class Railway Fares (Scotland).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the Scottish railway companies have decided to increase the third-class railway fares
    24
    5 per cent. and the excursions 2½ per cent.; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware of the decision to which my hon Friend refers, and I am sending him a copy of a letter which I have received from the Caledonian Railway Company on the subject. The Board of Trade have no power to interfere with the discretion of the railway companies as regards the revision of passenger fares within the statutory maxima.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would publish the letter from the Caledonian Railway Company in the Votes?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will consider the point.

    British Mercantile Marine (Foreign Officers).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the number of masters and mates of foreign nationality employed in British registered trading vessels is increasing or decreasing; and whether he will consider the question of altering the regulations with a view to prevent aliens acquiring certificates under the British flag?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As stated in a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on 14th April, the number of aliens shown by the Census of seamen for 3rd April, 1911, as serving as officers on British registered trading vessels on that date was as follows:—87 masters, 310 mates, and 288 engineers out of a total of 7,995 masters, 12,578 mates, and 17,589 engineers. The corresponding figures for the Census day in 1903 were:—120 masters, 352 mates, and 352 engineers out of a total of 10,017 masters, 13,481 mates, and 16,576 engineers. From these figures it will be seen that the number of alien officers had decreased. The question of excluding aliens from holding certificates of competency has been considered on several occasions, but it has not hitherto been thought desirable or necessary to take action in this direction.
    Colonel YATE: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it a sound suggestion that the Regulations should be so changed as to prevent these alien officers from acting as pilots in time of war?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is hardly possible to exclude the possibility. As I have

    25
    pointed out the total number is steadily decreasing.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make arrangements to prevent any alien commanding an armed trading vessel?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not know what steps the hon. Gentleman would suggest. If he will communicate them to me I shall be glad to consider them.

    Pilotage Service (Cardiff).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent case of a man named Frederick Jansen being drowned in the Bristol Channel while returning to the pilot cutter after putting a pilot on board of a steamer; is he aware that the Cardiff pilots, with the consent of the Cardiff pilotage authority, have decided to substitute a steam pilotage service for the present sailing cutters, and if the Board of Trade must consent to this change before it can be made; and, if so, will the Board of Trade see that the change can be made without any more delay in order to minimise the danger of lives being lost and a more efficient pilotage service being maintained?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: A report of the case to which my hon. Friend refers has been received by the Board of Trade. The Cardiff Pilotage Board have submitted for confirmation by the Board of Trade a new code of by-laws relating, amongst other things, to the institution of a steam pilotage service. The Board of Trade have no power to confirm the by-laws in the form submitted to them pending the making of a Pilotage Order modifying or repealing the Bristol Channel Pilotage Act, 1861, some of the by-laws being in contravention of provisions of that Act, but the Board have informed the pilotage authority that they will consider an application for the confirmation of amended by-laws dealing only with the proposed steam pilotage service.

    Laundry Work (Trade Boards Act).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal now before the London County Council to ask the Board of Trade to schedule the laundry trade, on the ground that it is practically impossible, owing to there being no recognised or
    26
    agreed wages in the trade, to secure that contractors tendering for the washing done in the schools pay wages to their employés at rates generally accepted as fair in the district; and whether he will, take steps to include laundry work within the scope of the Trade Boards Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware of the proposal which formed the subject of a letter appearing in the Press on 14th, April. My right hon. Friend is giving the matter careful consideration, but he doubts whether it is practicable this Session to add to the trades which he has already indicated an intention of including in the Provisional Order to extend the application of the Trade Boards Act.

    Petrol Tax.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether there is a six months limit for application for relief of taxation on petrol spirit used in stationary engines; and, if not, whether he is aware that this limit has been imposed in some cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, all claims for rebate of duty on motor spirit used for purposes other than supplying motive power for motor cars, must be preferred within six months of the date of use.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has yet received the Report of the actuarial investigation into the Irish Constabulary Force Fund; and if it will be communicated to Parliament?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The question of presentation will be considered in due course.

    Committee on Irish Finance.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of this House copies of the letters which were addressed to those who gave evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance asking them whether they had any objection to the publication of their evidence?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My right hon. Friend does not propose to lay a copy of the letters on the Table of the House.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Was the same letter sent to all the official witnesses?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I wrote all the letters myself. In substance they were the same, but I think that at the beginning and the end of the communications there was a slight difference.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether all the evidence from Ireland for the purposes of the Imperial and local taxation inquiry has yet been taken; and, having regard to the urgency given to the Irish branch of the subject by the Government of Ireland Bill, whether a Report on this branch of the subject will be presented before that Bill becomes law?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am informed that the Irish evidence has not yet been taken. I am unable to make a statement as to the date when a Report of the Committee dealing with Ireland will be received.

    Elementary Schools.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in some cities, like Bristol, there are no overcrowded elementary schools and no fees charged to elementary scholars, whereas in other cities, like Liverpool, thousands of children are in overcrowded schools and pay thousands of pounds annually in school pence; and whether, in the forthcoming Education Bill, provision will be made to give especial encouragement to cities like Bristol, where educational responsibilities are fairly sustained, and to penalise cities like Liverpool, where they are habitually shirked?
    Mr. PEASE: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill, but he must not, of course, assume that I agree with the allegations contained in the question.
    Mr. KING: May a copy of this reply be sent to the Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will, by the educational reforms which are in contemplation, give effect to the hopes and promises with regard to children under five in elementary schools which were expressed by the right hon. Member for West Islington, speaking on behalf of the Government, on 6th and 7th January, 1906?
    Mr. PEASE: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: Would not it be desirable to carry out old pledges before undertaking new ones?
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has noted recent expressions of doubt as to the present force of the Cockerton judgment which restricted the extent of elementary education; whether he is aware that this judgment is embodied with legislative sanction in Section 22 of the Education Act of 1902, and is the basis of the policy of the Board of Education; and, having regard to the perplexities of the position, whether he will call for a reasoned opinion on this question from the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. PEASE: Unless the hon. Member can bring to my notice a case where difficulty has been created by the uncertainty in the law which he alleges, I see no reason to trouble the Law Officers in the matter.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the statements of the Lord Chancellor on the subject?
    Mr. PEASE: I have.
    Mr. KING: May I bring them to his attention?
    Mr. PEASE: I know them already.

    Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether the Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill will be reintroduced this Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked when the Established Church (Wales) Bill will be reintroduced into this House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not yet able to make any statement on the subject.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that it will be for the convenience of a very large number of people that some date should be given, approximately?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt that a statement will be made in due course by my right hon. Friend. I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "due course"?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That question has got to be addressed to the Prime Minister. He is attending a meeting of Ambassadors at present.

    Traffic Board (London).
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general consensus of opinion expressed in support of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on London Traffic in 1905 by such bodies as the London Society, the London County Council, the Institution of Civil Engineers, and others, and by many witnesses before the Motor Traffic Commission now sitting, he will take steps to appoint a Traffic Board and empower them to adopt a general road scheme for London while it is still possible to do so in connection with the town-planning schemes at present under consideration; or, if not, what steps he proposes to take to secure the necessary outlets for the proposed new main roads at present available on the outskirts of London, which will be blocked by the various town-planning schemes if the latter are allowed to mature independently?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of the situation in London and its outskirts and of the urgent importance of the traffic problem to which the hon. and gallant Member calls attention. As the Prime Minister indicated, however, in reply to a previous question from him, the main difficulties with regard to the adoption of a general road scheme are pecuniary ones, which I fear would not be removed by the appointment of a Traffic Board. While these difficulties are serious, and while I am not at the moment able to suggest a way of overcoming them, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the question is not being lost sight of.

    Payments to Members of Parliament.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, seeing that certain Members of this House commonly take part in voting certain payments to themselves, apart from salaries, involving consequences, if challenged, in the House or in Court, and that, the Comptroller and Auditor-General disregards the vitiating circumstance and allows the questionable payments, whether he will introduce on this subject a new and uniform rule not open to challenge?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am confident that, if any payments properly calling for question were made, the Comptroller and Auditor-General would not fail to draw-attention thereto.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England, the defence was undertaken on the advice or with the concurrence of the Law Officers; and whether, the result of that case being to affirm the existing law instead of a Departmental custom, he will say on what law, custom, or precedent the Comptroller and Auditor-General relies in allowing the payment to the Law Officers of extra fees consequent on their own error; and, the Law Officers being interested parties, from whom did the Auditor-General obtain independent advice on the legality of the payment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the other branches I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to his previous question.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it was on the erroneous opinion of these two Gentlemen that he ruled my Labour Bill out of order recently?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. It was on my own opinion.

    Day Continuation Schools.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the Government has considered the proposal now being put forward in favour of day continuation schools and the provision of new buildings which such proposal will involve; and whether, before introducing legislation in this direction, Grants will be given to increase the buildings which are in many districts inadequate for present requirements?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but various questions relating to continuation schools are now under consideration in connection with our proposed legislation.

    School Attendance Age.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the right of parents to send their children to school before and after the age of compulsory attendance was recognised before 1870 in the Education Code, was confirmed by the Education Act of 1870, was recognised in every subsequent Code until 1905, and was

    31
    also assumed in the Free Education Act of 1891 and by the Memorandum issued by the Eight Hon. A. H. D. Acland in May, 1903; whether he is aware that the right of parents, thus repeatedly sanctioned both by Parliament and the Board of Education, has been taken away by the action of the Board of Education divesting itself of the responsibility to enforce it; and whether, in view of a pledge of the Government given in 1906 that this obstruction of the rights of parents should cease, he will take early steps to restore to parents a valued right and to redeem the pledge of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government?
    Mr. PEASE: I think I am aware of all the material facts. I am satisfied that the Board acted legally in leaving the admission of children under five to the discretion of the local education authorities, but whether the Board could or could not compel them to provide accommodation for children under five is a question which could only be determined by the Courts.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford facilities to the Courts if a friendly action is taken to test whether the Board of Education has been acting within its powers?
    Mr. PEASE: I am quite sure that the Board of Education has been acting within its powers.

    Mental Deficiency Bill.
    Colonel BURNasked the Prime Minister if he will give facilities during this Session for the passage of the Mental Deficiency Bill through all its stages?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government intend to proceed with the Bill, and hope to pass it this Session.
    Colonel BURN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that time will be given to pass this measure through all its stages?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Major HOPE: Does the answer also apply to the Scottish Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure about that.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say.

    Waterguard Staff.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked when the Departmental Committee on allowances (vide Report, Cd. 6290), commenced to investigate the questions affecting the waterguard staff; and when the Report is likely to be issued.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the subject on the 10th instant. I hope to be in a position to deal with the allowances very shortly.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether it is the duty of old age pension officers to bring all the facts ascertained by them under the notice of pension committees; whether the body to which appeal lies may consider other facts obtained from an officer or from any other source, which have never been before the committee; and, if so, under what authority this is done?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Regulations made under Section 10 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, prescribe that the pension officer is required to annex to every report sent by him to the committee a statement of the inquiries made by him in reference to the claim and of the result of those inquiries, and unless he is satisfied that the yearly means of the claimant do not exceed £21, and so states in the report, a summary of the income, property, and other yearly means of the claimant. In the case of any appeal to the Local Government Board, the Board is required to cause such inquiry to be held or take such other steps as they think necessary for the purpose of enabling them to come to a proper decision on the case.
    Mr. GINNELL: Are new facts referred to the committee before a decision is given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should think that is invariably done. In any case, on appeal to the Board, any new facts could be raised.
    Mr. GINNELLasked under what instruction, oral or written, directly or indirectly, from the Treasury, old age pension officers in Ireland say that their business is, not to administer the Old Age Pensions Acts according to the merits of each case, but to disallow and reduce pensions as much as possible in the interest of the

    33
    Treasury; and whether that is the spirit in which the Acts are administered in Great Britain; and, if not, will he account for the difference?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No instructions have been issued which would justify a pension officer in making a statement of the nature described in the question, and no case in which a pension officer has made such a statement has been brought to my notice.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the general instruction to old age pension officers in 1908 to disregard furniture and personal effects actually belonging to and used by a claimant not exceeding £30 in value, and another instruction embodying a scale of the value of maintenance, or any substituted instructions on these two points, are now in force; will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say, substantially, what the instructions now in force amount to as regards Great Britain and Ireland, respectively; and, seeing that pension officers in Ireland act as though unaware of such instructions, will he have copies of them sent to each pension officer in Ireland with an intimation that they are in force?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The original instruction in regard to furniture and personal effects is no longer in force, having been cancelled by Section 2 (1) (c) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, the effect of which is that in calculating means for Old Age Pension purposes no account is to be taken of furniture and personal effects where their total value does not exceed £50. With regard to the subject of maintenance, I have nothing to add to the answers to the hon. Member's previous questions on the same subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the circular on the subject of maintenance is in force in Ireland, and whether the old age pension officers have been informed, or will be?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any scale is in force in Ireland at the present time. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.
    Mr. GINNELL: This question has been down three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the letter containing the instruction embodied a scale which is in force in this country and not in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any scale is in force in Ireland. I think the merits of each particular case are considered. I will inquire.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state what has been the result of his inquiries into the rates of wages paid by Messrs. Ransomes and Napier which was promised on 25th March?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We are still in communication with the firm on the subject. I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

    LOWER DECK PAY.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the recent increases in pay given to the lower deck are but an instalment and further increases are to follow; and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can now go beyond the general pronouncement made when introducing the Naval Estimates that the advance of pay need not be taken as finally exhausting the goodwill of the State?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it be improper for anybody to state that the increase of pay to the lower deck is only an instalment of a further increase of pay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I prefer to judge of the propriety or impropriety after the statements have actually been made.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection if I brought to his notice a statement which has been made by a member of the right hon. Gentleman's own party?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I should always be glad to read the speeches made by members on my own side.

    EFFICIENT SEAMEN (PERIOD OF TRAINING).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked if he will state the period it takes to make an efficient seaman in the Royal Navy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I mentioned four years as a general statement; a seaman of this service would ordinarily have been an able seaman for some months or longer.

    35
    It must not be assumed that a man of less service though not fully trained would be inefficient for the duties required of him.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the statement is that three years are required?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, not at all. Four years was the statement, qualified as I have now qualified it.

    NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND MEN.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty propose to increase the Navy by approximately 7,000, the First Lord of the Admiralty will explain what is meant in the statement over his signature explanatory of the Naval Estimates, 1913–14, that in order to reach a total of 146,000 officers and men by 31st March, 1914, an addition is required to Vote A of 8,500; and will he give the number of officers and the number of men, respectively, included in the figure 8,500?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I explained in debate, there has been a change of system. Last year's Vote, including the Supplementary Vote, was for the average number borne throughout the year, namely, 137,600. The number actually borne at the end of last year was, approximately, 139,000. This year's Vote is for the maximum number to be reached at the end of this year, namely, 146,000. The difference between 137,500 and 146,000 is 8,500. The difference between 139,000 and 146,000 is 7,000. The number of officers and men compared with last year can be seen from the Estimates.

    NAVAL DEFENCE (OVERSEA DOMINIONS).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty's attention has been called to statements made on the 21st January last by Senator Pearce, Minister of Defence for the Commonwealth of Australia, to the effect that at the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909 a programme of naval co-operation between the Australian, Canadian, and Imperial Governments was agreed to based on the provision by Australia and Canada of fleet units; that the policy as regards Australia originated with the Admiralty; that Australia had provided a fleet unit and was awaiting the like action of Canada; and that in consequence his Government had not accepted an in-
    36
    vitation to send a representative to the Defence Committee; and will he state why the Admiralty has departed from the policy of the 1909 Conference and has expressed the view that it would be more effectual for the overseas dominions to contribute additions to the Imperial Navy than to provide local navies.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen the speech to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not feel able, within the limits which are proper to question time, to deal satisfactorily with the important subjects to which he refers.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked what is the total expenditure to which the Commonwealth of Australia is committed as regards the provision of a navy in conformity with the Report of Admiral Henderson; and the amount contributed in naval subsidy to the Imperial Government during the last ten years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand that the Commonwealth Government are in any sense committed to the details of the development of the Australian Navy as sketched out by Admiral Henderson. The expenditure entailed by that scheme as estimated for the next few years would be about 2½ millions a year, apart from works; but it is impossible for me to say how nearly the actual expenditure is likely to approximate to this figure. The naval subsidy paid by the Commonwealth of Australia during the last ten years amounted in the aggregate to £1,883,116.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of any endeavours being made by the Government of Australia to induce the Government of New Zealand to co-operate in local naval defence when, as set out in his statement explanatory of the Naval Estimates, the Admiralty requested the Government of New Zealand to allow the battle cruiser "New Zealand" to be added to the first battle cruiser squadron; and whether it is the policy of the Admiralty to isolate the Commonwealth of Australia in its endeavours to safeguard Imperial interests in the Pacific?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. But I have since had the advantage of long discussions with the New Zealand Minister of Defence, and the Admiralty is fully apprised of the situation in Australasia. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    ARMED MERCHANT STEAMERS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether there is an adequate number of guns available to arm merchant steamers for the purposes of defence; whether there is any limit to the number of steamers the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to arm; and what course of drill and instruction he proposes to give the crews in the serving of those guns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to add anything to what I said on this subject when introducing the Navy Estimates last month. But I may state that a sufficient number of guns has for some time been available.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. MULDOONasked whether the naval authorities have considered or will consider the advisability of establishing an aviation base at Queenstown, in Ireland, which offers most facilities and is the best centre for such operations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter will receive consideration when bases are established in Ireland.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the junior mechanics in the naval air department receive any danger pay; and whether passenger flights are enforced on them owing to officers having to carry mechanics when doing cross country work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The ordinary Royal Flying Corps rates of pay are intended to cover the risks involved in being occasionally taken up as passengers in aeroplanes. Special pay in addition is allowed to pilots of aeroplanes. All officers and men of the Royal Flying Corps are liable to be taken up in any type of aircraft whenever the service requires it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: He gets no danger pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: He gets the pay of the Royal Flying Corps.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: He is bound to go if ordered, but does not get danger pay.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have stated, he receives the pay of the Royal Flying Corps.

    DRAUGHTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION (DEVONPORT).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the First Lord of the
    38
    Admiralty's attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at a meeting held last week of the Devonport branch of the Draughtsmen's Association expressing dissatisfaction at the method of procedure adopted by the Admiralty in selecting persons for service on the Admiralty drawing staff, and stating that men who failed to qualify at the recent Civil Service examination have been selected in preference to qualified men, thus postponing the advancement of qualified men and limiting the avenues of promotion; and whether he can see his way to offer these appointments to draughtsmen in order of seniority; and, if sufficient numbers be not available, will he consider the advisability of calling for volunteers in the order the men's names appear on the current list?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The draughtsmen coming from Devonport include three who have not qualified for promotion at the recent examination. These three were selected on account of their previous experience at the Admiralty on new design work; their employment is temporary, and they will return to the yard at the end of about four months; it is in no sense promotion, and does not depend upon the results of the Civil Service examination, which was held solely to ascertain the relative fitness of draughtsmen for promotion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that promotions on the lower deck are not affected by this action on the part of the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They are not. It is not a question of promotion at all. The hon. Member thinks it will postpone "the advancement of qualified men and limit the avenues of promotion." He is quite wrong in his assumption on that point.

    REFORMATORY SHIPS (BOYS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present need of men and boys in the Navy, he will relax the Regulation which excludes boys trained for the sea on reformatory ships, as such lads after a reformatory treatment of some years are now regarded as eligible for the Army and for the police service, and their training should have rendered them specially eligible for naval services?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Any difficulty in the way of reformatory

    39
    school boys entering the Navy arises from the requirements of the Admiralty. The matter has been under the consideration of the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and if they make any recommendation, I shall be glad to confer with the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject.

    Forcible Feeding.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the inquest on the body of Edmund John Taunton, who died in an institution of which he was an inmate whilst being forcibly fed through the nose; and whether, in view of the danger to life which is thus shown to be associated with forcible feeding, he will order the immediate discontinuance of the practice in His Majesty's prisons?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an inmate of the Stafford Asylum died through forcible feeding; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest held by the Stafford coroner on the death of Edmund John Taunton, who died whilst being forcibly fed through the nose in an institution where he was a patient; and whether, in view of the danger to life which is thus shown to be associated with forcible feeding, he will order the immediate discontinuance of the practice in His Majesty's prisons?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the evidence in the case referred to. The patient died of disease of the heart after artificial feeding. If he had been left without food his death would have been inevitable, and the medical authorities of the asylum (which was a hospital, not a county asylum) had therefore to take the risk of feeding him artificially. This course was clearly necessary and the jury so found. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

    French Protestant Church, Soho Square.
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the Home Secretary what decision he has come to in regard to the French Protestant Church in Soho Square; and whether, seeing that the services have been conducted in this church in the French language for 350 years, and in view of the
    40
    provisions of the charter, he will consider the desirability, in the best interests of those for whom the use of the existing property was intended, of providing that the pastor should be chosen by all the members of the congregation and not by a majority of the consistory, who do not understand the French language?
    Mr. McKENNA: This matter has come before me on a petition from the congregation, and I have received representations both from the congregation and the majority of the consistory. I am not satisfied that the church is being administered in accordance with the intentions of the charter, and I am now considering what steps I should take.

    Flannelette (Fatal Accidents).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet had any returns from coroners on the subject of deaths from flannelette burning; and, if so, whether he can give any figures to the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: These returns have been asked for as a supplement to the usual annual return of inquests furnished by coroners after the end of the year, and no figures will be available before the beginning of next year.

    River Finn Fishing (County Donegal).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that a fixed net has been used for a number of years on the River Finn at Cloghan, county Donegal, for netting salmon, in contravention of the by-laws; and will he say what action will be taken to ensure the observance in future of such by-laws?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department are not aware that any net is used illegally at the place referred to in the question; but they will call the attention of the local board of conservators, who are responsible for the enforcement of the salmon fishery laws, to the matter.

    Dominion Loans.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to consider the advisability of introducing legislaton with a view to giving preference to those Dominions which support the Imperial Navy, directly or indirectly, when their loans are issued in this country, and also preference to all the Dominions over

    41
    foreign countries by the imposition of a small tax, similar to that existing in France and other countries, on foreign loans raised in this country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under the existing law there is a preference as regards Stamp Duty in respect of loans issued in this country by Colonial Governments, as compared with loans issued by foreign Governments. No further differentiation would appear advisable.

    Land Valuation Department.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures showing the additional cost of the Land Valuation Department for the years 1911–12 and 1912–13, respectively, over and above the sums voted directly for the cost of the Valuation Department?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total cost to other Departments of Land Valuation from the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to 31st March, 1913, is estimated as follows:—

    £

    Borne on Works Vote

    30,300

    Borne on Vote for Rates of Government Property

    7,000

    Borne on Stationery Office Vote

    54,200

    Borne on Post Office Vote

    37,500

    Borne on Ordnance Survey Vote

    11,000

    £140,000

    These figures are rough approximations only, and include the cost of certain services that may perhaps amount to about £8,000, not directly connected with the original valuation. It is impossible to distinguish with any approach to accuracy the cost of the services for each of the three years during which the valuation has been in progress.

    Mineral Rights Duty (Scotland).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the total amount of Mineral Rights Duty levied in Scotland during the financial year ending 31st March, 1912?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amount of Mineral Rights Duty charged in Scotland up to 31st March, 1912, in respect of the financial year ending on that date was £48,833. The duty actually collected during that year amounted to £72,461, but this sum included arrears of previous years.

    Education Grant (Necessitous Areas).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of a resolution of the Mountain Ash education committee to the effect that they most strongly protest against the reduction of the necessitous areas Grant by some 20 per cent. without reasonable notice and after the education committee's estimates for the year have been completed, and claim that three-quarters of the excess of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £ should be met absolutely by the Government as at first promised, without the limitations since imposed, which fall with most weight on the shoulders least able to bear them; and whether he intends to include in the Budget the sum necessary to enable the Education Department to carry out its promise to necessitous school areas to make good three-quarters of any excess in the education rate over 1s. 6d. in the £?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The resolution referred to has been received. As I stated on the 17th instant, the whole subject is under consideration.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    VIVISECTION (ABOLITION) BILL.
    "To provide for the abolition of Vivisection." Presented by Mr. CHANCELLOR; supported by Mr. Black, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Hodge, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Parker, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Thomas, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. John Wilson, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
    INFANTICIDE BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to the punishment of Infanticide." Presented by Sir WILLIAM BYLES; supported by Sir William Beale, Mr. Roch, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Annan Bryce; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (AGE or LIABILITY) BILL.
    "To raise the Age of Liability to Capital Punishment; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Sir WILLIAM BYLES; supported by Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Chancellor, and Mr. Roch; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

    VACATION OF SEAT (SIR STUART SAMUEL).
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That Sir Stuart Samuel has vacted his Seat as Member for the Tower Hamlets (Whitechapel)." The Prime Minister, in view of his absence on urgent public business, has asked me to move this Motion. With the permission of the House, may I in two or three sentences remind hon. Members of how this matter stands? I think it will be found that this Motion is, in the circumstances, in accordance with precedent on the matter, and that it will be found to be uncontroversial. The House will remember that a Select Committee was appointed, in accordance with our practice in all cases of doubt, to investigate whether or not this Gentleman had vacated his seat, but that Select Committee reported to the
    62
    House that, in view of the difficulty of some of the legal questions involved, they would recommend that resort be had to the Judicial Committee to solve and to determine the question. That course, though in a high degree unusual—because this House has always been jealous to preserve its own constitutional right to determine for itself the incapacities of those who have been duly elected—that unusual course was taken and the Judicial Committee has delivered its decision. I take leave to read the last sentence of the decision, so that the House can judge of the appropriateness of our present Motion. The Judicial Committee reported:—
    "Under these circumstances, though no suggestion has been made of any improper motive, and though the construction placed upon the statutes by Sir Stuart Samuel finds some countenance in former proceedings before Committees of the House of Commons, their Lordships are obliged to answer the question of law referred to them as follows: They will humbly advise His Majesty that by reason of the facts which have been reported by the above-named Select Committee of the House of Commons, the said Sir Stuart Samuel was disabled from sitting and voting in the House."
    The Select Committee found no great difficulty in ascertaining the facts, and those facts have been pronounced upon on matters of law by a very high authority to whose judgment we in all parts of the House will be most willing to bow. Under those circumstances the usual practice appears to be for this Motion to be formally moved. I can find at least two precedents when a matter has been referred to a Select Committee and the House thought it right to declare the seat vacated, and in order that we may continue that tradition I now move this Motion, and after adoption it will be possible for the new Writ forthwith to be moved.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the speech to which we have just listened must present in the minds of every hon. Member who listened to the previous Debate on this subject, one of the most remarkable contrasts ever seen in the House of Commons. At that time the Government proposed to refer this matter to a Select Committee.
    Sir J. SIMON: At what time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: When the matter was debated in this House on a Friday afternoon. We, on these benches, pointed out that as admittedly this was a question of law we could not imagine a more improper tribunal to settle such a question than a Select Committee of this

    63
    House formed on ordinary party lines. What was the answer of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented the Government on that occasion, said, "What we want specially is haste; there must be no delay." What has happened? The Government set up their Committee; they spent, I do not know how long in discussing the subject; and then they came unanimously to the conclusion that the Committee was not a proper body to deal with the question, and that they should do what we suggested at the outset, they ought to do, and submit the matter to a legal tribunal. What has been the effect? The effect has been that the Government have disfranchised this constituency for at least two or three months without there being the smallest necessity for so doing. I do not think it is at all surprising under these circumstances that the Solicitor-General has not made a lengthy speech on the subject.
    There is something else which I feel bound to notice. It seems to me that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets Division ought at once, when the question arose, to have submitted himself to the electorate. At the time that this matter was first discussed the Attorney-General admitted that the question was open to grave doubt. But the doubt was purely technical. There was no doubt whatever that the offence against which the Statute was intended to guard had in effect been committed. Under these circumstances I feel bound to say that in my judgment the proper course for the hon. Member to have taken was at once to have submitted himself to the electorate and received their permission before he again sat in the House of Commons. He had precedent to guide him. A case exactly similar arose in 1904, towards the end of the last Government. The case was similar in every respect. The question was so doubtful that the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) actually objected to the vacation of the seat on the
    ground that there was a doubt in connection with the matter. That case formed a precedent which one would have thought would naturally have been followed in similar circumstances. It may be said that the hon. Member—and I suppose he did—consulted the Government, and acted on their advice. Yes, but Mr. Gibbs together with his brother, to my knowledge, consulted the Government on the previous occasion, and although it was a question on which there was at least grave doubt, the Government advised him to take the course which would set that doubt at rest and to appeal to his Constituents. I cannot understand why a similar course was not adopted in this case. I think it represents a change of view, and not a desirable change, which has taken place in the interval as to what is the proper Parliamentary procedure. Of course, we shall not vote against the Motion which has now been made, but I must say that I do not think the Government are to be congratulated either on the substance of the Motion or the method which they have adopted in this case.
    New Writ for the Borough of Tower Hamlets (Whitechapel Division), in the room of Sir Stuart Montagu Samuel, Baronet, who, since his election for the said Borough, has undertaken a contract with the Secretary of State for India for the public service.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the proceedings on the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 25.

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Adamson, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Boland, John Pius

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Alden, Percy

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clough, William

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Reddy, Michael

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cullinan, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, Ellis Wiliam (Eifion)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Deviln, Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

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

  Doris, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

  Essex, Sir Walter Richard

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Sheehy, David

  Falconer, James

  Manfield, Harry

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Shortt, Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Fell, Arthur

  Martin, Joseph

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Firench, Peter

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Millar, James Duncan

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Molloy, Michael

  Sutherland, J. E.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ginnell, L.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morgan, George Hay

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Morrell, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morison, Hector

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Muldoon, John

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hackett, J.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Waring, Walter

  Hancock, John George

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Neilson, Francis

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Webb, H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wing, Thomas

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Malley, William

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Horne. C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

  Younger, Sir George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  NOES.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Crooks, William

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Blair, Reginald

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Goldstone, Frank

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Grant, J. A.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  66

  67

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Scott, Leslie C. (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Snowden, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. W. Thorne

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Question put, and agreed to.

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day six months."
  In view of the feeling of intense dislike at the gradual strengthening of the power of the Executive in the region of finance, and the corresponding weakening of the power of this House, entertained by hon. Members on this side, no other course was open to us but to move the rejection of this Bill on the Third Reading. That course I propose to take. Over 200 years ago this House joined with the other House in promoting that well-known measure the Bill of Rights, a Bill limiting the power of the Crown in the direction of taxation at the instigation of the Crown. Matters have come to such a pass that it may be necessary before long for this House to join with the other House in promoting a second Bill of Rights, not limiting the power of the Crown, but limiting the power of a tyrannical oligarchy to tax the subjects of His Majesty without those subjects having that right of safeguarding themselves which they have had certainly for upwards of two centuries. Bad as this Bill is—and I admit it is not so bad a Bill as it was before it passed through Committee—we might have allowed this Bill to pass its Third Reading if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had frankly acknowledged that it was a temporary Bill to extricate His Majesty's Government from a temporary difficulty—a difficulty, by the way, of their own making—and that he did not regard this Bill in any way as likely to become part of the permanent machinery of Parliament. That course the right hon. Gentleman refused to take. There was an Amendment which gave him the opportunity of saying that this Bill was a temporary Bill. When he spoke on that Amendment, and when he offered a Select Committee to consider the whole position that had arisen in consequence of the action brought by Mr. Bowles against
  68
  the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no indication whatever that he would regard this as a temporary Bill. He predicted that the very action of the Select Committee would be to widen and extend the powers which were give by this Bill. He evidently had at heart the desire to have this Bill in the form in which it was introduced, with powers in a wider and more dangerous form than presented to us now on Third Reading.
  The Bill, as it was introduced—as we pointed out at the time—enabled this House by a single Vote to impose any new tax so far it had reference to Income Tax. Customs and Excise, or to vary existing taxation, and that without that taxation being part of a Finance Bill which had passed the House of Lords and had received the Royal Assent. That taxation imposed by a single Vote of the House of Commons was to be statutory for a period of four months and might, be collected from the day after it was imposed. It is true, by the Amendment moved by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University, that now any such Vote in Committee of this House would have to be followed within ten days of the sitting of the House and after the Resolution of the Committee by a Resolution of the House itself, and would further have to be followed by a Finance Bill being introduced and read a second time within twenty days of the Resolution being passed by the House of Commons. But still, vast powers are given to the Executive under this Bill. Let us examine what those powers are. Let the House note for a moment the relative positions both of the Government and of the taxpayer as they will exist under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, and as they did exist before the financial reign of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before the present financial reign no man in the United Kingdom could have legally imposed upon him any taxation of any sort or kind, or could have legally collected from him any taxation unless that taxation had been put into a Finance Bill, unless that Bill had passed through its First Reading, Committee stage, Second and Third Readings, had been sent up to the House of Lords, had there been fully debated and passed through all its stages

  69
  in that House, and further had received the Royal Assent.
  Look at the present time, and the taxpayer as he will find himself under this Bill. A very few years have passed. No longer is the consent of the House of Lords necessary to any Money Bill; but even so, at least under the Parliament Act, in the year 1911, this House of Commons itself reserved to the House of Lords the power to delay every Money Bill for a period of one month. The taxpayer had the advantage of some delay, some consideration, and the possibility of arousing any agitation and awakening any public opinion during that period in respect to any taxation imposed upon him. How utterly different the thing is now! By one single Vote in this House taxes may be imposed, provided they are not new taxes, but a variation of old taxes, and from the day after that Vote has been given it is possible now that these taxes may be legally collected from the subjects of the Crown. I described this Bill in a former speech as a revolutionary Bill. I think I did not use language one whit too strong to so describe it. It is revolutionary, inasmuch as it deprives the subject of two protective rights. Up till now the subject has had the right legally to refuse to pay any tax which was in a Bill not passed through the House of Lords and which had not received the Royal Assent. That was a very valuable constitutional right which has been taken away from the subject. I affirm that this Bill is revolutionary because it diminishes the power of this House itself in the matter of taxation; it impairs the few rights left to the House of Lords. It weakens and undermines the position of the Crown itself. Doubtless the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be: "Oh, it does not go beyond custom and use." That has been the argument of the Attorney-General, and of every Minister who has spoken on this Bill. "It does not after all," they say, "go beyond custom and usage."
  I say it travels very far beyond custom and usage. It is surrounded by a different atmosphere altogether. It travels into a different hemisphere altogether of constitutional law and constitutional provision. It may be agreed that certain taxes have been collected from certain people before those taxes have ever found their way into an Act of Parliament; but those have been collected in a voluntary way! There has been perfectly free accord on the part of those from whom they were collected.
  70
  The system will now be altogether different; these taxes under this Bill will be collected from the subject, whether he likes it or whether he does not, whether he consents or whether he does not. There will be a statutory right to collect them. There was no statutory or legal right to collect them before. They were collected because it was convenient to the Treasury and because the people from whom they knew that these taxes would very likely find their way into an Act of Parliament. People may say "what harm can it possibly do"? I do not say it would do any great harm if the present usage and practice only were put in force, but we all know we have to look at to know what is likely to be the use made of the Bill and the powers contained in it by a particular Chancellor of the Exchequer or by my right hon. Friend who formerly or by my right hon. Friend who formerly occupied that position. We should be slothful Members of the House of Commons in our care for the liberties of the people if we were only to regard the Bill from the convenient point of view that the powers given in the Bill would never be abused. That is quite a false position.
  The House of Commons must look to it that there are certain powers in this Bill which may be used to their fullest extent. From that point of view I should like to examine the powers given by this Bill and to see what we are doing by putting those powers into the Bill. We had an instance given as to the possibility of a Chancellor of the Exchequer raising the Income Tax under this Bill from 1s. 2d. to 15s. or even 20s. in the £. That is such a possibility under the Bill. It would be quite possible for a huge Income Tax of 5s. or 10s. or 20s. to be passed by one single Resolution, and the very next day the Bank of England and all the other banks would be called upon to deduct this tax because it was a statutory tax and would remain statutory until, by some operation of this House, the decision of the Committee had been reversed. That is one possibility. I should like to ask the Attorney-General this question—and I will not take an extravagant case of raising the present Income Tax of 1s. 2d. to 10s., but I will take this case: Supposing a Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in want of money for social reform or for some purposes which we should like to see carried out if we only had the money to

  71
  do it, such as better education and housing and some increase in old age pensions and many things of that kind—and supposing a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money for these social purposes, and that by a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means he raised the Income Tax from 1s. 2d. to 2s. in the £ Supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the conclusion that the House would support him in his ideas that every man with more than £400 a year ought to pay at least a tithe of his income towards Income Tax, and that he imposed 2s. Income Tax, which would be collected the very next day by deductions at the Bank of England and other Banks, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that will be going beyond usage? I confess I think, while many Income Tax payers do not now object to have their Income Tax deducted before that Income Tax can be legally deducted, they might object extremely to having a 2s. Income Tax imposed and deducted after a single Debate in the House of Commons, before the matter was ever properly discussed by the House of Commons and before it had gone through the various stages in the House of Commons and all the various stages in the House of Lords up to the time of receiving the Royal Assent. There is an instance that goes far beyond usage.
  I will take another point, and I will take another Chancellor of the Exchequer of an entirely different typo to the present Chancellor. There might be a Chancellor of the Exchequer who might hold the view that the present exceptions and abatements should to a large extent be done away with, and that everybody who has an income of more than £100 a year should, as in Germany, contribute something to the Income Tax. It would be perfectly possible for that Chancellor to come down here and by a single Vote in Committee of Ways and Means to do away with all the exemptions and abatements and to impose an Income Tax upon people who had more than £100 a year. It would not be a new tax, it would be a variation of an old tax, and it could be done by a single Resolution of this House. I ask the Attorney-General whether that would not be going far beyond usage and practice? There would be hundreds of thousands of people who for the first time found themselves liable to Income Tax, and that Income Tax would be collected the very next, day, and I do not believe that under
  72
  the present system they would voluntarily allow that Income Tax to be collected from them until they had used all their influence and all the pressure of public opinion to get the House of Commons to take a very different view with regard to this new imposition of Income Tax, and until they had an opportunity of having the Bill in which these new taxes were imposed submitted to full discussion by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords before it received the Royal Assent.
  I will take another instance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, or some of them, have been very anxious that new taxes should not be included in these provisional regulations. I was very much inclined to support that view at one time, but since that I have come to the conclusion that after all there is not much less danger in the Bill merely because new taxes are excluded, and that, on the other hand, it might be very unfair to embarrass another Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in imposing new taxes, was not taking any measure which perhaps was half as foreign to the general opinion of the people as measures that might be taken by another Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase to a very large amount taxes which had already been instituted. Suppose that some day or another there was a shilling or two-shilling duty upon corn, and that that tax was already in existence. It would then be perfectly possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, by a certain Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, to increase that tax from 2s. to 5s. or 10s. Yet while the country might be quite prepared for a 2s. tax and quite willing to pay it and have it collected at the source before it was ever incorporated in an Act of Parliament, it might take a very different view indeed of a tax of 5s. or 10s. in the £, which would become something in the nature of a protective duty. There would be no elaborate Debate upon a matter of that kind, but simply a day's Debate, and because of one Resolution in Ways and Means practically the whole of the financial system of the country would be altered. A protective system would be established, and it might only last ten days if this House took a different decision after, but it would be the law of the land for ten days, without having had any adequate discussion on so important a matter having large financial bearings. There is an enormous power in this Bill which ought never to be given by this House to any Government that ever existed.

  73
  The right hon. Gentleman may say, "After all, it is quite true all that you say might happen; all these taxes might be imposed by a single Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means; but then there is the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), by which the House would have an opportunity within ten days after the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means of reviewing and reversing its decision." Yes, but a whole month or five weeks might elapse, because obviously the Whitsuntide holidays might very easily intervene, and the House might not sit for four or five weeks after the Resolution was carried in Committee of Ways and Means; and so for four or five weeks these new taxes, this enormous increase in old taxes, these new Corn Duties, this enormous increase in the old Corn Duties, this Coal Tax, might be in existence. Millions of money might have poured into the Treasury before the House of Commons had any possible opportunity of reviewing or reversing its decision. All this money would have been collected. What real opportunity will the House of Commons have of reconsidering its decision when all that was done? I could imagine what would happen. Possibly there might be some feeling in the country against these taxes. Hon. Members, whatever Government was in power, might come to their Whips and say, "We find this very large increase of taxation is very unpopular with our constituents," and there might be a considerable split in the party on this proposal of very large increase of taxation or to the imposition of this new form of taxation. And what would be the argument of the Whips? They would say to hon. Gentlemen, "After all, you must recollect that millions of money have already been collected; these taxes are now in existence for four or five weeks; the whole trade of the country will be dislocated if we do not keep them on, it is quite impossible to trace the money already paid to its source; you cannot get it back into the right hands. The Budget has been presented, and the whole scheme of the Budget depends upon these taxes to advance our social reform programme, and if you do not vote for these taxes the whole social reform programme will have to lapse, and I tell you candidly and confidently that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to resign if you do not support him." All these arguments would be used, and the House of Commons would not have the
  74
  same freedom of opportunity of approaching this great subject and of considering this great increase in our taxes, or some practically new form of taxation, as the House has now with its old procedure by which these taxes must be considered before they can be legally imposed or legally embodied in an Act of Parliament. And so I say that this proposed procedure will imperil the rights and control of the House of Commons. After all, the House of Commons ought to exercise its control over finance, and ought to consider itself the representative of the people more in the matter of finance than in anything else. It ought to be their guardian and custodian. The House of Commons is parting with one of its most valuable rights, and, in fact, is handing itself over almost body and soul to the Executive.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: What is the alternative?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I know we are told that we must have some procedure of this kind. As one not unconnected with the Treasury in past times, I wish to take this opportunity of discussing this point. I agree that the Treasury finds itself in a very great difficulty, and probably there will be forestalment and loss of revenue unless something is done in the matter. I do not, however, think there is any necessity for this extremely violent and revolutionary measure. If this Bill had been put before us as a temporary measure to get the Government out of a difficulty, we might have been well advised not to oppose it; then the Select Committee would have had the whole situation put before it to survey, and I am confident that Committee would have made many suggestions and devised many expedients by which this possible loss of revenue might be avoided. Suggestions have been made time after time. It has been suggested that the Income Tax year should be altered. I do not believe there are any insuperable objections to that. It might be extended for a period beyond that which it covers at the present time. As regards Customs, they might be made retrospective, but there might be conditions imposed on those who took goods out of bond during the first two or three months. Then the House of Commons might meet earlier, and make finance its first business. We might go back to the period when various taxes were placed in various Bills, and the most pressing and urgent taxes might be placed in a single

  75
  Bill. By adopting some of these suggestions, under a much more stringent procedure, it would be quite possible to get a Bill very quickly through the House of Commons which might be actually necessary for the services of the country, by which alone could be secured the full revenue from the taxes which the House of Commons had agreed to. These suggestions would form a practical measure, and would be far less dangerous than the one we are asked to adopt to-day.
  I am confident that if a Select Committee were to sit with Custom House officers upon it, and all the experts we could gather together, a variety of suggestions would be made by which it would be perfectly possible, without violating any of the fundamental traditions of this House, to devise a procedure which would stop the leakage by forestalment we all desire to stop. No case has been made out for this most revolutionary and dangerous procedure. This Bill must be regarded not only from our own point of view, but from the point of view that it may be copied by other Parliaments. This is the Mother of Parliaments, and our procedure is constantly being copied. Personally, I should regret that these regulations should ever be copied by any other Parliament. The Mother of Parliaments is setting a bad example to her children in passing this measure. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are anxious to set up a separate Parliament in Ireland. It has been indicated in the Home Rule Bill that the Irish Parliament shall adopt the procedure of this House. In Clause 12 of the Home, Rule Bill hon. Members will find it provided that the Irish House of Commons and the Irish Senate are to have the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons as it at present exists, and its members and committees are to have the same power that the Members and Committees of this House possess at the date of the passing of the Act. What an example to set to Ireland!
  Within the limits of that taxation it will be possible for the Irish House of Commons, in one night, at one silting, by one Vote, to impose any taxation within their limits, and to impose the immediate collection of that taxation as a statutory right upon Ireland. Hon. Members opposite are always saying that they have safeguarded the liberties of the minority in Ireland, but there will be no safety for that minority if these powers are given to
  76
  the Irish House of Commons. If a bad example is set here, it will be followed by other Parliaments, and that is another very strong reason why we should pause before we make this extraordinary alteration in our present form of procedure. We are now by this measure entering upon a very perilous path, dangerous to the Constitution and to the people. Little by little the power and protection afforded by the Second Chamber has been withdrawn, and now by some subtle influence the very power of the Crown itself is being withdrawn under this Bill, and the subjects and taxpayers of this country are being left to the mercy of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is rapidly becoming subservient to the Executive, and more docile to Ministerial dictation. The whole position is worsened from the point of view of the subject and the taxpayer, and when this House sees the action that will be taken by future Chancellors of the Exchequer under this procedure it will most certainly regret having in a light-hearted way allowed this Bill to become a part of our permanent Constitution.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I wish to speak for a very few moments upon this Bill. I may say at once that I am absolutely in favour of this measure, which is only an effort to legalise what has been the custom and practice of the House of Commons for seventy-five or eighty years. This practice was introduced, in the first place, by a Gentleman who was not only a Finance Minister, but at the time a Prime Minister, who was likewise the Leader of the Conservative party. As one to whom constitutional matters are a sort of a hobby, I would like to take exception to certain formulas in this Bill. At present the House of Commons is absolutely master of finance, but if the Attorney-General will glance his eye over the first and second Clauses of this Bill he will see that special mention is made of Resolutions of the House of Commons, Resolutions of Committee of Ways and Means, Resolutions of the Whole House, and special provisions are inserted providing that the Second Reading shall take place within ten days. There is also a special arrangement that these Resolutions shall have statutory force. These provisions are, perhaps, all good and proper, but I object to them on principle, because, as far as I know, they have never found a place in any Statute dealing with the procedure of the House of Commons.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The hon. and learned Member is wrong.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: At any rate, the instances are very few and far between. I think it is a cardinal principle of the administration of both Houses of Parliament that they should be absolute masters of their own procedure, but the instant reference is made in a Bill of this kind to First Readings, Second Readings, and Resolutions, then you immemediately transfer to the construction of the Courts the question whether a law was legally enacted or not, and that is what I object to. I think the House of Commons should be master of its own procedure. I do not think what is proposed in this Bill is very objectionable under the circumstances, because the House of Commons is master in finance. I should be very sorry if it were laid down that the House of Commons could not pass a whole Bill by a more Resolution. I am anxious in our procedure that the question as to whether a matter has passed this House or not should alone be determined by this House, and no Court whatever should ever be allowed to take exception to that procedure. I was very much reminded of a dogma that has always been insisted on by Mr. Freeman in all his writings, that the growth of the Constitution has been spontaneous more than by Statutes or by regulations, and undoubtedly reforms of the Constitution have not had any very great aid from professional lawyers, who are inclined to give everything the sanction of a dogmatic definition, and a complete juristical prescription for their use. We owe this Bill to the genius of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I regard him as a man of unquestionable genius, and one of the greatest Parliamentarians of his generation or any generation. I have always said that he has an exquisitely constructed mind, which he does not know how to use. I recollect an observation made by Mr. Ruskin after going through some great exhibition, where he referred to the wonderful ingenuity which has been devoted to the construction of a ridiculous toy. Mr. Bowles has devoted a great deal of time to the reduction into legal form of something which was not at all necessary, namely, an ordinary convention of the House of Commons good for the people and good for society at large. It was not much of a discovery. I certainly spoke of it some twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, and many did so
  78
  before me, but I said at the same time that no one would do such a thing, because really the spirit of Parliament is not consonant with resort to mere subterfuges, especially useless and mischievous subterfuges such as this. This Bill has made it impossible to resort to such a method again. It may be asked why this practice has remained in its present state for eighty or ninety years. It is owing undoubtedly to the good sense of the English people. They interpreted things in the spirit of the day while they allowed the form to go unaltered. I can only compare Mr. Bowles' procedure in this to the various contrivances, some of great ingenuity, made by men to rake up some obsolete and disused Statute. Everyone saw this blot, and it had only to be mentioned to have it remedied, but it was not necessary to take this course, and it is still more unnecessary at the present time.
  Let me see the arguments used against this procedure. There is the argument of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), who says that we are making the House of Commons pass a law without the intervention of the Lords or the Crown, and that we are doing what the servile House of Commons of Henry VIII. did when it passed an Act giving to Royal Proclamations the form of law. When my hon. Friend said that, he caught my eye, and, being an honest man, he was not able to keep his countenance. Then we had the astonishing argument of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel) that this Bill repeals and destroys the Bill of Rights. Let me take all these arguments together, and let me say one thing in reference to them. These Gentlemen invest themselves with a juristical and judicial atmosphere, and they go and look at the principles of Charles I. and apply those principles to the constitutional machinery of the present day. This Bill undoubtedly gives great power to the Executive; and why should it not? The Executive represents the people, and the greater power given to the Executive the greater is the power of the House of Commons, because the Executive is more amenable at present to the House of Commons than ever it was at any time or period. The hon. and learned Member's contention about the Bill of Rights is the most astonishing of all. Of course, it is perfectly right that the ordinary practice of the House of Commons in giving statutory effect to these Resolutions is a legislative anomaly and contrary to the Bill of

  79
  Rights, which did not permit any taxes to be levied without an Act of Parliament, but the hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we passed this Bill we should be practically repealing the Bill of Rights. We do nothing of the kind; we confirm the Bill of Rights, because the object of the Bill of Rights was that the House of Commons should have real power over taxation, and that taxation should be levied by them to any extent they pleased, and not by any external authority. Our contention is that the more control the House of Commons has over finance the better. I recollect how the Bill of Rights has been used by lawyers. It has been put into operation as a barrier against what I consider a great and proper facility for financial legislation. It was cited in another way at the time of the Reform Bill. You could do anything you liked with the Bill of Rights. A very clever Irish lawyer, who was not at all averse to legal promotion, Mr. Philip Crampton, said that one condition of the Bill of Rights was that election should be free, and he did not see why all the rotten boroughs should not be disfranchised at once. The construction of the Bill of Rights was raised in the House of Commons, and very severe stricture was passed on Mr. Philip Crampton, who afterwards became Solicitor-General. He was known as a lawyer as "Slippery Phil." I do not know whether his example is to be followed by later exponents of the Bill of Rights. I am glad this Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book. I regard it as an accession of strength in the highest degree to the House of Commons, but I would ask the Attorney-General, who knows a great deal more about everything than most of us know about anything, to bear in mind my suggestion with regard to having no reference whatever to the procedure of the House of Commons in any subsequent Statutes. Otherwise, this Bill is an excellent Bill in support of popular liberties, and all the arguments, from Henry VIII. downwards, which have been used against it, are so many arguments in its favour.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: The hon. Member seems to me to have made a rather contradictory speech. He said, to begin with, that he welcomes this Bill and approved of it in every way, and then he proceeded to say that he regretted any Bill should be placed on the Statute Book which dealt with the procedure of the House of
  80
  Commons. How would he deal with this matter by legislation without introducing the procedure of the House of Commons? Then I was surprised to hear the hon. Member refer to the Bill of Rights as an obsolete and disused Statute. It must have been surprising to anyone to hear such words used with regard to that Statute which has always been considered as enunciating the fundamental propositions upon which the liberties of the subject are based. The hon. Member said that this Bill was attributable to the genius of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I do not dispute the genius of Mr. Gibson Bowles, who is a very watchful dog on the actions of the Treasury, more necessary at the present time perhaps than ever before; but the genius of Mr. Gibson Bowles would never have been invoked nor would this Bill have been necessary if it had not been for the neglect by the Government of financial business. That is where you find the genesis of this Bill. When the Finance Act was passed within a reasonable period the subject was content to pay his taxes before they could be legally collected, but the moment the Finance Act was postponed to too late a period of the year that which might have been allowed by the subject willingly and which might have been convenient became extremely inconvenient. I should like to read what the learned judge said, and what the Attorney-General said in his argument. The learned judge said this:—
  "The taxpayer who has confidence that the House of Commons, having assented in Committee of Ways and Means to the taxation proposed on behalf of the Crown, will proceed without unnecessary delay with a Bill for the imposition of the tax, may not unnaturally be prepared to allow the proposed tax to be deducted from the source, but it may, from his, point of view, be an entirely different matter if he suspects or has reason to suppose that the Bill actually imposing the tax will be postponed until after the consideration of other important and it may be contentious measures."
  The learned judge there puts the real reason of the taxes not having been disputed before. The subject was always certain that before he could come into Court the Finance Act would become an Act of Parliament. The Attorney-General in his argument in the case said:—
  "The practice attacked is a convenient one when the Government is prepared to pass the Bill, but it becomes inconvenient when the Bill is long postponed and there may be a change of Government before the measure becomes a Statute."
  The necessity for this has undoubtedly arisen from the practice of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has been responsible for four Finance Acts.

  81
  I do not count the Finance Act of 1908, because the present Prime Minister was partly responsible for it. I begin from 1909, and, with regard to 1909, I will not blame him for anything that happened in the House of Lords. His Finance Bill of that year did not leave the House of Commons until 4th November, later than any previous Finance Act had received the Royal Assent in recent times. In 1910 the Finance Act did not receive the Royal Assent until 28th November. Now we come to his third year, which was worse even than the others. The Finance Act did not receive the Royal Assent until 16th December. The Bill actually took three and a half days in getting through the House of Commons, but so utterly reckless of the finances of the country is the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that he did not choose to bring that measure into law until 16th December. There was no new taxation whatever, and there was no reason for not proceeding with it. In 1912 he introduced the Budget and got his Resolution on 2nd April, but he did not take the Report stage until 24th June, and that was only because at that time Mr. Gibson Bowles was threatening him with action. When my hon. Friend attributes it to the genius of Mr. Gibson Bowles, I agree it is partly due to that, because Mr. Bowles showed great skill in arguing the case and in showing how unconstitutional was the action of the Government, but it is still more due to the neglect of the Government of financial business since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been at the Treasury. Every year he has been Chancellor of the Exchequer he has been so negligent of the finances of the country that that which was previously a convenient practice, according to the learned judge and according to the Attorney-General, has become highly inconvenient. The subject at last rebelled against the course of action which the Government were pursuing. That is the reason why they are driven to this necessity, which all of us must regret, of having to deal with this matter by Statute. That is how the Government have dealt with this matter up till now. When they have got us into the difficulty, how do they try to get us out? In the first place, they knew the difficulty existed on 4th November last, and they did absolutely nothing until the 7th April. They knew that, when the 5th April came, the banks and the people who
  82
  have to pay incomes or salaries would be in a difficulty. The Bank of England is in a difficulty now in connection with this matter. The Government have caused a situation under which the Bank of England is practically compelled to break the law. The action of the Bank of England in not paying interest in full is illegal, and the Government alone are responsible for it. Although their attention was called to the matter, because they cared more about vote-catching and party measures, such as the Home Rule Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and the Franchise Bill, they were not willing to give even a few days to this particular matter, and they therefore created a situation in which the Bank of England is practically placed in a position that it cannot do otherwise than break the law. The same thing applies to other banks. It applies to hundreds of millions of securities which have been falling due since the 5th April. If, when they produced this Bill, they had done something to help tide over the temporary difficulty, I should perhaps have been able to vote for it. But the astounding thing is that the Bill does nothing, and so far as the permanent question is concerned the Government have agreed to appoint a Select Committee which will inquire fully into the matter, while as far as the temporary difficulty is concerned the Bill does nothing to meet it. It does nothing to meet the cases where interest or salaries have been paid with Income Tax deducted since the 5th April.
  Again, it will not apply to any Resolutions which may be passed in connection with the Budget this year. I understand the Government are going to take the Budget to-morrow. But this Bill will not be retrospective and will not apply to any Resolution which may follow upon the Budget. This is a Bill which the House of Lords will have a right to discuss, and which they will no doubt take an opportunity of discussing, so that the Government cannot possibly hope to get the Royal Assent to it before to-morrow. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down with his Resolutions the Bill will not apply to them, because it cannot become operative before it gets the Royal Assent. The extraordinary thing is that while there was a temporary difficulty which really required to be dealt with, the Government have so framed their measure as not to meet it. Instead, they propose to put on the Statute Book a whole lot of detailed provisions with regard to the

  83
  future which they themselves admit are of so doubtful a character that they have agreed to refer them to a Select Committee. They have really dealt fully with that part of the question which they might have left over, and they have not dealt properly or attempted to deal with that portion which was really urgent and required attention. From start to finish the Government have shown a remarkable want of skill in dealing with this question. At the beginning of to-day's proceedings, on a Motion made by the Solicitor-General, the Leader of the Opposition said that the Government could not be congratulated either on the form or substance of their way of dealing with the particular question then under discussion. I venture to say that they are not to be congratulated either upon the way which they have dealt with this measure. To begin with they have entangled us in a constitutional difficulty which necessitates that very effect which even the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Swift MacNeill) objects so strongly to, namely, placing our procedure on the Statute Book, and, while trying to get us out of the difficulty, they have dealt in detail with that which they admit should go to a Select Committee and they have neglected to deal with that which is really urgent and necessary to enable the banks to deal with such interest and dividends as they have to pay immediately.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Donegal began his speech by saying that he occupied a position of perfect detachment. What would his position be, I wonder, when his detachment is not so perfect? It appeared to me, as I listened to his speech, that the Government could have desired no fuller support than what he gave them in connection with what they propose or any fuller defence than what he put forward for what they had not done in this Bill, than was afforded by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—a speech so detached from all party and sublunary interests. I was a little startled by some of the constitutional doctrines which he laid down. I know the hon. Gentleman prides himself upon his knowledge of constitutional law. He announced, for instance, that the greater the power of the Executive the greater was the power of the people. But that has been the doctrine of every Napoleonic tyrant, and of many tyrants long before
  84
  Napoleon gave his great name to the Napoleonic system.
  It was not, however, to discuss abstruse points of constitutional interest that I rose. I propose to speak very briefly, and I suspect the House already knows what I am going to say. I did approach the consideration of this Bill and of the Resolution on which it was founded, I think I may fairly say, in a spirit of detachment from any party consideration. I was perfectly ready to co-operate with the Government in meeting the difficulties which have been raised. I saw nothing to quarrel with in the principle they laid down. That principle was that, subject to such safeguards as it was necessary to introduce, when you turn an elastic and non-legal usage into Statute law, you should make the Bill embody that past usage. If the Bill did that, I do not think it would be necessary for me to speak at all, and certainly my speech would not have been directed towards voting against this Third Reading. But in the course of the discussion the Government, principally on representation from their own side, though they are entitled to say that objection was not taken on their side alone, but principally in answer to representations from their own side, have varied their Bill so that it no longer corresponds with old customs, and, by that variation, they have, to my mind, destroyed the case for the measure. I agreed with the Government when they said there was a case for giving legal sanction to the old customs, but I agree with my hon. Friends behind me when they say that, for the Bill as it is now framed, and as it has emerged from Committee, there is no conceivable case at all. The old practice of collecting taxes, not varied by the passing of the Resolution in Committee, applied only to Income Tax, Customs, and Excise.
  Mr. DENMAN: I think the collection of stamps was also included in 1889.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it has been the usual practice to collect stamps, but I will not say that it has not been done in particular cases. In the main, however, the practice applies among direct taxes to Income Tax, and among indirect taxes to Customs and Excise. As long as you did not desire to vary the rate of those taxes, or to vary the taxation, there was no need for a Bill of this kind to enable the collection of Customs Duty, for it

  85
  already carries you into the month of July. There was, too, no reason whatever why your Income Tax Resolution should not be framed so as to give you a similar latitude in the first quarter of the new financial year. Therefore, if you did not want to vary taxation, there was no reason for the procedure of this Bill. Assuming that the taxes were always to remain what they are, you could arrive at your object, the safeguarding of the revenue, without this Bill, which everybody recognises is, in itself, at best, a regrettable necessity. It is only when you want to vary the taxation that you need this Bill. If you want to vary a duty, it is desirable you should be able to collect the new revenue at the earliest possible moment after your intention has been announced. But it is infinitely more desirable, if you want to vary the Customs or Excise, that you should do the same thing, because the leakage and loss of revenue from delay in the case of Customs and Excise is very much greater than it is in the case of delay with regard to Income Tax.
  Furthermore, if you lose a half-year's revenue of Income Tax, you can recover it by a double charge in the succeeding half-year. I do not know whether hon. Members follow what I mean, but in a year—I do not exactly remember which; I am told it was 1884, the Penjdeh year—Mr. Gladstone's Government—I think Mr. Childers was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time—having to meet an extraordinary expenditure in the latter part of the year, raised the Income Tax 1d. for the whole year with a special provision that there should be a pro rata deduction from those incomes which had already paid partial Income Tax. If a man had not paid any Income Tax, he paid the full year's duty with the additional 1d. If he had made one half-year's payment, he had to pay 2d. additional, and if he had made the three quarterly payments, he paid 4d. extra, and so the tax was graded. I only mention this to show that if revenue is lost from Income Tax in the first six month of the year, it can be recovered in the last six months. But that is not the case with Customs. If by clearing goods from bond, or passing goods through the Customs, they escape the moment at which the tax ought to be raised, you cannot make them subject to the tax, and in that case, if your Resolution does not become effective at once, it does not become effective at all. The goods will have passed into
  86
  consumption with, perhaps, the amount of the extra duty added to their price, but that amount of duty will never reach the revenue, and the consumption can be forestalled by such large clearances from bond that the benefit to the revenue may be destroyed for twelve months or even longer.
  The only case in which the Bill deals with the variation of taxation is a case which cannot be affected, whereas in regard to the variation of Customs and Excise, which may be affected; it does nothing at all. It does not matter from the point of view of public urgency or from the point of view of the liberty of the citizen whether your variation in taxation is by the imposition of new taxes or by doubling the rate of old taxes. The sacrifice of public liberty is just as great if you turn a 5d. duty on tea into a 1s. duty as it is if you put 1d. duty on some article which is not now taxed at all. The liberty of the citizen, if his liberty depends upon no tax being raised from him until there is a Statute giving its authority to the tax—the liberty of the citizen is as much jeopardised by collecting an additional 2d. or 3d. on the Tea Duty as by collecting a similar amount on a new duty. The Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have chosen to make a distinction between new taxes and the variation of old taxes. I say that that destroys the whole merits of their Bill. The Bill had one merit—it purported to put into an Act of Parliament the practice which has been pursued for sixty years and which had been found useful to the public service and a convenience to the public. They have cut and changed altogether a bit of the practice, and have destroyed the principle upon which their Bill is founded. They do something more. They give those of us who were willing to support them, and who proposed in the face of some difficulty to vote for their original Bill, the right to say that they had not considered and are not considering the public interests in this matter, that they have not followed any settled principles of finance, and that they are making the Bill such as will suit their own immediate convenience, careless of the interests of the country at large, careless of the earlier practice of our revenue system, and leaving others to solve the difficulty which they themselves have shirked. In these circumstances, I am, with a clear conscience, going to vote against the Bill, which, when it was first spoken of, I hoped

  87
  I might be able to support. I would support a restoration of the old practice, but I will not support this selection of particular parts of the old practice for the temporary convenience of a particular Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No one in the House is likely to complain of the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I think that the Government has any right to make any complaint with regard to the change of attitude he has adopted at the present moment towards this Bill. He has been perfectly consistent in the view he has put forward in the House, and we quite understand, now that new taxes are excluded from the provisions and operations of this provisional collection of taxes, that he does not find himself at liberty to support it. Of course, we regret the loss of his support, but at the same time we think we are right in the view we have taken, more especially having regard to the criticisms which have been directed against this Bill from different parts of the House. It is not uninteresting to observe the different schools of thought which have directed their fire upon the Government in this connection. There are, for example, those like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), and the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), who have all along apparently taken the view that there ought to be no Bill, that nothing ought to be done by the Government in the nature of the proposals of this Bill, and that in some sort of way, although they quite admit, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham certainly admitted, that something ought to be done, still the proposals of the Government find no favour with them.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I distinctly said that had the Bill met a purely temporary difficulty, and had it been a purely temporary expedient, I should have voted for it or, at all events, not voted against it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought I had caught some such phrase from the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought I was mistaken. If that is the view he takes I think I am entitled to claim his support for this Bill. He knows that as a result of the discussion which has taken place upon this Bill, which has been a very good one and has enabled us to make the Bill better
  88
  than it was when introduced on First Reading, a Select Committee has been promised. A Select Committee is to inquire into this very matter, and no doubt if the Select Committee comes to the conclusion that better means can be devised—I do not say that they will not come to that conclusion—then, of course, the Government of the day, whichever Government is in power, will have to give effect to it. All that we say in reference to it is, that having considered it very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that this is the best means for meeting the difficulty until at all events the Select Committee has devised a better. If the right hon. Gentleman's only objection is that this is not a temporary measure, I say he has given us the best argument in support of the Bill. In the greater part of his speech he seemed to forget altogether that this Bill is intended to deal only with provisional collection. He spoke as if the Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means imposed a tax or duty, and that it had the force of law. Of course it only has the force of law for a certain time, provided that the House of Commons, when it considers the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means or the Finance Bill of the year embodying the Resolution of the House, thinks that the original Resolution was a right one, and that the tax or duty thus imposed should be continued. The whole of this Bill deals merely with provisional collection. At this time it is hardly necessary to say to the House, because I am sure everybody in the House is perfectly familiar with it, that we must bear in mind that the whole principle of the Bill is to put into legal form what has been hitherto the prevailing practice for so many years. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Swift MacNeill) is such an authority on constitutional matters in this House, that I always dissent from anything he says with great diffidence. On this question he found fault with us, in a very gentle way, because we had introduced the procedure of the House of Commons into the Bill, and as a stern rigid constitutionalist he objected to that. If we are sinners, at any rate we are following precedent. The hon. and learned Member seemed to doubt whether there was any precedent. I do not profess for one moment to be able to give all the precedents, but I will certainly give him three. There was the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in which a distinct reference

  89
  is made in Section 18 to a Resolution of the House of Commons in connection with taxation. I remember that because it formed part of the discussion during the argument in the case of Bowles versus The Bank of England. I was very much surprised, in looking up the various authorities for the purposes of that argument, to find that there was embodied in Section 18 of the Customs Consolidation Act a reference to a Resolution of the House of Commons, which undoubtedly suggests that the practice was recognised by Statute when Parliament passed the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: My right hon. and learned Friend will admit that "a Resolution of the House of Commons" is a very wide term.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I agree, although it got somehow or other into the Statute of 1876, that nobody can say it has the effect of making a Resolution of the House of Commons binding. That was the view taken by Mr. Justice Parker. I find another reference to the procedure of this House in the Scottish Procedure Act, 1899, in which there is a distinct reference to the powers of the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means. In the Finance Act, 1901—it may be in some others, but I do not remember them—there is a distinct reference to a Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means in dealing with duties. There is nothing very novel in what we are doing, although I quite agree that it is the first time the practice which has prevailed has been put into an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: All those Statutes were passed by Tory Governments.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not wish to take a partisan view of this measure, and I do not think the House would do so in devising the best means of getting over the difficulty which is created by the challenge of the practice which has hitherto prevailed. A further school of thought is that led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), which was in favour of this Bill. As an old experienced hand in finance, although he knows perfectly well that it is necessary to have some such measure as this once the practice is declared to be no longer legal, he says, "I should support it, but I will not sup-
  90
  port it, because you have excluded new taxes from the purview of the Bill." I quite appreciate the argument he has put forward as regards new taxes, but we believe that all the arguments against the Bill, if they are to have any weight at all, apply with singular effect against new taxes. I will take the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, and the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks, who say you must not put into statutory form a practice such as has hitherto prevailed, because, if you do, you will give statutory effect to a Resolution which will not have been sufficiently discussed in the House of Commons. We have met that by saying that we do not want to extend the practice which has hitherto existed, but, on the contrary, so far as we can, we limit the practice. All that we desire to do is to enable the revenue to get the benefit of the prevailing practice as regards Income Tax, Tea Duty, and other duties of a similar character.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Will the terms of reference to the Select Committee include the question of new taxes?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know what the terms of reference are, but I imagine that they would. The Select Committee will have to consider, and will have to be empowered to take into consideration the question whether or not new taxes should be included in any scheme which they may recommend. Our object has been in no way to extend the practice. I do not think we have extended it, but we have limited it very materially. The practice, as embodied in this Bill, is very different indeed from the elastic practice which prevailed until the Gibson Bowles' case. Anyone who has studied the Bill will not doubt that We have limited it, for example, by requiring that there shall be a declaration in the Resolution that it is expedient that the taxes should be collected on the Resolution. We have limited it further by saying there shall be only a certain interval of time elapsing between the passing of the Resolution and its consideration on Report by the House of Commons. We have limited it still further by saying that between the consideration by the House of Commons and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill there shall only elapse twenty sitting days of the House. In every way we have limited it as far as we can. We have gone further and said that although there is no Resolution passed, all that we have done is to

  91
  say that within one month between the expiration of the old tax and the reimposition or renewal of the tax there shall be power to collect, and that the collection shall be legalised if the House of Commons thinks right.
  All these are limitations upon the old existing practice, devised for the purpose of meeting criticism which we thought legitimate criticism, and when we exclude new taxes we are only following the same policy which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we have said that although you may by a Resolution impose or reimpose your Income Tax, you may reimpose your various Customs Duties, and you may vary them to some extent, nevertheless we shall not impose an entirely new duty. What we have said is that if you come to the imposition of a new duty, that is a matter which would require some further discussion, and upon which there is some ground for saying at the present moment—whatever this Select Committee may do we shall see hereafter—that we ought not to include new taxes in this Bill. It seems to me that the Government have in the Bill, as now framed and as they are presenting it to the House, met all the criticisms so far as they possibly could. I am quite sure no one in the House will say we have not given consideration to Amendments which have been proposed from the other side of the House, and certainly I will say for the Government, and for myself who have had to consider them, that I am indebted to those Gentlemen who have given their time and attention to the matter, and that many valuable suggestions have come from them. Especially I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) is entitled to our thanks for the very considerable amount of assistance he has given us. Reviewing all that has taken place in the House with reference to the Bill, my submission is that we have done all we can to meet legitimate criticism, that we are passing a Bill which is really very limited in its operation, as compared with the practice which hitherto prevailed, and that over and above all we have promised the appointment of a Select Committee which will be able to take into account all the various arguments which have been put forward here, and further arguments if they occur to anyone when they come to consider the matter, and no doubt in the future there will come a time when the whole subject-matter will have to be revised and reconsidered, assuming
  92
  that the Select Committee finds some better means than the one we have presented. On the whole my submission is that the House ought to give a Third Reading to the Bill.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I should like to answer the arguments brought forward by the Attorney-General in one or two respects. In the first place, although hon. Members on this side of the House quite admit that in certain respects the Bill has been amended in Committee on both sides, yet in its essence and in the essential conditions to which we object there has been no alteration at all. The Attorney-General talked about putting usage or custom, into statutory form. That has not been done, but let me assume that it has been done. Is there not an essential distinction between the collection of taxes under a system of usage and a collection of taxes under Statute? That is a point of distinction which it appears to me the House has never properly grasped. When you are dealing with a question of constitutional rights in the same way that you are dealing with a question of jurisdiction, usage has nothing to do with it whatever. Of course, usage may confer certain rights as regards common law, but when you are dealing with a constitutional principle you may have usage for centuries, but it makes no difference, if it is once pointed out, that usage, when considered and criticised, is found to be inconsistent with constitutional practice. Usage implies that you only put the power into operation in a reasonable manner. The probabilities are that if you become unreasonable the usage is questioned, as in this case, and is found to be illegal and unjust. That is most important, so important that we can test its operation in this way. For fifty years, whilst the usage was reasonably employed, no one took any objection to it. The objection arose immediately it was unreasonably employed That is a great, safeguard of the subject, and a proper safeguard of the subject, but if it is once put into a Statute no such question can ever come to the front again, and it is in this respect that I want particularly to join issue with what the Attorney-General has said. It is a wholly wrong basis to say we are merely preserving a custom or usage when we are putting it outside being a custom or usage in the future by giving it the full power of statutory effect and statutory authority. The two things are distinct and essentially distinct, and that, of course,

  93
  is one of the great points why we are so much opposed to the principle of this Bill.
  Let me take the next point which was dealt with by the Attorney-General. How did he deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher)? What is the difference between increasing the Income Tax from 1s. to 2s., and putting on a shilling in the first instance. What is the difference so far as the rights of the subject are incurred, and what is the difference so far as the requirements of the Treasury are concerned? If they require this Bill when they are increasing the Income Tax from 1s. to 2s., a fortiori they will require it when they are putting on an Income Tax for the first time. I do not use that as an argument against extending the Bill, but I use it as an argument which is destructive of what has been put forward more than once by the Front Bench, that this Bill is wanted in order to confirm existing usage as regards the collection of our taxes. It is nothing of the sort. If it was to confirm existing usage it would refer to new taxes as well as to old, and therefore there is hopeless inconsistency in the position which the Government have taken up. May I take another illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher). Supposing you suddenly wanted to double or treble your Land Taxes. Is that a matter which ought to be allowed to be sanctioned, even provisionally, by Resolution as against possibly the imposition of some new duty of a comparatively small amount? Of course, neither the one nor the other ought to be sanctioned, but how can you justify sanctioning the one and not, the other? Or take the other illustration that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Assume that you had a small tax on corn of 1s. or 2s., and that there is a proposal, from either side, to increase it up to 8s. or 10s., is that a matter which ought to be sanctioned, even for a time, by Resolution alone? I cannot imagine in substance a greater innovation in all our ideas of taxation in this country, or a greater invasion of what is primâ facie the right of the, subject than such a proposal. Yet under this Bill that proposal could be carried merely by Resolution, although at the same time some trumpery new tax could not be dealt with however much the Treasury might desire that it should be so dealt with in order to meet forestalling. That is really a hopelessly illogical position, and so far from
  94
  confirming existing custom and usage, you are destroying it on some of the most critical occasions when it might be necessary, and you are imposing as against the subject taxation by mere Resolution, which, to my mind, is a very revolutionary proposal indeed.
  May I say a word or two in answer to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Swift MacNeill). He said that in his view it would be a very proper thing that we should proceed in this House in an autocratic manner merely by Resolution. I think that is a monstrous suggestion. It means that this House, acting as a single Chamber, could enforce legislation without any discussion and merely by a Resolution passed, we will say, during some evening sitting on a matter of primary importance to every subject in the country. I agree with him in this respect. If we once introduced this principle of legislation by Resolution, how long do you think it would be before his views were adopted, because we are going in every direction down hill as regards the control of the House in matters of taxation and legislation. I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite logical. He says, "If you are going to tax by Resolution, why should you not do everything by Resolution? What a bore it is that we should work out principles, and think of control of taxation and legislation." He goes in for the period of the French Revolution and the Age of Terrorism. He says, "Let anybody, merely by Resolution, enforce its ukase upon the people of this country, and that will have my support." We are making a step in that direction by this present legislation. But the hon. and learned Gentleman goes further than that. He says, "I like that, because we have an Executive in this House, and I should like every ukase of the Government to be adopted by Resolution as quickly as possible, and have legislative and coercive effect against the subjects of this country." That is my hon. and learned Friend's view, but what a satire and a criticism upon the proposal of this Bill, that it adopts and has in its purview such a principle which, according to the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, ought, to be pressed in all legislation and all matters of taxation. It is the strongest objection to taxation by Resolution that it is not really the Act of this House, but that it really is a ukase of the Executive Government for

  95
  the time being. We all know what is done in the matter of the Budget. No one knows what is going to be proposed till the Government come down, and what is the position of the House? It is not a position of discussion and inquiry. You must support the Government, or else the Government will have to go out, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to resign. What a position to put a great legislative Assembly in on its primary duties as regards taxation! No stronger argument could possibly be urged against the constitutional want of principle in this Bill than that urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to say one other word. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the last people who ought to deal with constitutional questions of this kind were lawyers, because we take too technical a position. The lawyer who is really responsible for the great constitutional principle that we now adopt was Pitt. There was no greater statesman as regards constitutional principle in this country than Pitt, who was also a lawyer.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: He did not practise much.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: He practised on the Western Circuit. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman put anyone in the annals of his country, as regards constitutional principle and ideas of liberty and freedom, higher than the lawyer Grattan? If you look to the history of this country you will find that the lawyers, before all others, stood up for the principles of freedom and liberty as regards the subject, and as regards the rights of the House, and that we shall continue to do quite irrespective of any criticism which we may have from any side of the House. It is quite true that the first part of the Bill incorporates, as I think, the wrong principle of taxation by Resolution, but there are two other parts to which I think attention ought to be called. The second Section of the Bill is wholly unnecessary; it says that every Act of taxation which is passed for temporary purposes shall be extended automatically under the terms of this Bill. You might just as well say that we should not have an expiring Laws Continuance Act at all. Why is that necessary? The constitutional principle is that whenever you have an Act of Parliament passed of a temporary character, it cannot be renewed except by Statute. I do not think any precedent can be found
  96
  for the principle embodied in the second Section of this Bill, under which there is power to renew an expiring law by a Resolution of this House, and not by Statute passed in the ordinary way, when the law has come to an end or is coming to an end. As regards the last part of the Bill, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) that no one can understand Subsection (2) of Clause 2. So far as there has been any extension, it is absolutely useless for the purpose for which it is intended, because it cannot come into operation until the Finance Bill becomes an Act, whereas what we want is to protect the time between the passing of the Resolution and the passing of the Finance Act. The Sub-section refers to Section 95 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, and, therefore, it may be used in the Law Courts in order to place the official yoke more firmly on the neck of the subject. That Subsection has never been explained either by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. It ought to have no place in this Bill at all.
  The suggestion has been made that the difficulty which has arisen can only be met by upsetting all constitutional usage and practice in this matter. That cannot be maintained for a moment, and particularly as you now take new taxes out of the Bill. I agree that as to new taxes the difficulty is greater, but as regards existing taxes there is no difficulty whatever. You have only to enact that the taxes shall be imposed for fifteen months instead of twelve months, as at present. In that way the whole difficulty would be met in a constitutional way, in accordance with the rights of this House, and the liberties of the subject in this country. It is no argument whatever to say that you must have this Bill because something has to be done. I think that is the most illogical statement that could possibly be made. You have to show that what you propose is good in itself. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, now that new taxes are outside the scope of the Bill, that by imposing existing taxes for fifteen months instead of twelve months, you will have no difficulty whatever in future as regards collection, or any action such as was taken by Mr. Gibson Bowles. Why is it necessary to upset constitutional practice? I am one of those, speaking on behalf of hon. Members on the back benches in this House, who look with the gravest concern on this infringement of the traditions and

  97
  rights which is brought forward by the Front Bench. There is always some excuse, such as the necessity of the moment, and nearly always it is an illogical excuse. It is said that the present difficulty can be met more easily in the way proposed than by any other method. I protest against that being regarded as any argument in favour of a Bill of this kind when you have a difficulty, as has been pointed out on several occasions, which could be dealt with in another way without interfering with constitutional traditions and practice.
  I do not believe that you can have these constant infringements of constitutional traditions and practice without not only imperilling the position of the subject, but also gravely imperilling the prestige and position of this House. It is this House that has built up through centuries those ideas of freedom and liberty. If this House is to be of any value, if it is to maintain its prestige, and if it is to have the affection of the country in the future as in the past, it will not be done by surrendering those great principles. It will be by seeing that reforms, whatever reforms are necessary, must be made subject to those great principles which have prevailed for centuries as regards the constitutional rights of this country. I want, in conclusion, to read a passage from a work written in 1885 by Sir Henry Maine. No one would say that Sir Henry Maine was influenced by other than philosophic and scientific views in reference to those great constitutional subjects. What he says is an admirable illustration of the constitutional danger. He says:—
  "We are drifting towards a period when we shall lose our freedom and liberty. I expect that we shall have a single Assembly armed with full powers over the Constitution which it may exercise at pleasure."
  What have we now? We have a single Assembly with full powers over the Constitution in this matter, because this is a Money Bill, and we are exercising our powers at pleasure. Instead of thinking what the proper remedy should be, this measure is proposed in order that the Treasury may collect these taxes and duties. We are using our full powers to upset one of the fundamental principles which in the history of the past has guarded the civil liberties of the people of this country. Sir Henry Maine continues:
  "It will be theoretically all powerful combination governed by a practically all powerful secret committee of public safety."
  It is quite true that we are governed by a secret committee of public safety called the Cabinet,
  98
  "but kept from complete submission to its authority by obstruction for which its rulers——"
  that is the Cabinet for the time being—
  "are always seeking to find a remedy in some form of guillotine."
  That exactly expresses what has been going on in regard to this House in every direction. We have been losing our rights and liberties. According to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Swift MacNeill), we have increased our rights through Single-Chamber government. Practically it has subjected us entirely to what is called the secret committee of public safety, which is really the Cabinet. Now we are going to give up what is an enormous right, namely, that you cannot impose taxation except by Statute. You are going to impose it by Resolution of the House. You are going to impose taxation by Resolution before the passing of the Finance Bill. That is practically no safety at all. I am afraid that this Bill will pass, because the ukase of the Government always succeeds, yet I do urge that the House of Commons should rally itself against a proposal of this kind, insisting that its own liberty should be regarded, and that we should retain the sacred duty and obligation of protecting the subjects of this country against undue and unfair taxation.
  Captain JESSEL: I should like to express my surprise at what fell from the, hon. and learned Member for East Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), who has a great reputation, not only in this House but outside, as a constitutionalist and as an earnest student of constitutional law. I do think that anybody who heard him this afternoon must regard him, not as a constitutionalist but as a revolutionary of an extreme and dangerous character. He advocated that this House should proceed by Resolution, not only in matters of finance but in other matters where necessity arises.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: As it appears that I have been misunderstood, I think it is better to say that in making these observations I had in my mind's eye measures passed a second or third time by this House and rejected in another place.
  Captain JESSEL: I am glad I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman some opportunity of retrieving his reputation, for I am afraid if the bald statement he made earlier had gone out in the Press considerable astonishment would have arisen among his friends across the

  99
  Channel. We know that if the expectation of the hon. Member is fulfilled, namely, that Ireland will have an Irish Parliament, there is no doubt that he will be looked upon, and very rightly looked upon, as a great authority in that Parliament. I want to express my astonishment at the speech of the Attorney-General. I expected to hear from him something really germane to the position before us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman passed in review the speeches made this afternoon in the course of the Debate. He touched lightly upon the change of opinion in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), but where he failed, to my mind, was in not answering my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). What was the main point of my hon. Friend's objection to this Bill? The Government have admitted that, owing to the action of Mr. Gibson Bowles, something had to be done. What are we doing? Does this Bill apply to this year's procedure? The learned Attorney-General never answered that. Why did he not answer it? Because he knows, as well as I do, that this Bill cannot possibly apply to this year's Budget.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not agree with that.
  6.0 P.M.
  Captain JESSEL: Does it or does it not? I do not think that anyone on this side of the House understood that the provisions of this Bill, if it passes, do apply to this year's Budget. I take it that it does not from the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman when challenged by my hon. Friend did not say that it did. If that is the case, what has this House been wasting its time for? Why are we passing this Bill this year? If it does not apply to this year's Budget, there has been a great waste of time. Then we are told that there is going to be a Select Committee. A Select Committee will take time to report. Its proceedings are sometimes somewhat lengthy. At all events, let us hope that it will report in time for legislation next year. If it does not, then we shall be saddled with this Bill, which has all the evils that have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member who has just sat down. What I complain about is that
  100
  Parliament, which has a great deal to do, has had its time occupied for no practical purpose this Session in dealing with this Bill, which does not apply to existing circumstances, while we have no promise that the Select Committee will report in time for another Session. The result is that we have this most imperfect Bill, which we know is going to pass at the decree of the Government; and I wish to enter my protest against this slipshod method of legislation, and to say how distressful it is to my mind, when we could have been occupied with matters of a great deal more importance, that valuable Parliamentary time should be wasted by a Bill of this kind.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I wish to say a word as to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire to the exclusion from this Bill of new indirect taxes. That is an exclusion which was made on my Motion. I do not think that there would be any difficulty, so far as I am concerned, in finding an agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and myself on that point if we were united as to the policy that ought to be pursued in regard to indirect taxation as a whole. Unhappily that is not the case. We on this side of the House hold that all indirect taxes ought to be imposed solely for the purpose of raising revenue. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends hold that indirect taxes ought to be imposed, not solely or even primarily for revenue purposes, but mainly for the purposes of protecting home producers. Whatever inconvenience or loss may result from delay in collecting a tax which involves a departure from our present fiscal policy, I hold that it ought not to be weighed for a moment against the far graver consequences that would result from the adoption of the change of policy. I hold that the House and the country ought to have an opportunity of considering the character of that change before the tax involving it is actually imposed, and on that ground I brought forward my Amendment, and on that ground I support the Bill in its present form.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman in his explanation of his Amendment. I understand him to express the opinion that all indirect taxes should be levied for the purpose of revenue. I do not know whether he means to apply that to indirect taxes only and not to direct taxes. The old doctrine of Mr. Gladstone, and other similar experts

  101
  on financial matters, was that all taxes should be imposed for the purpose of raising revenue. Now the hon. Gentleman deals only with indirect taxes. Has he changed his mind?
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The hon. Baronet has not been listening to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman gave up the case for direct taxation. We are agreed about that, but not as to indirect taxes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have been listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and I asked him whether he held the opinion that direct taxes might be levied for purposes not connected with raising revenue. It would be a difficult question to answer, because I believe that he voted for the Land Taxes which certainly do not raise revenue. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman evaded the question by saying that I had not been present at some other Debate and had not listened to something
  which my right hon. Friend had said. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the attempt which he made to get out of a difficult position, but he has not been successful, because it is evident now that he holds the view that direct taxation may be levied for purposes not connected with the raising of revenue. I shall have very much pleasure in voting with my right hon. Friend against the Third Reading of the Bill. I always held the opinion that this Bill is quite unnecessary; that it puts great power into the hands of the Government which they ought not to have, and that if they were competent people and devoted their energies to financial questions which ought to be dealt with by the House of Commons the difficulties which arose would not have arisen.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 109.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES.

  [6.9 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Adamson, William

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

  Hinds, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Alden, Percy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Allen, Rt. Hon Charles P. (Stroud)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Arnold, Sydney

  Doris, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barnes, George N.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Field, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Boland, John Pius

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  King, J.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Leach, Charles

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Griffith, Ellis 3.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hackett, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hancock, J. G.

  Maclean, Donald

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cotton, William Francis

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayward, Evan

  M'Kean, John

  Crooks, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry

  Cullinan, John

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

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, H.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thomas James Henry

  Molloy, Michael

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Mooney, John J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Morgan, George Hay

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Morison, Hector

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Reddy, M.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Muldoon, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Munro, R.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Waring, Walter

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Webb, H.

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Malley, William

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Winfrey, Richard

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Wing, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Shee, James John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherie)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Snowden, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Parry, Thomas N.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Perkins, Walter F

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Grant, J. A.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord. H. Cavendish-

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harrison-Brodley, H. B.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Swift, Rigby

  Campion, W. R.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Wheler, Granville, C. H.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Younger, Sir George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Malcolm, Ian

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Sir A. Cripps.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee [Progress, 9th April].
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PRISONERS (TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FOR ILL-HEALTH) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Secretary of State to Discharge Prisoners Temporarily on Account of their Health.)
    (1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that by reason of the condition of a prisoner's health it is undesirable to detain him in prison, but that, such condition of health being due in whole or in part to the prisoner's own conduct in prison, it is desirable that his release should be temporary and conditional only, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, by order authorise the temporary discharge of the prisoner for such period and subject to such conditions as may be stated in the order.

    (2) Any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the order of temporary discharge and shall return to prison at the expiration of the period stated in the order, or of such extended period as may be fixed by any subsequent order of the Secretary of State, and if the prisoner fails so to comply or return he may be arrested without warrant and taken back to prison.

    (3) Where a prisoner under sentence is discharged in pursuance of an order of temporary discharge the currency of the sentence shall be suspended from the day on which he is discharged from prison under the order to the day on which he is received back into prison, so that the former day shall be reckoned and the latter shall not be reckoned as part of the sentence.

    (4) Where an order of temporary discharge is made in the case of a prisoner not under sentence, the order shall contain conditions requiring the attendance of the prisoner at any further proceedings on his case at which his presence may be required.

    Amendment proposed [9th April]: In Sub-section (1), after the word "prisoner" ["authorise the temporary discharge of the prisoner"], to insert the words "on licence."—[Sir Alfred Cripps.]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." Debate resumed.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: The question at issue between those who support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member and the Government is whether the terms on which a prisoner is to be temporarily released shall be put into the Act of Parliament or left to the discretion of the Home Secretary for the time being. The hon. Members who supported the Amendment on the last occasion, pointed out that this is very exceptional legislation, and that the House should be very jealous of allowing any unnecessary discretion to the Home Secretary for the time being to settle the terms of the licence to be granted to the prisoner, and they urged, that the terms should be inserted in the Act of Parliament itself. I submit that this is a very important issue. If it were a question of trusting the present Home Secretary, I should certainly be ready to trust him to draw up the terms of the licence, but it must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman's term of office will not be interminable,, and if the House were to leave to him, because we have so much confidence in him, the settlement of the terms, it would be possible for a future Home Secretary so to vary the terms as to make them very onerous and unacceptable to the House of Commons and perhaps to public opinion. In the discussion a fortnight ago, the question was raised as to the insertion of a provision in the Bill making it necessary, if the Home Secretary for the time being, made any variation in the terms of the licence, that the altered terms should lie on the Table of the House for forty days, so that if anyone took exception to it, he would have the opportunity of moving that the Home Secretary's variation of the licence should be set aside. I submit that the proposal presents a reasonable compromise which the right hon. Gentleman might see fit to accept. The hon. and learned Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), in the previous Debate, made an admirable speech against this Amendment, but there was one remark of his with which I disagreed. He compared an ordinary licence to a prisoner with the licence for temporary release which we are now considering. But a licence given to an ordinary prisoner is either for remission or shortening of his imprisonment, and it is of considerable advantage to the prisoner himself. It is a reward for their good conduct in prison, and the term of imprisonment may be very materially shortened. That is a very great advantage.

    107
    But in the cases to which this proposed legislation is directed the prisoner receives no shortening of sentence at all. Directly he (or she) is restored to health, after having been temporarily released, he is liable to be rearrested and to serve every day and hour of the term of imprisonment originally inflicted. It seems to me there is no analogy between a licence for shortening the term of imprisonment as a reward for good behaviour, and the granting of a licence for temporary release owing to the condition of the prisoner's health. It may be quite true that the prisoner's release is caused through ill-health brought on by his own conduct, but the House must remember that however foolish these persons may be, they have put themselves to a great deal of suffering and inconvenience, and directly they are restored to health, after having been out of prison temporarily under licence, they will have to go back to prison to serve the whole of their original sentence, and perhaps undergo all the pain and suffering of what would amount to almost too prolonged starvation. I repeat that this is very exceptional legislation to deal with a particular set of circumstances, and I do hope that the House will retain full control over the terms in which licence is to be granted, and not leave them to be settled merely at the discretion of the Government of the day.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: It is some time since this Amendment was moved, and it is desirable perhaps to state that the question we are really discussing, is whether the terms of the licence are to be incorporated in the Statute itself, or whether they are to be left practically to the discretion of the particular Home Secretary for the time being. I urged on the last occasion that conditions of this character—whether people were harsh or not harsh—ought at least to be in the Statute itself. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil from his point of view surely would desire that the conditions should be introduced into the Statute, and that they should not be a matter left for the discretion of the particular Home Secretary for the time being. We are not discussing the nature of the terms; what we are discussing is whether those terms, whatever they are, should be statutory or not. I admit that the Home Secretary read out the terms, and undertook that any alteration which he proposed to make in them
    108
    should be laid on the Table of the House, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of discussing whether they desired the alteration or not. I think I am correctly representing what the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree that it is an improvement on the Bill as it stands.
    But does it go sufficiently far when you are dealing with a matter of this kind, and when you are introducing this very exceptional legislation. I submit that if you are going to allow people out on licence, owing to difficulty through the starvation strike, you ought to say in this House, "We ought to be responsible that those conditions are not too harsh on the one side and that they will fairly carry out our purpose on the other." Another question which was raised in the previous discussion was that when you are dealing with the licence under the Penal Servitude Act you have the statutory conditions laid down. They were not laid down originally in 1857, and it was not until a later Act was introduced that power was given to vary the terms of imprisonment, but attached to that power of variation was the condition that the Home Secretary had to lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the proposed valuation. I think that the precautions which are taken when granting a licence to an ordinary prisoner under penal servitude Act should also be taken when granting a licence for the purposes of this Act. We ought to take the responsibility in this House and lay down what the proper conditions are. They ought not to be left to the discretion of any Home Secretary for the time being, whether he be a sentimentalist or a harsh individual. I hope the Committee will vote in favour of having the conditions laid down in the Act.
    Mr. M'CURDY: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your guidance, Sir, as to whether in your view this Amendment which we are now discussing covers two Amendments which appear further down the Paper—on which Amendments I desire to raise the question whether the release ought not to be free from any conditions at all?
    The CHAIRMAN: With reference to those two Amendments they have already been disposed of by the Committee, because we have passed the words in the Clause that the release of the prisoner shall be temporary and conditional. The present Amendment does not rule out two

    109
    further Amendments adding a proviso at the end of the first Sub-section (1).
    Sir F. BANBURY: This seems to me an extremely important question, and though I always attach very great value to anything my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) may say, I am rather inclined to differ from him in regard to the effect of the assurance given by the Home Secretary. I think everyone will admit that if the Home Secretary is to give the licence that licence should be put in a statutory form. I should have thought that every Home Secretary would have been of that opinion, as it is a most invidious position to put him in to have to say that in the case of Mr. A. or Mrs. A. the licence shall take a certain form, and that in the case of Mr. B. or Mrs. B. it will take another form. I should have thought it would be far better that the licence should take a statutory form. The Home Secretary has already read out the form in which he proposes to issue the licence, and has told us that if he proposes a variation he shall lay it on the Table. I venture to say that that procedure is of no use whatever. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the House of Commons may propose an Address to His Majesty to vary the condition. Under those circumstances he might just as well lay it on the table in his own private room in the Home Office, as there will be no opportunity of raising the question save on the Half-hour Adjournment Motion at eleven o'clock, and at half-past eleven o'clock even that Question cannot be put, as Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair. What is to be the result of giving this power to the Home Secretary? That entirely depends on who the Home Secretary may be, but I, personally, do not like to give a blank cheque to any Home Secretary to put any conditions in a licence which may seem good to him at the particular moment. I do not even know, supposing we were unfortunate enough to lose the present Home Secretary, that the Gentleman who would succeed him would be bound by the undertaking he has given. If we were to have a General Election, and the electorate were to exercise a wise discretion in their votes with the result that we appeared on the other side of the Speaker, I do not know that the new Home Secretary would be bound in any way by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I have shown, therefore, that the safe-
    110
    guard of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly illusory. I myself am an anti-suffragist, but that does not blind me to a sense of justice and of prudence, and I do not think it matters whether you are for or against Women Suffrage in the view that you take upon this particular question. I think I have shown, too, that it is not wise to give to any Home Secretary, whether Conservative or Liberal, the power of varying licences in the way that will be given unless this Amendment is inserted. Because I regard this matter as a very serious matter, I thought it was my duty to put the question to the Committee as it appears to me.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of your ruling just now this Amendment assumes additional importance. I take it that conditions will have to be laid down either by the Home Secretary or by this House. The Home Secretary, on the last occasion we discussed this Amendment, read out the conditions he proposed to apply, but as the hon. Baronet has just remarked, that carries with it no more weight or importance than the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself and cannot in any way be binding on his successor. Since the present Home Secretary has set forth the condition, I cannot for the life of me see why he can object to incorporating those conditions in a Schedule in this Bill. It is a fortnight since the Amendment was last before the House, and in view of the additional facts and that I believe no speech has been made by any private Member of this House in opposition to this Amendment, I would like to ask if the Home Office has given further consideration to this matter, and, if they have, I hope that as the result of that further consideration they have decided to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment, which seems to me to raise a rather important point. As I understand it, this Bill proposes, in the event of certain offenders rendering themselves unwell, and rendering it undesirable that they should be retained in prison owing to ill-health brought on as the result of their own conduct while in prison, that in the case of such prisoners the term of imprisonment should from time to time be suspended without being in any way curtailed, and that during those periods of suspension he or she should be subject to

    111
    what is called an order of temporary discharge. If I could for one moment regard the order of temporary discharge as the conferring of liberty upon the prisoner for such period as is necessary for the purpose of convalescence, I should not have anything to say against these provisions. I do not think, however, after what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, and after the example in a recent case of a licence for similar reasons granted by the Home Secretary in the case of a prisoner undergoing a term of penal servitude, that it is possible for anybody to contend that the temporary discharge which would be granted under this Bill will be liberty in any sense of the word, and will be anything but a further period of imprisonment. What is imprisonment in the eyes of the English law? Imprisonment does not mean necessarily confinement within the four walls of a prison. Imprisonment means any restriction imposed on the personal liberty of the subject. If it is open to the Home Secretary to consent to the release of a prisoner on the condition that during the period of that release the prisoner is to remain within the four walls of a nursing home, and to place police at the back and front of that nursing home, then I say with some confidence that that is imprisonment within the ordinary meaning of the word and of the English law. What is the offence for which this new kind of imprisonment is created by this Bill? It is the case of a prisoner who brings her ill-health upon herself or himself by abstaining from food. Is it a new offence created by the Bill, or old? It has been suggested in the course of this Debate, and very properly, that it is an old offence, inasmuch as in nearly every case it could be shown it was an abstention from food in pursuance of a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice.
    It is obviously also an old offence inasmuch as deliberate and wilful abstention from food up to the point reached in some cases mentioned in this House by the right hon. Gentleman where the person so abstaining is placed in a condition in which life and death no longer depends on his or her volition, amounts to an act which, wilfully persisted in, would support a charge of attempted suicide. But, whether it is an offence which falls within the two classes of offence well known to the law, and for which the right hon. Gentleman has all the machinery of the law at his disposal with which to deal
    112
    with them, without coming to this House for these very arbitrary powers, or, if it be a new offence, that is, the offence of making oneself unwell by abstaining from food in prison without attempting to commit suicide or any intent to defeat the ends of justice, then in any one of the three cases this Bill, as drafted, places in the power of the Home Secretary for the time being to impose on persons who commit this offence a new kind of imprisonment, hitherto unknown to the law, imprisonment within a place which is not a recognised gaol or place of detention, and an imprisonment which is to be safeguarded, or may be safeguarded, by pickets and police. While I am not in what I am saying actuated for one moment by the interests or supposed interests of any persons who may make themselves subjects for this legislation it does seem to me before we place in the hands of the Home Secretary powers of that description, we should recognise what we are doing in this matter. It was one of the conditions of Magna Charta, and before Magna Charta it had been a plain principle of English law, that no man should be imprisoned for any offence without his being tried and properly convicted of that offence, and that no man should be imprisoned by the will of the Sovereign, whether expressed to the Privy Council or through the Minister of State, and that no man should be imprisoned except on the verdict of a judge and jury and a jury properly sworn to try the issue between the King and the prisoner.
    Mr. CAWLEY: Is this in Order on this Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is whether the terms of the licence should be inserted in the Bill or left to the Home Secretary. I think that the hon. Member is rather approaching the consideration of the whole Bill.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I submit with all respect that what I am saying is strictly in order. I am submitting that the leaving of the conditions to the discretion of the Home Secretary is for the reasons I have explained—a repeal of certain principles of English law, and places in the hands of a Secretary of State arbitrary powers of imprisonment of the subject which at present no Secretary of State possesses.
    The CHAIRMAN: On those lines, the hon. Member is perfectly in order.
    Mr. M'CURDY: On the question whether these conditions amount to imprisonment or liberty, it is interesting to look at an analogous case which has arisen under the Penal Servitude Acts. Under those Acts the power of the Home Secretary is clearly to release a prisoner, and the licence concludes with the words that "His Majesty the King is graciously pleased to grant liberty to the prisoner upon the terms aforesaid," or words to that effect. Therefore, when we find that the Home Secretary is, by the terms of the Penal Servitude Acts, empowered to release a prisoner upon condition that she shall remain within the four walls of a nursing home and be subject to the surveillance of a police picket, it is obvious that there is nothing which could limit the discretion of the Home Secretary in the matter of the conditions imposed upon prisoners released under this Bill. It was suggested at a former sitting of this Committee that it would be better to leave the terms of the release in the discretion of the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary is subject to the criticism of this House, whereas a judge and jury are not. That is a most interesting argument, but it is an entire reversal of the principles written large in Magna Charta, in the Petition of Rights, and in a whole series of Habeas Corpus Acts. It is the doctrine that in future a man shall be imprisoned not upon the finding of a judge and jury, but only at the discretion of the Home Secretary, because then the imprisonment will be subject to the criticism of this House. This Bill, in effect, gloss it how you will, creates either a new punishment for an old offence or a new punishment for a new offence, and introduces into the English law a novel, and I should have thought to every constitutionalist and democrat an entirely repugnant doctrine. I submit that troublesome and annoying as may be the experiences which the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly undergoing at the present time in face of the deplorable agitation in the country, it is a somewhat heavy price to pay that we should suspend the ordinary constitutional safeguards of the country in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman to deal with matters in regard to which, if my view of the law be right, he has ample legal powers at the present time.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I hope I shall not stray beyond the limits of your ruling if I remark that my attitude towards this
    114
    Amendment necessarily flows from my conviction that the whole Bill will be utterly futile. It is only because I desire to see the Bill made as futile as possible that I am prepared to support this Amendment. I feel convinced that, whatever conditions may be imposed, they will be ineffective. The women aimed at by this Bill will certainly refuse to comply with the conditions, whether they are imposed in the manner proposed by this Amendment or by the method proposed in the Bill. That being so, there will be a great temptation to the Home Secretary, whoever he may be, to attempt, by changing from time to time the terms upon which temporary releases are made, to get over the ingenuity of the female prisoners and to devise new conditions more effective than those in existence. In other words, the Home Secretary will be greatly tempted to adopt a bullying policy towards the prisoners affected by the Bill. It is true that that would be of no great consequence if there was any substantial security in the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to lay the conditions upon the Table of the House, in order that there might be an opportunity for consideration before changes were made. The answer to that, given by my hon. Friend, was complete. The security which used to lie in that procedure exists no longer, because under the present procedure of the House, no matter how long a Paper of that sort might lie upon the Table, there would be no real opportunity for the House to take it into consideration and discuss its terms. Unless there is a real, genuine opportunity for Members to discuss, not merely for half an hour on the Motion for Adjournment, but in a substantial way, whether or not the proposed new terms are such as fit the case or are such as the House would approve, it really rests with the discretion, or, indeed, the whim of the Home Secretary to release a prisoner upon any conditions that he may think fit at the moment. That appears to me to be a power which the House ought to be very reluctant to place in the hands of any Minister. The terms upon which these special prisoners are to be treated introduce entirely new conditions into the penal law of this country, and when we are embarking upon purely experimental legislation of this sort the House ought to be very careful to retain in its own hands complete control over all the developments that may occur. In these circumstances, I think the conditions ought to appear in the Statute itself.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I understand by your ruling that the subject-matter of my Amendment is in substance covered by the Amendment now under discussion. Although I am not permitted in any way to deal with the general aspects of the Bill, let me say at once that the way in which this measure has so far been dealt with by the House of Commons is a very forcible illustration of a process with which we are familiar. When there is any undue strain of a temporary character upon the existing law, there is always a cry for fresh legislation to strengthen the law, and to do so at the expense of the principles which governed the former law. If this Bill had the deliberate judgment of this House—which it will not have—it would not pass in its present form. Unfortunately, those who take no part in the Debate, and do not consider the subject-matter under Debate, will flock into the Lobbies and outvote those of us who are trying to give the matter proper consideration. I do not understand the attitude of the Home Secretary. There is no precedent whatever for this novel provision. It is perfectly true that under the Penal Servitude Acts power is given to the Home Secretary to licence a prisoner and to impose certain conditions over which he undoubtedly exercises some discretion, but those conditions must be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons. Although the procedure of laying Papers on the Table of the House is now more or less ornamental and has no real value, still at the same time, if there be any strong feeling in the House that the proposed conditions are improper conditions, the House has the opportunity of dealing with them. But the conditions under this Bill are to be made by the Home Secretary subject to no control whatever, to no direction whatever, and to no influence whatever except that of his subordinates.
    7.0 P.M.
    I am the last man in the world to impute to my right hon. Friend any desire to act harshly in this matter. I am not speaking now as one in sympathy with the Women Suffrage movement. Far from it. I am speaking in a humble way as a constitutional lawyer, and I repeat that there is no precedent for this proposal. The release of a prisoner undergoing penal servitude on licence is a totally different matter. It is then an indulgence. The prisoner is given his liberty; his sentence is reduced; the term of his imprisonment is
    116
    curtailed. There is all the difference in the world. It is for the benefit of the man that the licence is issued. Therefore any conditions which the Home Secretary may impose must be regarded in a totally different light. Here it is no curtailment of the term of imprisonment. It is continuation of the imprisonment; nay, something more, it is an increase of the imprisonment, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, although some of the attributes of imprisonment do not continue while the man or woman is residing in his own house, still he is under confinement, under surveillance, and liable at any moment to be taken to the place from whence he came. I hope I have made that distinction clear. We have conceded this measure because we naturally revolt against this very cruel way—I never blame the Home Secretary in relation to this matter, because he is in a very difficult position—against the very unpleasant, degrading, and cruel treatment which forcible feeding involves. Therefore the House passed this measure actuated by a spirit of humanity. I should like to know from the Home Secretary this: When we are giving him this unconditional power of imposing conditions will he still retain not only the power, but the intention of applying forcible feeding? If so, the purpose of this Bill——
    The CHAIRMAN: That point is raised on a subsequent Amendment.
    Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am obliged, Mr. Chairman. I was not going to pursue the point, but I may say that this is the first time I have been called to order over many years, though I admit that my remarks are not apposite to this particular Amendment. What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is this: Why does he allocate to himself the unfettered right to impose these conditions? It is an unfettered right, and the conditions may even be cruel. I think the condition which was imposed by him in the case of that unfortunate lady, Mrs. Pankhurst, under the present Act—I doubt if it is legal, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been well advised—the condition that she should not leave the house she went into without special leave from the Home Secretary, or the Prison Commissioners, a cruel one—unnecessarily cruel upon that lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think so. However, opinions may differ. It was an obligation upon her to remain within those premises without

    117
    any opportunity of going outside. That struck me as very oppressive. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Very well, I deprecate panic legislation in matters of this kind. There is no limit to the right hon. Gentleman in his imposition of conditions. You are really vesting—and I appeal to hon. Members who have had as much or more experience than myself whether it is not so—in a Minister of the Crown the unfettered power of allowing prisoners out, letting them come in again, and allowing them to go out again—a power which might be abused. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend will abuse it. We should take care never to vest in a Minister of the Crown unfettered power over the liberty of the subject. I speak as a constitutional lawyer, and not on the basis of a sympathiser with the Women Suffrage movement. I say this is a most dangerous innovation, and I hope my right hon. Friend will, at any rate, go as far as to say, "I will be content to allow the conditions which I make to lie upon the Table of the House." No conditions ought to be in obscurity. What are the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reserve to himself to make? The only conditions that he should impose are that a prisoner released on licence should remain within reach of the law, and not violate the existing law. If the prisoner violated the existing law he or she could be prosecuted. If they did not, let the police, or whatever the authority may be, know their whereabouts—that is good reason for the licence being dealt with. I speak on this subject with a great deal of feeling, remote altogether from my sympathy with the Women Suffrage movement. I can see the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman. I know that provocative methods have been employed. It is no reason, however bad the conduct of these people may be, for our setting up a precedent which is quite unknown in the history of general jurisprudence in this country, and which I cannot help thinking may at some future time be abused. I do, therefore, entreat the Members of the Committee who join with us, and take this view, to put some restraint upon this extraordinary power which we are vesting, or proposing to vest, in the Home Secretary.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Some hon. Members have not been present on previous occasions of debating this Bill;
    118
    therefore, though it is undesirable to repeat some of the arguments which I addressed to the House on earlier occasions, I must do so to a certain, extent. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken can be met at every point. There is a great distinction to be drawn between a permission or licence issued under this Bill, and a licence issued under the Penal Servitude Acts. All analogies drawn from the actual licence issued in the case of Mrs. Pankhurst and licences under this Bill are false in substance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will explain why. During the currency of Mrs. Pankhurst's licence her sentence is expiring. She ought to be in prison, not under my order, or in breach of the Habeas Corpus Act, but because she has been committed to prison by a sentence of the judge on a verdict of the jury. By reason of her state of health, consequent upon her conduct, it has been considered desirable to let her out of prison. In such circumstances, seeing that while she is out of prison, her sentence is expiring, if I may use the expression, she is defrauding the judge and jury of the sentence which has been passed. During the time she is out of prison she is not serving the sentence the law inflicted upon her. I am bound, therefore, to exercise such power as the law has placed in my hands in order to make her complete her sentence. What have I done? I have taken the necessary precautions to prevent her escaping during the time of the currency of the sentence, and while she is comparatively free. The conditions imposed in Mrs. Pankhurst's licence have nothing to do with the licence under this Bill. The fundamental difference under this Bill is that during the currency of the licence the sentence will not be running; and, secondly, in any licence imposed under this Bill in my judgment—and I believe in the judgment of the Committee—there ought to be no punitive conditions. The prisoner is still liable to serve the whole amount of the sentence, and I am, for reasons that any Home Secretary may feel himself bound to consider, for reasons of health, bound to release the prisoner because failure to release the prisoner might be followed by a far greater punishment than any imprisonment, that is by death. At present I can only release by complete discharge. I ask for conditional power to release upon licence. That licence, as I say, should contain no punitive conditions, because the prisoner still remains liable to serve the whole length of the sentence for which the

    119
    prisoner was sentenced. I read in an earlier stage of the discussion, the draft licence—the conditions—which I propose to impose upon a prisoner who starves herself in prison. These conditions are not as the hon. Member for St. Augustine's conceived, conditions which a prisoner has to assent to. They are not the terms upon which she is let out. Let me remind hon. Members what the conditions—they are four in number—are. The first is that the prisoner shall return to prison on the prescribed day. If the prisoner does not then the powers of the police are to be used to attach her and bring her back. The second condition is that the prisoner shall be entitled, on her own application, to have the period of the licence extended if her state of health is such that it would be undesirable for her to return to prison.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, will she be under what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has called surveillance during the time she is out of prison?
    Mr. McKENNA: She would not be under surveillance in the same sense as Mrs. Pankhurst is under surveillance, nor would she be under any observation of an inconvenient or punitive kind at all.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What did the right hon. Gentleman say to me in a previous Debate?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have read the conditions. The second condition is that the prisoner shall be entitled to apply for a continuation of her extension of licence, but if she so applies before she can get that extension she must submit herself to a medical examination. That is a condition, I quite agree, in which the prisoner has to submit to something, but it is a condition which can only arise if a prisoner on her application has received or is receiving an extension of licence. The third condition—and now I come to the point raised by the subject-matter of the speech of my hon. Friend—is that she shall notify to the police any change of residence. If she does not notify any change of her residence she has broken the licence, and I should be justified in finding out where she was, and, having found her, I should be justified in picketing the house to prevent her escape. Upon her failing to notify her
    120
    change of residence the conditions have been broken, and I am at liberty to have her arrested and brought back to prison at any moment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would she be perfectly free to live where she pleases; and would there be no surveillance until she had broken the conditions of the licence?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is so. She would be perfectly free to go to what residence she pleases on leaving prison. [An HON. MEMBER: "She would be free to go away."] Oh, no!
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: How are you going to stop her?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think we are quite on the same point at the moment. I quite admit it may be of considerable difficulty to see that a prisoner does not escape out of the country. All I am dealing with now is a Bill to enable me to release a prisoner from prison without giving an absolute remission of the sentence. I want to keep the sentence alive. If I have to release a prisoner upon her own misconduct, I do not think she should have unconditional release or a remission of the sentence, and I ask for such powers as will enable me, as far as I can, to compel the service of the remainder of the sentence. I come now to the fourth condition. My hon. Friend (Mr. Snowden) asks me, "Can a prisoner go to any residence she likes?" The answer is certainly. When leaving the prison she will be taken to whatever residence she chooses, and if she leaves that residence and takes up another she is under an obligation to inform the police; and if she fails she has broken the conditions of the licence, and when the police discover her, of course we should keep an eye upon her to prevent her escape.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Assuming the prisoner leaves the jurisdiction, what is then the position of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope it is not improper to say so, but I am afraid I should be very tempted to leave her out of the jurisdiction.
    Mr. H. SMITH: And to defraud the judge and the jury who tried her.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is only a phrase.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: What has all this got to do with the question whether these prisoners comply with the licence?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that. My hon. Friend said that if the conditions were conformed to he would be satisfied, and I am explaining to him that the conditions are what his foresight has seen them to be in a licence of this sort. The fourth condition, subject to what my hon. Friend said, is that she shall abstain from any violation of the law. I hope I am not over sanguine when I say I believe I shall have the whole Committee with me in insisting that these conditions are the right kind of conditions for a Bill of this kind. They ought not to be punitive and ought only be directed to secure the final conditions of the sentence. I am asked, "Why not incorporate them in the Bill?" As I explained before, if the Bill had been conceived in that direction I should not hesitate for a moment, but I am stating the facts fully and frankly to the Committee that this Bill is very urgent. So long as I have not got this Bill I feel it my duty to subject a certain number of these prisoners who will not take their food to forcible feeding. I conceive it is not my duty to restrict any prisoner's sentence to such period as she herself chooses by refusing to take food. Personally, I should be very glad, and I am most anxious as soon as I can to get rid of this necessity for forcible feeding, and unless I am to disregard my duty I can only do that by getting powers of this kind. If I inserted this draft licence in the Bill it would inevitably delay the Bill.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: How many days?
    Mr. McKENNA: At least a week. What is the difference in substance? I stated to the Committee quite frankly what is the difference in substance as to whether this draft licence should be in the Bill. It is how far you trust the Home Secretary of the day and how far you find it necessary to put limitations upon his discussion by inserting these terms in the Bill. The Home Secretary to-day has got an absolutely unfettered discretion, by any Statute or by any limitation of Parliament, to remit the sentence of every prisoner now in every one of His Majesty's prisons. Why does he not exercise that discretion, and why does he not do the wicked and foolish things which, for the purposes of Debate, it is suggested in this Committee that I or some future Home Secretary might do?
    Mr. BARNES: You cannot take a prisoner in again.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am dealing with the Home Secretary's discretion. If the Home Secretary were anxious, as no Home Secretary would be, to commit all these follies, he knows that Parliament would instantly call him to book. It is all very well to talk about the House of Commons not having control over the Executive. It may be so—I am not prepared to argue with regard to most Ministers—but it is not so in the case of the Home Secretary. Everything he does he does in the full light of day, and he is subject to the criticism of the majority of this House. It would be absolutely impossible for any Home Secretary to vary these conditions which have been submitted to this House in asking the House to pass this Bill, without being instantly called to account by a majority of the House. That is the reason why I submit that this is not the real danger we are discussing. It is a pure argumentative danger. I ask the Committee, in view of the real need for this Bill—it is understood we are to get this stage of the Bill to-day—in view of the real need of letting this Bill through, both on the arguments of those who defend what I may call the severity of the administration of the law and of those who are greatly shocked in their feelings by the practice of forcible feeding, to let us have it. Both sections of the Committee must know that the Bill is urgent, and on the ground of urgency, and on the ground of the express pledge I gave to the House that the conditions shall be such as I have read to the House, I ask the Committee to allow me to have it in this form.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think that the Home Secretary told the Committee that when these conditions are laid upon the Table the House will be able to revise any action which he or his successors may take in relation to this matter. But he entirely loses sight of the fact that when these matters are brought under review Members will follow the party Whips without any regard to the issues involved therein. When we saw, only three nights ago, the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department telling us that the majority of the House of Commons and the country were entirely against the abolition of the censorship, and that he would not get one vote in the House without the party Whips to support his view we know how much importance ought to attach to statements of this kind.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): Was the hon. Baronet in the House at the time?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Well, then, his memory is at fault.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I understood the hon. Gentleman to have made the strongest possible speech against the Motion, saying that public opinion was in his favour, but when it came to the point he would not have got a single vote, but if the party Whips were put on the majority of the House would have taken his view. It would be exactly the same with the party opposite. I contend that the conditions of the proposed licence are mean, cruel, and unworthy of the House of Commons, and that these proposals of the Government will bring the House of Commons into ridicule and will not make one step further in the direction in which we all wish to go, namely, upholding the law. This Bill has been called the "Cat-and-Mouse Bill," and I think it is a cat-and-mouse Bill in the worst sense. Let me put this to the Home Secretary. We have all seen at some time in our lives the process of the cat and the mouse. It is the most cruel, I always thought, to see the actual killing of the mouse, because after the cat has caught the mouse he lets it run away at times and proceeds to deliberately torture it. That is what is to be done under this licence. You are going to take the prisoners out of prison after their health has given way, and then you are going to bring them back again. The women are determined in this matter to fight the Home Secretary, and I think they are not going to be deterred by any body of permanent officials of the Home Office or by the Home Secretary. I was told by a Member of the Cabinet that this Bill was the decision of the Cabinet. All I can say is that the Cabinet have a very little sense if this is the kind of Bill they are proposing.
    The CHAIRMAN: On the last occasion I asked the hon. Baronet not to discuss the whole Bill on an Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I was only dealing with the conditions of the licence. I think the language of the Home Secretary was very unfortunate when he said that the prisoners would be defrauding the judge and the jury by escape. I think a state-
    124
    ment of that kind shows the frivolous way in which the House of Commons is dealing with a subject of immense importance involving the whole system of our criminal law. Hon. Members opposite join hands with the Government in making the Bill worthless. After the conditions of this licence have been placed upon the Table we shall have no opportunity of discussing this question, and are we to understand that forcible feeding will not then be insisted upon?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that that question is covered by an Amendment we shall reach shortly, and I cannot allow a debate upon it in advance.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to know what will happen. Under the proposed licence, any prisoner who chooses to go on strike and refuses to take food may be let out on licence. That would apply not only to suffragists, but to any other prisoner, and they would be let out under this licence. If the discharge applies to all prisoners, then it means that any prisoner who goes on hunger strike may be released by virtue of this Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: That may be an argument against the Bill, but it is not relevant to this particular Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If you hold that my question is out of order, I must reserve my point to a later stage. I hope the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will proceed to a Division, because at the present time we are too much hide-bound by Ministers and permanent officials.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I would like to suggest, after the speech which has been made by the Home Secretary, that this Amendment might very well be left to the free judgment of the House. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee quite frankly that he attached no great importance to the matter one way or the other, and the only point he had in mind was that inserting the terms of this licence in the Bill might delay getting it through. I do not think the acceptance of this Amendment would have that tendency, and under these circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to leave the matter an open question for the decision of the Committee. All those who have spoken on this side of the House have supported the Amendment—[An HON.

    125
    MEMBER: "Including the Home Secretary."]—and as no question of principle is involved, and as the opinion of the Committee appears to be in favour of the Amendment, it seems to me essentially a question in which the House might be allowed to exercise its own free judgment, and that can only be arrived at by leaving off the Government Whips.
    Sir W. BYLES: The question is whether these conditions should be put into the Bill, and become a part of the Statute, or whether they should be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary. All the speeches on both sides, with the exception of the Home Secretary, have been in favour of putting those conditions into the Bill. The arguments have entirely convinced me, and on this matter I do not wish to give a silent vote against the
    Home Secretary, whom I am most anxious to support in his endeavour to cope with one of the most serious difficulties with which a Minister can be confronted. I hope on this matter we shall be allowed to vote freely. The only argument advanced, against the proposal to put these conditions into the Bill is that it would delay the passing of the measure. I should be sorry to delay the passing of this measure even for an hour, but it seems to me we are doing a very serious thing, and we ought not to abstain from doing what we think is right because it will take a little longer.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 62.]

    AYES.

    [7.39 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Nield, Herbert

    Astor, Waldorf

    Forster, Henry William

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnes, G. N.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gretton, John

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

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bird, Alfred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherce)

    Boyton, James

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Snowden, Philip

    Butcher, John George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Swift, Rigby

    Cave, George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Belfast, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hudson, Walter

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jowett, F. W.

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crooks, William

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Duke, Henry Edward

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Atherley-Jones.

    Fell, Arthur

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Arnold, Sydney

    Black, Arthur W

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Boland, John Plus

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brady, Patrick Joesph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (prestwich)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Chancellor H. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parry, Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kelly, Edward

    Radford, G. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Cullinan, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, J.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Reddy, M.

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Faiconer, James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sheehy, David

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Kean, John

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Manfield, Harry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Furness, Stephen

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molloy, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Mooney, John J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morrell, Philip

    Waring, Walter

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morison, Hector

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Munro, R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Lleweiyn (Carmarthen)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Winfrey, Richard

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wing, Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shee, James John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Mr. M'CURDY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:—
    "Provided always that the provisions of this Act shall not apply in the case of any female prisoner who may have been subjected to forcible or artificial feeding while in prison unless such artificial feeding has been administered with the consent of the prisoner given in writing or upon an occasion or occasions when the prisoner by reason of unconscious-
    128
    ness or infirmity was unable to consent as aforesaid."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the Amendment preceding the one which the hon. Member has moved is in order, because, if he does not desire to move it, I should like to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment preceding the one which the hon. Member for Northampton has moved is in order, but the hon. Member came to the Table and

    129
    informed me that he did not desire to move it. The hon. Member having another Amendment in the same place, and having caught my eye, has precedence.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Not knowing that, I did not rise, but I desire to ask whether it is in order or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: Not now, because the hon. Member for Northampton has precedence.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will it be in order after the Amendment he has moved has been disposed of?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not out of order, and therefore it will be competent for the hon. Member to move it afterwards.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I move this Amendment, because I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it. It, in effect, merely carries out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, as expressed to this Committee or more than one occasion, to make use of this Bill, to enable him to do away with what I think he wrongly regards as the duty or the necessity of forcible feeding. If there is any justification for this Bill at all in the minds of the great majority of this House, so far as I am in a position to gauge the minds of hon. Members, and I think in the minds of a very great majority of the people of the country outside, it is that the Bill is demanded by the Government as an alternative to the practice of forcible feeding. I know the supposed law with regard to forcible feeding under which the right hon. Gentleman is at present carrying out the prison administration is, that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to forcibly feed prisoners who refuse to take nourishment. It has been put so high in this House, in the presence of the Home Secretary and without contradiction by him, that if a person refuses food and forcible feeding is not proceeded with and death results, then the Home Secretary may become liable to indictment for manslaughter. I venture to submit for the consideration of the Home Secretary whether he is really under any obligation to forcibly feed prisoners and whether it is in fact his duty to forcibly feed prisoners at all. I am aware the Home Secretary has stated in this House that he places reliance upon the case of Leigh v.Gladstone in which it was
    130
    decided some two or three years ago, that it is his duty to forcibly feed prisoners who go on hunger strike. I am not aware of any legal authority for the doctrine. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman will look closely into that case he will come to the conclusion that it is very doubtful whether the practice of forcible feeding as carried on in His Majesty's Prison is not wholly illegal, and whether, if proceedings were now brought against the right hon. Gentleman by any prisoner who had been subjected to that barbarous treatment, he would not be cast and properly cast in damages by a British jury.
    The case of Leigh v. Gladstone came up in September, 1909. Three months after, this phenomenon of the hunger strike, previously only known among Nihilists in Russian prisons, made its unwelcome presence known in this country. It was in June, 1909, that the hunger strike first appeared in His Majesty's Prisons, and in September, 1909, the prison authorities resorted to this practice of forcible feeding. In September, 1909, Mrs. Leigh, who had been subjected to this treatment, brought an action against the then Home Secretary claiming that this treatment was illegal and asking for damages. At that time we had no experience of what forcible feeding means and what results may reasonably be expected from it, and all the Court decided in that case as a proposition of law was that it is the duty of the prison authorities to take all reasonable means within their power for preserving the lives of prisoners committed to their charge. A number of doctors were called and gave their opinion that forcible feeding was an ancient practice common in lunatic asylums and that it could be applied with most beneficial results to the health and life of the patient. Upon that evidence, the jury found a verdict for the Home Secretary of that day. We know a great deal more now about the facts than were known to the jury in the case of Leigh v. Gladstone. The case did not pretend to decide that forcible feeding was legal or illegal. It merely decided that the Home Secretary ought to take reasonable means for preserving the life of the prisoner.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really do not see how this arises. The Amendment which the hon. Member is going to move is simply to provide that the provisions of this Section shall not apply in the case of a female prisoner who has been subjected to forcible feeding.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I will not pursue the argument further. I want, if I can, to get quite clearly from the right hon. Gentleman a statement whether after this Bill is passed he will at his discretion continue to forcibly feed prisoners, or whether he will regard the provisions of this measure as an alternative to forcible feeding between which it becomes his duty to elect when a female prisoner—because this Amendment is limited to female prisoners,—adopts the hunger strike. I submit that upon a matter of this importance the House is entitled to have something more than mere assurances that we are safeguarded by unlimited discretion of the Home Secretary. We are entitled to have it made perfectly plain on the face of the Bill that this is in truth and fact intended as an alternative measure and not as a weapon in the hands of the Home Secretary in addition to the weapon of forcible feeding which is being already employed. There is a very obvious reason why a prisoner who has been subjected to forcible feeding while in prison ought not to be subjected to any further penalties of this Act, and that is the very painful nature of the process. I am sure that it is the desire of the country, an anxiety in which I myself entirely join, that militancy should be put an end to, and that the law should be upheld. They are most anxious that this Bill should operate, as they have been led to suppose it will operate, as an alternative to the weapon of forcible feeding.
    We cannot disguise from ourselves the fact, now we have had details placed before us through the medical Press of the country and through other channels, that there is no doubt that the view taken by the medical profession some three or four years ago, based upon the effects of forcible feeding as applied to apathetic persons in lunatic asylums, is one which has to be considerably modified when forcible feeding is, on a larger scale, applied to persons in full possession of their mental and physical faculties and against their will. Forcible feeding is just as much in essence a torture as flogging. The House recently expressed consideration for the feelings of that very degraded class of criminal to whom we applied flogging under the recent Criminal Law Amendment Act, and it is only a natural corollary to the very proper feelings of humanitarianism expressed in these Debates that when the first opportunity arises we should do something to put an end to a form of torture, just as painful as
    132
    flogging, being applied to female prisoners. The Bill, in my judgment, would be most materially improved if this Amendment were included, because we should then, at any rate, have this justification for passing the Act, that we were ensuring that in future, as regards female prisoners in our gaols, the provisions of this Act would be applied in substitution for the barbarous practice of forcible feeding, and not as an additional penalty.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: I rather gather that the hon. Member is under the impression that some time in the course of the Debates on this Bill I have stated that if this Bill passes I shall on no occasion avail myself of the power or practice of forcible feeding. If he is under any such impression, I can assure him that he is entirely mistaken. I have given no pledge of any sort of that kind. On the contrary, my recollection is perfectly clear that, when I have been questioned upon this point, I have stated quite clearly and definitely that, while I hope that in many cases this power will enable me to get rid of the necessity of forcible feeding, still in any case in which it becomes apparent from experience that the liberty of a particular prisoner is only going to be used in such a way as to be a serious danger to the public, I shall not feel myself justified in liberating a prisoner of that kind upon any terms. I hope that this Bill in practice will be found, in the great majority of cases, to get rid of the necessity of forcible feeding. But I cannot undertake, responsible as I am for the administration of the prisons, to place myself under an absolute pledge to discharge every prisoner who, at some time or other, has refused to take food. There must be a discretion to be exercised with regard to that particular person. We can all conceive of cases in which it would be most improper to release a prisoner whose declared intention was to break the law, not in a trivial way, but in some serious way, to the great destruction of property or even life. Under these circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree with me it is most undesirable to accept an Amendment of this kind, which would seriously restrict the powers of the prison authorities.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must say the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill illustrate more vividly than any Bill I can recollect the extreme disadvantage of our present procedure. Here we are discussing a Bill which affects the

    133
    liberty of the subject—a serious discussion in all its details. Here is an Amendment which, I believe, in a full House, even in its present, I will not say degenerate, but peculiar condition, would have commanded a very large amount of support, but it is now moved necessarily in a very small House, it being the dinner hour, and there is no possibility that the Committee will form a reasonable judgment on it. It will be decided, without the slightest doubt, by a vast majority of Members who have not heard the discussion or the arguments.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: How many Members are there on your own benches? Three only.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That only strengthens my argument. I think that the definite statement of the Home Secretary, that he is not prepared to abandon forcible feeding, ought to have been heard by a very much larger number of hon. Members on his own side of the House.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is not doing me justice. I made the very same statement, I think it was on the Second Reading, but it certainly was on an occasion when the House was very full.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There has been an impression, and it has gained ground, that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind to this extent, that he really put this Bill forward as an alternative to forcible feeding. He said, in the remarks he made a few minutes ago, that it was an alternative to forcible feeding. I am not charging him with breach of faith or anything of that kind, but I believe the definite terms in which he made his declaration a moment ago would have come with great surprise to a considerable number of his own supporters had they been present. However, that is a matter for him and his supporters. I rose to say that I did not think the right hon. Gentleman had understood the effect of the Amendment in the least. He appears to imagine that the effect is to deprive him of the power of forcibly feeding any female after the Bill has passed. That, of course, is not the effect of the Amendment at all. The effect is that where this Bill is in operation, and where the right hon. Gentleman elects to proceed under the powers conferred by it, then he shall not at the same time forcibly feed the same prisoner. That is a very different proposition from the one the right hon. Gentleman put forward.
    134
    I confess, and I have made no secret of it to the House, that I have a profound dislike of this practice of forcible feeding. I do not believe that that can be the right solution of the difficulty, whatever other solution there may be. I cannot believe you are justified in the case of a trivial offence, or even in the case of a serious offence, in submitting any prisoner to treatment which in a very considerable proportion of cases result in serious risk to their health and sometimes to their reason. It may be that some new method of dealing with this particular kind of prisoner must be found. I think it should. But you cannot go on with forcible feeding; public opinion will not submit to it, and you are not discharging the duty which a Minister owes to the House of Commons and to the electorate in a matter of this kind if you attempt to carry on a process which certainly does not meet with the assent of the great mass of public opinion. I am satisfied that this Amendment ought to be added to the Bill. I also recognise there is no chance of that being done. The Home Secretary told us a few minutes ago that he does not mean to accept any Amendment. Therefore we are merely wasting our time in discussing Amendments. He has said, perhaps not in so many words, but in effect, "I will not accept any Amendment because that will necessitate a Report stage, which means delay. Therefore I intend to put this Bill through by my majority, by the Whips of the party machine, and I intend to put it through whatever arguments may be put forward."
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say so.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman may not have said so, but that is what he meant.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not mean it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That is what we have come to, and it is the kind of thing which we and hon. Members opposite now have to submit to. That is what legislation really means in the House of Commons to-day. I submit it is a very striking declaration by the Home Secretary, and I trust, though I do not expect this Committee to deal the reproof which ought to be administered to a Minister who makes such a declaration—I trust that the House, in another capacity, will bear that declaration in mind when it comes to consider its own procedure.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I cannot agree with the Noble Lord that the House, how-

    135
    ever full, would have been profitably employed in discussing this Amendment. But I do agree with him in apprehending that the Home Secretary did not exactly understand what its effect would be if passed. At all events, he did not show that he would act upon it in any way. Neither do I think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment gave any very clear interpretation of what it really means. If one looks at the words carefully it will be seen that it reads, "That this Act shall not apply." It does not mean that the Home Secretary shall not forcibly feed, it means that he shall not be able under the Bill to let out a woman if that woman has once been forcibly fed in the way described in the Amendment. He will be prohibited dealing with her under the Act; he will not be able to let her out and so, I suppose, he must go on forcibly feeding her. So far as I can see the Amendment has no other meaning; it is not an Amendment which ought to be recommended to the House, nor is it one which, with a clear understanding, the House would be inclined to spend much time upon.
    Mr. BARNES: The Noble Lord has covered much of the ground which I intended to take, and, indeed, a good deal more besides. But I should like to say that, in my judgment, the Home Secretary was not quite fair either to the Amendment or to the hon. Member who moved it. I happened to have been in the House some weeks ago when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement to which he has alluded. He not only made the statement that he was going to reserve to himself a certain discretion in regard to certain prisoners, but, unfortunately, he gave an illustration how that discretion was to be used and why it was necessary it should be left to him. The illustration entirely disposed of any idea that this Amendment would deprive him of that discretion. What was it he said? He said it was necessary that the Home Secretary should have some discretion left to him as to what prisoners should come and what should not come under a Bill of this sort, because it might be conceivable that the Bill, if not protected in the way of leaving him some discretion, might apply to a murderer after he had been convicted and had applied leave to appeal, with the result that that murderer might get out and have an opportunity of committing another murder. That was the illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman to prove the need
    136
    for leaving him discretion. I agree with him, it is absolutely necessary that discretion should be left to him in such cases. But that does not apply in this case at all. In the first place the Amendment is limited strictly to female prisoners. It is conceivable, of course, that a female prisoner might be a murderer, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at this Amendment sympathetically, perhaps, after consideration, he will be able to give the Committee some assurance at this stage that the power he seeks here is only a power to let prisoners out and take them back again in lieu of forcibly feeding them. So far as I am concerned, I would like a declaration to that effect as soon as possible. I want the right hon. Gentleman to clear the point up, and say that he does not intend that this Bill shall, as regards suffrage prisoners alone, be an addition to his existing powers. I want him to tell us that he looks upon it rather as an alternative to the power of forcibly feeding, and if he will do that I, for one, shall be disposed to help him get it through its remaining stages.
    I, like the Noble Lord, and most hon. Members on both sides of the House, look with abhorrence on this forcible feeding. I agree with many who have spoken in these Debates that it is a revolting business altogether, and I believe that more and more as public opinion outside begins to understand it, more and more you will have a volume of public feeling against it. We ought to endeavour, in this House, to rather anticipate public opinion, and, having regard to that fact, we should look on this Bill as an opportunity given to us to do away with forcible feeding altogether and to substitute this procedure for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that he does not intend to use this Bill as an addition to his existing powers so far, at any rate, as female suffrage prisoners are concerned? That is all I ask for. If he will give that assurance in regard to that particular type of prisoner, I repeat that I, for my part, will help him to get the Bill through its subsequent stages.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The hon. Baronet who spoke a few moments ago began by suggesting that neither the Home Secretary nor the Mover of the Amendment understood its exact purport. But before he had finished he seemed to me to have placed himself in the same category, and to show that he too did not

    137
    understand the real meaning. He said the effect would be that no female prisoner who had once been forcibly fed could be released under this Bill, and that the only possible alternative was to go on forcibly feeding her. That now is not the only alternative. All the Amendment says is that prisoners who have been forcibly fed shall not be released under the provisions of this Bill, and consequently such a prisoner would be under the same conditions as such prisoners are at the present moment. It will be open to the Home Secretary to release her by the exercise of the Royal prerogative in the ordinary course, therefore the alternative presented by the hon. Member does not arise under the Amendment. I confess that I, for one, was extremely disappointed to hear the declaration made by the Home Secretary upon this Amendment. I absolutely accept his statement that he said on the former occasion in a full House that this Bill was not intended to be an alternative to forcible feeding.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not precisely what I said then.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I did not mean to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us that he has never said that the passage of this Bill would preclude from forcibly feeding.
    Mr. McKENNA: Hear, hear!
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I understood that it was going to have that effect. I remember vividly, as probably can most hon. Members, the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill, and I recollect his saying there were three alternatives open to the Home Secretary. One was to let the prisoner die, another to forcibly feed her, and the third was the Bill he presented to the House. I certainly thought that implied, if the right hon. Gentleman did not directly state it, that if the House were induced to pass this Bill they would thereby get rid of the two other alternatives of letting the prisoner die or forcibly feeding her. It now appears that the extraordinary procedure, and, as I think, the futile procedure, of this Bill is not to be an alternative, but is to be added to the disgusting outrage of forcible feeding. That will be a great disappointment to many hon. Members among my hon. Friends who are supporting this Bill as a sort of disagreeable necessity, and for no other reason. I believe there are many Members whose
    138
    support to this Bill would be withdrawn if they understood that by passing it we are not to get rid of this horrible procedure. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment spoke of forcible feeding as a kind of torture. I have no doubt that it is a kind of torture when it is inflicted against the active resistance of the patient, but I would rather describe it, not so much as an act of torture, as in the nature of a surgical operation.
    I must not discuss the question of the actual legality of forcible feeding, but I have always understood that, whether in prison or out of prison, it was not admissible to inflict a surgical operation, even if the operation were necessary to save life, against the will of the patient. I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by the Mover of the Amendment that if the whole question could be thoroughly argued and carried to a higher Court than that which has already decided the question, it would be found that to inflict forcible feeding in these circumstances was wholly illegal. We are now confronted with a much smaller question. Whether it is legal or illegal, this House is going to place for a longer period in the hands of the Home Secretary the discretion of resorting to this torture or operation. I feel very strongly that when we are placing this power in the hands of the Home Secretary for the purpose of getting rid of the outrages which have been attracting so much attention and disgust in the country, and without, which we should not have heard of this Bill at all, it is extremely disappointing to find that after the Bill is passed it will be purely within the discretion of the Home Secretary to continue this proceeding. I do not believe that this Bill will have any practical effect; it will be resisted, the conditions the Home Secretary has read out will be resisted, the women will exercise all their ingenuity to escape from the procedure which this Bill will inflict upon them, and I feel certain that with the discretion the Home Secretary has expressly reserved to himself to continue forcible feeding, it will be just as common an incident in these imprisonments after the Bill is passed as it was before. In these circumstances the whole purpose for which this Bill was brought forward will be defeated, and many hon. Members who were influenced to support it will be disappointed.
    Mr. MUNRO: I do not intend to discuss the alleged illegality or impropriety of

    139
    forcible feeding, but to deal with the exact terms of the Amendment. The Amendment is really founded upon what is known to lawyers as the doctrine of election. In other words it is said—you have two remedies as Home Secretary, and if you elect to take one remedy you shall not have the other. That postulates that these are true alternatives, and it seems rather a technical view to adopt in dealing with the very difficult problem that you should argue in that fashion. The proper point of view from which to approach the question is that the Home Secretary is confronted at the present time with an abnormal, indeed, a unique situation, and when he comes to ask for powers to deal with that situation one ought to remember the difficulties with which he is confronted, and be more willing to give him powers in these circumstances than might be the case if the situation were normal. So approaching it, I submit that the power the Home Secretary asks here is a reasonable power, especially when one remembers that he does not propose to exercise it generally, but sparingly. I happen to have here the precise words the Home Secretary used on the occasion which has been several times referred to in this Debate, and I should like to read what he said:—
    "In ordinary cases I should abandon the Practice of forcible feeding. There are circumstances in which forcible feeding will still have to be resorted to. Take the case of a prisoner—"
    May I interpolate here that the illustration is not limited, as the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) suggested, to cases of murder. What my right hon. Friend said was this:—
    "Take the case of a prisoner whose offence is of such a kind or whose determination to repeat the offence at every opportunity is so pronounced and declared, that it is really unsafe in the public interests to have such a person at large at all. I should have no alternative except to resort to forcible feeding."
    Later on the Home Secretary said:—
    "I ask the House to give me a much simpler alternative, and to give me the power of forcible feeding when necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1913, cols 407–8., Vol. LI.]
    What he claimed was a right to adopt either course according to the circumstances as they emerged, with the assurance, however, that in a normal ease he would not adopt forcible feeding but would adopt the provisions of this Bill. May I suggest the kind of case which the Home Secretary figured at that time? Suppose militant suffragism goes further than it has yet done. Suppose attacks on property become more pronounced and
    140
    become attacks upon the person—not an impossible hypothesis, I fear. Suppose one of the exponents of that doctrine is in prison, having declared repeatedly in public, and possibly in private, that the very first act which she will do if released will be an act of personal violence. What is the Home Secretary's alternative? He may release unconditionally or he may forcibly feed the prisoner, or he may allow her to die. Surely in such circumstances as these, if these are his alternatives, to forcibly feed, to release, or to allow her to die, forcible feeding, however unpleasant—and we all admit it is—would be the least repugnant alternative of the three. Suppose forcible feeding is then resorted to. Suppose the health of the prisoner suffers in consequence. Then arises the dilemma presented by this Amendment. What is the Home Secretary's position then? If he is not to apply the provisions of this Bill to the case as it then emerges he must either let the prisoner die on his hands or release her unconditionally. Surely, in the case I am putting, it is more desirable that, instead of letting her die or instead of letting her go forth without any conditions to fetter her movements or her actions, he should have the power to apply the provisions of this Bill, namely, to let her go forth, but subject to such conditions that her residence and her movements and her conduct would be within the knowledge and within the cognisance of the police, and that the most violent extremities to which she might threaten to resort might be very probably frustrated. In these circumstances, I suggest, especially seeing that the Home Secretary is subject to constant and effective surveillance himself in the House of Commons in regard to all the actions which he takes in these matters, that the power which he asks on this occasion is a most reasonable one and should be granted.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It has been said this Bill is intended to deal with an abnormal situation, but the abnormal situation will pass away and the Bill will remain. The prosecutions which are now going on of the leaders of the women's movement are being conducted under a Bill passed to meet an abnormal situation 600 years ago. The situation has long passed away, but the law remains, and therefore it is most desirable that in this departure of the law under an emergency every effort shall be made to limit the

    141
    new powers conferred upon the Home Office within the narrowest limits. The question has been raised about the case of some desperado who gets a sentence, refuses to take food, is liberated on conditions, and whose life is thereby saved. The assumption is, however, that this particular prisoner would take food under conditions. What guarantee is there that the hunger strike would not be continued against the conditions just as much as against the imprisonment itself, and where then is the Home Secretary and his new Bill and his new power? If it be a crime on the part of the Home Secretary to allow a prisoner to die in prison just now during a hunger strike, it would be equally a crime to allow a prisoner to die in a nursing home under the same conditions, and therefore the Bill does not relieve him in the least from that dilemma. What this new Clause proposes is that forcible feeding and the alternative of this Bill should not be powers concurrently possessed by the Home Secretary. He should make his choice of one or the other, and if he resorted to forcible feeding against the woman prisoner with the powers this Bill gives him, should not they be operative in the case of that prisoner, and surely it is not too much to ask, when the law is being amended to meet an abnormal set of circumstances, that the Home Secretary should not be given power to choose which line of action he should pursue in regard to these prisoners whose offence in every case is the same, the offence of refusing to take food after sentence has been passed. Let hon. Members conceive what this means to hunger strikers. Under the Bill as it stands, the presumption is that the woman prisoner who has refused food until her life becomes endangered may then be liberated. As soon as she has acquired sufficient strength to again fight with the warder and the wardresses and the prison doctor she is to be returned to prison. The weakening hunger process has to go on until her life again becomes in danger and she is once more to be let loose, not to liberty, not to freedom, but to give her an opportunity to recoup her strength to go back and continue the process within the prison walls. That is the proposal of the Bill.
    The Amendment says that when a prisoner has been forcibly fed, where torture has been undergone—for it is torture, there is no getting away from that; it is torture of a horrible kind—this power of the Home Secretary to let loose and
    142
    bring back shall not be operative. Suppose it is operative. Take the case of Miss Emerson, who was liberated the other day. For some six or seven weeks this young girl carried on a daily warfare against being fed by force. Finally, when her sentence of two months was nearly expired she was liberated. Since then she has been literally at the point of death through internal complications due to the treatment received and troubles arising therefrom. Supposing in the case of that girl, at the end of three or four weeks of this kind of fighting, the prison doctor comes to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to go on any longer and he advised the Home Secretary to liberate her on licence. She is liberated, she is nursed and doctored and cared for and attended until her strength is once more restored in whole or in part. As soon as she is thought to be in a condition to go back to once more right the wardresses and the doctors she is taken back. Can anything more inhuman and more barbarous be conceived? We talk of the brutality and the cruelty of the Middle Ages. Was any torture ever devised in those days more horrible than a proposal of this kind? By accepting this Amendment you get rid of that. You say to the Home Secretary, go on with your forcible feeding as long as you can, but when the prisoner has defeated you, as they have done hitherto, recognise courage and bravery. If that kind of courage had been displayed by men on the field of battle, they would have been eulogised to all the corners of the earth. We talk of the bulldog breed of our soldiers. The endurance and heroism that these women are showing in prison equals, if it does not excel, anything we have witnessed on the field of battle or elsewhere. When they have fought for their freedom give them a chance, and do not say that you are going to torture them in prison, and let them out and feed them as you would a half-worried rat in a cockpit, and then take them back once more to prison to undergo all those horrors and tortures. I hope the Under-Secretary will recognise that his chief, in so ruthlessly shutting the door in the face of those who moved the Amendment, has made a mistake. If this Bill was confined, as has been said several times, to those who have not been forcibly fed, and if it was a real and genuine alternative to forcible feeding, it would be a matter for consideration, but when it is

    143
    "cat and mouse" plus forcible feeding, I express the hope, though I have small chance of seeing it realised, that the Committee, when they come to give their decision, will not confer this double power on the Home Secretary.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) has properly and truly said that there is very little chance of the Amendment being accepted, and that, of course, is owing to the party system under which the Government works. I agree with the hon. Member that the method which the Committee are now asked to reject is barbaric to a degree. We talk of the heroism of soldiers, but there is no heroism that I can conceive which is greater than that of a person in cold blood, day by day, submitting himself or herself to this horrible process, and fighting successfully, as women have done, against the efforts to forcibly feed them. The whole principle of this Bill is wrong. The whole idea of forcible feeding is repugnant to all decent-minded people, and
    I cannot conceive that the House of Commons, in the exercise of its real common sense, can be a party to a proceeding of this kind. The whole matter is so repugnant to my personal feeling that I do not think any sane person ought to be forcibly fed. When prisoners have suffered that process, I think the least the Government can do is not to resort to it again or say, "We will now wait until you have additional strength, and when you have additional strength the strong arm of the law will take you back to prison to undergo the same process." Can anything be more humiliating than a process of this kind? There is only one other method of dealing with these people, if you do not give women the vote, and that is to feed the prisoner or to put food before her, and, if she does not take it, let her take the consequences.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 229.

    Division No. 63.]

    AYES.

    [8.40 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Hudson, Walter

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Barrie, H. T.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Snowden, Philip

    Cassel, Felix

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Crooks, William

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Thomas, J. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gretton, John

    Pointer, Joseph

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr M'Curdy and Sir A. Markham

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Delany, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Campion, W. R.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Baird, J. L.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Doris, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Chancellor H. G.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Farrell, Joseph Patrick

    Boland, John Plus

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fell, Arthur

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Brady, P. J.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Field, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cullinan, John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    France, G. A.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Furness, Stephen

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Gardner, Ernest

    Gilmour, Captain John

    McGhee, Richard

    Reddy, M.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    M'Callum, Sir John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    M'Kean, John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. R.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Manfield, Harry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland, John William

    Meagher, Michael

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hackett, J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Molloy, M.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Hancock, John George

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Shortt, Edward

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Harrison-Broadley H. B.

    Morrell, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hayward, Evan

    Muidoon, John

    Swift, Rigby

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Waring, Walter

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    O'Shee, James John

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Keating, Matthew

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Parry, Thomas H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wiles, Thomas

    King, J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wing, Thomas

    Leach, Charles

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lynch, A. A.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Bonn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words:—
    "Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not apply in the case of any prisoner whose condition of health is due in whole or in part to flogging administered to such prisoner while in prison."
    What this Amendment says is that where flogging in prison has reduced the prisoner to a condition of health in which his life is in danger, the Clause of this Bill shall not apply. Otherwise a man might be flogged for a week or ten days, then turned out to recuperate, and then brought back and the flogging process resumed. There is no limit of any kind to the class of prisoner or the reasons given for liberating the prisoner to whom this Bill would apply if it becomes an Act.
    146
    What this Amendment says is that where the prison authorities are forced to release a prisoner whose health they themselves have broken by flogging, who has not brought upon himself the ill-health that causes his liberation, then such prisoner when released shall not be liable to recall. I hope that this is so much in accord with the common sense of the House that it will not be necessary to say any more in support of the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: My hon. Friend is somewhat unduly sanguine in the concluding note of his speech. As he knows, this Bill only applies where the ill-health is due in whole or in part to the prisoner's own conduct. If the ill-health is due entirely to the flogging, that cannot possibly apply, and therefore my hon. Friend cannot refer to such a case. The only case

    147
    that may occur is where ill-health is due partly to flogging and partly to the prisoner's own health. I wish very much that my hon. Friend, instead of expressing hope at the end of his speech, had given us some case of that kind. It would have been infinitely more apposite and made the matter much more clear to the House. What is the case that anyone, including the hon. Baronet, can think of which is due partly to flogging and partly to the prisoner's own conduct? I make a present of the only case that would occur to anyone, the case where the man has been flogged and then abstains from food, and where the ill-health is due partly to flogging and partly to abstention from food. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's speech is based upon the assumption that the Bill is very harsh. Assume that the man has been flogged and abstains from food, what is to be done? Is he to be allowed to go without food and to die?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Hear, hear!
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Baronet assents to that course. He never lacks courage, but it is very easy to be brave at the expense of other people. That is the hon. Baronet's position. I do not think that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment takes that course. In those circumstances, what is to be done? I submit that it is no harm to make the Bill apply in such a case. I think that it is the lesser of the two consequences that may follow. Suppose there is a case of a man imprisoned for highway robbery, or a man imprisoned for the white slave traffic, and suppose, either of these two directly after they were sentenced, abstained from food and jeopardised his life, does my hon. Friend who moved, or the hon. Baronet behind him, say that we ought to let either of those men abstain from food until he dies in prison. If the answer is in the negative, then I submit that this Bill provides the only remedy so far devised. I have said quite frankly before, and I repeat, that I do not think this Bill will stop the movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I never said it would, and it is no argument against the Bill. We do not pass Bills to stop political movements; we pass Bills in the House of Commons to vindicate the law, and, if any prisoner takes the responsibility of disobeying the law, he must be made to submit to the sentence of the law.
    148
    If anyone by abstaining from food or otherwise tries to evade the consequences of his conduct, then I submit that the Act of Parliament must make the sentence which has been passed an actual and substantial sentence. I hope my hon. Friend will not proceed with the Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Under-Secretary has asked me what I should do in such circumstances. I have said time after time in the House that if a prisoner is sentenced by a Court of Law, and he enters into a conspiracy to refuse to take food, he must do so at his own risk. My point is that the prisoner is sentenced according to the law. If the law is bad it is for this House to alter the law, but if the prisoner takes the law into his own hands he must bear the consequences. The question which has been raised as to the brutality of flogging is a logical one. Where a prisoner has been flogged you are going to release him, and then bring him back and flog him again under the provisions of this Act. Under the Bill which was passed last year the House gave wide powers of flogging, and to flog on more than one occasion. The effect of that power would be that a man might be taken and flogged, and, after having been released for a certain period, brought back and flogged again. The Under-Secretary said that under this Bill we are not dealing with those cases for which flogging is part of the punishment; but I would point out that that is what might happen in the future, though not with the present Government. The Government at the present time are applying a Statute which was passed 500 years ago, and it might easily be that at some future day we would have this Statute made use of in a manner which is not contemplated now—a system of flogging a man and releasing him, and then taking him back and again flogging him, would in my opinion be most brutal. If a prisoner refuses to take food, then the only logical thing is that he should take the consequences of his own act, even if it should mean death. For that reason I will support the Amendment if my hon. Friend goes to a Division.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. MUNRO: There are two things perfectly clear about this Amendment. The first is that it applies only to men, because women are not flogged. Secondly it only applies to men who have committed atrocious offences; otherwise they would not be sentenced to be flogged. In those circumstances, I respectfully inquire why the provisions of this Bill should not apply

    149
    to men who have committed these atrocious offences. It seems to me the consequences would be most anomalous if the Bill were not to apply to cases of that kind. Assume for a moment that the health of two prisoners is such that they cannot without danger to their lives be detained any longer in prison. I ask the Committee to observe the anomalous consequences that would follow if the Amendment were carried. In the case of one prisoner, a woman, the state of whose health is the result of one form of prison discipline, namely, captivity, she could be dealt with under the Bill, and compelled, after a certain time of liberty to go back to prison and serve the rest of her sentence. In the case of a man whose state of health is the result of another form of prison discipline, namely, flogging—that being a part of the prison discipline of our time—the authorities could not, after they had released him, bring him back to serve the remainder of his sentence. I am taking a case which I think is a perfectly fair one. The man would not have to go back to prison, while the woman, who had been imprisoned for a light offence and released would have to go back Take the case of a man engaged in the white slave traffic, sentenced to be flogged under the Act which was recently passed. If this Amendment were carried, and he were released, he could not be recalled to serve the rest of his sentence, whereas in the case of the woman who had been released, after having been sentenced to imprisonment, perhaps for breaking a half-crown window, she would have to go back to serve the rest of her sentence. Would that be a fair or proper result? I submit it would be the inevitable result of the Amendment now under consideration, and I do not think it is a result which the Committee would approve of. If flogging has contributed in the slightest degree to the state of health of the prisoner, then, if released, he would not be compelled to go back to serve the rest of his sentence. Take another case. The prisoner may be all right in the course of a few days after his release from prison; he might be perfectly restored to health. Is it to be said that a man who has been sentenced for an atrocious crime and since flogged should be able to get out at the end of two or three days, recover his health rapidly, and then snap his fingers at the prison authorities, saying, "I was flogged, and I got out and you cannot bring me back"? That
    150
    would be the result of adopting this Amendment, and that is not a result to be lightly arrived at. With all respect to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Baronet, I think this is really an ill-timed and irrelevant attack on the system of flogging, which really has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and on that ground the Amendment should be discountenanced and rejected.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I am no friend of this Bill, and, indeed, I voted against it, but I do suggest that the hon. Member who brought forward this particular Amendment does not realise that it will not carry out what I am quite sure he has in view. I cannot help thinking that his idea was that there was some present procedure by which a man, if his conduct in prison was bad, could be flogged. So far as I know the prison law, there is no provision of that kind, and the whole of the Bill has reference to the prisoner's own misconduct in prison. If he cannot be flogged for that, then it does not seem to me that it is a question which has very much to do with this Bill at all. The hon. Member for Mansfield seemed to think that the man in that case after a flogging would be brought back and flogged again. If the man has been sentenced to a flogging and has had it, and is released, he can only be brought back if that release is caused by his own conduct, for that is the basis of this Bill. There seems to be a misapprehension by the hon. Baronet that there can be flogging for breaches of the prison laws.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Some judges, and it depends on who happens to be the judge, may order a man to receive so many lashes at one time, and after so many months of the sentence to receive a further number of lashes. That was the case I was referring to.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I rather gathered from the hon. Baronet's speech that he was under the impression that a man would be released and then brought back and a second flogging administered for having done what he had done in prison. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. M'CURDY: As the Member responsible for the drafting of the Amendment, I should like to say a word in reply to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member about the purpose of the Amendment and its utility. With regard to its utility, it

    151
    has, I think, served its purpose, because we now know the attitude of the Government to this Amendment, and have had an object lesson which hon. Members would do well to take to heart of what has always happened, of the method by which constitutional safeguards are frittered away as soon as you allow exceptional legislation to meet exceptional circumstances. This Bill is introduced and is rushed through this House upon one ground, and one ground alone, that it is necessary to strengthen the hands of the Executive authority to meet an entirely new set of circumstances and a new kind of prisoner against whom the ordinary weapons of the law had proved insufficient. In order to test whether that be in deed and in truth the purpose, and the sufficing purpose of this Bill so far as the Government is concerned I put down this Amendment to ensure that, at any rate, a measure introduced on the ground of the necessity of dealing with militancy shall not be used as a weapon to further infringe on the liberties of classes of subjects that have nothing whatever to do with the disturbances that this measure is designed to meet. You start by asking the House of Commons to pass with great rapidity and without reasonable discussion a measure which interferes with the liberty of the subject and, in effect repeals the provisions of Magna Charta so far as imprisonment is concerned, upon the ground that it is necessary to meet a case of emergency. Before that matter leaves the Chamber we find that the Executive have now discovered that there are other cases in which this is urgent and desirable, and that it is necessary that the Executive should be armed with these arbitrary powers which were never thought necessary before.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member appears to be making a Third Reading speech. His remarks do not apply to the Amendment.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I bow to your ruling, and merely say that nothing has been said by the hon. Member who represents the Government with regard to this Amendment, or by any other hon. Members, to show that any exceptional set of circumstances have arisen in connection with cases of flogging and prison discipline which would make it necessary to pass an exceptional Act, or to extend the provisions of this Act to cover cases like that.
    152
    This is precisely analogous to other measures which are being taken. You deny the right of free speech to the suffragists to-day, and to-morrow the Executive will find abundant reason for denying free speech in a dozen instances.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do not desire to press the matter to a Division and to trouble the Committee, I therefore ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "Provided always, that such conditions shall not include a prohibition to take part in any public speaking or writing which would otherwise not be in contravention of the law." In this ridiculous Bill if this particular Amendment were inserted it would make it still more ridiculous.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Is it in order to move an Amendment which is designedly frivolous?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not understand it to be designedly so.
    Mr. HARVEY: The hon. Baronet said it would make the Bill still more ridiculous.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member did not hear what I said.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Possibly the speech was not quite as serious as the Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I said the Bill was so full of nonsense that in a Bill drawn on such lines an Amendment of this character was suitable. It must be in order to add an absurdity to an absurdity. I do not think I should be in order in using arguments in support of this Amendment of which I do not approve; therefore I merely content myself with moving it.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I must say with great respect that I am sorry to have heard the speech just delivered, which was not marked by the courtesy which usually distinguishes Gentlemen of the hon. Baronet's position. He said that the Bill was full of nonsense. That, I suppose, is the reason he has spoken so often upon it. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet has read the Amendment. It has been explained more than once that the conditions are not to be punitive, and it has been decided also after a long Debate extending over several hours that they are

    153
    not to be inserted in the Bill. If positive conditions are not to be inserted, I submit that negative conditions ought not to be inserted either. This is clearly a punitive condition, and therefore would come within the statement of my right hon. Friend that such conditions would not be imposed on the licence.
    Mr. WHYTE: Are we to take that as an undertaking that such a condition will not be imposed? The refusal of the Home Secretary to insert the conditions in the Bill only leads Members to prolong the Debate with regard to negative provisions, because they are never really certain what conditions will or will not be imposed.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I take it from the Under-Secretary's statement that if there be no prohibition, a prisoner will be at liberty during his temporary absence from prison to do the things referred to in the Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am sure my hon. Friend will not think that I am giving an undertaking. My right hon. Friend said that the conditions would not be punitive. I, speaking entirely for myself, would have thought that this was a punitive condition, and would therefore come within that statement of my right hon. Friend.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Gentleman has left the matter in a very unsatisfactory position. He simply says that probably such a thing would be or such a thing would not be. An Amendment having been moved, I submit that we are entitled to an answer. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not these prisoners will be allowed to take part in meetings? I understand that probably they will.
    Mr. M'CURDY: This matter really arises out of the unfortunate question as to what is the exact meaning of the undertaking or statement of the Home Secretary earlier in the evening. I certainly was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that he had produced the precise conditions of release which he proposed to impose in the case of suffrage prisoners, and that Members might rely that, so long as he was Home Secretary, those conditions would not be added to without the House having an opportunity for further considering the matter. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that state-
    154
    ment. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that this Amendment is thoroughly unnecessary, and rather implies a lack of confidence in the pledge given by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I suggest that, whether he can accept the Amendment or not, the Home Secretary might at any rate give an undertaking in the sense of the Amendment. He has stated quite clearly that the conditions will not be in any sense punitive. But a condition as that embodied in the Amendment would not be punitive in view of its limited form. All that it would do would be to prohibit the person concerned from public speaking or writing in contravention of the law. I doubt very much whether the Home Secretary would have any power to impose a condition of that kind. In a free country you cannot impose conditions prohibiting people from doing things which the law says they can do. That being so, although after his statement the Home Secretary will hardly include an Amendment of this kind in the Bill, he might give an undertaking that he will not impose any conditions which would prohibit persons temporarily discharged from doing that which the law now permits them to do.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can certainly give the hon. and learned Member the assurance for which he asks. It is not intended to insert any condition of this kind. All the conditions set out on the Paper are of a punitive character, and I have definitely given an undertaking, which, although not legally binding on my successors at the Home Office, would, I believe, be respected by them, that the conditions shall be of the kind that I have actually read to the House. May I make an appeal to hon. Members? To move a series of Amendments providing for every possible contingency which the conditions shall not include, is really to bring a debate of this kind into public contempt. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not persist in moving Amendments of this kind. If we really go on to consider them one by one there can be no possible end, for it is obvious that you can go on moving the putting in of many provisos that the conditions shall "not" include certain things. My hon. Friend is very ingenious, though I think in this case he has borrowed his ingenuity from another hon. Member.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I would like a

    155
    clear understanding from the Under-Secretary. He said that I had spoken longer on this Bill than on any other question. I believe I have spoken on this Bill at the most for about an hour. I remember that when the Under-Secretary was on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway he spoke hour after hour obstructing Bills of which he did not altogether approve. This is the only form of Parliamentary opposition of which a Member in the minority who is against a Bill can avail himself of. If the hon. Member wishes to use strong language I can tell him that I can use language a great deal stronger.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). I want to draw the attention of the Committee first to the Preamble of the Bill as it affects this Clause. It is impossible in this Bill to move Amendments of a substantial character, and therefore the only way is to move Amendments to strike out the Sub-sections altogether. The Bill has been framed—and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the fact—with what I may term diabolical ingenuity. I never saw a Bill drawn which enabled the Government to grasp the matter so tightly as does this Bill. I grant that the Home Secretary has been very clever in the way in which he has presented the Bill in this form to the House with a view to preventing any form of obstruction. On the merits of the Clause itself, as distinguished from the Preamble, on the question of the temporary discharge of prisoners, the people who have been either suffragettes or persons who do not conform to the law, I can only again repeat that these proposals are entirely repugnant to my ideas of common sense. I believe this procedure is perfectly ludicrous. If the prisoner fails to comply, and prisoners will fail to comply—because the suffragist people have already definitely stated that their intention is to set this Act of Parliament at defiance—with the order of the Secretary of State, he may be arrested and taken back to prison. I contend that that is merely bringing the law into contempt, and it is the wrong method by which the Government ought to proceed. In my opinion the Government ought to proceed by an entirely different method. They ought to strike out the Sub-section, and in place of it read into the Bill a Sub-
    156
    section under which people who fail to comply with the law, as on the Statute Book for so many hundred years, must take the consequences of their wrong acts. All questions of temporary discharge are perfectly futile. They cannot succeed in the long run, and they are, in my opinion, barbaric and cruel, and opposed, I believe, to the general feeling of the British public, who do not like to have torture of prisoners.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is now making remarks on this Sub-section which are applicable to a Second Reading Debate. May I point out to him that most of the points which he is raising have already been dealt with by the Committee, so the field for the exercise of his debating powers in the leaving out of this Sub-section is a somewhat limited one. I must ask him not to deal with arguments which are more relevant to the Second or the Third Reading Debate.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not going to dispute with the Chair as to what are and what are not my debating powers, but I would like to know what particular argument advanced by me was out of order, because a mere general statement that I am repeating arguments which have been used before, I submit to you, does not give me much information. I submit, with all deference and respect to you, that I am perfectly in order in dealing with what I have been dealing with, and that the basis of my remarks are contained in the Sub-section itself. I was proceeding on the line of argument permitted by the Chair to be used, and I submit to you, Mr. Maclean, that I am in order, and I would ask you, Sir, where I am not in order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it will assist the hon. Baronet in his speech I may say that particularly the last sentence that he used, referring to the barbaric methods which the Bill sought to impose was the kind of argument that I referred to. He used almost entirely that kind of argument which I suggest that he should reserve for the Third Reading. I had some doubt as to whether I should allow the hon. Baronet at all to move the omission of this Sub-section, because the Amendment really to some extent goes against the principle of the Bill; but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I hope he will not give me occasion again for reminding him that discussion in Committee is limited.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Maclean. I understand that the hon. Baronet is moving to omit Sub-section (2). If so, am I not right in thinking that any Member of this House can move to omit any Sub-section?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet will excuse me if I say that I am rather surprised at him, with his great knowledge of the rules and procedure of the House, taking exception to the ruling. He must know—I think he has temporally forgotten the fact—that where a Sub-section of a Clause is obviously vital to the Bill, to move to omit it is to move to negative the Bill, and over and over again that has been so ruled from the Chair.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. My contention is that the Sub-section is not essential to the Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is why I permitted the hon. Baronet to move the Amendment. As I say, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and I am simply asking him to confine himself as well as he can to the somewhat narrow limits laid down from the Chair.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In view of your ruling, Sir, I do not wish to trespass further or in any way to run counter to it, and I shall reserve what I have to say to a later Amendment upon the Paper.
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. Surely he does not wish, apart from his objection to the Bill as a whole, Sub-section (1) having once been passed, that any prisoner who was discharged should not comply with its conditions stated in the order! Surely he does not complain that one of the conditions is that the prisoner should return to prison on a certain date, and that if the prisoner fails to comply with the order that the licence should be considered as cancelled! I am sure the hon. Baronet will agree that these conditions are necessary.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I disapprove of the whole system of bringing prisoners backwards and forwards to prison.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: You stated, Mr. Maclean, that you had some doubt as to whether the hon. Baronet was in order in moving the rejection of this Sub-section on the ground that it was almost vital to the measure. I would be inclined to sup-
    158
    port the Amendment on the ground that the Sub-section is mere surplusage, and not needed in the Bill. The first Sub-section states that the release of the prisoners in the circumstances contemplated in this Bill should be conditional. It obviously follows that these conditions should be complied with. What power does this Sub-section put into the hands of the Home Secretary which he will not have in any case? There is no use saying the prisoner must comply with the conditions.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Member look at the last line?
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I have read the whole of it: "Arrested without warrant and taken back to prison." I say it obviously follows, if a prisoner is released conditionally, that on a breach of the condition the prisoner may be brought back. I submit that is the ordinary meaning of language. It is perfectly clear that these women will not comply with the conditions. What is the use of deliberately putting into a Section of an Act of Parliament, first that they may be released conditionally, and then going on to say in this otiose way that they shall comply with the conditions and return to prison. Of course they will only return when they are rearrested. You do not suppose those suffragists, having gone to a nursing home, will come back to prison after they have recovered for another period of forcible feeding or starvation. You do not suppose they are going to take a taxi-cab and drive back to prison. Obviously the Home Secretary will have to have a policeman or somebody in a similar position watching those ladies to see that they stay in their abode and do not escape. When you have discovered that they have sufficiently recovered to be able to return to prison again, you will have to rearrest them and bring them back. This elaborate provision, imposing upon them duties which you know they will not comply with, and which you are perfectly well able to dispense with, appears to me to be quite unnecessary.
    Question put, "That the words, 'any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the order of temporary discharge and,' proposed to be left out stand part of the Sub-section."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 64.]

    AYES.

    [9.41 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    O'Malley, William

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gulland, John William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Shee, James John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Astor, Waldorf

    Hancock, John George

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Baird, J. L.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bird, Alfred

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hinds, John

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Hohler, G. F.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Radford, G. H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell, (South Shields)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Reddy, M.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cassel, Felix

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cave, George

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Keating, Matthew

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kelly, Edward

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rowlands, James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    King, J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Clough, William

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Sheehy, David

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Shortt, Edward

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Crooks, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Dreitwich)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Talbot, Lord E.

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Delany, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Devlin, Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Doris, W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Manfield, Harry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Waring, Walter

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Falconer, J.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Field, William

    Molloy, M.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Wiles, Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    France, G. A.

    Morison, Hector

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Furness, Stephen

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Muldoon, John

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

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Munro, R.

    Wing, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnen (Glas.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    160

    161

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Snowden, Philip

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Grant, J. A.

    Swift, Rigby

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Thomas, J. H.

    Barnston, Harry

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Wheler, Granvilie C. H.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hudson, Walter

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Martin, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fell, Arthur

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. Ronald M'Neill.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "discharge" ["temporary discharge"], to insert the words "and shall be under the supervision of a person to be named in the Order, whose duty it shall be to report to the Secretary of State as provided in the said Order."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask why the Amendments down in my name are not in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I only see one Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member. He proposes to leave out the word "discharged" in Sub-section (2) down to the word "shall." That appears to me to be a matter which the Committee has already settled, and to move that Amendment now would be going against the decision which the Committee has already arrived at.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I submit that all my Amendment seems to do is to make the return of the prisoner only conditional in the licence. The prisoners are liberated temporarily on licence and the licence is to contain certain provisions. What my Amendment does is to make the return to prison, the only condition in the licence, and with all respect I suggest that it is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Clause he will find that it relates to temporary discharge and therefore we must have something to correspond. To leave out the words suggested by the hon. Member would not make the Clause read.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, how the Clause would read if my Amendment were inserted? It would read as follows:—
    "Any prisoner so discharged shall return to prison at the expiration of the
    162
    period stated in the Order, or of such extended period as may be fixed by any subsequent Order of the Secretary of State."
    I submit that that would be in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: We have already passed the words, "for such period and subject to such conditions as may be stated in the Order." I do not think it is competent for us now to leave out the words which the hon. Member desires, and at the same time comply with such conditions.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: We have not decided what the conditions shall be. We have decided that there shall be conditions, but I submit that the licence contains a condition that the prisoner must return at the end of the period for which the licence is granted. That is a condition, and it complies with the words in the previous Section.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are not the words which my hon. Friend proposes to leave out really the conditions referred to in the previous Section, and therefore it is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I find also that the question has already been put to the Committee that the words of Sub-section (2) down to the word "and" ["and shall return to prison"] stand part.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I submit that in putting the last Amendment from the Chair, it should have been put down to the word "discharged."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question put to the Committee just now, as I understand, was that the words, "Any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the Order of temporary discharge and," stand part of the Clause, so that the Committee has decided the matter so far as those words are concerned.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask if you have power to go back upon that decision, inasmuch as it is customary to save words so that an hon. Member who has an Amendment may be able to move it. The only words that should have been put are those down to the words "discharged" ["Any prisoner so discharged"].
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not in my power to go back upon that decision. The matter should have been raised before the Question was put to the Committee. The view of the Deputy-Chairman was that the matter had already been decided.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have handed in an Amendment, and it has been altered by the Clerks at the Table. If it had not been altered I should have been able to move it, and I beg to protest against it having been altered.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Might I ask you to consult the Clerks at the Table as to the words that have been inserted, because I am advised that the Clause is put down to the word "discharged."
    The CHAIRMAN: I have consulted the record, and the words put were down to the word "and" ["temporary discharge and"]. With regard to the point of the hon. Baronet, no such Amendment has reached me, and I do not know to what he refers.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I refer to an Amendment on the Paper, which does not now read sense.
    The CHAIRMAN: The same thing will apply to that as applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie).
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There are no means of enforcing the Order other than such as are taken in the Bill, and they seem to be totally inadequate. You release a prisoner for a term, presumably specified by the prison doctor, and that person is allowed to go to his or her home. The only condition which is imposed is that at the end of the term, say a week, he or she returns to the prison. There have been a good many interjections during the Debate, asking, "Will she go?" I think it is extremely probable that she will not. At the end of two or three days the prisoner will probably recover her health,
    164
    and it will not be altogether surprising if within the remaining four days there are a certain number of offences committed as to which the police may or may not succeed in apprehending the prisoner. Apparently the only remedy which the Home Secretary-suggests is that the house in which the unfortunate prisoner is kept is to be surrounded by detectives. "Picketed," I think was the word he used, and I presume it wil be peaceful picketing. The friendly eye of the policeman is to be kept on a prisoner to see that she does not escape and go and repeat the offence in respect of which she has been convicted. This is an instance of the beautiful trust of the Home Secretary. Last week the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he looked forward with hope to the time in the immediate future when hunger striking would cease altogether. That is another example of that attractive, child-like simplicity which is incident to a beautiful disposition. I think within five days of that speech a lady then in prison, Mrs. Pankhurst, having gone on hunger strike, was released. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is still of the hope that these ladies are going to give up hunger striking—Sanctus simplicitas. I only hope that in time his hope will find full realisation, but at the present moment it does not seem probable. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but we are going to put drastic conditions into this order of discharge." When Mrs. Pankhurst was discharged, drastic conditions were duly written on the back of the licence, and I believe she tore it up in the cab on the way and distributed the pieces to her faithful followers. If that is an example of the kind of thing that is going to happen in the future, I think it is obvious that you do require some real, practical, common-sense means of seeing that these conditions are going to be fulfilled. There is at present in existence a system which works very well. There is the power in the criminal judges to make orders not altogether unlike the order which is the subject of this Bill. If a first offender, a person of hitherto good character, has committed some offence, and it, appears desirable to the Court, he is released on what is called a Probation Order, and there are terms inserted in it not at all unlike those which this Bill suggests should be inserted in this temporary order of discharge. There is the power given to place the

    165
    prisoner who is discharged under the supervision of an officer attached to the Court. There is a twofold advantage in that. If the person who is discharged knows that somebody has been put in authority over him to see that the orders are fulfilled, and that the conditions into which he has entered will be obeyed, I think that would offer a strong inducement to obedience. On the other hand, you would have an officer attached to the Court who is sympathetic, and knows the ways of the Court, employed, not only in supervision, but in the relief of distress, to see that the conditions of the orders of discharge are obeyed, with instructions to report to the Court if they are not. I suggest you must have something of that kind in this Bill. What is the alternative? You are going to discharge people under this Bill for a period of ten or fourteen days. They are to go home into a species of fortress, surrounded by detectives, and at the end of the period, the Home Secretary nourishes the pious hope they will return to prison. Surely it would be much better to place a person who has entered into these conditions under the supervision of somebody whose duty it should be to see that the conditions are fulfilled and to report there-on. If you adopt some kind of procedure of that sort it seems to me you would meet the principal objection which has come from all sides of the House that when these ladies are discharged they will not obey the conditions, but will tear them up. If they do that, if they disobey the order, if they laugh at the Government, and if the public laugh with them, as they are doing at the present time, it is a bad thing for the administration of law in this country. You ought to have something of this kind in operation in order to see that your conditions are rendered effective. I am not pledged to the particular form of the officer to be appointed. It will not be a particularly enviable task, and I should not think that anyone would care to be appointed to the duty. But you must have someone to see that the conditions are fulfilled, and I move this Amendment, not only in the interests of the Bill, which I confess I have deeply at heart because it applies to all prisoners for all time, but in the interests of these ladies themselves, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept some suggestion of the kind and appoint some officer to see that these people obey the conditions under which they are released.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman has from the first been a most consistent supporter of every argument and every opinion which would tend towards enforcing the law. I recognise in his Amendment one more evidence of his desire that the law should be fairly and fully enforced against offenders of all kinds. I think, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in proposing this Amendment, has really gone a little outside what I regard as the scope and intention of the Bill. If I were to accept this Amendment I should be committing the vice of adding to the sentence imposed on the prisoner by the Court. I should regard that as a vice, and there is not one of my hon. Friends on this side who quotes the Habeas Corpus Act who would object to punishment being inflicted by the arbitrary act of a Minister more strongly than I would. Even if I accepted this Amendment I could not carry it into operation without really in some degree inflicting a term of imprisonment or punishment on the prisoner whilst he or she was out of prison. Inasmuch as under the Bill the prisoner remains liable to serve the whole balance of the sentence, I should be inflicting a period of punishment beyond the period imposed by the Court. I agree with the hon. Member that under this Bill any system is going to be full of very great difficulty in dealing with this particular class of offender. The hon. Member thinks I am so sanguine a person as to believe that this measure is going to be a panacea for all evils. I think nothing of the sort, but I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that this mania for hunger striking is likely to have anything more than a temporary life, and I believe that this Bill will materially assist in shortening the life of the hunger strike. I certainly take that view. I do not think in this Bill I ought to add to the punishment of these offenders, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not deem it necessary to press his Amendment.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I propose to support the right hon. Gentleman with my vote.
    Mr. McKENNA: Let it be a silent one.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I support him not for the purpose of strengthening his hands, but of saving the sanity of any individual who may be appointed to supervise these prisoners. The position of warders and wardresses in our gaols is already sufficiently unpleasant. But if

    167
    anyone wants to realise the uttermost limits of human tolerance I think he should imagine a supervisor, or a Court missionary, it may be, being put inside a house with half a dozen suffragettes in order to keep an eye on them. It is perfectly obvious what the result of that would be. Although I want to oppose the Bill, I am afraid I shall have to vote against this Amendment if it goes to a Division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and if the prisoner fails so to comply or return he may be arrested without warrant and taken back to prison."
    My desire is that the Clause should end with the word "State." It is proposed, in the event of a prisoner not returning according to the conditions of her discharge, that the Home Office shall have power to issue a warrant without legal trial of any kind for her rearrest. The point I submit to legal minds is that a prisoner's violation of such an Order is a new offence, and that the power to issue a warrant in respect of that new offence should rest with the judge—that before the power of arrest is put into execution the matter should go before a Court of Law in some shape or form. I do not profess to be learned in the law, but I understand this is the case at the present time. Supposing Mrs. Pankhurst, when the term of her licence expires, refuses to return to prison. What action will the Home Secretary then take? Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he has power to issue a warrant from the Home Office for her arrest, or whether he will not be compelled to apply to a Court of Law for a warrant to secure that arrest. We have given the Home Office under this Bill a great many too large powers, which conceivably may one day be used very injuriously and harshly. I want, as far as possible, to put a curb and check upon the execution of those powers, and to say that if a prisoner who is out on licence does not return to the prison when the period for which the licence is granted has expired, the Home Office must apply to a Court of Law for a warrant to arrest the prisoner and take her—it should be "her" and not "he" in all these Clauses—back to prison. I am not arguing the legal point, but I submit that the violation of the licence is a fresh offence, and should only be dealt with in and by a Court of Law.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that what the hon. Member objects to is that in the event of a breach of the licence, this Bill proposes to give power to arrest the prisoner without warrant. I do not understand that he objects to the prisoner being arrested upon a warrant and taken back to prison. In that case he should move to make the Sub-section read:—
    "and if the prisoner fails so to comply or return he may be arrested and taken back to prison."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If the Sub-section ended at the word "State," the ordinary process of law would come into operation without any further words being inserted.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then the prisoner could only be rearrested upon proof of a new offence. That would not do at all. I very much doubt whether we could issue a warrant for a new offence of itself. Unless we take powder under this Bill, I am not at all sure that we should succeed. Clearly we ought not to be under that liability. If there has been a breach of the conditions of a licence by a prisoner who ought to be in prison, and who is only out of prison in consequence of the prisoner's own misconduct, clearly the prisoner ought to be brought back to prison upon the original offence. I understood from the hon. Member's argument that the only difference between us was whether the arrest should be with or without warrant. Upon that point the hon. Member based his argument upon an alleged statement of the law with regard to prisoners who are now out of prison under penal servitude licence, and who can only be arrested, as he thinks, upon a warrant.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I mentioned the case of Mrs. Pankhurst.
    Mr. McKENNA: She is out on ticket-of-leave.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: With special conditions?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, she is under the ordinary ticket-of-leave conditions, which are contained in the Statute. The Home Secretary has power to issue a ticket-of-leave with special conditions, and Mrs. Pankhurst is now on ticket-of-leave under special conditions. Upon a breach of those conditions she can be rearrested

    169
    without warrant, and I see no reason why the same power should not be given in this Bill as already exists in the case of a prisoner who breaks the conditions of an existing licence. I really think the hon. Member misapprehends the present law. Some provision, he must agree with me, is necessary, and I think the provision proposed in this Bill is the proper provision.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I think for once the Home Secretary has failed to show that humanity which hitherto has marked his conduct in the very difficult position which he occupies in respect to militant suffragist offences. I really think he is failing to consider for the moment what is the underlying condition that applies to all the cases with which this Bill has to deal. It is that the person in question is in such a state of health that her further detention in prison would be actually dangerous to life. The person in question, who it is understood will generally be a female, is to be released for such a period as in the opinion of the medical advisers of the Home Secretary is sufficient to recuperate her to a condition to come back. She is let out upon conditions, and we now have got from the Home Secretary a perfectly clear statement as to what the conditions are going to be, at any rate until further notice. Condition No. 3 is as follows:—
    "The prisoner shall inform the Commissioner of Police of the place of residence to which she goes on her discharge, she shall not change her residence without giving one clear day's previous notice in writing to the Commissioner, specifying the residence to which she goes, and she shall not be temporarily absent from her place of residence for more than twelve hours without giving like notice."
    Let us look the facts in the face. The class of woman that is imprisoned in respect of these offences is very often a wealthy woman. She has been discharged from prison under the advice of the right hon. Gentleman's medical advisers because her condition of health is such that it is unsafe to keep her there, and she is removed to a nursing house in the Westend. She takes a trip in a Rolls-Boyce to Brighton or Eastbourne.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite appreciated which Amendment it is. It is to leave out the words, "if the prisoner fails to comply she may be arrested without warrant and taken back to prison." We have passed away from the question what the conditions are on which the release may be granted.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I am pointing out what are the conditions under which the prisoner will be arrested without a warrant under this Clause, and I am taking the case of a lady who travels in her Rolls-Boyce and suffers a breakdown, to which the best of motor cars are still liable, and she will immediately become liable, in a condition of health in which it is not safe, in the opinion of the medical advisers of the Home Office, that she should be put in prison, to immediate imprisonment and practically to sentence of death under the provisions of this Sub-section because the Rolls-Boyce breaks down and she is unable to return in the twelve hours specified. This is another new offence created by this somewhat remarkable piece of legislation.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It seems to me that there is a distinction between those who go on single tickets and those who go on return tickets. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil suggested that those to whom this Bill should apply should go on single tickets, and that before they are compelled to return they should have a second trial. The Home Secretary seems to me to have made out a good case in this connection. My hon. Friend suggested that he should have consulted those who advise him on matters of law about the return ticket as part of the licence. If those who are let out on licence obey the conditions of the licence there is no reason why they should be put to expense, but if they break the conditions of the licence why put them to the ignominy of a further trial? Why not, under these circumstances, leave the Home Secretary to return them to a place of detention, because they have broken the conditions of the licence? [An HON. MEMBER: "How is it to be proved?"] I agree that there may be difficulty in a particular case, but we are not legislating for a particular case. We are laying down the conditions on which the licence should be given. In nine cases out of ten there will be no difficulty in proving that the licence has been broken. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil will still be in the House of Commons, and if that is so the House will not fail to hear of the tenth case. That being so, why should the persons concerned in the nine cases be put to the trouble, ignominy, and expense of a further police-court persecution? If toy this process of licensing a large number may be saved in life and health from the consequences of

    171
    their own mistaken action, then at least this Bill should be made effective in order that the whole thing may not be set aside because some of the offenders set at defiance what Parliament has indicated.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: It seems to me that there is a point here with respect to the interpretation of what is meant by failure to comply with the conditions of the licence. How is the Home Secretary to satisfy himself that there has been a violation of the licence, especially in the case of these women on whom suspicion falls so easily just now? Many instances could be imagined in which a woman let out on licence might fall under such suspicion. I think there is a good deal in the point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil as to the enforcing of the conditions read out by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There is a great deal more in this than seems to be appreciated by the Committee as to the meaning of failure to comply with the conditions of the licence. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) argued that it would be unfair to put prisoners in future to the expense of Police Court procedure when an application was made for a warrant. It is scarcely probable that a prisoner would have to bear the expense. The real danger of the present procedure is this: Who is to prove to the prison authorities or the Home Secretary that one of the conditions has not been complied with? Of course, if a prisoner does not return, it is simple enough. You can go and find him and arrest him. But if a prisoner has been released for five or six weeks, someone may say that one of the conditions of the licence has been broken. The Clause does not say whether it is the Home Secretary or a police officer who is to say that a person has broken one of the conditions. One person may say that a woman has left her house, and another may say, "I saw her go out and break a window," and without any authorisation by the Home Secretary she is to be brought back to prison. Surely there ought to be some provision inserted in the Bill, that before a man or woman is rearrested, there should be some authorisation by the Home Secretary or some officer of police, for bringing the person back to prison. As it stands now the Bill says that he may be arrested without warrant and taken back to prison.
    172
    It does not say on whose application, by whose authority or by whom. Surely that is not satisfactory.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Home Secretary should give some answer to the arguments advanced by the last speaker. It seems to me that the common informer, whoever he may be, may go to the Home Office and say that a certain prisoner who has been let out on licence should be arrested and taken back to prison because she, in his opinion, has committed a certain offence. On whose authority is this woman going to be arrested? This is an entirely new procedure in law. My hon. and learned Friend says that it is entirely opposed to the principles of Magna Charta. I submit that this Amendment is a good one and should be accepted.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the Home Secretary anything in his mind as to how these conditions are to be proved? Suppose that a prisoner has made application on the advice of a medical attendant to have the period of licence extended and the medical officer of the Home Office says that she is not entitled to the extension, then if she does not turn up at the prison she can be arrested immediately and without a warrant. Surely, that is a case for investigation. The arrest may be such as to endanger the life of the prisoner. Take the fourth condition—to abstain from violation of the law. That is a very wide and vague phrase. Suppose a wrong charge was brought against one of these unfortunate licensees, is she to have no opportunity of having the charge tried before she is arrested? Has the Home Secretary in his mind any rules or regulations as to the procedure in a case like this? Such cases are bound to arise and especially in the class of case which we are considering, and on perhaps a vague word or sentence to place in the hands of the Home Office unlimited powers of arresting prisoners on licence is a thing that should not be permitted. I hope that the Home Secretary will, even now, reconsider his decision, and if he cannot accept the whole of this Amendment that he will at least accept such modifications as to prevent what might possibly be a very serious wrong being done.
    Mr. McKENNA: As I understand the difficulty which some hon. Members have

    173
    it is that this prisoner is lawfully out upon licence for a particular period. During the currency of that period the prisoner is wrongfully rearrested without warrant, the prisoner having committed no breach of the conditions. That is, I understand, the case put. The answer to that case would be that the prisoner would have all the rights of the Habeas Corpus Act, and better still, would have the right to bring an action for false imprisonment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Against whom?
    Mr. McKENNA: Against the person who arrested him, or who gave the order for arrest. Unless the conditions of the Act of Parliament are broken, there is no right to rearrest without a warrant. Where they have been broken, then the person who rearrests without a warrant is liable to an action for false imprisonment. [An HON. MEMBER: "On the Order of the Home Office?"] This has nothing to do with the Order of the Home Office, it has reference to the Habeas Corpus Act, and the fact that it was an Order of the Home Office would not be the least answer if a released prisoner were wrongly rearrested during the licensed period.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Who is to be sued?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot conceive anybody doing it.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman said that if a released prisoner was wrongfully rearrested there would be private right of action for false imprisonment. Against whom?
    Mr. McKENNA: Against the person who made the rearrest or the person who gave the order for it. It is nothing new. Whoever wrongfully arrests or gives a wrongful order for arrest is liable to action. The only case we have to contemplate is that of a prisoner who wishes to escape the conditions laid down by the law. The prisoner who has been wrongfully rearrested has precisely the same remedy as any other person who has been wrongfully arrested—he has his right of action. I really think my hon. Friend, in pressing this point, is under some misapprehension, both as to the construction of the existing law and as to the possible effect of this Bill.
    Mr. MARTIN: The Bill gives power to rearrest the prisoner if he does not return, or if he fails to fulfil the conditions of his release. It has been shown very clearly that the provision—to which my hon. Friend objects—for the arrest of a released prisoner who does not return to prison at the end of the licensed period is entirely unnecessary. That seems very clear to me, and for this reason that the prisoner is only allowed out temporarily, and when the time expires the prisoner should be in gaol, and is in the same position as if he had escaped from gaol, and, of course, any officer of the law can go and take him back. It requires no provision of the Statute to allow the officer to do so.
    That particular provision is utterly useless to the Bill, and therefore should not be there. It has been alleged, and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute it, that the Order contained in the first part of this Clause, that the prisoner shall comply with the conditions of the licence, creates a statutory offence, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes by this Clause to arrest that person for violating this statutory offence. He says that does not matter at all because there is always protection if the person arrested has not violated the law, as he can sue for wrongful arrest. That means he would have to prove his innocence, and it is against the foundations of British law that any person should be called on with regard to criminal law on indictment to prove his innocence. For instance, the prisoner might easily be twelve hours away from her residence, and therefore break the conditions, and yet it might be most unreasonable for the Government to press that. I personally do protest against this, that we are called on to make an offence by Statute which would not otherwise be so. An hon. Member said, what good would it be to sue the policemen? If the right hon. Gentleman would alter the Clause to make the Home Secretary personally liable, then there might be some satisfaction in suing the author of legislation of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman told us that there was Habeas Corpus, and, if that did not work, a writ could be issued for damages against the police officer who happened to arrest the prisoner. I do submit, in dealing with this very difficult subject, because we all admit it is so, it is certainly a great mistake, in the presence of the opinion of the suffragette mind, to

    175
    introduce legislation of this kind. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot produce a single Statute similar to this Bill, where an offence is created by the Statute, where the Government are then allowed to determine whether the prisoner has violated the conditions—which is a matter of fact upon which a mistake might well be made—and arrest him or her without warrant. I submit that it is unnecessary. It is an absurd proposition in any event, because the prisoner is let out for a certain definite time which in the opinion of the medical adviser of the Home Secretary is required for the person to recuperate her health, and if during that period she violates the law in any respect whatever any police officer can arrest her, take her back to gaol, and probably kill her. What satisfaction would it be to that woman after she was dead to know that her representatives—assuming that her right of action would pass to her representatives—could sue the police officer, go to the expense of £500 or £600 in costs, and then find that the police officer had no goods, chattels, or land to satisfy the claim? If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him.
    Mr. HOHLER: I cannot understand how an action for false imprisonment would lie. If in fact the period for which the prisoner was released did not count as part of her sentence. The moment she was rearrested she would be serving her original sentence. But I oppose the Amendment on quite another ground. It seems to me that it proceeds upon an entire misapprehension of the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is in the interests of humanity. That, at any rate, is my view. These misguided women think that they can defeat the law by hunger-striking. To enable the Home Secretary to do what he cannot otherwise do they are to be released on licence. What is the object of the licence. While the prisoner is out the time does not count, but the moment the woman is rearrested it counts as part of the sentence. I can see no danger or anxiety about it. In substance it is provided that the prisoner shall be of good conduct; the moment she ceases to be of good conduct she will go back to prison. That is the whole purport of the Clause. Therefore I shall oppose the Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: We have had no answer from the Home Secretary to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Colchester as to what happens when a prisoner is wrongfully rearrested by a police officer on the order of someone unknown. The House has not had the information as to who the person is supplied to it. This Clause alters the whole system of criminal law in this country. The prisoner may be absolutely innocent, but he or she may be brought back to prison on the word of a common informer who may or may not be wrong. It may be a Government or other official who, not knowing exactly what has happened, may issue an order saying that the prisoner may be rearrested. The rearrested prisoner, committed again to prison, starts a hunger strike, and the Home Secretary proceeds under the powers of the Bill to forcibly feed him. Does the Home Secretary say that under those conditions there should be no safeguard against a prisoner being, without a warrant, wrongfully arrested and brought back to prison? We ought to have the Law Officers of the Crown here! It has always been the practice when Bills of this sort, altering the criminal law of the country, were put forward, that the Law Officers should be present to state the effect of the change. I think the Amendment is one of substance. I am opposed to the whole Bill, and shall take what steps I may to defeat it. It is admittedly a cruel Bill. Does the Home Secretary seriously say that a person wrongfully rearrested can sue the policeman? If the policeman acts upon authority under the thumb-screw methods of torture of the provisions of this Bill—does the right hon. Gentleman say the prisoner's only remedy is a right of action against the policeman? It is perfectly ludicrous. We should have the Law Officers of the Crown here to advise us as to what the state of the law really is.
    Question put, that the words, "(2) Any prisoner so discharged shall comply with any conditions stated in the Order of temporary discharge, and shall return to prison at the expiration of the period stated in the Order, or of such extended period as may be fixed by any subsequent Order of the Secretary of State, and if the prisoner fails so to comply," stand part of the Clause.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 37.

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greig, Colonel J W.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Gretton, John

    Muldoon, John

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Munro, R.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Murray, Captain A. C.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Nicholson, Sir G. (Doncaster)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gulland, John William

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hackett, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    O'Dowd, John

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hancock, John George

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harris, Henry Percy

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Bird, A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Boland, John Pius

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, P. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hinds, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Radford, G. H.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Reddy, M.

    Campion, W. R.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cave, George

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joyce, Michael

    Robinson, Sidney

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Keating Matthew

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rowlands, James

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    King, J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Crooks, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E B.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Cullinan, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shortt, Edward

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Delany, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Swift, Rigby

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Falconer, J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Fell, Arthur

    Manfield, Harry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Waring, Walter

    Field, William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    France, G. A.

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Furness, Stephen

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Molloy, M.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Morrell, Philip

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    178

    179

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wing, Thomas

    Young, W. (Perth, East)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Grant, J. A.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Baird, J. L.

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hudson, Walter

    Royds, Edmund

    Barnes, George N.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

    Barrie, H. T.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Thomas, J. H.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Markham, Sir Arhur Basil

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Martin, Joseph

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Snowden.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that Motion. It has been decided to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for the consideration of this Bill, and therefore I cannot accept the Motion.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. You have not ruled my Amendment with regard to deportation out of order. I therefore ask if it is in Order?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is entirely outside the scope of the Bill as passed in Second Reading, and I could not accept an Amendment of that kind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Would it be in order if I amended it to provide that after deportation the prisoner would have to return to prison?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member sought to move it in that amended form, I should have to refer him to the Rule we have against Amendments tendered in a spirit of mockery.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Hon. Members will be aware that the period during which a licence exists is not reckoned as part of the sentence passed upon a prisoner, but if, as I propose, Sub-section (3) were left out, it would be reckoned as part of the sentence itself. I submit that under all the circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be amply served if the Sub-section were left out altogether. I am quite aware of the fact that there is a great difference between an ordinary
    180
    ticket-of-leave for a convict and the licence proposed to be granted under this Bill. But when one remembers the circumstances under which the licence is granted, and what may be implied if this Sub-section remains, I hope that both the Government and the Committee will see the wisdom of agreeing to the deletion of this Section.
    Let me remind the Committee what happens when one of these militant women is convicted of an offence. Bear in mind, first, the reason for committing that offence. It was to protest against the withholding from her of the vote. She is convicted and sent to prison, and maintains her protest by refusing to recognise the laws under which she was convicted, because she had no voice in making them. She goes on fighting, and resists being fed by force, and finally her condition of health becomes such that the Home Secretary, under the powers given him by this Bill releases her for, it may be, a period of ten days or a fortnight. At the end of that time she is required to go back and renew the struggle, the period she is out on licence not being counted in reckoning her sentence. If she were an ordinary criminal there would be a justification for this Sub-section, but I submit that you cannot consider the case of these women offenders without taking into account the reason for their being in prison. They are not there because they are criminals of the ordinary type or because they are breaking the law for their personal gain.
    Their tactics and their methods may be mistaken, but it cannot be disputed that the end they have in view—the securing of votes for the women of the country—takes them out of the category of the ordinary criminal, and the fight they

    181
    make in refusing food and the time they spend in recovering their health ought to be taken into account when reckoning the extent of the sentence which has been imposed on them. It appears to me that, both from the point of view of ordinary humanity and from that of not inflicting a double punishment upon those women who are fighting for what they believe to be their right, this Committee would be well advised to accept the Amendment, so that the time spent in recovery from the illness caused by hunger striking shall be reckoned as part of the sentence, as otherwise a sentence of six months might extend itself indeterminately. The women will not accept this Bill lightly. It is no use expecting to break down their spirit. That simply cannot be done. Call them fanatics or what you will, you must reckon on the fact that their spirit cannot be broken. Therefore the Committee should recognise the motive behind their action. Punish them for their offence, but do not make the punishment vindictive, as it will be if this Sub-section remains in the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I wish to say one word with regard to an Amendment which was called a mockery. I put it down with no intention of moving it as a mockery. It was in a form advocated by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) and many other public men.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet will observe that I was referring to the amended form of the Amendment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It was put down in the amended form in order to bring it within the scope of the Bill. If there is any mockery, this Bill is a mockery, because it will never be worth the paper upon which it is written. I can take some satisfaction to myself in knowing that the House of Commons is making itself ridiculous, as events will prove. With reference to the Amendment before the Committee, I support it on the ground that this Bill is put forward for the purpose of dealing with people who are fighting for what I believe to be a just cause—obtaining the franchise for women. This Bill is not aimed at ordinary criminals, and these people cannot be classed as ordinary criminals. Hon. Members on the Irish benches who have come in seem to be impatient. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When any measure for giving strong powers to the police in Ireland was
    182
    brought forward, they were always the first to resist any violation of the rights and liberties of the subject. Seeing that this Bill makes very strong inroads on the liberty of the subject, I should have thought we should have had some support from the Irish party, particularly in regard to this Amendment. This Bill will apply only to political prisoners, and gives the Home Secretary sufficient powers without this Sub-section. A prisoner who has been forcibly fed has gone through struggles with the warders and doctors. The time she spends in a nursing home recovering from the pain and torture the Government propose to inflict upon her might reasonably be counted as part of the sentence. This is a Bill for the purpose of torturing prisoners to prevent them arriving at their just rights. I therefore support the Amendment, and hope that the Committee will accept it as being reasonable in view of all the circumstances.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the Government are making a fair allowance on this Question for the suffering which has been undergone. In former days when the Tory party were in office, and it used to be alleged that many prosecutions were futile, that juries either acquitted or disagreed, I always pointed out that any bringing of a person to trial involves pain, suffering, loss, trouble, and concern in the family and to the accused himself. Here it is a fortiori. Let us take this case. Is there any Member of the House who would undergo, not a fast for seven or ten days, but who would go without his dinner for one day if he could help it? Here are these women undergoing fasting for three, four, five, six, or seven days, and thereby they are reduced to a condition which compels the Government to discharge them. In other words, they have subjected themselves to a punishment far greater than if they had served the entire month or six weeks to which they have been sentenced. It is a most reasonable suggestion that the amount of release that they have obtained shall at least count as part of their sentence. I have always admitted that the Government are in a position of considerable difficulty. I have never joined in the attacks on the Home Secretary. On the contrary I think he has discharged a most difficult duty with humanity and consideration. I have never appealed to him on behalf of these ladies, for consideration

    183
    in vain. I do not say this in any spirit of attack on the Government, but I think the view taken by the hon Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) is the correct one, and if double the amount of time was given it would not be too much. I therefore think the Under-Secretary, who is himself a sympathiser with the cause of Women Suffrage, might take this occasion, with the general sense of the House. I do not think there is a single Member of the House who from a party or any other reason would find it necessary to oppose this proposal. It is a moderate and just proposal, and I hope it may be accepted.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am sure the Committee have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with very great interest. Of course, it is easy to talk about balancing and adjusting sentences, but it is not so easy in fact. What the prisoner has to undergo is the sentence the Court has passed upon him. The argument on the other side is that although the prisoner has been sentenced to six months imprisonment, yet in the first six, seven, or eight days of the imprisonment he chose to take a certain action that brought a punishment upon himself—not a sentence of the Court but a sentence inflicted by the prisoner by himself upon himself. The hon. and learned Member says, "Although that is the fault of the prisoner, yet as the result of that misconduct is that the prisoner has got into such a state of ill-health that the Home Secretary thinks it right to discharge him from prison, the least you can do is to count all these days as part of the current sentence. It is a balance and a just thing." I do not think any Government could accept the responsibility of balancing sentences. All these are sentences of the Court, and it all depends on how grave the ill-health is, whether the offender is to remain out of prison. There are a number of circumstances to be taken into account. I think I can point out one objection which is fatal to the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division says this is torture. That is his main objection to the Bill, but he wants to let the prisoners die. We want to allow people in a certain state of health to go out without dying in prison. The Committee can decide which is the torturing process. I do not think there is another Member of the Committee who would support him to-night. That is the difference of opinion. Supposing this Sub-section is omitted, and a prisoner is dis-
    184
    charged through ill-health. She escapes and manages to keep in hiding for the duration of the sentence.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: During the term of the licence.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Sub-section says:—
    "Where a prisoner under sentence is discharged in pursuance of an order of temporary discharge the currency of the sentence shall be suspended from the day on which he is discharged from prison under the order to the day on which he is received back into prison, so that the former day shall be reckoned and the latter shall not be reckoned as part of the sentence."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Argue the matter seriously. It is a serious matter.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do argue the matter seriously. At the end of seven days the prisoner has escaped from justice——
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon Gentleman allow me to speak?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No, I do not think I will. I did not interrupt my hon. Friend. I think it is a serious matter. I do not know any reason at all why my hon. Friend should suppose that I do not think that it is a serious matter. I have been thinking very seriously of this matter, and I hope he will understand that whoever has any anxiety about the matter, it is we who are responsible for the administration of the law who are anxious to end the present condition of affairs. I think that is a point of substance. When the hon. Member asks us to say that this period of enforced absence shall count as part of the sentence, I do not think that it is possible for us to take that request into account. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the law has to be enforced. It does not necessarily follow that a sentence of six months shall be worked out in prison. A certain amount must be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary, who advises with respect to the exercise of the prerogative of pardon. I think it would not only be difficult, but impossible to accept the Amendment. If a prisoner after spending a week or two in prison were to be let out for two or three months through ill-health caused by her own conduct, I do not think you could seriously say that is carrying out the sentence of the Court.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I think that the Under-Secretary is under a complete misapprehension. The whole point of my argument is not that if a prisoner escapes, but that if she is out on licence the period during which she is out on licence should count as part of the sentence. Therefore the escape argument does not apply at all. I do not know whether the Government are in a position to reconsider this matter on the report stage, and whether they will not be able to make some change. If not I shall press this matter to a division.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: If there is to be a Report stage, I would suggest that the hon. Member should not press the matter to a division now, because if he does the Government may be hardened, with the result that he will get no concession on the Report stage. I would suggest that this is a matter which requires some consideration. I do not think that the answer of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Griffith) meets the entire matter. Let us leave the matter over for the present, and let an undertaking be given by the Home Office that between this and then they will consider the matter, so that the Government may bring a fresh mind to the matter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I would like to ask the Government, are they going to accept no Amendment at all?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot ask that question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out that——
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Order, yourself.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Baronet will address his remarks to me, it will conduce better to the maintenance of order.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member for Cork appealed to the Government to reconsider the matter. No Amendments are being accepted under this Bill. Therefore how is it possible under the procedure of this House to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member and not to go to a division, because the attitude of the
    Government will prevent us from having any report stage at all?
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think this is the most important part of the whole Bill. A woman is sentenced to six months' imprisonment. She has been arrested. She has been tried, which is a serious matter, and she is sentenced, which is an infinitely more serious matter, and in all this a great amount of pain and suffering is involved. If she is released after three weeks for a week, what would that mean? It would mean that the woman would be rearrested six times during the six months, and she would be practically starved almost to death. She would take three weeks each time to recover, and I cannot help feeling that six starvations of that description, and five arrests in addition to the first arrest, would be a terrible punishment. It is far more punishment mentally and physically in every respect than if the women were six months in gaol in the ordinary course. I cannot help feeling that it would be very unjust and unfair. The Under-Secretary, in his reply, rather indicated that the Secretary of State would be prepared to meet such cases so as to mitigate the terrible severity of the punishment to some extent by exercising the prerogative of the Home Office; but if we pass the Bill as it is it will inflict a terrible punishment upon these poor misguided women—a punishment out of proportion to the crime committed. I appeal to the Home Secretary to see whether he cannot promise to do something to mitigate the effect of this terrible clause, something which will have the effect of inflicting not too terrible punishments, which, whenever inflicted, either by legislation or in the ordinary course of the law, defeat the ends in view. Sentences will not be inflicted because of the terrible consequences that might ensue. I join with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork in asking, is there no possible way of meeting the feeling that something ought to be done upon this very important question?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 31.

    Division No. 66.]

    AYES.

    [11.41 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baird, J. L.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Barrie, H. T.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barnston, Harry

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Bird, A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boland, John Plus

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cave, George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Reddy, M.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, J.

    Rowlands, James

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Crooks, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

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

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Shortt, Edward

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyeli, Charles Henry

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Doris, W.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McGhee, Richard

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, Harold John

    Falconer, J.

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Toulmin, Sir George

    French, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Trevelyan, Charles Philip

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Waring, Walter

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    France, G. A.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Webb, H.

    Furness, Stephen

    Meagher, Michael

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Molloy, Michael

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gretton, John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury, S. Edmunds)

    Munro, R.

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

    Gulland, John William

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wing, Thomas

    Hackett, John

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Wood. John (Stalybridge)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Hancock, John George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Younger, Sir George

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones.

    Hay ward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    John, Edward Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Snowden, Philip

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    M'Crudy, Charles Albert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Martin, Joseph

    Touche, George Alexander

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Grant, J. A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. C. Duncan.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Roach, Walter F.

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

    Mr. McKENNAclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put." [HON. MEMBERS: "Gag."]
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 67.]

    AYES.

    [11.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Hayward, Evan

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hinds, John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pointer, Joseph

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Bird, A.

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Reddy, Michael

    Brady, P. J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Keating, Matthew

    Robinson, Sidney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kelly, Edward

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rowlands, James

    Chancellor, H. G.

    King, J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shortt, Edward

    Crooks, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sutherland, John E.

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

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Delany, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Donald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doris, W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Duffy, William J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Waring, Walter

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Manfield, Harry

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Falconer, J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Webb, H.

    Ferrell, James Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Field, William

    Millar, James Duncan

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Molloy, M.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morrell, Philip

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    France, G. A.

    Muldoon, John

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

    Furness, Stephen

    Munro, R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wing, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Gulland, John William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Hackett, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Hancock, John George

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Baird, J. L.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Barnston, Harry

    Butcher, J. G.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cave, George

    Goldstone, Frank

    Grant, J. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Snowden, Philip

    Gretton, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Malcolm, Ian

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Martin, Joseph

    Touche, George Alexander

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Roch, Walter F.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Royds, Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and C. Duncan.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 68.]

    AYES.

    [12.0 m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Morrell, Philip

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Munro, R.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gulland, John W.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Baird, J. L.

    Hackett, J.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Barnston, Harry

    Hancock, John George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barrie, Hugh T.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brady, P. J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Butcher, J. G.

    John Edward Thomas

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollard, Sir George K.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cave, George

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clough, William

    King, J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Simon, Rt Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Malcolm, Ian

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Furness, Stephen

    Millar, James Duncan

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Molloy, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Waring, Walter

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Worthington-Evans. L.

    Webb, H.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Younger, Sir George

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Wing, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Snowden, Philip

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hudson, Walter

    Thomas, James Henry

    Glanville, H. J.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Touche, George Alexander

    Goldstone, Frank

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Grant, James Augustus

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Gretton, John

    Martin, Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. C. Duncan.

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    CLAUSE 2.—(Savings.)
    (1) Where the prisoner is undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, the powers under this Act shall be in addition to and not in substitution for the power of granting licences under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891.

    (2) Nothing in this Act shall affect the duties of the medical officer of a prison in respect of a prisoner whom the Secretary of State does not think fit to discharge under this Act.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    There are several reasons for reporting progress now. The Law Officers have been mainly absent all the evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said mainly absent—not absolutely—and the matter we are discussing seriously affects the liberty of the subject. The second reason is that fairly substantial progress has now been made. The Home Secretary, in opening the proceedings, announced that it would be arranged that we should get the Committee stage at this sitting. I do not know when the arrangement was made. It may have been made between the two Front Benches. When liberty is at stake there is almost sure to be agreement between them. I hope that the rest of the House will not consider itself bound by any such agreement come to behind the scenes. There is one point which I think the Government should take into consideration before finally disposing of the Committee stage of the Bill, and that is the question whether the licence period should not be
    194
    included in the sentence. The matter we are discussing is one of first-class importance. It is a question of coercion, and naturally the Government are applying the gag to their Coercion Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the Committee is entitled to some reply from the Front Bench. I have been anxious to see progress made with this Bill—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Where have you been during the discussions.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have not missed a single division. I only intervene in order to point out that the closure was moved on Clause 1 before there had been any opportunity of discussing Sub-section (4). I do not know whether that was in order, but it is my reason for supporting this Motion. It has influenced me in deciding——
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to reflect on my action in accepting the Motion.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not wish to challenge your decision in any way. But every proposal made to-night has been met with a blank negative. The Government might just as well be frank and tell us that no Amendment will under any circumstances be accepted. I am not usually in agreement with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), but I am sure he is sincere in his opposition to this Bill, and I submit that he is entitled to an answer from the Front Bench.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I support the Motion for adjournment. I have been here discussing this Bill ever since six o'clock, and I did a hard day's work before I came

    195
    here. I shall have to leave London early in the morning. I do think that in arranging the business of the House the Government should have some regard to the convenience of hon. Members. During the whole six hours I have only been out for ten minutes. That is the way we are treated under a Liberal Government. Under the Conservative administration we had better arrangements. There was a dinner half hour, and people interested in a Bill had time to get something to eat. We are refused it, even though we are discussing the question of forcible feeding. Whenever there is an agreement between the two front benches the independent Members should join forces; they are in such circumstances perfectly right in voting against the two front benches. I think it is time we went home to bed. The House seems to think that by means of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule Bills are got through more rapidly. That is an entire misapprehension, although I admit it has occurred on two recent occasions, and it was hoped it would be the result to-night. But it has miscarried this time, and I would urge the Government to be satisfied with the progress that has been made. They are not going to have a report stage, and whatever the merits of any point it may be desired to raise no discussion can take place on a report stage. It would serve hon. Members opposite right if the Government got the Plural Voting Bill through before Whitsuntide.
    Mr. PIRIE: I rise with some regret, and with some amazement at the position in which I find myself, for I rise to speak on behalf of the Government Front Bench to make some answer to the request made to them that they should accept the Motion to report Progress. I see below me twelve more or less distinguished men, if not
    Secretaries of State at least secretaries for nationalities. There are Junior Lords of the Treasury, Senior Lords of the Treasury, and others, yet not a word comes in answer to a most just request. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I say that it is a most urgent matter that we should pass this Bill without delay. I want to see a vindication of the law, and a relief from the disgraceful events which are taking place owing to the impotency of the law. I should like to see the successive stages of the Bill taken one after another until the Bill has passed through all its stages. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I ask the Committee not to accept the Motion.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: I am sure the Government are to be congratulated upon their new champion. I shall certainly support this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has on several occasions this evening told us that the Bill is one of great urgency. If that is so we have a right to ask the Government why they allowed twelve days to elapse before they last brought it before the Committee. The Bill was last discussed on April 9th, and no further proceedings were taken for nearly a fortnight. On two occasions the House has risen early in the evening. If this is a matter of great urgency, it might have been possible to discuss it on one of those occasions. There are some important questions yet to be discussed. This measure is quite exceptional in its character, and deserves very serious treatment, but I doubt whether it will receive that treatment at this hour.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes: 19; Noes, 186.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES.

    [12.20 a.m.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hudson, Walter

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Sutherland, John E.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Touche, George Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. C. Duncan.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allan, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barnston, Harry

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hope, Major John (Midlothian)

    O'Shee, James John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parry, Thomas Henry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Butcher, J. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pirle, Duncan Vernon

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Chancellor, Henry G.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clough, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roche, M. Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

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

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Doris, William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sheehy, David

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Kenna, Rt Hon. Reginald

    Stanley, Major Hon. George (Preston)

    Field, William

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Manfield, Harry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Meagher, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Furness, Stephen Wilson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Waring, Walter

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Gladstone, William G. C.

    Molloy, Michael

    Webb, Henry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Morrell, Philip

    White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Muldoon, John

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Munro, Robert

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Gulland, John William

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert Alan Hamilton

    Gwynn Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

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

    Hackett, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wood, Samuel Hill- (Derbyshire)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Younger, Sir George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Malley, William

    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I do not understand the statement made by the Home Secretary on the first day we went into Committee. I understood him to say that in regard to the licence to prisoners sentenced to penal servitude he has powers to insert any conditions he sees fit. If that is so, why are additional powers to be given to him under this Bill to deal with prisoners in such a position as Mrs. Pankhurst is in at the present moment. I do not understand the Clause, and I shall reserve the remarks I have to make until after I have heard the observations of the Home Secretary on the subject.
    Mr. McKENNA: I was going to reserve my observations in reply to the hon. Baronet until I heard some reason why I should accept the proposed Amendment. I understand my hon. Friend is not quite aware of the purpose of this Sub-section. There is now power under the Penal Servitude Acts to issue licences for the release of prisoners. Those licences are ordinarily issued in consequence of the good conduct of prisoners, and are not in the nature of a temporary discharge, but, subject to a prisoner not falling again into crime, usually amount to a permanent discharge. It is quite true that, under the Penal Servitude Acts, the Home Secretary has power to issue special licences, and I have done so in the case of Mrs.

    199
    Pankhurst, but in her case, inasmuch as a special licence only operates during the currency of the sentence—that is to say, whilst Mrs. Pankhurst is out of prison her sentence is expiring as I have already explained to the House—I have to take special precautions in her case in order to secure, as far as I can, that the sentence of the judge shall be executed. Under the present Bill it is proposed that when an order of discharge is given the prisoner is not to be considered as being in prison, and it is most desirable that the licence and the order should not be used one in substitution for the other. In cases where a licence is issued under the Penal Servitude Acts all the conditions of the licence ought to apply, but where a person is temporarily discharged from prison under this Bill then all the conditions of the order should apply, and not the conditions of a licence under the Penal Servitude Acts. That is the sole reason for this Sub-section. It is simply to make the law clear.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am much obliged by my right hon. Friend's answer, but I would put this point to him. I think he would have met the objection if he could have accepted the principle of the Amendment to Clause 1, Sub-section (3), which principle is again raised here. This Clause has the same effect. Under it, for example, the time during which Mrs. Pankhurst is in a nursing home will not count as part of her sentence. Seeing that Mrs. Pankhurst's licence contains a definite statement that she shall return to prison on a particular date, surely the Home Secretary does not want to go further. If, therefore, my right hon. Friend could meet us on this point and strike out the Sub-section, I am sure all who are opposing this Bill would not raise any question on Report. I am perfectly well aware my right hon. Friend does not want to face a Report stage and
    have all the points debated over again; but, at any rate, this is a substantial one, and by omitting the Sub-section my right hon. Friend would at all events meet those who think that the powers he possesses under the present Acts are sufficiently wide. As he said on the Second Reading of this Bill, his present powers are very wide with respect to the licensing of prisoners on ticket-of-leave, and I hope he will be satisfied with those powers.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: This Sub-section stands in a different position to any other part of the Bill. It is a proposal to amend existing Acts of Parliament. If at the present time the health of a person who is under sentence breaks down, and it becomes obvious that his continued imprisonment might lead to loss of life, I understand it is the common practice of the Home Office to discharge the prisoner on ticket-of-leave. The prisoner is under no obligation as to re-arrest. He has only got to comply with the ordinary conditions of the ordinary ticket-of-leave, and his sentence is running out on that ticket-of-leave. But if this Clause is allowed to pass as it stands a prisoner—it does not apply to Suffragettes only—released under an order under this Bill becomes liable to re-arrest if at any time before recovery it is thought fit by the authorities to re-arrest him. That seems to be quite an unnecessary change of the law. The Home Secretary has shown, as in the case of Mrs. Pankhurst, that he has the power now to release the hunger-striker, and I submit that the reasons deduced by him are not sufficient to justify asking for this fresh power. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.
    Question put, "That the words of the Sub-section stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 12.

    Division No. 70.

    AYES.

    [12.39 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Clough, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bigland, Alfred

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Black, Arthur W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boland, John Pius

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Allen Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Brady, P. J.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Baird, J. L.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cawley Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Delany, William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Devlin, Joseph

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Reddy, M.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewlsham, Viscount

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    London, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowlands, James

    France, G. A.

    Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Furness, Stephen

    McGhee Richard

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sheehy, David

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Manfield, Harry

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gulland, John William

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hackett, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molloy, M.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Waring, Walter

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro, R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Webb, H.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    O'Dowd, John

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Wing, Thomas

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, Sir George

    Keating, Matthew

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    King, Joseph

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hudson, Walter

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Grant, J. A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. Booth.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Touche, George Alexander

    Question, "That the words of the Sub-section stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    We are entitled to some explanation about the meaning of this Sub-section, which says, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the duties of the medical officer of a prison in respect of a prisoner whom the Secretary of State does not think fit to discharge under this Act." We are entitled to ask what is veiled under this cloud of words. What is it meant to conceal? The Home Secretary ought to be able to tell us whether it is part of the duty of a medical officer in the prison to forcibly feed a prisoner. Under what regulation, what Act of Parliament, what rule, is the obligation imposed upon the medical officer of a prison to forcibly feed a prisoner? It is true he has a duty
    202
    imposed upon him to attend to the health of a prisoner; there is no doubt about that; but does he understand that forcible feeding is part of the duties imposed upon him when he accepts office? Whatever may be the opinions about the necessity of forcible feeding, there can be no two opinions about the unpleasantness of the duty cast upon the medical officer who has to perform this most disgusting operation. I ask the Home Secretary whether this Sub-section is intended to legalise forcible feeding by the prison doctor? If his reply is "No"; that the prison doctor already has that power, what is the use of having this Sub-section in the Bill at all? What is it there for? I hope we shall have some kind of satisfactory explanation, and I will reserve what I have to say on the main subject until——
    Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Home Secretary says "So shall I"! I hope the Committee is not going to be treated with that kind of contempt.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman ought to state his reasons.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I am asking first of all what this mass of words means. Why are they put in at all? Is it because at the present time forcible feeding of a prisoner by a medical doctor is illegal? If it is legal now why put these words in to legalise it in future? I want to understand what is in the mazes of the Home Secretary's mind, and when he tells us that we shall be in a better position to discuss whether or not they should be there.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing more in the mazes of my mind than the precise meaning of the words which are contained in this Sub-section. If it is now illegal for the medical officers to feed prisoners forcibly it will remain illegal after this Bill is passed. If it is legal for a medical officer to feed a prisoner forcibly it will continue to be legal after this Bill passes. These words in the Bill will not affect the legality or illegality of forcible feeding. They will leave the practice of forcible feeding precisely where it stands so far as legality is concerned at the present time.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to know if it is the case that the words leave the law of forcible feeding where it now stands, what are they put into the Bill for? The Home Secretary has given a most astonishing reply. He seemed to complain that the hon. Member had raised the question at all, but we are entitled to ask for some observations and explanations from the Home Secretary on the meaning of the Clause. If this Sub-section leaves the law where it is, in the name of conscience why is it put into the Bill at all? There must be some reason. The Home Secretary says the words do not affect the question one way or the other. If that is the meaning what are they put into the Bill for?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Baronet does not state accurately what I said. I said that the insertion of these words left the law precisely where it stood. It is not the
    204
    same thing to say that if the Bill passes without these words the law will be the same as it was before. By the insertion of these words we leave the law exactly where it stands now before the passing of the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is a distinction which, I am bound to say, my mind does not quite fully appreciate. I presume that the Clause has reference to the duties of medical officers in respect to the forcible feeding of prisoners, and that that is a part, at any rate, of the reason for introducing it into the Bill. That being so, I take it that I should be in order in dealing with the duties of medical officers as imposed under the provisions of the Bill. The Committee, I think, knows very well by this time the disgusting kind of duty which is thrust upon the doctors, the warders, and other prison officials by the action of the Home Secretary. All I can say is, that I do not think it is right to force upon public servants a duty which it would be repugnant to any Member of this House to have to undertake, and which is contrary to anything that has been done in prisons before. I think that the words of the Clause are unnecessary, and, in any I could not follow the explanation given by the Home Secretary as to why they are in the Bill, if my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall have to support him.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The Home Secretary's explanation—I say it without meaning any offence—was the most extraordinary one that I have ever heard given in the House of Commons. There is nothing in this Bill that alters the duties of the medical officer. I make that statement on my own responsibility, and not quoting the Home Secretary. That being so I would like to insist on the Home Secretary explaining the need for these words. He has told us that the law stands exactly as it did. I should like to ask this: If a Clause is required to legalise something which a medical officer may be called upon to do under this Bill when it becomes law, why is there not a similar Clause relating to the prison superintendent and other officials connected with the prison? Has there been a revolt of the doctors engaged as prison medical officers against being compelled to continue this most degrading and disgusting practice of forcible feeding? If the Bill does not alter the law, what is the need for these words in the Clause unless it be to legalise something, the legality of which has been

    205
    doubtful in the past, and of which it is intended to make sure in the future. So far as the Home Secretary's statement went, I could not see that it explained anything, and, therefore, I shall certainly carry my protest against this into the division lobby.
    Mr. WHYTE: I think the existence of this Sub-section in the Bill is really the whole secret of the proceedings which we have witnessed to-night, because it enables the Home Secretary, as I understand it, to retain all his present powers, including that of forcible feeding, and to add to them the powers which this Bill gives him. It is perhaps because a good many of us believed that the measure which would be proposed would have enabled the Home Secretary to abolish forcible feeding altogether that such a great degree of disappointment has been shown to-night by the proceedings through which the Committee has passed during the last few hours. We have not had a very clear answer given to the question asked from below the Gangway with respect to this Sub-section. We have not been told, for example, what are the particular duties which the Home Secretary wishes to safeguard, unless they are those connected with forcible feeding. If they are, then I think the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) is fully justified in raising the matter, though I admit that nearly all the evening the sense of the Committee as a whole has been against the small minority below the Gangway who have been discussing this question. I do think, however, that a valuable service has been done in forcing a discussion on this question, and I shall, a little later on, propose a Clause which will bring up the matter again.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I cannot allow this Clause to pass without understanding it, and I can honestly tell the Committee that at the present moment I do not know what it means. I submit that when you have language put in a Bill which a layman with an ordinary amount of common-sense cannot understand, then the Committee is entitled to know from the Minister in charge what the precise intentions of the Government are. Will the Home Secretary tell us what this means?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Baronet has twice addressed that question to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has twice
    206
    made a reply, satisfactory or otherwise. I must remind the hon. Baronet of that fact, and ask him not to repeat the same question interminably.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I submit that it has always been a practice in this House to allow a Member, who is not deliberately repeating himself for the purpose of obstruction, to press sometimes again and again, for information. I have said all along that I do not know what the meaning of these words is, and I have heard a question repeated many times in this House when Members have not understood an answer which has been given from the Treasury Bench.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is really discussing the ruling I have given.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Do I understand it to be your ruling, Sir, that when the Home Secretary has made a reply the meaning of which I am unable to follow, and has contented himself with making a single brief statement, that I am not entitled to ask him what is the meaning of the Subsection? I see that the Solicitor-General is present, and perhaps I may be allowed to ask him to tell the Committee what this means. I say frankly that I do not understand it, and I want to understand it.
    1.0 A.M.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I am sure all of us wish the hon. Baronet to understand the Sub-section, but I do not think, if he will look at it again, he will find that it is very obscure. The Clause is described in the margin as one dealing with "Savings"—that is to say, when the new Act of Parliament comes into force the draughtsman has to be careful to consider whether the language of the Act, though not intended to have any such effect, may seem to suggest some other changes in the law in addition to those which it professes to make, and the object of this Sub-section, which if I may respectfully say so to the hon. Baronet, is in a quite common form is to make it quite clear, in case any ingenious person may think otherwise, that the Clause is not intended in any way to affect the difficult duties which medical officers in prison do discharge, and we all admit, discharge to the very best of their ability in what they conceive to be the performance of those duties. That is the whole purpose of the Sub-section.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAMhad given notice of the following New Clause:—
    "No proceedings shall be entertained in any court of law against the Secretary of State or any prison official in respect of any proceedings taken by them in the exercise of the powers conferred under this Act."
    The hon. Member said he did not desire to Move the Clause.
    Mr. WHYTE: I beg to move, pro forma, "That the Clause be read a second time," in order to ask the Home Secretary whether there is not a conflict between his statements. He told us that a prisoner, believing that he or she was wrongfully arrested, could take proceedings.
    Mr. McKENNA: This Clause would prevent proceedings being taken. I do not accept it, so that there is no conflict.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act)
    "This Act shall remain in operation for one year from the passing thereof unless renewed meantime by Parliament."
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to Move a new Clause to the effect that this Bill shall remain in operation for one year. I feel apprehensive lest at the end of the year, or some slightly longer time, it may be found that this Bill is not a success, though I hope it will be. I think its success or failure largely depends upon whether or not those who are released observe the conditions of their release. What I am afraid of is that if the Bill fails it will sink into abeyance and will be forgotten, and then, perhaps, eight or ten years hence it will be resuscitated after everybody has forgotten the special circumstances in which it was passed, and it will be put into operation under some totally different circumstances. That is a danger which is always cropping up. Somebody is continually taking up an old Act passed in the time of William or George intended for a totally different set of circumstances, which everyone has forgotten, and then the Act is suddenly made operative. I suggest that as this is
    208
    a tentative Bill passed to meet a certain set of circumstances it will be proper to make it operative for a short period, say twelve months, though I will leave the Home Secretary to name any time he likes. If at the end of that time the Act is found to succeed it can be continued in the ordinary Bill continuing the laws, or else a new Bill can be framed or the matter dropped altogether. To leave this Bill in operation for all prisoners for all time would be very inadvisable.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member, I think, stated his case a little too widely. It is quite true I propose this Bill for all time, but I do not propose it should be made applicable to all prisoners. I think in any circumstances under which the Bill could apply it ought to apply. I can see nothing temporary about the application of its principle. The hon. Member must remember it applies only to prisoners whom it is undesirable to keep in prison in circumstances where their condition of health has been brought about by their own action. Where you have that set of circumstances, where the conduct of a prisoner arises from suffragist enthusiasm, or from any other enthusiasm, with the result that the prisoner ought not to serve the sentence or cannot be detained in prison under the existing practice, and can only be discharged under the conditions of a complete release, I think it would be always desirable to give power to release without complete discharge. I do not look upon that as a temporary matter. I look upon it as a matter which we ought to incorporate into the law in order to enable us to deal with a person of that sort. We are coming to the end of the Bill, and I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen of the large number of cases in which it has been my duty to advise the release of prisoners who have only been in prison for a few days out of a sentence of one month, or two months, or four months, or even eight months, I have had to release them unconditionally. I would like to remind the Committee of the prisoners who are now in prison, and are being forcibly fed, whom I would release conditionally to-morrow if I had power to release them. These are prisoners who are in prison and in these circumstances I think they ought to be dealt with permanently under an amended law. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press his proposal which would make the law temporary only.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Tuesday).

    GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUDAN LOAN GUARANTEE.
    Ordered, "That this House do to-morrow (Tuesday) resolve itself into a
    210
    Committee to consider authorising the Treasury to guarantee from the Consolidated Fund payments in respect to a loan to be raised by the Government of the Soudan."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    And it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after one o'clock a.m., Tuesday, April 22nd, 1913.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFITS.
  MEDICAL BENEFITS.
  Hops and Hop Substitutes.
  Hops and Hop Substitutes.
  Basis Wines.
  Basis Wines.
  Increment Value Duty (Richmond Case).
  Increment Value Duty (Richmond Case).
  Taxation of Easter Offerings.
  Taxation of Easter Offerings.
  Proportionate Taxation.
  Proportionate Taxation.
  Votes of Parliament (Credits).
  Votes of Parliament (Credits).
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Land Act, 1909.
  Land Act, 1909.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  British Plain Spirits.
  British Plain Spirits.
  Tax Upon Earned Incomes.
  Tax Upon Earned Incomes.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions,
  Old Age Pensions,
  Sheep Scab.
  Sheep Scab.
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Local Expenditure (Ireland).
  Local Expenditure (Ireland).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL, FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL, FORCE.
  GENERAL STAFF.
  GENERAL STAFF.
  Illegitimate Children.
  Illegitimate Children.
  Mr. Hugh Franklin (Pentonville Gaol).
  Mr. Hugh Franklin (Pentonville Gaol).
  Shops Act (Plymouth).
  Shops Act (Plymouth).
  Sunday Trading.
  Sunday Trading.
  Prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton.
  Prosecution of Mr. Cecil Chesterton.
  Cotton Grown in India.
  Cotton Grown in India.
  Exports from India,
  Exports from India,
  Farm Stud Animals.
  Farm Stud Animals.
  Bovine Tuberculosis.
  Bovine Tuberculosis.
  Colour Vision Tests.
  Colour Vision Tests.
  Exports and Imports (Great Britain and Germany).
  Exports and Imports (Great Britain and Germany).
  Court of Session Clerks.
  Court of Session Clerks.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That, the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Crowborough District Gas and. Electricity.

Dundee Corporation (Improvements and Tramways).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Silloth Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES.
Petition for a Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two Julges in Scotland.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 17th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
HARROW AND STANMORE GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON No. 1) BILL. [H.L.] (No. 21.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, to enable the London County Connell to put in force the Lands Clauses Act: And

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CARDIGAN, &c.) BILL. [H.L.] (No. 22.)
A Bill to confirm certain 'Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, to enable the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen, Cumberland, Kent, Merioneth, Montgomery, Pembroke, and the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Urban District of Aberdare to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts:
—Were presented by the Earl Beauchamp; read 1a; to be Printed; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Rotherham be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Marquess of Winchester; read, and, agreed to.

WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth be proposed to the noose as a Member of the Select Committee on the said. Bill in the place of the Marquess of Winchester; read, and agreed to.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Northbourne be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord O'Hagan; read, and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act., viz.:

E. Camperdown;

L. Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Regulations, dated 15th April 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee as to the manner of calculating the amount of the Annual Parliamentary Grant to be paid to the Navy and Army Insurance Fund;
2. Regulations, dated 15th April 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee entitled the National Health Insurance (Contributions to Superannuation Funds) Regulations, 1913;
3. Provisional Special Order, dated 16th April 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers Custom) Provisional Order, 1913. (No. 1);
4. Provisional Regulations, dated 16th April, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, entitled the National health Insurance (Outworkers) Amendment Regulations (England), 1913;
5. Regulations, made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners:

I. As to notices to be given by insured persons transferring from the Voluntary to the Employed Rate;

II. As to decisions of Questions;

III. As to Qualifications of Midwives;

6. Regulations, made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting jointly, as to Employed Contributors working under the general control of some person other than their immediate employer:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 23.)

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time I feel somewhat in the position of bringing before you a hardy annual, because your Lordships have passed the Bill through this House in two previous sessions, but unfortunately owing to pressure of business in another place the Bill got no further. This is practically the same Bill as the one which I brought in last year, with two exceptions, which I have made to meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government. Last year Scotland was included in the Bill but this year it is not, the Scottish Office having represented that they have sufficient powers already. The second alteration is that, at the request of the Irish Office, I have added to the Bill a clause making it applicable to Ireland. The Bill, the object of which is to enable county councils to acquire existing ferries by agreement, meets a long felt want, and has the approbation of the County Councils Association. Your Lordships passed it through all its stages in two previous sessions, and as it is said that there is luck in the third time I hope that this session the Bill will meet with an easy passage through your Lordships' House and the other House and become law.
Moved, That the 13111 be now read 2a.—(Viscount Galway.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to colonial judges becoming members of the Judicial Committee.
3.—(1) The maximum number of persons (being, or having been, judges in certain dominions) who may become members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by reason of the Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895, as amended by any subsequent enactment shall be increased from five to seven, and accordingly seven shall be substituted for five in subsection (2) of section one of that Act.
(2) Section one of the said Act shall have effect as if the persons named therein included any person being or having been Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa.
(3) His Majesty may by Order in Council regulate the order in which the persons qualified to become members of the Judicial Committee under the said Act as so amended, are to become members thereof, so as to secure, as far as possible, an equal distribution of such members amongst the various dominions to which the Act so amended relates.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): The Amendments are all of a drafting character. They are to add, before the word "dominions" in subsection (1), the words "parts of His Majesty's"; to insert the same words before "dominions" in subsection 3; and to add a new subsection.
Amendments moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 2, after ("certain") insert ("parts of His Majesty's")
Clause 3, page 2, line 15, after ("various") insert ("parts of His Majesty's")
Clause 3, page 2, line 16, after ("relates") nsert ("(4) The enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that schedule, and in the schedule to the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1908, for the words 'Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Transvaal, Orange River Colony' there shall be substituted the words 'the Union of South Africa'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, insert as a Schedule:—
SCHEDULE.

ENACTMENTS RKFEALID.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

58 & 59 Vict. c. 44

The Judicial Committee Amendment Act, 1895

In section one, the words "or either of the South African Colonies mentioned in the said Schedule." In the Schedule, the words "South African Colonies, Cape of Good Hope, Natal."

8 Edw. 7. c. 51

The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1908

Subsection (2) of section three.

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-marrow and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 24.)

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, interesting as was the debate on this measure on Thursday night, I cannot help feeling that your Lordships regard the replies then made from the Government Bench as having been somewhat inconclusive. I do not know that it would be courteous to reiterate the opinion of the Westminster Gazette that there is "a permanent fog at Whitehall," but I am sure that not one of your Lordships went away on Thursday evening with a clear conception either of what the peril is for which we are organising our Forces, or of what the Government consider to be the condition of the Forces which will be left at home after the Expeditionary Force has sailed; and I think it was quite impossible for the Government to make the matter clear to this House because it was obvious that they were not clear on the matter themselves.
I will endeavour to put into the briefest form what our contention is. Our contention is that since the noble and learned

171
Viscount on tike Woolsack framed his scheme in 1907 the peril to be met has increased and that the means for meeting it in this country have diminished, and our apprehension is that the Government are not endeavouring to adapt the Forces at their disposal to the emergency to be met, but are endeavouring to adapt the emergency to the Forces which they have to meet it with. And we are driven to that contention by three different operations. First, by the very serious conflict of opinion put forward by members of the Government, and even by the same member of the Government at different moments; secondly, by the composition—as I venture to urge, the unfortunate composition—of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which the Prime Minister has called upon to investigate the particular point of invasion; and, thirdly, by the avoidance by the Government of any attempt to grapple with the obvious deficiencies which have arisen in the last few years in the Force left at home.
With regard to the first point, the prime actor in the whole of this business must be, of course, the Secretary of State for War. From past knowledge of his criticisms of the Army, from the fact that he is not without military experience of his own, I have not the least doubt that, like the statesman in "Iolantha," the upper part of the Minister for War is sound and gives vent to patriotic sentiments, but his lower part is less sound and leads him into the wrong Lobby. It is impossible to believe that in the last few weeks he has been speaking his convictions on each occasion. On March 19 the Secretary of State introduced the Army Estimates. He dwelt upon possible sources of trouble, and then, as if he were addressing a number of persons who knew nothing about military subjects, he said that it was impossible for an enemy to come in large force if they were to escape the Navy, and that a deficiency of 16 per cent. in the Territorial Army was not, therefore, a great danger. Nobody knows better than the Secretary of State that it is not merely a question of 16 per cent. It is a question of the training of the Territorial Army. Between them and the Line there was, by the arrangement of the noble and learned Viscount, the whole of the Special Reserve, which is at present in chaos and has practically collapsed; and the Line itself is short of a considerable number of men.
172
On April 11 the Secretary of State made a second speech, in the course of which he assured the House of Commons that the General Staff were prepared to meet even a Force of 70,000 men if it should land. Two or three- days afterwards he mended his hand on that question and explained that the General Staff did not believe, according to the information of the Admiralty—not of the Defence Committee—that 70,000 could land; if they did they would have to come in small bodies, and if they came in small bodies they would conic without cavalry and artillery and therefore the General Staff would deal with them. But, my Lords, that is a categorically different proposition from the one that the General Staff could deal with 70,000 men, on which we have been relying for the last six years. In his absence, which we all understand, I do not wish to say more than I need about the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the house on Thursday last, but I confess I thought that speech was a deplorable speech. It was a speech in which a man who knew the subject talked all round the subject, and skilfully avoided coming to the centre or grappling with any of the main arguments which have been put forward from this Bench. Yet we have on record, in face of all these declarations, the two points on which we must pin our faith.
First, there was the speech of the Prime Minister in July, 1909, in which he declared that we are not to depend on nice calculations of numbers. My Lords, what is a calculation in which 70,000 men are split up into smaller bodies and these smaller bodies are deprived arbitrarily of cavalry and artillery—what is that but a nice calculation of numbers? And then when we come to investigate these points, what is the Sub-Committee which the Government have set up? The Prime Minister is within his right in calling anybody he pleases to the Defence Committee. Look how he has loaded this Sub-Committee. It is to consist, I think, of nine Cabinet Ministers, who cannot all be experts, and who cannot all be men who have constantly attended the Defence Committee. I think the Secretary of State for War told us—it was a confession which I must say filled us with dismay—that he himself had presided over the Defence Committee on fifteen out of nineteen occasions during his first year of office. I say it fills one with

173
dismay, because the whole principle of the Defence Committee was that the Prime Minister, and not merely a Departmental officer, should be the President of the Committee and give the entirely unbiassed view of the Government. If the senior members of the Government have not been in the habit of attending the meetings of the Defence Committee, how much more difficult does it not make it for them grapple with this question?
And who are the experts? I do not wish to say a word against the experts, but at all events it is an open secret that not merely were the naval experts quite wrong as regards the only naval war of which there has been experience in modern times, but the military experts of two of the greatest Continental Powers have been recently completely mistaken in their estimate of the probable result of the war between Turkey and the Allies. I venture to say that the opinion of naval experts, who by the nature of things have never had and cannot have had any experience of modern war, is really a most dangerous and most rickety parapet at the edge of a precipice to depend on. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount will deny that even the naval experts admit that at all events at the outset of a campaign they cannot guarantee us against raids, and raids on a considerable scale; and if that is their confession I should have liked to know that more men who were accustomed to land defence were to sit on this Sub-Committee in order to balance the very large number of those who do not possess technical knowledge, but the Prime Minister has not called one independent soldier to this Sub-Committee for the purpose. Although I fully agree with what my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said as regards Mr. Balfour's certainty to cast his verdict according to whatever evidence may now be brought before him, we cannot forget that since the last investigation by the Defence Committee, for which, as we are told, Mr. Balfour was in some respects responsible, a vigorous campaign has been carried on by very eminent men of military experience, challenging the decision of that Committee; and surely if we are to have a decision now in which we are all to put confidence, it is hardly wise that not one of those men has been asked by the Prime Minister to join in the investigation.
174
I fear that the conflict of opinion among the members of the Government and the composition of the Sub-Committee which is now to settle this vital question will go far to take away from the effect, which ought to be final for a time, of that decision. Still more I confess I think we have reason to complain of the way in which the Government have met, nut our criticism, but really our presentment as far as we could to them of the case as to our national weakness after the Expeditionary Force has gone. In this I regret to say the Lord. Chancellor has led the way. The noble and learned Viscount has, I venture to say, more ground to thank his political opponents for advocating his scheme and doing their best to make it succeed than any Minister who has ever preceded him at all events in the office which he held; but when we come forward, after six years experience, and point out that the basis has changed, that the calculation has changed, and that meantime the expectation which he held out to us has also changed, he treats us as if it was his business to rebut a partisan attack rather than to relieve a national anxiety. In the speech which he will deliver in this debate to-night I would ask him not to repeat the tone of the speech he delivered on February 10 last. He then met us by a disquisition on our sea power, on which we were all agreed, and by attempting to turn the whole debate, not into a discussion of how under his scheme we could recruit the Forces at home, but into the partisan channel of an attempt on our part to force on the Government compulsory service, which we had carefully excluded from the whole of the debate. The long half hour which the noble and learned Viscount gave to rebutting compulsory service on moral, physical, and on other grounds left us completely at sea as to what was to be done, if anything, to fill up the deficiencies. And once that cue had been given from so high a quarter, the junior members of the Government hastened on every platform to try and saddle the Party to which I belong with compulsory service, to do their best to travesty our arguments, and to add the, I think, very ungenerous suggestion that we are only taking this course in order to make the Territorial Army fail.
There was, I think, almost a contract between the Government as represented by the Secretary of State for War and this

175
side of the House six years ago. We did not agree with many things which were being done, but we gave up our feeling in regard to them in order, if possible, to enable the new scheme to be set on foot. The noble and learned Viscount put the whole question to us, in the first place, on the ground of economy. Then he said that all the things rejected did not make for fighting efficiency. He reduced the Estimates by £1,000,000. There are 74,000 less persons carrying a rifle at this moment than there were when he took office, and if you were to put them on again they would cost £2,000,000 and not £1,000,000, owing to the large amount which has been spent on the Auxiliary Force. Therefore, for economy there is not much to be said. Then, in the interests of "efficiency," the noble and learned Viscount scrapped eight fine battalions of the Line, and he intended to scrap two battalions of the Guards which were ultimately reduced to one battalion, so that one Guards battalion and eight of the Line went. I am not going to-night to follow that out or to say how much that may handicap the Government in sending the Expeditionary Force abroad, but I wish to point out that all that we were promised instead of these things has not been able to be carried out.
I cannot enter into the noble and learned Viscount's view as regards the reductions in the Regular Army. The other night he made an absolutely astounding statement. He said that after the reorganisation there are more troops at home than there were before. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne then asked, "did not the noble and learned Viscount reduce the strength of the home battalions? "and the Lord Chancellor replied—
"Not a single home battalion was knocked off, nor was their strength reduced; not a man was knocked off."
What are the figures? At the end of 1905, when the noble and learned Viscount took office, there were seventy-five battalions of the Line at home and ten battalions of the Guards—eighty-five in all, and they were at a strength each of 750 rank and file; in 1909 there were seventy-four battalions of the Line and eight of the Guards, with a strength of 720 rank and file.
LORD LUCAS: Establishment, not strength—a very different thing.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: In the Colonies there were, in 1905, twenty-nine battalions, and in 1909, after the reduction, there were twenty-two. Then as regards strength. The noble and learned Viscount says he did not knock off a single man. He knocked off the establishment thirty men per battalion. At the end of 1905 there were 130,000 men at home and 63,000 in the Colonies. In 1908 there were 120,000 at home and 51,000 in the Colonies. In 1910, by adding to the Line all the Regulars serving with the Special Reserve who before were shown in the Militia he managed to get the numbers up to 127,000, as against what would have been 134,000 before. He has brought the number of men in the Colonies down from 63,000 to 49,000, and he has brought the whole of the Army, including India, down from 260,000 in 1905 to 239,000. Then he says he has not made a reduction of a man or knocked off a single battalion at home. That statement is not merely not the truth, but, with all respect, it is exactly the reverse of the truth. In the same way, in 1908 the Lord Chancellor went down to Guildford and explained what were the results of his reorganisation. He said that he had added 90,000 men to the Regular Army, in language which seemed to us both grandiloquent and premature. That meant that, there being 85,000 in the Militia, and as he meant to have 90,000 in the Special Reserve who would be able to go abroad, which the Militia were not forced to do, therefore he could claim that he had increased the Regular Army by 90,000 men.
Where are the 90,000 men? The Regular Army has lost since our time, by the noble and learned Viscount's own showing, over 20,000 men; the Reserve has lost very nearly as many. Of the 90,000 of the Special Reserve there are at this moment only 56,000 in existence, and of these 16,000 are under nineteen years of age or under one year's service. There are, therefore, only 40,000 of them who could, be sent abroad, and those 40,000 meet the reduction of 20,000 in the Regulars and in the Army Reserve, each man of whom, I suppose every soldier in this House would say, is worth at least double a Special Reservist who has been trained for only six months. That is in itself so great a reduction that we cannot but feel that every requirement, everything which from the Lord Chancellor's view was regarded

177
as a requirement, has now only become an aspiration which might or might not be reached. When we were told that something was going to be done with the Territorials which was not done with the Volunteers, we understood that, quite apart from the change in organisation, the advantages of which we all admit, there also would be two things—six months training before they were put into the field; and by the encouragement or the enforcement of cadet training there would be before a young man joined the Territorial Army such a degree of knowledge as would enable him to take his place with the minimum of drill. How far have those things been realised? We know that the first cannot be realised if our Expeditionary Force is to go to the Continent within a few days.
Then on February 10 the noble and learned Viscount disclaimed altogether having declared that the Territorial Force required six months training before it could be of use. I looked up his statements in 1907, and if I may trouble the House I will read two quotations that both bear upon this point. On March 4, 1907, the Secretary of State for War said—
"We have thrown the war training on to the other side of the mobilisation—that is to say, we train after mobilisation and not before."
On March 4, 1908, he said—
"I have admitted that if the conception of immediate reliance on the Territorial Force in case of invasion was correct the criticisms of our scheme would be well founded, but I have shown what an entirely different basis underlines the Government plan."
I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not get up to-night and tell us, after what he said in 1907—that "we have thrown the war training on to the other side of mobilisation" and that he was advised that six months training would be enough to put the Force into good military condition—that he now really proposes that this Force should be asked to encounter the best Continental troops without war training and without being in the best military condition. We know what Lord Wolseley said on this matter. He said that in these circumstances to pit such troops, especially with incomplete artillery, against Continental troops would be a shambles. I commend that to the consideration of the noble and learned Viscount.
178
Then, again, with regard to the question of cadet training, the noble and learned Viscount said it was a myth to suppose that he had ever been in favour of or had proposed compulsory cadet training. Well, it is a play upon words. What he did propose was, as I understand it, that the Territorial Associations in each county should have funds with which to carry on cadet training in schools. Obviously the pivot of that arrangement was cadet training in the national schools, in which all education is laid down and is compulsory. The Labour Party objected to it, and the noble and learned Viscount after a struggle declared that cadet training should not be carried on out of public money, and thereupon the whole proposal fell to the ground. We stood, and we had a right to stand, under the belief that the one thing which was going to get us recruits better trained and to raise a snore military spirit in the country was the drilling of boys at an age when the loss of time was nothing to them, thus saving them time when to serve their country meant a considerable deduction both from their holiday and their earning power. We have lost that; and I cannot help feeling that to ignore these losses of strength and to minimise what we thought were principles in the scheme of the noble and learned Viscount hardly does justice to his own candour. I think the speech which he made on February 10 was wanting in respect to, the very large amount of military knowledge which there is in your Lordships' House.
Our case is that the probability of trouble from abroad may be regarded as greater now than it was in 1907; that our Force is less than it was in 1907; that foreign navies are more powerful than they were in 1907; that the whole science of aircraft is more disturbing than it was in 1907; that a larger lumber of troops will be away from this country than was believed to be likely in 1907; that the Special Reserve, on which we were to rely, is 30,000 less, and the troops in general are 100,000 less than were asked for in 1907; and that therefore there is an emergency with which the Government may well be asked to deal. That is our case, and I invite the noble and learned Viscount not to treat us as partisan critics, but to treat us as men vehemently searching for a remedy for the present state of things.

179
On behalf of those who sit on this Bench I would like to make it clear that we are not bringing this question forward from any panic caused by the great military operations abroad; that we are not in any way guided by a desire to secure a great Army for the Continent by endeavouring to increase largely the Expeditionary Force; that we are not to-night advocating compulsion for service; and that we are not even attempting to prejudge, because We have not got the material, the question whether or not a compulsory military system in this country can be run side by side with the enlistment of Regular forces such as we have to keep abroad. What we are doing is to urge that this great gap of 100,000 men must be dealt with and dealt with at once; that the too hastily Abandoned idea of physical training in schools should be reconsidered at once by the Government; that the possibility should be considered of enabling soldiers who have left the Colours to be brought into a Second Line, not on the lines merely of the National Reserve, but by a selection from those who having served and having been drilled can be used; and that that should not be attempted, as it has been, by offering a man 10 s. a year to be ready at any moment to take the work of an Army Reservist and go to the ends of the earth and remain there until the war ends. In fact, we want effective measures.
I would appeal to the Lord Chancellor on this ground also. This question has not yet passed into the arena of Party, but there is the writing on the wall. It is fast passing into that arena, and it must so pass if one Party deliberately decides to blind itself to the difficulty and leaves it to the other Party continually to bring it forward. The noble and learned Viscount's colleagues have obtained a great deal of commendation during the last few weeks for their attempt to establish unity in Europe and to secure peace, and in that I venture to say the strongest thing on which they can rely is the strength of our own position and the unity of our own people. I am not going on this occasion to suggest how far recent Government measures have affected, or may affect, the unity of our own people; but surely if, as regards our strength to meet these difficulties, disunion is to be created by the Government, then we can only look forward to the question being relegated into the Party arena, which must
180
put it back for many years and greatly increase the danger of our position. For that reason I appeal to the Government not to continue to palliate, to minimise, and to obscure difficulties which they have not been able to avoid, but which in our opinion constitute a grave national danger.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I always listen with interest to the speeches of the noble Viscount because he never fails to set me considering a problem, and the problem which lie has set me considering on this and on other occasions is, What is he at? What does he want? He spoke of disunion in the Government, I think, or, at any rate, of the Government being the occasion of disunion. Where is there a more remarkable specimen of disunion than in the attitude of the Opposition about military matters? Lord Lovat on Thursday made a most significant interruption to the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. He spoke in that interruption of the two sections into which the Unionist Party are divided and complained of the presence of Mr. Balfour on the special inquiry of the Defence Committee because it was not just to the other section of the Unionist Party. Good heavens, my Lords, are we to have, in addition to food taxes, controversy over the Budget, and the situation under the Parliament Act, a new controversy over Army policy? If so, Heaven help the country when the Opposition come into power.
When the noble Viscount makes an appeal to me to meet the Opposition on some footing I do not know what, and on some points that he did not define, I would ask him, What is the policy of the Opposition? It is perfectly true that a physician is not required to prescribe until he is actually called in, but that is not the situation here. The noble Viscount and those associated with him are attacking us and carrying the war as near as they can into our camp, and we are bound to see what is their line of strategy and to bring it to light and deal with it. I shall listen with great interest later on to the speech which we are expecting this evening from the noble Earl who sits there. His views we understand. He is frankly and openly for compulsory service as a remedy for the present state of things, but what is the position of the noble Viscount?
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My position is perfectly clear. The Secretary of State Says that we have failed in achievement. The noble and learned Viscount made it clear to the House that he considers that we have not failed. We ask him to admit that there is a failure in achievement, and to tell us what measures they propose to concert in order that the Forces law be brought up to the standard laid down by the noble and learned Viscount.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has left me no wiser than I was before. I had hoped to hear his views on the thesis advocated by the noble Earl who will speak later, but the noble Viscount will not tell us. I had an opportunity of reading a speech made by the noble Viscount in Surrey last January. It was delivered at a meeting of the National Service League, and he intimated that it was the first time that he had been at such a meeting. There was great rejoicing—more reducing over that one than over the ninety-nine already in the fold. He came almost into the fold. He put his head and shoulders in, but they could not get him wholly in. There was doubt and misgiving. I le was almost persuaded, and yet, in the words of the old hymn, "lost." The noble Viscount is in a difficult position. What does he ask us to do? Does he want us to go back to the condition of things in 1903? If he does, does anybody else want us to do that? What is the use of pouring out torrents of figures? I could follow every one of his figures on this occasion, but I wish to get to other and more important matters.
The noble Viscount told the House not ten minutes ago something which astonished me. He told us that when the Government came into office there were seventy-five battalions of the Line at home, and he told that by way of illustrating his proposition that we have weakened the situation in Home Defence. That was important, because the noble Marquess was under the same impression the other day that we had reduced the Home Establishments. I do not wonder that the noble Marquess was misled if an ex-Secretary for War told him that when we came into office there were seventy-five battalions at home. The Annual Report of the Army for 1906 gives the figures as they were immediately before the Government came into office. On October 1, 1905, there
182
were seventy-one battalions of the Line and not seventy-five at home. So far from reducing the home battalions I increased them. I was responsible for carrying the Cardwell system to its completion, which gave us seventy-four battalions at home and seventy-four abroad. That is three battalions more than existed before the Liberal Government came into office.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My figures are taken from the Blue-book and the Army Estimates.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here is the official book and the noble Viscount can look for himself. If he is not content he can have a certificate from the War Office that on October 1, 1905, there were seventy-one battalions, and no more, at home.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I will move for the figures.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Viscount will make a notion for them he can have the official figures. Meanwhile there is the official book from which I have quoted. This is not the first time the noble Viscount has fallen into error with regard to figures. The other day lie gave us figures which he said represented the condition of things when we took office, and others to show that there had been reductions in establishment since we have been in power. Fortunately I listened attentively and I recognised that he spoke from an old Return which related to January 1, 1905. The figures of January 1, 1905, certainly showed a reduction, but the bulk of it was due to the operations of the late Government. The late Mr. Arnold-Forster did a great deal to bring out a clear conception of military organisation, and I have always felt grateful to him for the public spirit and the determination in which lie insisted on trying to bring things out of the chaos in which he found them. He insisted on getting rid of certain useless units and useless pieces of organisation which had existed for no purpose. In the last year in which he was in office in 1905—between January 1 and December 11 of that year, when I took office—he effected large reductions, some of which did not fully mature until some months after, but the bulk of which took effect in that

183
year. He got rid of garrison regiments; he got rid of the submarine mines contingents; and lie arranged for getting rid of a good deal more of garrison Artillery that had been condemned; the result being that there were reductions which came in the period from January 1 and December 11, 1905, but which the noble Viscount attributed to us. It would be better if the noble Viscount would put specific Questions on the Paper, so as to get specific answers, and we should then be sure where we stand.
Now I pass to the question before us. Two interrogatories have been put to us with great distinctness: "Are you satisfied with the state of things now, and, if not, what do you propose to do?" I will endeavour to answer with distinctness and plainness, but you must remember the distinction between the two things which are altogether distinct—namely, the plans which have been carried out, the establishments which have been laid down, and the actual deficiencies in figures which may, or may not, be temporary. The noble Viscount and other speakers have said that great changes have occurred which have increased the national peril. These great changes are matters which at present are under investigation by the Committee of Imperial Defence which I regret very much has been discussed as it has been in these debates. The deliberations of that Committee ought to be as secret as those of the Cabinet itself, or it will become shortly a useless body. All I will say now is that the Committee is investigating that question and it is bound to investigate it from time to time. No scheme can be so good that it does not require overhauling from time to time. I do not therefore propose to prejudge that question, or to throw any light upon the operations of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Only one thing will I say. Lord Midleton is under a misapprehension in thinking there are important meetings of that body over which the Prime Minister does not preside. There are, however, numerous sub-committees, and it was of these that the Secretary of State for War was speaking when he said that he had presided on fifteen occasions.
I turn to the question, "Is the scheme satisfactory?" The scheme took its origin out of a very simple and very important fact—that we are an island Power respon-
184
sible for a great Empire. The consequence is that we can carry out our duties by sea and by land only by means of a professional Navy and a professional Army, in which the men have to serve for a long period. They may be engaged in operations which extend over many years, and you cannot get men to serve in these Forces on any but a professional basis. That is where we are in a different position from Continental nations. The main part of the work of the British Army can be done only on the voluntary system. Perhaps in a quarter of a century after this, when the British Empire is more developed, it may be that some of the Dominions that arc growing so strong will be able to do more than look after themselves, and may be able to give us assistance in other parts of the Empire. They may be able to give us assistance even as regards India. As to that I do not know, but this I do know that, for a very long time to come we shall have to take care of India and the other parts of the world for which we are responsible. And so long as that is so, nothing except a voluntary service will enable us to maintain an Army and Navy circumstanced as we are which will be sufficient for the task. That is a root fact in our schemes of defence. It is a disadvantage to live in an island as well as an advantage, but the advantage comes in this way, that our peril from invasion, which is, after all what we are mainly here to consider to-day, is very much more easily grappled with than the peril of Continental Powers.
Various speakers have spoken of the public uneasiness about the possibility of invasion. Contrast our grounds for uneasiness with the grounds for uneasiness in the minds of those in the great countries on the Continent. Take Germany, for instance. She has Russia, with her tremendous military reserves, on the one side, and France, also with her highly-trained Army, on the other. If I were a German, notwithstanding the admirably organised Army which Germany has, I should feel I had a great deal more to trouble my head with than is the case living here. Moltke had this reproach made to him on one occasion. "You have drawn up a defence scheme against two Powers, but there may well come a third Power on the scene." "I leave that to Providence," replied Moltke, "I can help Germany against two Powers, but against three I cannot." Take the case of France,

185
too, with the magnificently organised German Army just over the frontier. If you wish to find uneasiness about invasion go to these Continental Powers with their land frontiers. But do not let us be unduly nervous. Do not let us belong to the Blue Water school which says there is no fear of invasion, or the "Blue Funk school" which lives daily in terror of it. For us the task has been one which has been fulfilled all through by relying on sea power. As soon as we let down our Navy, as soon as we get weak there, then I think we shall be in real terror. The policy of the Government has been to spend money lavishly in increasing the Navy, but the navies of foreign Powers are increasing very rapidly and it is impossible for us to stand as far ahead, relatively, as we have been. Still, we have to-day a Navy far more powerful than we have ever had in our history, and more powerful than the Navy of any other nation which we are likely to encounter.
The second principle of our defence, which has been left very much out of sight, is that what we have to do is to take such measures as will compel the enemy to attempt to invade us with such a force that it will be an easy task for the Navy to intercept him. That is no new principle. It was laid down by the late Government; it was laid down in admirable lucidity by the noble Marques himself in a debate to which I will refer in a moment. It is a principle which means, not that 70,000 men are likely to land on these shores, or even that they could land. We should not calculate on too thin a margin, but we ought to have such a force at home as would compel an enemy to send 70,000 men if he is to have any prospect of success. That raises a very different question from that of calculating the certainties or even the chances of a battle in which 70,000 men are engaged against 300,000 or 400,000 men. The foreign General Staff officer cannot afford to throw away so great a force as 70,000 men, and therefore he does not send them unless he thinks he has a fair chance of succeeding. Consequently he takes note of numbers, of organisation, of preponderance, which may make his task a hopeless one even though at first he has initial success. That was why Lord Roberts many years ago, even with Ike disorganised and chaotic Volunteer Force of those days, said that 70,000 was the least number with which a foreign General would attempt the task. Speaking
186
at Leeds on Saturday Lord Roberts said he had, been misinterpreted in regard to that, but I do not think he has been. He went on to say that he might just as well have said 700,000 or three times 70,000 but I do not think so, because then he would have got on to the naval problem.
*LORD AMPTHILL: I happened to be present at the meeting to which the Lord Chancellor is referring, and perhaps I may be allowed to state what Lord Roberta said. He said that if he had known what use would be made of that minimum of 70,000—and he explained very clearly that it was as a minimum that he gave it—he would have said 700,000.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad of that interruption, for it has made clearer to my mind what was the meaning of Lord Roberts's remark. The question whether 700,000 can come over, or 210,000, is a naval question. What I complain of is that those who take part in these discussions will not distinguish between what is a military problem and what is a naval problem. I hope I have made it quite clear that the task, and the only task, of the military authorities here is to make sure that there is such a force at home as will make a foreign General Staff officer send 70,000 men. If he sends that number of men then there is a target for the Navy. The question is whether the military dispositions which were made would compel an invader to come with 70,000 men. It has been roundly alleged that the Territorial Force was only put together for the purpose of resisting two raids of 5,000 each. Lord Lovat said so, and others have said so in the newspapers and elsewhere. That is a complete misapprehension.
I will tell your Lordships how the numbers of the Territorial Force and the Expeditionary Force came to be calculated. The six divisions, the 160,000 men, of the Expeditionary Force owe their origin to no calculation of what sort of Army we should require on the Continent or in any other particular place. We have carried out the Cardwell system and that system gave us seventy-four battalions for home defence, but which also could be sent abroad if it was safe and prudent to do so. We had the numbers there and we organised them, and so it was with the Territorial Force. We looked about to see, not how little we could get in the way of numbers, but how much, and we found, or thought we found—and I still think we

187
calculated rightly—that we could get over 300,000. It is a sheer fallacy to say that we organised the Territorial Force simply against raids. The prospect of invasion by 70,000 men is not a new factor. It is true that Mr. Balfour used an expression in 1905 which seemed to convey that he thought the business of looking after 70,000 or any other number of invaders was purely a naval question. But Mr. Balfour afterwards made it perfectly clear that he had not meant that. Lord Lovat cited a speech of mine which might have appeared, from the only passage he took, to give sonic countenance to the notion that I took that view; but if Lord Lovat had read more of that speech he would have found exactly the contrary to be true. It was a speech I made more than a year before the Territorial Force came into existence. I made no reference to the number of 70,000, it is true, but I did make a reference to invasion, and I expressed the hope that Mr. Balfour would make it plain that he had been misunderstood in regard to thinking that invasion was not a thing which we ought to take precautions against. Mr. Balfour three days afterwards intervened in a debate and accepted the suggestion. He said he had been misunderstood, and that he had always adhered to the 70,000 figure. Oddly enough, some days before that debate the noble Marquess himself had here laid down the 70,000 standard with precision. I only mention that to show that more than a year before the Territorial Force came into existence, in the early spring of 1907, we had that standard in existence; and although it is true that in the two years which intervened before the correction was made the General Staff had organised only on the basis of two raids, that was an error which I myself corrected, and the whole of the defence schemes in connection with the Territorial Force have been prepared with the object of forcing an enemy to come with not less than 70,000 men.
What were the materials which in the scheme we proposed to use to compel the 70,000 men to come? There was first the Territorial Force. I put it myself at a quarter of a million, but we hoped that later we should get 300,000. Next there was the Special Reserve, of which the noble Viscount spoke lightly, and which he described as in a state of chaos. We have never been able to get him to understand the purposes for which the Special Reserve was designed. On mobilisation
188
the Third Battalions, to which the seventy-four battalions of the Special Reserve belong, mobilise with surplus reservists, with men who have not attained the age of twenty, and with the Special Reserve itself up to a strength which gives large battalions of over 1,000. Then there were certain Regular troops, including Garrison Artillery and Royal Engineers, as well as Infantry and other Artillery. To-day the Territorial Force is deficient in strength. But there is a new element which compensates for this. In the National Reserve there are over 100,000 men comparatively young and highly trained. I have not the least doubt that these can be reckoned on for a great emergency. Take the Territorial Force at 300,000 and the Special Reserve at 100,000, and add to them such Regulars as are at home, some 20,000 or 30,000—besides that there are, as I have said, a certain number of Garrison Artillery and Engineers, and so on. In other words, there would be a total Force of between 400,000 and 500,000 men. That might seem to be a Force which contained a considerable number of untrained members. Over that, again, there has been great misconception.
In February, 1907, I used the expression "six months training on mobilisation," for the reason that when the Territorial Force goes into training it goes into training in its units and at its war strength, and my idea always was that on mobilisation it should remain in training until, if there was no invasion and no further peril, the men might be dismissed to their homes after six months, with the consciousness that they had been fairly satisfactorily trained and that they could come out ready at a moment's notice. I never suggested that the Territorial Force would not fight and were worth nothing beforehand. After all, they are intelligent men, and though their training is slight they would harden quickly. I can only go on the opinions given to me by a large number of Regular officers who have been responsible for their training—namely, that from the first day they would do something and would improve every week. When you are considering what is in the mind of a foreign Staff officer in fixing the numbers with which he would come to these shores, I do not think you would find him projecting to come with less than 70,000 men in the face of 400,000 troops such as the Territorial Force would produce.

189
It is said that the Territorial Force is short in its numbers by 16 per cent., and I very much regret the shortage. The noble Viscount was quite right when he said that the attitude of many prominent members of the Opposition was admirable. Men like Lord Derby, Lord Dartmouth, Lord Fortescue, and others worked with all their strength to make the plan a success, and they did make it, very nearly a success so far as numbers were concerned. The numbers were going up and up, and there was no reason why they should not go up. I was talking only the other day to a very distinguished man, who said to me this, which I believe to be profoundly true, "If you could get the same unanimity among the people on this matter as you have in the case of the Boy Scouts, you would have the Territorial Force overflowing." That is so. There has been a stream of discouraging criticism poured upon the Force by the exponents of the doctrine of compulsory service. To realise what that effect is you must consider what is the character of the Territorial Force. It is a Force recruited from classes and provided with officers who are peculiarly sensitive to anything like ridicule or criticism. It is a volunteer Force and such a Force always wants a great deal of encouragement, particularly officers. When they are told that they are a sham, that they have no training, that they are useless, and that they would go down like grass before the enemy—we are familiar with all these things—do you imagine that these things being said have no effect? They have a deadly effect upon the Territorial. Force, and responsibility for the shortage in numbers—I say it deliberately and advisedly—rests with those who, instead of co-operating and assisting in making it a success, put difficulties and discouragement in the way. There are many prominent members of the Unionist Party who have done noble work and have applied themselves with energy to this task, but there are others who have done nothing but throw doubts, difficulties, and discouragement in the way. That is the real reason, in my opinion, why the Territorial Force is short in numbers, and if you wish to get rid of that shortage you will stop that stream of discouragement. But I am afraid you cannot do that. You cannot control it, you cannot make people take one unbroken line upon military policy, and therefore we have to turn to other things.
190
I agree with Lord Roberts that it is far more a question of patriotism than of money. You can do something with money; you can help to provide good ranges—that has been done as rapidly as possible—you can improve drill halls; you can make the social side for officers and men more comfortable.
Then there is extra training, and I know a good deal about that. With a volunteer army you can only carry your training to a certain point, and while I am in favour of giving money freely for training, and the War Office are doing that at, this moment, I maintain that there is a point beyond which training cannot be absorbed. The noble Marquess spoke of another thing with which I aril very much in sympathy. He spoke of a certain amount of training that should be giver in schools, and I have often said, and now say, that no system of national education can be a complete system which does not include physical as well as mental and moral training. I know of no form of physical training better than that given to the Boy Scouts, leading up to the training of cadets, and, I should think quite naturally to the Territorial Force. But in the school system you must be careful to avoid the controversy that arises upon the subject of militarism. I should be very much against having training miller the control of the War Office. I should like to see it part of school training, and as far as possible on the lines which General Baden-Powell has organised with such success for his Boy Scouts. I agree with the noble Marquess that the training would facilitate the subsequent training of the soldier, and that therefore it is a matter to which we ought seriously to address our minds.
The long and short of it is that the question of numbers does not present to my mind insuperable difficulties, nor do I find evidence to justify that nervousness which seems to be widely spread. Another element goes to make up for a great deal of the shortage. It has been the custom to say, "It is quite true you have large reserves when you have 100,000 highly trained old soldiers, but they cannot be counted upon for every purpose." But why? Do noble Lords imagine that in a time of great national emergency these men will not come forward to serve for their country's defence, as they have served

191
before? They will come forward and make up for deficiencies in the Territorial Force. These men, fresh from the Army with long and high military training, will be the best element to rely upon in emergency. The deficiency in the numbers of the Territorial Force, in my opinion, will be more than made up by the numerous reserves we have
There are two questions which, as I said at the beginning, are quite different. We have to consider whether the scheme is sufficient, and then there is the question of numbers. Upon the points put, I think I have answered. I have said that in our opinion they are sufficient, and that we have no cause for nervousness comparable to the nervousness of those who live in Continental countries. It is quite true that you can never feel perfectly at ease in regard to military or naval matters. You never know what combinations there may be; you can only provide against probabilities, otherwise you make sure of one thing only, and that is that the nation would go into bankruptcy. You cannot keep up a great Navy and a great Army as well. The noble Marquess wisely said that in his speech on Thursday, and I think if we could get at the back of the minds of those who are criticising us we should find that they desire that we should take part in great enterprises on the Continent for which we are not fitted. It may be necessary to send the Expeditionary Force abroad—to the Continent or elsewhere. On the Committee of Imperial Defence I take the attitude of a judge, not of an advocate; it is a question I decline to prejudge. It is our business to keep it ready and in such a condition that it can be used as a powerful weapon without delay. I believe it is in good condition at the present moment and capable of rapid mobilisation. It is quite true that we may be hampered in the use of it by shortage in the Territorial Force; that is a question to consider if the occasion, which God forbid, should arise. It may be that we shall be able to send it all out of the country, but it may be that we shall think it expedient to keep one Division or two Divisions at home. I do not know. All I do say is that the only result of the agitation that is going on, even if it destroys the Territorial Force, would be not to put the nation in any peril, but to hamper it in the use of its Expeditionary Force and compel it to keep part at least of that Force at home.
192
As to compulsory service I believe it to be wholly impracticable. No one of its advocates agrees with the other; they all want something different. And, so far from costing £4,000,000, a most careful estimate has brought it up to between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000, and I notice that in his speech Lord Roberts said the recruits should be well lodged. That, of course, means barracks, and would bring the cost up to I know not what. I think I have answered the points that have been raised. What I have to say in conclusion is that there is only one way, and that is, having got the first principles of national defence which we inherited from the late Administration, we should make up our minds on both sides whether we intend to stick to them or not, and if we believe in them, as I think the noble Marquess believes in them, and if we do so intend, then we must be consistent. Let us rule out the aspirations of those who want a Continental Army and of those who want to supersede naval by military protection. The only key to comfort in the future, and the only solution of our problem, is that we should know our minds. That is why I appeal to noble Lords on the other side of the House to realise the gravity and seriousness of the situation. Look where they are drifting. If an election came and the Party opposite were returned, what would be their policy? There would be a powerful section insisting upon compulsory service, and there would be a section, equally important, insisting that there should not be compulsory service. Where would the leaders be? What would be their position? Their position would be a miserable one, and the military organisation of the country would suffer. Therefore if there is one remedy more than another which is to be sought for in the situation in which we are it is that we should, by discussion and by taking counsel together, at least come out with some clear view, if not of detail, of those first principles upon which national defence must be based.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, we have listened to an interesting speech from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, but I am afraid we must class it as one of those streams of comfortable optimism which we have heard so frequently in the past, and which do not carry us very much further. I do not see that we are very much the wiser after

193
listening to the noble and learned Viscount. The main fact that we want to call attention to at the present moment is that there is very great dissatisfaction in the country with the present composition and training of the Territorial Force. We are constantly told that any sort of criticism of that Force is necessarily a discouragement, and the noble and learned Viscount has repeated to-day what we have seen so often in the Press of late—that the paucity of numbers in the Territorial Force is to be wholly ascribed to the criticisms which have been made by those who are in every way competent to judge. It is all very well for the noble and learned Viscount to be as optimistic as he is, but I am afraid the greater portion of the country will preter the opinions of the responsible officers who really know what modern war is and what training is required of modern troops in making them safe anti reliable in battle.
There are many reasons which can be put forward for the paucity of numbers, and I respectfully suggest that one of them is the conviction that is growing more and more upon those who are serving in the Territorial Force that they are simply sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others who ought to take their share of the duty. That feeling is growing more and more throughout the country. When the Territorial Force was formed there was plenty of patriotic enthusiasm and men came forward, but as they have, looked into the question they have considered what their own position is. I know for a fact that the Territorials are greatly dissatisfied at seeing so many other men simply standing out and enjoying themselves when they ought to come forward and take their share in the heat and burden of the day. That is one reason for the paucity of numbers. Another is that there is too much of an attempt to run the Territorial Force on the cheap. If you want to increase the numbers and to avoid any change in system for the purpose of making the Territorial Force stronger than it is, you have only two alternatives before you—either to try and increase the numbers by the voluntary system, in which case you will have to spend a much larger sum than at present, or else be prepared to fall back upon some system of compulsion sooner than leave the country defenceless.
I should like to say a few words on the question of the Territorial Artillery, because
194
I happen to be the only member of your Lordships' House who has had any considerable experience of Territorial Field and Horse Artillery. I have for the past twenty years had under my command two batteries which I have seen changed from two absolutely useless units to two Very serviceable units at the present clay, and I think I know what Territorial men can do and what they cannot do. I remember that at the time the noble and learned Viscount was forming the Territorial Force I ventured to point out in your Lordships' House the great difficulty there would be in handling the enormous force of Territorial Horse Artillery that was then being created, and I am afraid most of the dismal prophecies which were uttered, not only by me but by practical officers of Artillery all over the country have been gradually proving themselves to be true. There is no doubt whatever about it, that although you may have a certain number of batteries that are good, there are a considerable number of others that are hopelessly bad. There is the very great difficulty in regard to officers. There is a great shortness of range accommodation, and consequently it is impossible to carry out practice in the way it ought to be carried out. Speaking for my own corps and from my own experience, I can say that we have only been able to have satisfactory gun practice in one year out of the four that have elapsed since the formation of the Territorial Force. On every other occasion, owing to the congestion of batteries on the ranges, the practice has been hurried into one day, and perhaps it has been only possible to get off half the number of rounds that were allotted. Altogether the whole conduct of the practice has been most unsatisfactory, and it has been impossible to give the men the instruction which was demanded. I am perfectly certain of this, that you have far too much Territorial Artillery in the country at the present moment, in spite of the determination of the authorities when they formed the Force to build up the Territorial Force with its quota of Artillery on much the same proportion as existed for the Regular Army. I am certain that it would be greatly to the advantages of the Territorial Force if you reduced the number of batteries, and especially if you began by reducing the strength of the Field Artillery brigades from three batteries to two. I put that forward as a practical suggestion to His Majesty's Government,

195
and one which I have heard discussed and approved of by many officers who are responsible for the training of the Territorial Artillery.
There is another matter. The question of adjutants has become a serious one. The whole conditions under which adjutants of the Territorial Artillery are serving at the present moment are so unsatisfactory that very few officers have got their names down and have applied for these adjutancies, and it is becoming more and more difficult to get adjutants for the Territorial batteries. It is perfectly impossible to get proper results from any Territorial Force unless you are properly backed up by competent Regular officers as adjutants. Therefore I seriously hope that that matter will be taken note of and remedied before long. I can give another instance of the inadequacy of the Territorial Artillery at the present moment, and that is with regard to the question of artificers. Mounted corps without proper artificers are absolutely useless in the field. They cannot move if the horses are not properly shod. You must have your saddlers to execute repairs, and the artificers of a corps like mounted Artillery are an absolute necessity. I would like your Lordships to take note of this fact, that in one of the Territorial divisions of London at the present moment there are 7 farriers deficient out of a total strength of 15; 54 shoe smiths deficient out of a total strength of 61; 24 saddlers deficient out of a total strength of 25; and 21 wheelers deficient out of a total strength of 37. That is the state of affairs in one division, and I believe the other division is not very much better. In fact, the corps which I have the honour to command is the only one which is full up with regard to its artificers. That is an unsatisfactory matter, and it is one of the results of trying to run the Territorial Force on the cheap. You cannot get blacksmiths and others to come out with the Territorial Force and follow their trade in camp at a totally inadequate remuneration. It is no holiday and no change for a man who is doing blacksmiths' work all the year round to go out into camp and shoe horses. It is no change and no attraction to a man who follows the saddlers' trade in private life to go out into camp and carry on the same trade there. If you want them to do that you must pay them properly. You will not pay them, and therefore you cannot get
196
the men. The result is that efficiency is absolutely spoilt.
Then the arrangements for getting non-commissioned officers are also very unsatisfactory. At the present moment we are only able to get junior non-commissioned officers, and they are supposed to be changed every two years. It has worked out very badly, I believe simply and solely-because the War Office will not go to the extra expense of the sergeant-majors we used to get before. You choose the present moment, while you are insisting on maintaining this large force of Territorial Artillery the ranks of which you cannot fill and which you cannot train properly, to reduce several highly-trained batteries of the Regular Artillery; and the country, by a curious jugglery of figures, is once more treated to the statement that the reduction of Artillery is really making for further efficiency. There is no getting away from the fact that the situation as regards the defence of the country is steadily getting worse, and everybody knows it. The question is whether it is not more honest for those who know it to get up and say so and run the risk of offending some members of the Territorial Force, than go on humbugging the country and letting them believe that they have something which they have not got.
A vast amount of nonsense is talked about this question of discouraging the Territorials. As far as my experience goes, none are more outspoken on the subject than the Territorials themselves. I happen to be a member of the City of London Territorial Association, where we have as good and enthusiastic a body of Territorial officers as you may wish to see. I would like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to attend a meeting and hear what is said by Territorial officers with regard to the present conduct of affairs by His Majesty's Government. Although at the time when the Territorial Force was formed there were many criticisms with regard to the proposal, and perhaps there were some dismal prophecies with regard to the possibility of getting efficiency under the conditions which were laid down, I think the noble and learned Viscount—in fact, he has clone so—will agree that everybody concerned set to work loyally to do their best. We have all of us done our best, and we shall continue to do so. But what, I say is that it is no use disguising facts and making believe that things are not what, they are.

197
The unsatisfactory part of the present situation is that the moment anybody suggests anything in the way of the necessity for adopting some forma of compulsion the matter is immediately taken up and made into a Party cry by the noble and learned Viscount's friends in the Government and in his Party. The moment we speak of anything connected with compulsion, there is immediately a cry about the desire to rush the country into Conscription. As an example, here is a speech that was made by that great military authority Mr. Percy Illingworth, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, who went down to Lancashire not so very long ago and stated on his authority that the Territorial Force when given fair play—I do not know what he meant by that, but I suppose that he meant that it was being half starved at the present moment—was "excellently fitted to cope with the task which was allotted to it." Well, of course, if Mr. Percy Illingworth makes a statement like that we are bound to believe it, no matter what responsible Generals and soldiers may say to the contrary. Mr. Illingworth proceeded to say—
"The attempt to stampede the country into Conscription crime against mankind, and would be resisted by every force at the disposal of the Liberal Party: ant as lorry as the Tory Party sought to lure their countrymen to follow them into the deserts of Protection and Conscription, so long would they remain political outcasts in tin in native land."
These observations were received with "loud and prolonged cheers." What does that mean? It means that the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party goes down to the country and announces the intention of his Party to make Party capital out, of this question to the utmost extent.
And whilst Lord Roberts—and all honour to him for the work he is doing—whilst that noble and gallant Field-Marshal is rousing the country and trying to do something to bring out the best instincts of his fellow-countrymen, Mr. Percy Illingworth is committing the Liberal Party to oppose any and every sort of compulsion; and he calls to his aid, to the support of the Liberal Party, all the slackers and the funkers and the loafers and the wasters of the country—all the men who, if asked to come and join the Territorial Force, flatly refuse to do so as long as they can get
198
somebody else to do it for them. You ask a man to join the Territorial Force; you ask him to give up two nights a week of his time; you ask him to give up many Saturday afternoons; you ask him to give up his summer holiday, probably the only holiday he gets in the year, for the purpose of going out into camp; and you also give him the inestimable privilege of paying his own fares to headquarters for the purposes of drill. You ask the loafers and the slackers of the country to join a Force of that description. Not they. They stay at home and enjoy themselves, and very likely profit considerably in their own pockets while the members of the Territorial Force are away. There is, unfortunately, a very large class in the country who cheer speeches such as those made by Mr. Percy Illingworth—men who go to the music halls and sing "Rule Britannia" and patriotic songs, and then go home and cheer the Party who does not want to put any compulsion upon them to come out and serve their country. I must say I think this action on the part of the chiefs of the Liberal Party is one of the most disappointing features of the whole movement at the present time. It is, moreover, rather contemptible. I think the action of the Liberal Central Office the other day in the Kendal Election was playing it about as low as they very well could. They put up posters denoting the evils of Conscription—posters showing the tearing away of sons from their homes, and all the rest of it.
I cannot help thinking that some members of the Party opposite are getting a little bit ashamed. At all events I noticed at the close of the speech which Lord Herschell delivered to your Lordships on Thursday last one sentence as to which I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack a question. Lord Herschell wound up his speech with these words—
"When the deliberations were concluded he could assure the House that His Majesty's Government would not shrink from taking any steps that might be necessary to secure national safety."
I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether that includes the possible adoption of some system of compulsion supposing all attempts to get a satisfactory Territorial Force on the voluntary system should fail.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no doubt that if the country were in real peril there would be an adequate response to any appeal that would be made by the Government.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: When that moment comes, my Lords, it will probably be too late. You cannot improvise an Army on the spur of the moment when you are in imminent peril. It is, however, satisfactory to have that admission from the noble and learned Viscount. But if at the back of their minds the Government include in this admission by Lord Herschell the possibility that should all voluntary means fail it may be necessary to fall back on compulsion, would it not be advisable to drop this campaign of opposition at the present moment? Would it not be advisable to instruct the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party to cease going about the country saying that, come what may, the Liberal Party is going to oppose all form of compulsion. I think that if the leaders of the Party opposite would have the honesty to come out into the open and tell the country that they do not regard the present position of affairs as entirely satisfactory, that they would do what they could to have a satisfactory Territorial Force upon a voluntary basis, but that, if that failed, it might be necessary to fall back on some form of compulsion, then at all events we should know where we are, and I think that such a proceeding would be more in consonance with the dignity and with the patriotism of the Liberal Party.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I listened, as we always do, with respect to the speech of the Lord Chancellor. It was a very interesting, a very copious, a very full speech. I hope he will not think me rude if I say that a good deal of the speech seemed to me to be quite irrelevant to the issues which we on this side of the House have endeavoured to place before your Lordships. Some portions of it also, to which I shall refer later on, were marked by a lack of generosity towards the views and attitude of his political opponents which we very rarely, I am glad to say, meet with from the Lord Chancellor. But the most conspicuous feature of the speech, in my judgment, was that it said nothing—not one sentence or one phrase—to relieve the anxiety which is genuinely felt, not only
200
by noble Lords in your Lordships' House, but by public opinion at large in the country. My Lords, do you imagine that in both Houses of Parliament we should have these constant debates upon military matters simply to please ourselves or to embarrass the Government, or to extract any Party advantage? No such idea has been at any time in the minds of any one of us, and I think the noble and learned Viscount will himself admit that our speeches, our questions, our challenge, have been almost invariably characterised by extreme sobriety and moderation. But, my Lords, they reflect an anxiety from which you cannot get away.
The anxiety which is felt rests in the main upon two considerations—firstly upon the knowledge, open to every elector in this country who reads his newspapers, that a steady and an immense increase of naval and military forces is going on upon the Continent in the case of nations who may very likely be rivals to ourselves, and, secondly, that alongside of that great increase there is a corresponding diminution and dwindling in the margin of safety on which we can rely. That is the first factor upon which this anxiety rests. Then I confess that I do think the anxiety has been very largely enhanced by the attitude and by the statements of Ministers themselves. There was the debate of February 10, to which allusion has frequently been made. My noble friend Lord Midleton was well within the mark when he said to your Lordships that on that occasion no attempt whatever was made to reply to the exceedingly moderate and powerful statement of the case that he placed before your Lordships. Much the same thing has happened on the various occasions when this matter has been debated in the House of Commons. Ministers contradict each other. They even at short intervals of time contradict themselves. The result is, as I think a noble Lord remarked, that the public mind is obscured with a fog as great as that which seems to shroud the minds of Ministers themselves. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack put the question very plainly to us, What are you at? and he asked us to define the position that we take up. I may add that in his speech he began by saying that he would answer our challenge, and then waltzed away from it with an elegance of which he alone is capable. I will

201
endeavour to escape a similar charge. I will endeavour to tell the noble and learned Viscount quite plainly what we, rightly or wrongly, are at this evening.
As I understand, the major premiss of our argument is this. The noble and learned Viscount talked to us about the origin of the Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men. I will not enter into that, or into the question of numbers. The point of interest to us arises in the ease in which that Expeditionary Force might have to leave the country. It seems beside the point to argue, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House did on Thursday night, that the Expeditionary Force ought to be regarded as a part of the Regular Army which can only be sent abroad in exceptional circumstances. It is beside the point, too, to say that the number is an arbitrary number. It is your own number. You cannot go away from it. It seems to me equally irrelevant to argue, as the noble and learned Viscount did on a previous occasion, that each case of the despatch of the Expeditionary Force must be decided as the circumstances necessitate. Of course, that is true; it is a platitude. All these considerations seem to me to bean attempt to elude and obscure and evade the main point. The main point is that the Expeditionary Force may have to go.
Again I am not going to be tempted to discuss the question on what grounds or for what object the Expeditionary Force might have to go. The summons might come in response to a call from our Continental allies, or it might be for the defence of the Empire. One need not be an advocate of a policy of Continental adventure to realise that a situation may well occur—indeed, it is believed to have occurred at no very distant date—in which our obligations of good faith to our Continental friends might call upon us to place this Force on the Continent of Europe. Again, it might very well be that our own Treaty obligations would require us to land that Force in Europe for the protection of the Belgian frontier. Then there is the Imperial call. When the noble and learned Viscount talks about our insular position and the necessity of naval defence and so on, it seems to me that he and those who work with him forget the fact that, although the core of the Empire is an island, the Empire itself is very far from having an insular
202
position. I believe that the land frontiers of the Empire amount to something like 20,000 miles, by far the longest land frontiers in the world. How obvious it is, then, that at any moment the Expeditionary Force might be called to India, Egypt, South Africa or elsewhere, to defend the land frontiers under our charge.
The first limb of our argument therefore is that the Expeditionary Force may have to go at the commencement of hostilities. That was wrung from the Secretary for War in the other House, and has not been denied by anything said by the Lord Chancellor. Suppose that it has gone. We have then to consider the possibility of an attack by an enemy. I will not weary the House by discussing whether that attack should be called an invasion or a raid. I will not follow the Secretary of State for War in the latest gloss he put a few clays ago on this hypothesis, the suggestion, namely, that the raid is to take the form of a force coming without cavalry and artillery at wide intervals of space and time and divided up into driblets scattered over the country which we should encounter and devour piecemeal. I do not think that any enemy will be so accommodating as to oblige us in that manner. I prefer to regard the possibility of invasion from the old and familiar standpoint placed before us by the Prime Minister when he said—
"The business of the War Office is to see that we have under all circumstances a property organised and properly equipped force capable of dealing effectively with a possible invasion of 70,000."
There is no talk whatever in that phrase of sporadic raids, she totals of which added together might amount to 70,000. The Prime Minister is a master of lucid phraseology—no greater has ever been known in this country—and no man who heard the Prime Minister could doubt that what he was speaking of was a concentrated invading force of 70,000 men. You may, if you hold the views of the noble and learned Viscount, say that the Fleet would render this unlikely, but at any rate it is possible, and apparently Lord Roberts thinks that the numbers who might come would not be 70,000, but twice, or even three times, that number.
Now we come to the third limb of the argument. Given the absence of the Expeditionary Force and the appearance

203
of 70,000 men on our shores, what have we to meet them with? That is the whole gist of the case. If I am wrong I hope any soldier will put me right. My impression is that we should then find in this country a few thousand Regulars, portions of the Army Reserve and the Special Reserve, and the Territorial Force. But remember that you would have to deduct the men who are absent., the boys under nineteen years of age, the recruits just joined, the noncombatants, and those—and we know their numbers—who have not passed the musketry test. On the highest calculation the number that would then be left is 175,000 and on the lowest 140,000. With this force you would have to make good the wastage of the Expeditionary Force which will begin on the very day that it lands in a foreign country, to man your garrisons at home, to defend the country and to repel the invading army. This means that in the last resort the defence of the country would devolve on the relatively efficient portion of the Territorial Army. The question we put is, Can they do it with their present position, numbers, and training? I am not a soldier, but according to the calculation of many responsible military men we shall require for the purposes I have described in this country not less than 500,000 men to garrison the forts, hold Ireland, act as a mobile force moving to different parts of the country, and, lastly, to meet an invader. Can the 150,000 to which our force is reduced do the work of 500,000? We often hear of the difficulty of putting a quart measure into a pint pot, but here you are expecting a pint measure to fill the place and do the work of a gallon.
What is the reply of the Government to this question? I think I must distinguish between the two occasions upon which they have replied to it. The first was in the debate of February 10; the second is in the debate which is now proceeding. On the previous occasion Lord Haldane told us, and he as good as repeated it this evening, that it really did not very much matter if the Territorial Army had fallen to 250,000 men, because if there was a great exodus this year there would be fewer to go next year—a calculation no doubt true but not profoundly consoling. He even contemplated that the Force might fall to 230,000, and said that if it did he would not be alarmed so long as the general public continued its interest in the Territorial Force and so long as the
204
old exertions are maintained. I venture to say that so far as the public interest is concerned, of which there are no superabundant symptoms, and so far as the old exertions to which the noble and learned Viscount refers, and which have up to now resulted in failure, are concerned, they are a very poor substitute for the men, which is what we really require. On the previous occasion the noble and learned Viscount also consoled us by the consideration that although the Territorial Army is wanting in men and in officers they are well supplied with uniforms, equipment, horses, and wagons. I very much doubt whether that is a full or correct statement of the case, but again I say it affords a very inadequate consolation for the absence of men. Now I come to the present debate. On the present occasion I think the Government have advanced somewhat from their previous position. The Secretary of State has admitted in the House of Commons that the Government have failed in achievement, with special reference to the Territorial Force. Lord Crewe said the other night that the shortage of 50,000 men was a grave matter, although in his opinion it did not endanger the safety of the country or call for heroic measures. Then he made use of this phrase. He said that this was not the moment nor was he the person who ought to venture to discuss the methods by which this position of grave anxiety might be met. With all submission I disagree with the noble Marquess. This House is the place, the present debate is the time, and the Leader of the House is emphatically the man who ought to have taken us into the confidence of the Government upon this matter. All that Lord Crewe told us the other evening was that the Government might possibly consider increased expenditure on the Territorial Army and some means of adding to the attractiveness of the Force. I do not think we can expect much from expenditure, because half-an-hour later Lord Herschell, who represents the War Office in this House, said quite clearly that the Government considered that any largely increased expenditure for home defence purposes would be a disastrous policy. Why it should be a policy of disaster to spend money to deal with a situation which your Leader has confessed to be one of grave anxiety I am at a loss to understand.
Then we come to the noble and learned Viscount this evening. Firstly, he spoke

205
with that air of invincible optimism which always characterises his allusions to his unhappy offspring, when he said that although the shortage was there it did not cause him much alarm. Then he said he would answer the question, "Are you, the Government, satisfied with your plans, and with the present position?" When the noble and learned Viscount said he would answer that question, I braced myself for the ordeal of at last learning what was in the minds of His Majesty's Government. What did his answer amount to? The noble and learned Viscount then went on to say, "I must not prejudge the case; nor am I in a position to throw any light upon it. The matter at issue is under the investigation of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence"; and then he proceeded to point out how eminent these gentlemen were and how monstrous a thing it was that their names or identity or opinions should be dragged into discussion in your Lordships' House. From that he sheered off into his familiar statement of the case about our insular and naval position, and so on. I venture respectfully to submit to your Lordships that I am stating no more than the truth when I say that after listening for three-quarters of an hour to a brilliant flow from the greatest master of copious irrelevance who has ever spoken in this House there is not one of your Lordships who is any wiser as to what are the real plans and intentions of the Government for meeting the present situation.
In the whole of this long discussion there has been but one concrete suggestion from the Government side, and we owe that to Lord Herschell in the earlier debate to which I referred, on February 10, and its fate since has been of a character that really throws much light on the resolution and sincerity of His Majesty's advisers—I mean the suggestion that something might be done by instituting compulsory physical training in our primary or continuation schools. When Lord Herschell made that suggestion we on this side of the House thought that at last we had got something tangible, and that in all probability this meant an idea which at any rate was assuming shape, even if it had not matured, in the minds of the Government. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne at once took it up, and he asked Lord Herschell what he meant, and we got the disquieting reply that "No plan was under consideration."
206
My noble friend again raised the matter last Thursday and again promised his personal support and the support of those with whom he acts, and said "What are the Government going to do?" The Lord Chancellor has once again expressed Platonic sympathy with this excellent form of training, but he attaches the extraordinary proviso that it should be conducted by educational officers, apparently appointed by the Education Department of the Government. Is not that a sham distinction? If you are going to put your boys in schools and train them to perfectly healthy physique and give them compulsory physical training, surely you ought to get the most efficient instructors. I am sure the parents and the boys would prefer to have the training by military instructors rather than by their ordinary schoolmasters. If the Government are going to introduce compulsory training in schools I ask them not to be alarmed by the outcry they evidently expect from their Radical followers that they are introducing a tinge of militarism or jingoism in schools. That is all we have got from the expressions of sympathy with the suggestion from the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues.
Now, my Lords, I come, and I come with reluctance, to another part of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount. Following Lord Crewe the other night, but in much stronger language and I think with much less justification, the Lord Chancellor directed against noble Lords sitting on this side of the House, and the National Service League, of which I am a vice-president, the charge of having brought a stream of destructive criticism against the Territorial Army which was the real source of the depletion of its numbers. My reply is this. If the Territorial Army has attained a certain measure of success it is due to the political opponents of the Lord Chancellor. What assistance has he had from his own friends in the matter? While the county magnates, who have been so freely denounced, have spent, as he himself acknowledged, their time and labour in advancing his plan, trade unionists throughout the country have been passing resolutions against the Territorial Army, and the Labour Members have been denouncing it. The Radical Party in the House of Commons would not even allow the noble and learned Viscount when Secretary of State in the other House to introduce cadet training.
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl is really under a misapprehension. The House of Commons passed the Territorial Bill, with the one quite trifling exception which has been alluded to, in the most free and satisfactory fashion, and it left upon the minds of a great many people the impression that it was only from a Radical Government that von could get any measure of the kind through.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My charge is not against the House of Commons, but against the Trade Unions and the Labour Party, and if the noble and learned Viscount challenges me on that point I can give him references without number to establish my case. The noble and learned Viscount now turns round and accuses the members of the National Service League of having depleted and disparaged his Territorial Army. I deny that in toto. I have been about on the platform of the National Service League with Lord Roberts and others and have never heard any ungenerosity or unfairness of criticism. Perhaps the best proof of the attitude of the National Service League towards the Territorial Army is that on no occasion have I been present at a meeting when the resolutions were not spoken to by officers of the Territorial Army itself, appearing on our platform and supporting our cause. I venture to say this is a most unfair and ungenerous charge. What does the noble and learned Viscount want us to do? If we say, "All is well with the Territorial Army," when we know it is not well, we shall be joining the Government in a conspiracy of silence and deception. If, on the other hand, we say in plain language what every soldier and every member of the Government knows to be the truth, then we are accused of crabbing the Territorial Army, and rendering its position untenable in the country. Because his scheme has broken down, the noble and learned Viscount tries to throw the blame upon every one else and says, "It is you who have brought it to the ground." I must ask the pardon of the House if I show what I think a pardonable and legitimate I itation at a charge for which there is so little foundation.
What do the facts show? There is this shortage in numbers which nobody can explain away. There is the fear which was expressed by the noble Viscount (Lord Midleton) who sits on my right, and for which I think there is genuine foundation, that His Majesty's Govern-
208
ment, as they cannot get the men to satisfy their standards, are going to revise their standards in order to accommodate them to the number of men. That, I am afraid, is a very serious thing. We were told by the noble and learned Viscount that he wanted 315,000. Now that he has only got 250,000 he argues that that number is enough. That number will inevitably fall, and in a few months when we have only got 220,000 he will be telling us again that that is enough. It is exactly the same with this invading force of 70,000 men. This force of 70,000 is now explained as moaning bodies of troops the aggregate of which is 70,000. The numbers are again shifted about to suit the exigencies of the case. I confess if you ask me my opinion about the situation, I will say boldly that I believe the voluntary system in connection with the Territorial Army has shot its last bolt. I believe it has shown that it is a complete failure. It has had every advantage which labour and good fortune could give it; it has had the unceasing advocacy of the noble and learned Viscount himself, who devoted to the propaganda an amount of energy which has been the admiration of his opponents as well as his friends; it has had assistance from our side; it has had the advantage of every variety of touting and advertisement, of publicity, and of bribes, many of them almost indecent in their character. All these advantages it has had, and it is going to collapse. It is collapsing because it cannot give us the men, and it cannot give them the training. It cannot give the men, not from any reluctance on their part, but because the employers of labour cannot spare them; and it cannot give the training, because the conditions of the Territorial service do not admit of it. That is the position to which we have come. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack says, "What would you do?" That is the challenge he addressed to us in his speech. My answer, I think, is quite clear. No one wants to disturb the framework of the organisation set up by the noble and learned Viscount. On the contrary, we want to save it, to fill it in, and turn it to good advantage. The men are in this country. The question is how are we to get them. Your methods of getting the men hitherto have failed. Have we got methods to recommend in their place? I have no doubt that you will have to resort. in the long run to some form of

209
compulsion. I am not wedded to the plan of the National Service League. I daresay it may be open to improvement in many ways, and open to sonic of the criticisms which the noble and learned Viscount directed against it. But at any rate the National Service League has a plan. If you think the plan a bad one, why not be willing to discuss the matter with us? Why regard the matter, as the noble and learned Viscount apparently did in his speech to night, as taboo to the Liberal Party—as an unclean thing which in no circumstances you will touch?
*THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not from the Liberal point of view, but from the military.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I find a difficulty in distinguishing between the noble and learned Viscount as a soldier and the noble and learned Viscount as a politician, but at any rate that is their attitude—that they will have nothing to do with this unclean thing. That is the general attitude of the noble and learned Viscount's Party. I want to make an appeal to the noble Viscount. In the close of his speech he used these words, "Let us take counsel together." That is what I am desirous we should do. If ever there was a question which deserved to he lifted out of the mire of Party politics it is the question of the existence and the safety of the nation. I should like to see a Conference on this matter to which the findings of the Committee of Imperial Defence might be referred and in which the responsible leaders of both Parties should take part. I do not say that the omens are very good in favour of roundtable Conferences, but a failure in one case need not necessarily mean a failure in another. I believe the time will shortly come when optimistic speeches will not satisfy the country. When those who are frightened of compulsory service begin to think that there is nothing else in the field they will have to turn to it, and at such a time you will have to meet your opponents and discuss the matter without favour and without prejudice.
Do you think that such a discussion would be unpopular in the country? I believe that such a Conference would be received with enthusiasm in all quarters. The country is waking up to the realities of the position. The country is a devourer of newspapers. The people see that the Continent of Europe is becoming a great
210
armed camp. They go to church on Sunday and hear war denounced from the pulpit. On Monday they take up their papers, and they see it being waged in Europe with a greater fury than it used to be in old days. They see the nation with which it is considered in some quarters we are most likely to be confronted, in possession of a military superiority which is unshakeable, contesting with us the command of the sea, and anticipating us in the command of the air. The people look to the two Parties at home, and what do they see? They see the Party opposite destitute of any plan, hoping that things will go well, trying to meet the shortage in the Territorial Army by promising ranges and drill halls and a few petty things of that description, and seeking to force on our Party the unpopular label of Conscription. On the other hand, they see our Party, not having made up its mind on the matter, holding different views hut steadily moving in the direction of a belief that some form of compulsion is required. That is the situation, and I venture to say it is a situation very well worthy of examination.
Is some form of compulsion necessary? If so, what, and where ought it to begin and how far ought it to go? The noble and learned Viscount apparently is contemplating it in the schools. How far ought it to go beyond the schools? What strain will it place on the labour and the industry of this country? Will it, as it is sometimes alleged, take away recruits from the Regular Army? That would be a serious thing. Will it, as we are also sometimes told, keep away men from the Navy? That would be an even more serious thing. Or, on the other hand—and I am one of those who hold this view myself—would it free the Regular Army for the work it has to accomplish? Would it release the Navy from the police duty that detains it in the home waters around our shores? These are questions that ought to be thrashed out on the responsibility of the Government in council with those who hold opposite views to themselves. The country is bewildered. It looks to the two Parties and it finds them torn in one direction and another. Here, my Lords, is a question of national existence. It is impossible to imagine a question which ought less to be solved by transient expedients. Why should we not recognise that this is a matter upon which our very lives depend, and why should we not join hands in a serious attempt to solve it?
*EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I had the honour of being in the chair at a meeting of the Council of the Territorial Associations last week at which a somewhat important resolution was passed, and I therefore ask leave to trespass on your indulgence for a few minutes. I should like first to say a word on a doctrine which has gained a certain amount of vogue out of doors though we have not heard much about it, and are not likely to, in this House—that is the doctrine that it is aggression to employ the Forces of this country anywhere except on British territory or in British waters, and that as long as we adhere to a defensive policy and do not embark on one of adventure or aggression our Forces are never likely to be required away from British waters or British territory. I think that is absolutely false both from the historical and from the military point of view. In 1587 Cadiz was as far from England as Capetown is to-day. A century ago Brussels was pretty well as far from England as Bordeaux is now for all practical purposes. But Drake's attack on the Spanish Navy at Cadiz in 1587 was just as much a defensive action as that fought in the Channel against the Armada a year after, and certainly nothing could have been a more entirely defensive campaign than the campaign of Waterloo in 1815. These considerations have a very distinct bearing on the Territorial Force this evening.
In connection with this I must express my regret at something that fell from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack He was good enough to name three of us, myself among others, as having done a great deal to make the Territorial scheme a success; and then he went on to lay the whole of the blame of the shortage of numbers, and so forth, upon the National Service League. I hold no brief for the National Service League. In fact, I have very little doubt myself that the way in which sonic of the members of that League have depreciated the Territorial Force has had a bad effect upon that Force, for it has given young men, especially young men who would be likely to become officers, an excuse for shirking; and the shortage of officers in the Force is more serious really than the shortage of men, because if you call get the officers you may be pretty sure of getting the men to follow them and join too. I am not a
212
member of the National Service League and am not convinced by any means as yet that their programme would give us the Force that is required, or that the money their schemes would cost might not be used for the defence of the country in a more efficient manner. But to lay the whole of the blame of the failure of the Territorial Force upon the National Service League is, I venture to say, absolutely unjust.
One of the great reasons for the shortage of numbers in the Territorial Force is that something like 40 per cent. of the men who join do not complete their engagement. The National Service League has nothing to do with that, and it has nothing to do with the emigration which has caused men in the Force to apply for voluntary discharge at the rate of 10,000 a year during recent years. If those men had completed their engagement and had remained in the Force, as it might have been supposed they would, the Force would at a moderate estimate have been 15,000 stronger than it is to-day, and very probably no one would then have been very unhappy about the failure in numbers.
The resolution passed by the Council of the Territorial Associations at the meeting which I mentioned was in the following terms—
"In view of the continued deficiency in the establishment of the Territorial Force in the country, notwithstanding the extraordinary efforts that have been made during the past five years to obtain recruits, this Council is of opinion that some system should be adopted which would provide a Territorial Force adequate for the defence of the country. This Council is further of opinion that only by a considerable improvement in the terms and conditions of service is there any likelihood of success in respect of numbers being achieved on a voluntary basis, and urges the necessity of steps being taken to this end, in which case it will be prepared to submit a scheme."
There has been an endeavour made in some quarters to represent that resolution as being designed to promote compulsory service. I venture to say there is no foundation whatever for that. If the Council of the Territorial Associations should arrive at the conclusion that such a drastic change in our methods is required, I am quite certain that they will say so straight out and not try to gain any object of that sort by a side wind. The resolution means exactly what it says, and very much what the Secretary of State for War said the other night when he spoke of there having been a

213
failure of achievement. It is supported by County Associations who are responsible for something like half the Force; and the first part of the resolution was, as a matter of fact, drafted by one of the few Presidents of Territorial Associations who are supporters of His Majesty's Government. The resolution was sent round for consideration, before it was discussed by the Council, to every Territorial Association in the country. The Scottish Committee of Associations, at which nineteen of the Scottish Associations were represented, thought the resolution too ambiguous to be worthy of their support, but as showing that they were not altogether satisfied with the present state of things they passed a strong resolution advocating that every man who made himself efficient and did fifteen days in camp should receive a free insurance card for the ensuing twelve months in respect both of himself and his employer. Of all the Associations who discussed this resolution only three expressed dissent from it, and two of those three have got a comparatively small establishment to maintain in proportion to their population. It has the approval of Associations which including the Scottish ones represent something like two-thirds of the men in the Territorial Force.
In the discussion on the resolution great stress was laid on the extraordinary efforts which had been made for recruiting in the last five years, and the opinion was expressed from various parts of the country that we had been living, so to speak, at high pressure in that regard, and that it was impossible to continue the extraordinary efforts which had been made year after year in order to get recruits. Great stress also was laid on the necessity, in any changes that might be made if it was desired to bring the Forte up to establishment, of having some consideration for employers. My colleague who represented the Scottish Committee told us particularly that the Scottish resolution in favour of insurance was approved by them very largely on account of its being some little advantage to employers of labour who allow their men to join the Force. It would not amount to very much, perhaps, but in the case of the small employer it would be something appreciable to be relieved from the insurance payment in the ensuing year, and in the case of a large employer, whose men joined the Force by hundreds perhaps, the money would amount to something
214
very appreciable and the saving of trouble would be something appreciable also.
I would like to make another suggestion in that regard to the noble and learned Viscount, and that is that these employers should be relieved from jury service as well as the officers and men in their employ who serve in the Territorial Force. It is a very cheap concession in regard to the men, because very few of them are of an age or of the class to be much troubled by jury service, but if the concession were extended to employers I believe it would be looked upon as a favour and would be appreciated and might be of some use.
Another matter was brought before the Council of the Territorial Associations which again, I think, is well worthy of the attention of the War Office—I refer to the manner in which the Force is distributed over the country. The noble and learned Viscount told us just now something of the reason for which the figure of 300,000 odd was fixed upon, but he did not say anything about the reasons for the present apportionment among the various counties. I believe the main factor that was considered was the number of Volunteers who were raised by each county. Some regard was also had to any special requirements there might be in regard to defence in counties such as Hampshire and Devonshire, and then if counties raised any great objection to the disbandment of any particular unit some exception was made in their case in deference to their sentiments also. But the thing was done really in a haphazard way, and the results are in some cases almost grotesque. For example, the population of Sutherland is almost identical in number with the population of Rutland, but the population of Sutherland is spread over the county at very little more than one to the square mile, while in Rutland it is congested at the rate of one to five acres; yet Sutherland is asked to raise three times as many uteri as Rutland. Scotland is asked to find 50 per cent. more men than Wales is in proportion to its population.
In the forty-two larger counties of the United Kingdom, that is, counties with a population of a quarter of a million and upwards—and I may remind your Lordships that the population of Montenegro is about a quarter of a million—the proportion of establishment to population varies from 1·58 per cent. in Aberdeen-

215
shire, taking Aberdeen county and city as well, to as little as ·45 per cent. in Nottingham. In twenty-four of those forty-two counties it is below the average, which works out at ·76 per cent. for the population of the whole, and in only seven of the forty-two counties is it within ·5 per cent. of the ·76 per cent. up or down. Fourteen of the larger counties have 90 per cent. of their establishment, and thirteen out of the fourteen are not asked to find as much as their fair proportion of ·76 per cent., and in most cases the proportion is considerably below it.
If you compare larger areas than counties, such as divisional areas, the differences are quite as striking. I took out the figures for the North Midland Division, which is notorious for the high establishment it is able to maintain, and for the Wessex Division, in which my own county is situated. The population of the North Midland Division is 3,664,000, and the population of the Wessex Division, which embraces the Western Counties, is 2,934,000. You might fairly take off something over 200,000 from the latter figure on account of the garrisons at Salisbury Plain and at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and the Fleets there, and of the Dockyard population who are not available for recruiting. So that for practical purposes the. North Midland Division has nearly a million more population available for Territorial purposes than the Wessex Division; and yet the Wessex Division is asked to find 27,000 men as against 19,500 for the North Midland Division. It actually finds 21,180 as against 18,155, thereby imposing a very much greater strain upon the Associations and upon the people of those respective counties. Over and above that, the Wessex Division finds 6,263 men for the Navy and Army and Special Reserve, as against 3,623 which are found iii the other Division. I think, therefore, that there is a very strong case for the revision of the quotas which the counties are asked to find, and I have little doubt that some counties which are at present, if I may use the expression, under assessed, could find more men than they do, and would gladly do so, and that in that way the strength of the Force might be raised appreciably.
I believe the noble and learned Viscount took his idea of County Associations from
216
the Associations which were formed in England at the time of the Civil War for the organisation and raising of the Forces employed by Parliament. I should like to remind him, if that is the case, of the letter addressed by Oliver Cromwell on behalf of the Eastern Association to the Committee which was then governing England. In that letter he used the expression, "Lay not too much upon a poor man." I think you might take that to heart, and lay not too much upon counties with small populations. Apart from redistribution, I would suggest for the consideration of the Government whether they might not improve the Territorial Force and make it easier to raise if they reduced the number somewhat and strove to get a higher standard of efficiency given them. There is, I believe, great difference in the efficiency of different units. I fancy the severest critic of the Territorial Force would allow that there are sonic units which as they stand have considerable military efficiency; while in regard to others the most ardent admirer of the Force would have to admit; that they would require a great part of the six months training which they are so unlikely to get before they would be of very much military value.
I do not think this is surprising if you look at the information which is given in the Annual Return as to the very uneven results which are obtained in different units in the way of training and discipline. In the whole of the Yeomanry Force there were only 417 men doing under fifteen days training. In fifty regiments of Yeomanry there were only 212 men who did not do their fifteen days training, whereas in a single Infantry battalion 441 did less than fifteen days and 149 were absent altogether from camp. Take another arm. One Royal Horse Artillery battery only trained 118 at all out of its establishment of 214, while another trained no fewer than 183 for the whole fifteen days. In one Field Artillery Brigade there were only fourteen men absent with leave and none without. In another fifty-six were absent with leave and seventy-four without leave at all. In one Brigade half the men did less than fifteen days training, and in another only eleven men did less than fifteen days training. In two battalions of Infantry there were only forty-seven men absent with leave and none without; in the case of two others, 182 were absent with leave and 253 without

217
leave. One battalion trained 684 men for fifteen days and eighty-two for a shorter period; in another, the figures were 361 only for fifteen days, and 409 for a shorter period. I am certain chat if anything could be done to reduce such inequalities in the periods or training the superior officers who have the handling of the men in Brigades and Divisions would be able to make very much better use of the time allotted to them for the purpose.
I do not know yet, and I do not suppose any one else does, what the intentions of the Government may be with regard to the physical training of children in school. It would be a most valuable thing, I think. The other day, as has already been pointed out, Lord Herschell said it would be a good thing. Lord Crewe's attitude suggested the tined bather who thought the water would be too cold; and then the Secretary of State a few nights ago, speaking in his individual capacity, thought that an organisation of the sort would be altogether admirable. I only hope that he and the noble and learned Viscount will be able to convince their colleagues that training of that sort in the elementary schools would indeed be altogether admirable, for it would strengthen the Territorial Force very much if recruits could be sent to it half-baked, so to speak, instead of raw as they are at present.
*EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this debate appears to be taking the usual course. We have had speeches front various noble Lords asking perfectly definite questions and making certain definite, statements, but we have neither had those questions answered nor have we had those statements refuted. We have had the usual speech from the Leader of the House, Lord Crewe, containing the usual attack on members of the National Service League. We have had the usual speech, again, from the Lord Chancellor, again containing an attack on members of that League. I hope your Lordships will agree that we of the National Service League are by no means sorry that Lord Curzon spoke so strongly on that subject. It would have introduced some novelty into this debate if we had been told how many members of the present Cabinet have produced a single recruit for the Territorial Force. A large number of us who have talked on National Service League platforms have produced a very
218
great number of recruits for that Force, and I believe, with the two exceptions of the present Secretary of State for War and his predecessor, there is not a single member of the Cabinet who has made one speech in support of that Force. At any rate we know this, that the National Service League is now getting the official recognition of the Army Council. Your Lordships may have noticed that the Army Council has refused to give leave to an officers' training corps to take part in an Empire Day celebration because it was a celebration of a non-official character. We have had Cadets and Territorials appearing as guards of honour at meetings addressed by members of the National Service League, and therefore we must presume that those were official occasions. I know in one case, at any rate, that leave was given by the War Office.
We are not here to-night considering the question as between voluntary service and compulsory service. What we desire to do is to draw the attention of the House and of the country to statements made by Ministers, to point out that the whole system of the defence of this country is in an utterly chaotic condition, and to endeavour to press His Majesty's Government to see that the question is reconsidered, and reconsidered fully in all its branches. We have had certain statements made in the course of the debate which, although they are not in reply to questions, have from their negative character been of great value. Lord Crewe told us that we must guard against the assumption that there exists a complete novelty of condition. I, for one, welcome that statement most heartily, and I commend it to the notice of the Radical Press and particularly the Westminster Gazette, because until we are told to the contrary we are entitled to believe that the Treaties in which this country has joined are still in existence, that we still are parties to maintaining the integrity and the neutrality of Belgium; what I might call the traditional policy of this country, the continuance of the balance of power in Europe, is the policy of the country to-day, and until we are told publicly and officially that that policy is changed we are entitled to believe that the condition of affairs is as it was. But, my Lords, although the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, was correct in saying that the Expeditionary Force was normally in this country because, after all,

219
this country is normally fortunately in a condition of peace, still it is true to say that when we are in the abnormal condition of war the Expeditionary Force is normally abroad. If the history of this country is studied I think it will be agreed that when the country is at war the Expeditionary Force is always abroad. It is only when we have been engaged in small wars that our Expeditionary Force has been able to stay at home. Therefore we have to realise that the whole of the Expeditionary Force may have to go abroad.
I now turn to another point that was made. Although it is true that conditions are as they were there is none the less an entirely new condition of things. I am not going into the question of numbers of the Regular Army, and least of all to compare what was done by this Government with what was done by its predecessors. I, for one, do not care one straw as to whether the numbers of the Regular Army were reduced by the Party at present in power or by the Party to which I belong. Both are equally culpable. It is a matter of past history, and I do not think the country takes any interest in it of any sort or kind. The only thing that interests the public is whether the Army is equal to the calls that may be made upon it. Our Special Reserve and our Territorial Force are not up to establishment. That is as regards numbers. But there is also the question of training which is, perhaps, of even more importance. The noble and learned Viscount hoped, quite naturally, that practically the whole of the Territorial Force would go to camp for the whole of their training, and that the whole of them would complete their musketry. That has not occurred. The Territorial Force, as we know, has unfortunately found that a very large proportion of their men are unable to go to camp even for the eight days that are supposed to be compulsory, and a very large number have not carried through any training in shooting at all.
But, my Lords, there are other conditions than that. Any noble Lord who looks at the position of affairs on the Continent will realise that that condition of affairs has necessarily completely changed. The numbers of the armies of Continental nations have enormously increased, and their ability to mobilise in an extraordinary short time and practically to plunge
220
instantaneously into war is far greater than it used to be. We have, in addition, the whole question of strategic railways and sidings which have been built up to frontiers with regard to which we, amongst other Powers, have pledged ourselves to see that the neutrality will be respected. Therefore that and the whole international situation have produced a set of circumstances entirely different from those that existed many years ago. Then Lord Crewe made the statement that the questions to be considered by the Defence Committee are strategical and in no sense political. That is the chief complaint made by soldiers and sailors at the present day. They are continually saying that it is impossible for them to find out what is the policy of the Cabinet, and that until they know what the policy of the Cabinet is it is impossible for them to prepare strategy to support that policy. It is obviously necessary that both the Navy and the Army should be told what the policy of the country is, what combinations of Powers may be arrayed against us, what allies we may-find on our side, and then only will it be possible for the Navy and the Army to prepare their plans to meet those eventualities. To hope to make an Army capable of meeting all eventualities is very-much like a combination tool which contains a saw and a gimlet and a screwdriver and heaven knows what not, capable of doing every conceivable thing, but is yet an inefficient instrument with any one of them. You must train your Army so that it may be prepared for certain eventualities, but until you know exactly what those eventualities are it is impossible to Ironic your strategy to meet them.
Now I come to the other side of this question. Lord Crewe told us that the establishment of the Territorial Force was fixed rather on a general notion of sufficiency and upon the previous numbers of the Volunteers than on any definite calculation of the particular number of men which would be required to meet a particular number of invaders, and Lord Haldane has again told us to-night that the number of the Expeditionary Force—160,000—was not fixed on any calculation as to what it might be required to do on the Continent or elsewhere. In other words, the Cabinet have not founded their policy on the naval and the military forces with which that policy must inevitably

221
be supported. The Cabinet have not taken into consideration the strategical question. The Cabinet have not consulted with the Imperial Defence Committee; and so far from having arranged their policy according to their numbers, they have neither done that nor raised their numbers according to their policy. Can anybody imagine a more dangerous situation of affairs than to go blundering along with a Force whose numbers and training are not fitted for any particular situation, with a policy which is not founded on any adequate defence to carry it through, and in which neither defence nor policy nor strategy can be considered adequately and finally.
The whole question is worked out on very much the same plan as a Sherlock Holmes story. You first of all take your crime, and then you work backwards covering your clues until you make an admirable story. Unfortunately that is not the way in which criminals work; otherwise the problem for the detectives would be a very simple one. But that is exactly what we are doing with our defensive Forces. We raise Forces according to the number we think we can get, and after that we begin to consider how many invaders those Forces could defeat, and then we cook our sum in order to prove that not more than that number could get to this country. That is a very strong assertion, but I venture to think that facts prove it. You have the Navy brow-beaten into agreeing with this policy. The method is perfectly simple. You go to the Navy and you say. "There are a certain number of people demanding that the Home Defence Army shall be increased in number. Of course, if we spend more money, on the Army the Navy Estimates will have to be cut down," and very naturally, and perhaps rightly, the Navy promptly say, "That is out of the question; we must guarantee the defence of these shores, and we shall be able to guarantee that if we can only get more money." That is the naval point of view. I think, as Lord Haldane pointed out in the last debate that we had in this House, naval men are jealous of expenditure on the Army. He said very rightly, "You cannot take the word of the soldier or the sailor as being the last word on the subject." There is another expert whose word you can take sometimes, and that is the historian, and if you take the occasions on which countries were invaded by foreign armies you will invariably find that the naval officers had
222
guaranteed the integrity of those shores and stated that those shores were perfectly clear of any possible invasion.
It would be interesting to know on what the Navy founds this opinion. They certainly have not founded it on war experience, because none of them have had any war experience. The only experience we have had of naval warfare has been in the Far East, and that of very little consequence. It would be interesting to know whether the Navy have considered the question of dirigibles, which are able to remain for an immense time in the air with large powers of scouting and power to report to their base the position of the enemy by wireless telegraphy. Then I ask, how have the General Staff of the Army been made to agree that we are free from invasion by large numbers? There, again, I think the answer is perfectly obvious. The General Staff are told, "If you criticise the Territorial Force and say it is inadequate to meet the invaders that may conic to this country, of course some of the Regular Army will have to stop at home"; and the General Staff, realising that we need every single Regular soldier that we possess in order to carry out our duties on the Continent—duties such as I have said upholding the neutrality with regard to Belgium to which this country has given its pledge—naturally choose the lesser of two evils and say, "We must trust that the Territorial Force will be able to do perhaps better than we expect but at any rate, we must insure, that the whole of the Regular Army shall be allowed to go abroad." Of course, what happened was this. They authorised the Secretary of State to make a statement in another place saying that the Territorial Force could do such and such things. Colonel Seely was cross-examined and was tied clown very completely, with the result that he made a far more definite and complete statement than he had been authorised to make by the General Staff. That is perfectly obvious, because on the very next occasion when a friendly Question was put to the Secretary of State he was allowed to explain it away and to quibble over the words "invasion" and "raid."
Well, my Lords, we still stick to the statement made by the Prime Minister, who is, after all, the responsible Minister of the Crown, that we have to prepare under all circumstances to have a properly organised and properly equipped Force capable of dealing effectively with a

223
possible invasion of 70,000 men—a perfectly clear and definite statement, as Lord Curzon has pointed out. There is no question about the invasion being spread over a period of time and being split up into various bodies and over different areas; it is an invasion of 70,000 men absolutely coming in one body. We come now to this consideration. If this question of invasion has disappeared, what are you putting before this Sub-Committee of the Defence Committee who are now considering this problem? If the question of invasion has not disappeared, then we maintain that the whole thing is a chose jugée, because we have had statements by Colonel Seely in another place in which he says that the force that is likely to conic is very much less than 70,000. Therefore, apparently, though it has not yet come before the Defence Committee, the question has been already decided by the naval authorities. That is not a fair and holiest way of making an inquiry. It is not a way that conduces to the safety of the country. Until the whole question is considered in every way you cannot arrive at a decision on the question of invasion. You must ask the General Staff whether they are satisfied that they have enough men in the Expeditionary Force. You must ask them whether they are satisfied with four divisions, or whether they must have the whole of the six divisions of the Expeditionary Force to go abroad on the outbreak of war. You must also ask the Navy whether they are prepared to guarantee the integrity of these shores even though the Fleet of the enemy is not yet defeated, and even though there may be posts that they may have to watch in another part of the world. It is impossible to put a single issue before the Committee and get any decision worth having. That is one of the things we complain of, and one of the reasons why we are debating this question at the present time.
I have one thing more to point, out to your Lordships. The great Lord Nelson, in a despatch, stated "If I had control of the defence policy of England I should send out of the country in the event of war every soldier—every trained soldier—and every ship, and leave the defence of the country to the children of the nation itself." The policy that has been outlined by the Lord Chancellor is an exact opposite to that policy of Lord Nelson. He has himself stated, both to-night and on other
224
occasions, that it is possible that the Expeditionary Force may not be able to go abroad. He has told us that at any rate two divisions may have to stop at home, and Lord Crewe has told us that possibly not a single man may be able to be sent abroad. In other words, His Majesty's Government have thrown over the policy laid down by Lord Nelson, a policy which has been the policy of this country, not only for generations, but perhaps for centuries. His Majesty's Government have thrown it over in another direction also. It is perfectly obvious that you cannot guarantee these shores from invasion unless you tie the Fleet to the shores of this country. If you are going to allow our Fleet to pursue the Fleet of any great enemy across the ocean, as happened in the last great naval war, you cannot be certain that transports will not slip across the North Sea and invade our shores. The only way in which you can guarantee this country from invasion is by having a sufficient defence force in this country. Lord Nelson laid down that the children of the country should be the defence of the nation itself. War has become a far more complicated thing now than it was in the time he wrote that despatch. Modern armaments have necessitated that men shall no longer fight in mass; that they will have to fight at widely extended intervals and practically as individuals instead of being under the direct control of their officers. That necessarily entails far more individual training of every man in the Force, far more training of officers, and far more training of the staff. Therefore when we say that the children of the nation shall be responsible for the safety of the nation we must realise that, those children have to be trained in order to carry out the defence of the country adequately.
I know that there are a certain number of your Lordships who think that these naval and military debates take place far too constantly, and that they are extraordinarily dull. It is perfectly possible that, they are dull, but I cannot believe that they take place too often. After all, the defence of this country is infinitely more important than the Home Rule Bill or the Parliament Act or Disestablishment, or the whole lot of them put together. Inadequate defence is worse than no defence at all. You not only have to give way in the end, but you also have

225
all the horrors of war and a large indemnity to pay in addition. It is because we believe it essential to the safety of the country and the continuance of the Empire that once again we press that the whole problem shall be reconsidered by those to whom the country has entrusted these problems. It is quite obvious that neither the Cabinet nor the Defence Committee have been in a position to consider the question as a whole. For that reason we press for the question to be reconsidered in a way in which it has never been considered before—that is, considered as a whole and not in small sections—and then that the country should be given such facts as it is essential for them to know. Obviously some of these facts should be kept secret, but those facts that need not be kept secret it is essential we should know; and then I believe that any Government which has the courage to place before the people of this country exactly what, defence we require will find that the country will have sufficient loyalty and patriotism to see that those defences are supplied, whatever sacrifices it may be found necessary to make.
*LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, we on this side of the House have a right to resent the manner in which His Majesty's Government have trifled and fooled with this question. It has been insulting to us, and from the public point of view it is nothing short of outrageous, seeing that the safety, honour, and welfare of the country are at stake. I doubt whether a more monstrously unfair speech has ever proceeded from the Woolsack than that which was delivered by its present occupant to-night. The attitude of His Majesty's Government will only increase the profound distrust in which they are already held in the country. My noble friend who initiated this debate asked a perfectly plain question. He called attention to the deficiencies in our Forces, and asked what steps will be taken to secure that these Forces are brought up to strength. To that question we have received no straightforward or candid answer whatever. The noble Lord who usually reads the official replies of the War Office gave us the singularly fatuous answer that the Government would take such steps as may be necessary. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House gave the still more extraordinary and unsatisfactory reply that it will be for the military
226
authorities to consider what steps they will take. My Lords, it is not for the military authorities to consider what steps they will take. The responsibility is that of His Majesty's Government. It is for his Majesty's Government to consider and to take the steps. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack merely contented himself, so far as one was able to sift any grain from the mass of chaff, by saying that he would not prejudge the question. There are certain things that we know. We know that the officers I outfit allowance is going to be increased. That will no doubt enable the officers to dress better, but it will not make them any more efficient. Certain it is, if the present system is to be improved, that more money must be spent, but that if that money does not make up our deficiencies and give the men more training it may as well be thrown in the gutter. Our Territorial Force has cost us £12 per man as against the £7 per man we had to spend on the Volunteer Force, but I doubt very much whether it has been improved to a proportionate extent.
Again I ask His Majesty's Government, "What are you going to do?" We have very grave suspicions as to your intentions, and a great many people think that what you are going to do is to, as usual, minimise the danger and reduce the standard of invasion in order that you may proportionately reduce our defensive forces. The recent and very remarkable utterances of the Secretary of State for War give good ground for entertaining that suspicion, no less than does the history of the Defence Committee. It has been pointed out that the composition of the Defence Committee is not such as to inspire confidence. After all, what is it but a Committee of the Cabinet, with a few experts thrown in? and they not independent experts or even the right experts. It is a very remarkable thing that the one official of the War Office who is in the best position to give the kind of information which is required, the Director of Military Operations, is not a member of that Committee. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack regretted that the Defence Committee was dragged into the debate, and no doubt he would like to keep up the illusion that the Defence Committee is a kind of Delphic oracle. Let me assure him that that superstition, so far as it existed, has absolutely and entirely dis-

227
appeared. It is now pretty well known that the invasion was made to fit the Territorials, instead of making the Territorials to fit the invasion, and it is very generally believed that that is what you are going to do again. The Prime Minister and Mr. Balfour will both have to eat their deliberate words, which have been quoted several times during this debate, and that in spite of the fact that the situation is, without question, more serious than it was then.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House took refuge in the usual expedient of the Government by attacking the National Service League and the question of universal service—a question which had not then been raised in this debate. With all the qualifications and reservations of one who is willing to wound but yet afraid to strike, he was not ashamed to repeat the spiteful accusations against the National Service League; and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack repeated them with greater deliberation but possibly with less sincerity. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House was grossly misinformed, and it is very probable that he has never come into personal contact either with the Territorial officer or with a possible Territorial recruit. He said it was an undisputed fact that the National Service League discouraged recruiting. I dispute it. I declare with the utmost confidence that the National Service League has not deterred one single man who is worth having from joining the Territorial Force. On the contrary, it can be proved up to the hilt, and a thousand times over, that there has been no more effective agency for recruiting than the National Service League. At the meetings of the National Service League we actually rake in recruits by the dozen. That can be shown over and over again. My noble friend Lord Fortescue, no doubt, felt bound to make some acknowledgment of the compliments which were poured upon him by faintly echoing the accusation, but he gave himself away by saying that officers particularly made the propaganda of the National Service League an excuse for not joining the Territorial Army. All I can say, and it is what any soldier will tell you, is that the man who will make that kind of excuse for not taking his share in the national defence is a waster not worth having, and it is very much better that we should dispense with men of that kind. But how can it
228
be otherwise than that we should assist the recruiting of the Territorial Force since the whole object of our movement is to get more men for the Territorial Force and to give them better opportunities of training?
I will tell you who, in my opinion, have discouraged recruiting. It. is His Majesty's Government themselves. They have done it first of all by neglect of things they might have done; and, secondly, by the attitude they have actually taken up. They have done nothing positive to encourage recruiting. On the contrary, they have minimised the danger of invasion and so created the impression that the Territorial Force is not half so important as we who advocate universal service try to convince the country it is. When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack first started his scheme and was making those splendidly energetic efforts which have already been acknowledged this evening, and which I myself have had the pleasure of acknowledging on numerous public platforms, not one bit of assistance did he get from any one of his colleagues. Not a member of the Cabinet in a public speech ever went out of his way to praise what Lord Haldane was doing or to impress on the country the immense importance of the home defence force. Ministers were afraid to do so for fear they might be accused of that militarism which is such a bogey to their supporters, and for fear that they might be accused of ultra patriotic sentiments. There is another agency which militates against recruiting for the Territorial Force—I refer to the Socialist allies of the Government. Go to parts of the country where Socialism is rampant. Go to places like Yorkshire and ask the Territorial officer why it is he cannot get more recruits. He will not tell you that it is because of the National Service League; he will tell you that it is because of the Socialists, and he will tell you how they do it. Those are the real reasons why the numbers are as low as they are now, and not the reasons which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave.
His Majesty's Government have shown that the question of national defence is one which they care least about, and that they are prepared to trust to luck that no grave emergency may arise while they continue in office. If their attitude had been different they would be, perhaps,

229
justified in trying to find other causes for the alarming shortage of men. I am not going to detain your Lordships further at this hour of the evening, but in case any one on the Government side is going to speak again I ask, "What steps are you going to take to remedy these admitted deficiencies?" There are many things which you might tell us which would not be any violation of necessary secrets in the interests of national safety. For instance, what are you going to do about the Special Reserve, in which there is a more alarming shortage of officers than in any other branch of the Force? I believe an inquiry has actually been going on during the early part of this year, and I should like to ask, When are we going to have the results of that inquiry? That is a practical matter on which the Government might well have given us information. But the only suggestion we have had from that side during the course of this debate is that the social side of volunteering is to be promoted—presumably by some more of those dancing clubs of which we heard at one time. There is some vague shadowy prospect of drilling boys and girls in the schools in order, forsooth, to make up deficiencies in the Forces on which we depend for our national existence, and for the safety, honour, and welfare of this country.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I had not originally intended to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, but the question of invasion has been so much discussed during this debate that I think I ought to say a few words as it is a matter that I have studied in its varying aspects. Mr. Balfour's speech of May 11, 1905, has been more than once referred to in this discussion. I have always looked upon that speech as being in a great measure an answer to one of mine on naval surprise delivered in this House on March 3, 1905, and afterwards repeated by me at the United Service Institution. That speech of Mr. Balfour's has been most unfortunate in its results. It has encouraged the people of this country to remain in a somnolent condition instead of waking up to face the realities of the situation.
The Lord Chancellor told us that we have never in our history had a more powerful Navy than we have to-day. That may be so in one way, but compared with other countries we are not so strong. In 1905 our position was far more secure than it is
230
now. Our Fleet was so large in comparison with that of other Powers that surprise alone could have harmed us seriously. Lord Lovat has told us of the immense superiority we then had in battleships, torpedo destroyers, and submarines. We also had at that time a great superiority in cruisers. Scientific inventions have unfortunately transformed our strategical position. The invention of air-craft and wireless telegraphy has completely revolutionised scouting both by land and sea. Some years ago we built the "Pathfinder" and four other scouts of nearly 3,000 tons. We have had to change the name of their class, and to call them light cruisers; they are no longer scouts. Wireless telegraphy has also completely altered many strategical problems. But as we have taken it up thoroughly I do not think that on the whole its discovery has done us any serious harm.
It is far otherwise as regards air-craft. We have, it is true, a certain number of aeroplanes, but Germany is believed to have six times as many. We have, I believe, only two dirigibles. Germany has at least twenty. Aeroplanes suffer from the disadvantage that proficiency in managing them cannot be attained without considerable risk of life, not only in time of war, but in time of peace. Similar risks used to be run in my younger days when practising sail drill on hoard ship. I have myself witnessed several fatal accidents while seamen were being exercised aloft. Yet those exercises were continued on the ground that the country whose seamen were not exercised in this manner in time of peace would be beaten in time of war. This unfortunately holds good, I think, as regards aeroplanes. But as regards the German Zeppelins, if my information is correct, though several of them have been wrecked no lives have been lost in consequence. Now, suitable stables are the first thing that have to be erected if we are to have air-craft lighter than air. These stables should be built with funnel shaped mouths and be placed on turntables so that the dirigible can always enter on the lee side. Ask any officer who has had to handle a large modern ship as to the difficulties of getting into dock with a wind or current across the mouth of the dock. If an enemy's scouting is better than our own we shall be put to great disadvantage when endeavouring to discover the course and position of an enemy's troopships. The risks of defeat both by land and sea

231
would also be increased. I am, however, glad to hear from Lord Herschell that the Army and Navy are working out these problems connected with air-craft jointly, and not separately.
One of the points that has much stress laid upon it by those who exaggerate the difficulties of invasion has been the large number of ships that would be required to carry 70,000 men and stores. In 1905 we had to deal with ships of a comparatively small tonnage. Now, however, we are face to face with at least two 50,000 ton ships, the "Imperator" and the "Vaterland," and a likelihood of more of them to come. It is clear that in the future much fewer ships will be required to carry an army. As I have not yet seen the plans of these 50,000 tonners I cannot pretend to estimate the number of soldiers they could carry on a short voyage, but I would point out that our Board of Trade Regulations for passenger vessels plying from England to ports between Hamburg and Brest, including those two ports, only require one ton per passenger, and room for him to lie down. For Atlantic voyages a larger proportion of tonnage is required. If these rules, or anything like them, hold good with these larger vessels, it follows that this hypothetical army of 70,000 men could come over in two ships, provided they did not bring horses but trusted to drag-ropes to drag their guns until they had captured horses, and did their scouting by means of air-craft and bicycles. Two or three ships would have a much better chance of evading our cruisers than the unwieldy fleet that men who will not believe in the possibility of invasion always assume that an enemy will make use of. For instance "Master Mariner" calculated that 70,000 men would require a column of transports 20 miles long consisting of 150 vessels. Besides, if these 50,000 tonners are provided with sufficient boats to carry all their passengers and crew in case of an Atlantic collision they will be able to land from four to five thousand men at a single trip in their own boats. Both the "Imperator" and the "Vaterland" are very fast vessels, but as neither of them has yet crossed the Atlantic it would, I think, be premature on my part to name the exact figure of their available speed.
As long as there is danger of invasion the mass of our Fleet must remain tied to our shores, and this would leave us with an insufficient number of vessels to protect
232
our food supplies. If a sufficient Army removes that danger then our Fleet is free to protect our commerce and sail all over the seas just as we did in the days of yore. I was in France in 1866 and again in the summer of 1871 when she lay crushed with German armies on the Seine and in the forts around Paris. The contrast was very great. The humiliation that the French had undergone appeared to have changed their very nature. Every one wore mourning. During the fortnight that I was in Paris I saw only two coloured dresses. The wearers were not French. I recollect how Gambetta's Levies, "Men with Muskets" as they were termed, were scattered whenever they stood up against the Germans. When Bazaine was tried by Court Martial for his surrender at Metz he made a point that his disciplined Army had killed and wounded in one day more Germans than all Gambetta's Levies had done in six months. Take the Peninsular War, where the Spaniards were scattered whenever they faced a better trained Army, though they often fought heroically. Look at the misery that the inhabitants of that country suffered during the six years that they fought for their independence. I wish that the people of this country would read the histories of those wars, and then they would understand what sorrows may be in store for a nation that refuses to train its manhood for war.
*EARL BRASSEY: My Lords, I venture to submit in a few words that the enrolment of the Militia, the old constitutional Force, is the best immediate solution of the difficulty which confronts us. The cream and the flower of the population have given us our Territorial Force. Their numbers are too few. To increase the numbers it would seem that we must look to the class from which we recruit for the Army and which formerly gave us the Militia. If you have compulsion, you must put your men into barracks, and give them rations and clothe and instruct them; and when you have once incurred those necessary expenses the pay of the Militia would be a mere fractional addition. Then why not the Militia?
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, in the few remarks which I propose to make I should like to deal with the charges which have been made about the National Service League. That League, in my humble opinion, is doing a very great service to the Territorial Force. It has two ends in

233
view, one of which is to increase the efficiency of the Territorial Force and the other to increase its numbers, and the statements which have been made to the effect that the propaganda of the National Service League has detrimentally affected the recruiting of the Territorial Force I believe to be absolutely without foundation. The National Service League has done good in one respect, at any rate. If it has clone nothing else, it has kept away from us officers who would not have been worthy of the name of officers, and it has kept out of our ranks men who would have been absolutely useless in the Territorial Force. I hold no brief for the National Service League whatsoever, but I venture to say that the longer that League proceeds on the lines on which it is proceeding at present I think it will be really performing a national service.
There is one other thing I should like to say. It was brought forcibly to my mind this morning on reading my newspapers. I was here during the debate on Thursday last, and there was standing at the Bar of your Lordships' House a Member of the other. House. He was the Member who seconded the Motion for the Second Reading of the National Service (Territorial Force) Bill. That Member, I am sorry to say, is since dead—I refer to Sir Charles Rose. He said in the other House, when seconding that Bill, amid Unionist cheers, that though he was the only Liberal Member whose name appeared on the back of the Bill he would be sorry to believe that there were not many other Liberals who were heartily in sympathy with its object, and he added that the principle that every young able-bodied man should hold himself liable to take his place as a member of the Territorial Force for the defence of his country and to bear his share of the nation's burden had his unqualified sympathy and support. He said that he felt very strongly that drill, training, and discipline were good for the character of every individual, and that it was the duty of every citizen to submit to whatever sacrifice he might be called upon to make in order to help in placing the defences of his country in such a position as to render it absolutely secure against any aggression. He added that he was not imbued with an ultra spirit of militarism, nor did he look lightly on the horrors of war. No one, be said, had a greater abhorrence of war than
234
he had, but so long as human nature remained what it was he felt that the surest way of preventing hostility was to see that this country was prepared to face all risks. The bogey of the Party opposite seems to me to be this idea of national service; and although this Territorial Force is the offspring of the Lord Chancellor it seems that if its numbers are considerably further reduced there is only one way of arriving at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, If do not say on the lines of the Bill which was introduced in another place, but by a Bill on something of the same lines.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOME DEFENCE.
LORD AMPTHILL: If there is any representative of the War Office present I should like an answer to the Questions that stand in my name—viz.: (1) Whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reduce the size of the "Sealed Pattern" invasion allowed by the Defence Committee in order to make it more commensurate with the Forces which would be available for Home Defence if this country were involved in a European war; (2) What number of men are required for (a) obligatory garrisons, including Ireland, in time of war; (b) the local defence forces; (c) the "central swiftly moving" force; and how many of the men supposed to be available for these purposes at the present time are returned as recruits, sick, inefficient, under age, and absent; also whether the Special Reserve will be used for garrisons or drafts.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): To the first Question the reply is in the negative. The answer to the second Question is that as these figures relate to mobilisation His Majesty's Government are unable to supply them as asked by the noble Lord.

PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Strachie). (No. 25.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.