Sitting of 16 August 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th July; Mr. Joseph Pease] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 118.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. John O'Connor] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 119.]
INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1900.
Copy presented of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (VACATING OF SEATS) ACT, 1886.
Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Reports from the Commissioners of the Board of Control, dated 7th January, 1916, and 7th August, 1916, relative to the mental condition of Mr. Charles Leach, Member for the County of York, West Riding, Colne Valley Division, in compliance with the provisions of the Lunacy (Vacating of Seats) Act, 1886.

OUTPUT OF COAL IN UNITED KINGDOM.
Return ordered "showing the estimated quantities of Coal raised in the United Kingdom in each of the quarters ended
1826
the 31st day of March and the 30th day of June, 1916, compared with particulars for the corresponding periods of 1915 and 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 54, of Session 1916)."—[Mr. Harcourt.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FRIENDLY ALIENS (NAVAL SERVICE).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the need of recruiting for the Navy and the number of friendly aliens of military age in this country, among whom are engineering students who are refugees from Belgium, he will now follow the example of the War Office and permit friendly aliens to enlist in the Navy up to 2 per cent, of the authorised strength?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I informed my hon. Friend on Wednesday last, only men and boys who are the sons of British-born subjects are now accepted for entry in any branch of the Naval Service.
    Mr. KING: Yes, but if you accept friendly aliens in the Army, why cannot you accept them in the Navy? Is there any legal or political difficulty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not a question of friendly aliens. We admit only the sons of Britsh-born subjects for service in the Navy.
    Mr. KING: Was it not exactly the same with the Army a few months ago? And if the Army has changed its policy why cannot the Navy do so also?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What about Battenburg?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing the matter.

  COAST PATROL FLOTILLAS.

    ADMIRALTY TRIBUTE TO SEAMEN.
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUXasked the First Lord of the

    1827
    Admiralty whether, in view of the recent dispatch setting forth the admirable work of the Dover patrol flotillas, he proposes any recognition of the arduous services rendered by patrols generally around the coast?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am only too glad of the opportunity of saying that the Admiralty most highly appreciate the skill, devotion, and gallantry of the large body of our seamen who are engaged in the arduous work of patrolling our coasts; and the nation as a whole may well be grateful for the invaluable services which many units of the Navy, of which they hear nothing, are quietly and unostentatiously rendering. The services of those concerned, officers and men, in this arduous work will be fully considered with a view to suitable recognition.

    STEAMSHIPS (DIVERTED VOYAGES).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say why a steamship, when on a voyage to Alexandra, was diverted from her course to land an officer and four or five cases of goods at Malta at a cost to the public of at least £1,000 for coal consumed and time wasted; and will he state why the officer and goods could not have been conveyed by one of the boats which call regularly at that Island?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The report regarding this matter has not yet been received, but may be expected any day. If it is not received before the House rises I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the comprehensive answer to this and other questions that war is war, and war is waste?

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKMEN'S WAGES.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that the Workers' Union on the 6th April last reported to the chief industrial commissioner a difference with regard to the wages of yard-craft men and rope-makers employed in Devonport Dock-
    1828
    yard, and that the Admiralty have refused to submit the matter to arbitration; will he state the reason for this violation of the Munitions of War Act on the part of the Department; and (2) whether he is aware that the Workers' Union on tie 2nd June last reported to the Chief Industrial Commissioner a difference with regard to the wages of workpeople employed at the Holton Heath Cordite Factory, and that the Admiralty have refused to submit the matter to arbitration; and will he state the reason for this violation of the Munitions of War Act on the part of the Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the wages of yard-craft men and ropemakers in our employment, the Workers' Union made application as indicated. I can assure my hon. Friend that the greatest possible care has been taken by the Admiralty to survey in detail the conditions of service of the men in question. So far-as the yard-craft men are concerned, a most competent Admiralty Committee examined their hours of labour, conditions, and wages a year or two since, and submitted to us a most valuable Report, many of the recommendations of which have already been incorporated in our Regulations. The case of the ropemakers, in common with those of all our employés, has been the subject of the most careful consideration. With regard to Holton Heath, the Workers' Union also communicated with the Chief Industrial Commissioner asking that the rates at the factory should be adjusted to those at another factory within the London area. This demand, so far as we are concerned, cannot be conceded. The rates of pay at Holton Heath were settled after very careful consideration, and they have been the subject of close review. They are considered just and equitable.
    Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me any reason why these particular works are not to come within the Munitions Act, seeing that the Munitions Act was passed in order to avoid disputes; and if they do not come within the Munitions Act, are not the n en entitled to leave?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men have the most ample means of representing their grievances through the machinery which is already in existence as part of the Admiralty scheme for hearing the men's complaints.

    AUGUST HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the men employed in the Victualling Yard are only being paid bare time for working during the August holidays, although the men employed at Woolwich are receiving an extra day's pay; can ho state the reason for this differentiation; and will he take steps to have the men at Deptford treated the same as the men at Woolwich?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In view of the method adopted at Woolwich, the men in the Victualling Yard who worked on the 7th and 8th August can, if they wish, receive the extra day's pay in respect of each of these days so worked to which they are entitled. But if they do, on the dates on which the postponed holidays are taken they will, of course, receive no pay. Further, if they work on those days, they will be paid at ordinary rates.

    NAVAL KIT.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the price of slops, e.g.,all the clothing, caps, boots, brushes, blankets, etc., in short, everything that a sailor requires and which he has to buy has been very largely increased since the victory of Jutland; is he aware that the order increasing these prices was issued on the 14th July but antedated to the 1st July; that the quality of these articles is not so good as before the War; and that the wear-and-tear is greater in times of war than in peace; and will he consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, he can withdraw the new prices and restore the old?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of these prices was most carefully considered by the Admiralty, with the object that the general increase in the cost of production of clothing throughout the country should affect the men of the Navy as little as possible. In the majority of cases the revised issuing prices are much below the actual cost of the articles themselves, and very much less than the prices at which they could be purchased on shore. I would instance boots, shoes, blankets, serge, duck, and flannel. The 1st of July is the usual date for the issue of a new price list for the year, and it would have been most inconvenient for accounting pur-
    1830
    poses to bring in new prices for a broken period of a quarter. The delay of a few days in issuing the price list was unavoidable. As regards the suggestion that the quality of certain articles is not so good as before the War, I would observe that under war conditions departure from the strict Admiralty specification is unavoidable at times, but I am not aware j that the wearing qualities of the articles have been prejudiced by such changes. I should add that where conditions have entailed undue wear-and-tear of clothing, special action has been taken; for example, there is an annual free issue of warm clothing, which includes articles of general wear which the men normally provide for themselves, namely, jersey, comforter, drawers, stockings, socks, and in some cases flannel vests. Again, naval ratings employed on active service on shore, where the wear-and-tear of clothes is greater than on board ship, have the worn-out clothing replaced free of charge. And again, the establishment of protective clothing (e.g. oilskins, sea boots, duffle suits, and in some cases blankets) has been largely increased, thus indirectly saving the wear-and-tear of the men's own clothing.
    Mr. HOHLER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider with regard to the services named that this concession ought to be made by the nation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I pointed out, the revised issuing prices are much below the actual cost of the articles themselves, and very much less than the prices at which they could be purchased on shore.

    AMPUTATIONS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the scale of pensions for amputations now determined by Chelsea for the Army is to be followed by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.

    GERMAN EXECUTIONS.
    Mr. BLISSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a few weeks ago Field-Marshal von Weber, Military Governor of Montenegro, issued a proclamation to the effect

    1831
    that if General Veshovitch, the Montenegrin ex-Minister of War, and his two brothers, who had fled from the country, did not surrender themselves within a few days, his father, aged seventy-five, and another brother, who were held as hostages would be hung; whether he has any official information showing that this threat has been carried out; and, if so, whether he will take cognisance of the fact and hold Field-Marshal von Weber personally responsible for the outrage at the end of the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Information in the sense of the first part of the question has reached me, and in a subsequent edition of the "Bosnishe Post"—an official newspaper, edited and published in German at Sarajeo—it was stated that the brother of the general was executed, but that his father, "by an exceptional act of mercy," had been reprieved. For our future action as regards proceedings of this kind I understand that a question is on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister which deals with this matter.

    EGYPTIAN CAMPAIGN.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Western frontier of Egypt is now completely tranquil; and whether he can make any statement as to the co-operation of the British and Italian Governments with regard to future policy in dealing with this part of Northern Africa?
    Lord R. CECIL: The situation on the Western frontier of Egypt may now be regarded as far more satisfactory. It is, however, not opportune at the present moment to inform the enemy of action which the British and Italian Governments, who are working in complete accord, may find it desirable to adopt at some future time.

    BRITISH PROPERTY IN ENEMY COUNTRIES.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can state the estimated value of property and financial interests belonging to British subjects in Austria-Hungary at the outbreak of war; whether he can
    1832
    give any information as to how these matters are being dealt with in Austria-Hungary at the present time; (2) whether he can state the estimated value of property and financial interests belonging to British subjects in Turkey at the outbreak of war; whether he can give any information as to how these matters are being dealt with in Turkey at the present time; and (3) whether he can state the estimated value of property and financial interests belonging to British subjects in Germany at the outbreak of war; and whether he can give any information as to how these matters are being dealt with in Germany at the present time?
    Lord R. CECIL: To answer these questions would be to give information to our enemies which, in certain events, might be of value to them. I am sure, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press them.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether the new scheme for dealing with men in the Army who refuse to obey military orders on the ground of conscientious objection provides that every case will come under review where the objector has been summarily dealt with by the commanding officer and given punishment not exceeding twenty-eight days' detention; where a punishment of detention has been given by a court-martial; where punishment of imprisonment has been given and the man has been transferred to a civil prison; whether in all these cases, or in which, the War Office sends on the case to the Central Tribunal for consideration, with the view of offering work under the Home Office scheme; and what is proposed to be done with the men who refuse to accept work under the Home Office scheme, will they be kept in prison until the termination of their sentences and then sent back to the Army, and if they again refuse to obey military orders will they again have to pass through the same proceedings of court-martial, civil prison, reference to Central Tribunal, reference to the Home Office Committee, refusal, and continued imprisonment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): All such cases, with the exception of those dealt with summarily by a commanding officer,

    1833
    are being remitted to the Central Tribunal for consideration. It is not intended to provide for cases which have been disposed of summarily by a commanding officer, because it would entail a considerable amount of work which is quite unnecessary in view of the fact that under the provisions of Section 46 (8) of the Army Act no soldier can receive an award of detention except by his own consent. Men who refuse to accept work under the Home Office scheme will be kept in prison until the termination of their sentences, and will then be returned to their unit. If they again refuse to obey military orders they will be dealt with in accordance with the Army Act, and they will have no further opportunity of presenting their case to the Central Tribunal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What is the meaning of the phrase that "they will be dealt with under the Army Act?"
    Mr. FORSTER: They will have to serve without being allowed to appeal to the Central Tribunal.
    Mr. KING: Will they be sent to the front although they still continue to protest?
    Mr. FORSTER: I expect not.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will steps be taken to see that such further penalties as are inflicted shall be inflicted in the civil prison?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; they have now got their chance; if they do not take it, it is their own fault.
    Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the treatment of Mr. Charles Slifield, of Sheepwash, North Devon, by the Army Medical Board at Exeter, to which he had been directed to go by his Appeal Tribunal; whether the Board first inquired whether he was attested, and then if he was a conscientious objector; whether one of the Board then remarked to the other member that if he was a conscientious objector they would pass him for general service; whether the Board did not feel his pulse or test his eyesight; whether they proceeded to pass him for general service, although he suffered from chronic throat affection; and whether he will take any further action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries have been instituted in regard to this case, and the results when received shall be at once communicated to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the offer by the Road Board to the Sussex County Council Roads and Bridges Committee, to supply conscientious objectors for road-making, is part of the scheme of the Home Office Committee; and is it intended to employ these people on such work at rates of pay less than the trade union standard in the industries affected?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Arrangements are being made by the Home Office Committee to send a party of 200 men for employment under the Road Board in Sussex, and I understand from the Road Board that the Sussex County Council will be required to pay to the Road Board the actual value of the work performed by these men at local piecework rates.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what means of redress a person has under the Military Service Act where an Appeal Tribunal deliberately refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, as in the case of Arthur Plater, who appealed on the 5th instant before the Surrey and Croydon Appeal Tribunal on conscientious grounds and was told publicly by the chairman, Sir Lewis Dibdin, that he admitted that appellant had a genuine conscientious objection to both combatant and non-combatant service and that he was sure he was an honest man, the military representative concurring, but notwithstanding the appellant was given non-combatant service, although the chairman said he could give him absolute exemption but he did not choose to do so?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am making inquiries into the statements made in the hon. Member's question.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will direct the military representatives appearing before the tribunals to act on the spirit and letter of the Prime Minister's declaration that both for this year and next the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies remains an essential object of the first importance for the security of Great Britain?
    Mr. FORSTER: I can assure my right hon. Friend that military representatives

    1835
    are working in accordance with the agreement come to between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture. The importance of this question is fully realised, and the instructions issued to tribunals by the Local Government Board are perfectly clear.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the agreement reached by the War Office and the Board of Agriculture is not being adhered to by these local tribunals?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not. If my right hon. Friend will bring any case he has in mind to my notice I will inquire into it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tribunals in some cases refuse to take any notice of the representations of the military representative?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any detailed physical standard has been issued to the various Army medical boards to ensure that cases shall be dealt with on uniform principles and, in particular, whether any instructions have been issued to secure a uniform method of dealing with organic diseases such as diseases of the heart?
    Mr. FORSTER: The physical standard is fixed for each of the categories and this standard is determined by the nature of the duties assigned to the particular category. Apart from this conferences are from time to time held to secure co-ordination between the work and practice of the different boards.
    Mr. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the examination of recruits by the various Army medical boards is inspected from time to time by competent medical experts?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; the Deputy-Directors of Medical Services of the Commands are responsible for inspecting from time to time the work of examining recruits.

    SOLDIERS ON INDUSTRIAL WORK.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if soldiers
    1836
    are engaged from time to time unloading barges at the Woolwich Arsenal; what hours the soldiers are called upon to work and what pay they received; if a number of civilians are being discharged from the Arsenal and soldiers put to work in their place; if he intends taking any action; and (2) if some time ago a number of soldiers were working for Messrs. Leithams, flour millers, at York; what pay the soldiers were receiving for the work performed; how many hours per day they were working; if the firm were called upon to pay the full standard rates of wages to the War Office; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can now state if each individual of the 102 soldier-workmen at the Llanelly Steel Works receives the equivalent of the standard wage current in the district; if the War Office makes any and, if so, what profit out of some of the men; how many of these men are medically unfit; if they are punished for being late in the morning by being paraded at night; if there are among them shop assistants, ship painters, electricians, colliers, cabinet makers, navvies, general labourers, and paper-hangers; how many were steel workers before the War; and if ho will consider the advisability of taking steps to secure that all the unfit and incompetent among these men should be absolutely discharged from the Army so that they may return to their own proper and accustomed avocations?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no information as to these particular cases, but, as the hon. Members are aware from the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport on Monday, new Regulations are being issued under which the pay of soldiers employed as working parties outside the Army will be based on the local rates for similar work.
    Mr. THORNE: How long will it be before these Regulations are made public property?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the Regulation was approved last night. I will send a copy of it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is there going to be any time limit fixed as lo the length of time for which a working party can go on without the soldiers being placed on the Reserve?
    Mr. FORSTER: No. I think the arrangements in regard to the length of time will remain as they are—that is, a maximum of two months without further reference to the Army Council.

    ARREST OF CLEBK (WABBINGTON).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken or proposes to take upon the conduct of the recruiting officers at Warrington who have caused the arrest of two clerks named Wright and Saunders, employed by the Cheshire Lines Committee at Warrington, as absentees under the Military Service Act, seeing that their cases are before the Labour Advisory Committee on Industrial Conscription, it being alleged that these two clerks are the victims of persecution and discrimination by the railway company?
    Mr. FORSTER: The cases of these two men have been brought to the notice of the War Office and are the subject of inquiry. I do not think any blame attaches to the recruiting officers for causing them to be dealt with as absentees, but as I have said the cases are being inquired into.

    MILITARY AGE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether there have been recently given to the members of Advisory Committees either powers or instructions to detain, or denounce to the police, any men who may be thought to be of military age, with the object of these men being forced into the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: No instructions as to detaining men or denouncing them to the police have been issued by the War Office. Probably the hon. Member will agree that it is the duty of any citizen to inform, the police if he is aware that the law is being broken. Authority has been given for the issue of certificates to members of Advisory Committees enabling them to require the production of certificates of exemption.

    APPLICATION or ACT TO IRELAND.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering the feeling shown against Irish harvesters in certain parts of England, he will now make the Military Service Act applicable to Ireland, I and thus put the whole of the United Kingdom on an equal footing?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir.

    APPEAL FOB EXEMPTION.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if he has received a letter from Mr. G. Simpson, of Street, Somerset, with reference to his fourth son, who is to be called up under the Military Service Act, 1016; and, seeing that Mr. Simpson has three sons already serving with the Colours and that his fourth son is the sole support of his father, who is suffering from incurable cancer, and of his mother, who has heart trouble, and in view of the further fact that the son in question has only been passed as fit for labour at home, will he take steps to have the son released from the Military Service Act so as to prevent the hardship to the parents which will otherwise be caused?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. A letter from Mr. Simpson has been received. I am informed that Mr. Simpson's son has been given two months' exemption, and although it is stated that the certificate is non-renewable, it is open to the son or to someone in respect of him to apply to the tribunal for leave to apply for a renewal. It is also open to Mr. Simpson to have appealed from the decision of the local tribunal if he was dissatisfied with the decision. Parliament appointed tribunals to deal with claims for exemptions and the War Office are unable to intervene.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in cases where soldiers have applied for relief to the Civil Liabilities Committee their female dependants, in the soldiers' absence, have been asked to attend at police stations to undergo examination, and that in certain cases these ladies have declined to attend with the result that all relief has been refused; and whether the Civil Liabilities Committee will be asked to be more tactful and considerate in their procedure?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware of any case in which applicants have been required to attend at police stations, and as some 65,000 applications have already been received I think I should have heard if there had been any cause for complaint.

    1839
    If, however, the hon. Member will send me the particulars of any case which he has in mind I will have inquiries made.

    FARM LABOUR.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that in a number of cases the military representatives have refused to act on the recognised scale agreed on between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture as to the minimum number of men required on farms; and whether, in view of the Prime Minister's announcement of the Government's policy that the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies is an essential object of national importance, he will take steps to ensure that military representatives observe the agreement arrived at between the two Departments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I have not heard of any cases in which military representatives have refused to recognise the scale referred to as a guide for their action and that of the tribunals. If my right hon. Friend knows of such cases and will communicate them to me, I am sure that the War Office will be most anxious to look into them. As he will realise, the scale, owing to the great variety of agricultural conditions, cannot be regarded as a hard and fast rule to be applied to every case. It was agreed to as a general guide to the tribunals and is, I believe, being so observed.

    JEWISH REFUGEES.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain definitely the present position of Jewish refugees in this country in regard to the military service or deportation Orders; can he give an approximate estimate of their number; will he say whether the Russian Jews now in England are receiving the persistent attentions of the police; whether some have been arrested, others warned, and their publications stopped; and will he make it quite clear before Parliament rises, both for their own information and for that of the police, what are their legal position and remaining rights?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There are approximately 25,000 to 30,000 male Russian subjects of military age in this country, most
    1840
    of them of the Jewish faith. I am not aware that any action with regard to them has been taken by the police, otherwise than in the ordinary discharge of their duty. I understand that in one case a prosecution has been taken against a paper for contravening the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that the plant was subsequently seized by order of the military authority; and that in one case a warning has been given to the editor of a paper that he was responsible for the advertisements as well as for the text. The present position is that men of Russian nationality, if of military age, may enlist in the British Army, and that no one has been, or is being deported for failure to enlist. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the matter generally before the House rises.
    Mr. MORRELL: On what date will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There has been constant communication with representatives of the people affected, and there has been delay owing to that cause, but I hope at the beginning of next week.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Foreign Jews' Protection Committee against deportation to Russia, representing 120 organisations, has requested him to receive a deputation; whether the names, addresses, and organisations of the twenty-five members of the Committee have been furnished at his request; and whether this deputation is to be interviewed by him shortly?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have taken steps to acquaint myself fully with the opinion of Russian subjects in regard to their enlistment in the British Army. I intend shortly to make a statement as to the policy of the Government, and I do not think anything would be gained by my receiving further deputations.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to decline the offer of this very largo body, representing 120 different organisations, who want to come to lay their views before him?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am well acquainted with the case, and among the 120 organisations which it is said are represented by those who are organising this deputation are some which could not in any circumstances be received at the Home Office.

    GEBMAN PABTNEBSHIP.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case recently heard before the Brighton military tribunal in which a claimant for exemption from military service stated that he was in partnership with a German in the business of a ladies' tailor, and that this German had been released from internment on condition that he did not reside on the South Coast; whether the German referred to is keeping his business going in London in competition with English tailors, many of whom are short-handed in their business owing to their employés having joined the Colours; and if he will say for what reason favour has been shown to an alien enemy under such circumstances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no knowledge of the case to which the hon. Member refers. If he will give me the name of the German in question I will have inquiries made and let him know the result.

    WALLASEY TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to two cases recently before the Wallasey Tribunal, in which the appellants stated that their claims to the Civil Liabilities Committee for a weekly sum to cover rent, rates, and insurance had been refused, whereupon the tribunal unanimously refused to pass the men into the Army, advising the men to renew their claims for financial relief, and the military representative to bring pressure to bear upon the Committee; and if he will state the Committee's reasons for referring these workmen to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association instead of giving them the relief that they understood they were entitled to receive direct from the Committee?
    Mr. LONG: I have seen a newspaper report of the action of the tribunal and have already taken steps to correct the misapprehension which has arisen. As my right hon. Friend stated on the 24th July, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Harborough Division, in cases in which no grant can be given under the Civil Liabilities Scheme the applicants are referred to the local War Pensions Committee or to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, who are acting temporarily as agents
    1842
    for the Statutory Committee in districts where the local committees have not yet been formed. In both cases the grants are made out of public funds and not from charitable sources.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. BALDWINasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of Matthew George Layton, of Malvern; and whether, in view of the statement made by the chairman of the Malvern Tribunal, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. LONG: I am making inquiry respecting this case.

    ROYAL DEFENCE CORPS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if the guard composed of Royal Defence Corps, formerly National Reserve, now guarding certain explosive works, are about to be moved from their billets and placed under canvas, which involves expense; that the site of the works is unsuitable in every way for camping purposes, being on boggy land much below sea level, that the fumes from the acid boiling sheds blow over the parts of the island patrolled by the guard, causing pains and injury to the eyes and throat of the sentries, and that there is no proper system of drainage, which passes into an open ditch close to the site of the camp; is he aware that the present guard of No. 57 Protection Company, Royal Defence Corps, have been guarding these works since February last, that they are all men of middle age, several over fifty, and that for health and humanitarian reasons they should be given a change of station; and will he send a competent medical officer to inspect the proposed camping ground and report thereon?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have caused inquiry to be made on this matter, and I will send results to my hon. Friend by letter, with his permission, as soon as they are received.

    MILITARY DECORATIONS.
    Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible to give a greater number of military medals and other recognition by immediate reward in view of the fact that

    1843
    during the present operations a very large number of cases have occurred in which officers, non-commissioned officers, and men have performed exceptional acts of gallantly and devotion to duty which it is impossible under the present circumstances to recognise in any way?
    Mr. FORSTER: All Commanders-in-Chief in the field have unlimited power to award immediately the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal, and as regards the Military Medal commanders of corps have similar unlimited powers. I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that more than 8,000 Military Medals are, known to have been awarded in Franco alone, although the decoration was only instituted on the 25th March last. Immediate awards of the Distinguished Conduct Medals in France average 300 a month. Of the Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross combined, 370 are, on an average, awarded monthly by the Commander-in-Chief.
    Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, arising out of the recent operations, battalions were cut-down to a ration of two or three mentions per battalion, including the officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the Secretary of Stale for War if the Army and Navy Cooperative Society, Limited, are contractors or suppliers to the War Office; if so, whether an employé of the society, named Joyce, married, with four children, who had been in the employ of the society for fourteen years prior to his voluntarily joining the Coldstream Guards in 1914, was receiving wages of 26s. per week; whether the War Office inserts a Fair-Wages Clause in all contracts or orders it may give to the society; whether any such clause, if inserted, is observed; and, if not inserted hitherto, will he ensure that it is so applied to all orders and contracts that may be given by the War Office to the society in future?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Army and Navy Co-operative Society are not on the War Office list of contractors, but urgent orders have occasionally been placed with them during the War. The Fair-Wages Clause is
    1844
    inserted in such contracts, and any complaints as to its non-observance would be investigated. Nothing is known about the employé referred to.

    INOCULATION.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private R. A. Sheraton, No. 14,441, B Company, Hut 13, 16th Durham Light Infantry, Penkridge Bank Camp, Rugeley, Staffs, who has been refused his final leave because he objects to inoculation; whether this man has been in the Army since the beginning of the War and has served in France; whether a similar objection in July, 1915, met with a similar result; whether his wife's appeal to the War Office then secured the man leave; and whether he will see that he has his final leave in spite of his objection to inoculation?
    Mr FORSTER: Inquiry is being made into this case, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result, as soon as possible.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an isolated case, and that thousands of cases like this are arising; and can nothing be done to stop this shameful persecution of good soldiers who are guilty of no offence and this penalising of their familes by keeping them months, and sometimes years, without leave?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the wounded from the front are very largely sent to hospitals remote from their homes, their wives, parents, and relations; if he will consider whether this difficulty might be greatly improved by better organisation, whereby the wounded might be sent to the great towns or counties from which they came; and if he will further bear in mind that he would in so doing confer a great benefit on the wives and parents whose means do not enable them to travel great distances?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War answered

    1845
    a question on this point on the 3rd of August, and to this I would refer my hon. Friend. Every effort is being made to give effect to the view expressed in the question.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN (WOUNDED OFFICERS).
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for War whether a number, about twenty, of officers wounded or sick from Mesopotamia were invalided home to England on leave on medical certificate for limited periods of three or four months, leaving Bombay on a hospital ship on 7th July, 1916, were landed at Suez on 18th July, and were there informed that there would be no hospital ship to take them on from Egypt until 20th August, if then; whether these officers were kept at Alexandria in hospital until 2nd August, when they were informed that if they liked they could go by ordinary transport thence to Marseilles, and, on embarking on this transport, were compelled to sign a declaration certifying that, if a passage to England by transport was granted to them, they would pay all expenses incurred en route, including, if landed at Marseilles, the fare through France, that they were travelling by transport at their own request and risk, that they would not in future prefer any claim whatsoever for the payment of any expenses incurred during the journey to England, and that they were aware that they were allowed to stay in Egypt and await passage to England by hospital ship, but that if they did so they must stay in hospital or convalescent home and adhere to the rules of that institution; whether the transport on which they travelled on these conditions also carried officers not sick or wounded, on ordinary leave from Egypt, who were given free warrants across France and were forced to pay no expenses; why this differentiation is made against officers invalided from the Mesopotamian front; and whether, seeing that the period of leave dated from leaving Bombay and no proper arangements were made for transportation for these sick and wounded officers beyond Suez, he will see that their leave is extended for the time they were detained in Egypt?
    Mr. FORSTER: The statements made in the first three parts of the question are, I am informed, substantially correct,
    1846
    so far as the information in the possession of the War Office goes. As regards the fourth and fifth parts of the question, I cannot at present say precisely why the authorities in Egypt made these officers sign the declaration referred to, but I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of reimbursing the travelling expenses and also extending leave will be sympathetically considered. I may add that it is impossible to provide for hospital ships in Egypt to meet the Indian hospital ships, and that patients from India have to be transferred to hospitals in Egypt until they can come on. There has been a shortage of hospital ships in the Mediterranean lately owing to the heavy requirements arising from the operations in France, but this has now been remedied.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are the arrangements for evacuating sick and wounded officers from Mesopotamia who are invalided home made by the Indian Army or by the War Office here? It seems that there is some confusion between the two.
    Mr. FORSTER: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to give me notice of that question.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (OFFICERS' LEAVE).
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, while men of the rank and file of the regiments included in the Southern Command are usually given six days' leave after twelve weeks' training before leaving for service overseas, officers under the same command before leaving for service overseas are usually refused more than three days' leave; whether there is any reason why officers in the Southern Command should not receive the usual six days' Expeditionary Force leave which officers in other commands are given; and, if not, will he give instructions to that effect?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would be glad if my hon. Friend would postpone this question.

    EMBARKATION LEAVE.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will see that all soldiers in the Royal Garrison Artillery training school at Winchester, who require

    1847
    it, will be allowed leave to visit their families and to transact domestic business before they are sent to the front?
    Mr. FORSTER: Orders have been given to all drafting formations that every man due to go overseas shall as far as possible have embarkation leave.

    MILITARY CAMPS (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government has again refused to deal with the dangers to health to which our Canadian and other soldiers are exposed in the neighbouring towns to our military camps; whether, as these dangers must continue so long as the Government will take no adequate steps by legislation to keep sick, undesirable women under surveillance and control until they are cured, he will take steps to provide suitable and sufficient hospitals for the victims of our present neglect; and, with this end in view, if he will ascertain whether the present delay in carrying out the necessary work at Elham is due to the non-activity of the engineer officer responsible for such work at Ashford?
    Mr. FORSTER: There has been no refusal to deal with the dangers mentioned. The matter is receiving attention, and my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has recently held a conference on the subject.

    ELHAM HOSPITAL.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take the necessary steps to accelerate the work which has been considered advisable to undertake in connection with the conversion of the union at Elham into a hospital for sick Canadian soldiers; if he is aware that, although the Government has now taken over the whole of this block of buildings, which it is estimated can accommodate some five to six hundred patients, arrangements are only in progress for the reception of 200; if his attention has been called to the position of the present tent hospital for such eases as it is contemplated to send to the Elham institution; if he knows that the men are now in immediate proximity to the much
    1848
    frequented and dusty high road between Hythe and Folkestone and that the tents and the patients are visible to every passer-by; and if he will take steps to provide more suitable accommodation either in the buildings or grounds at Elham?
    Mr. FORSTER: The building referred to has been allotted to the Canadian authorities and they are making their own arrangements. The Army Council have no information regarding any work contemplated or already undertaken at this hospital, but I will make inquiries.

    ARMY ACT AMENDMENT ACT.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether a Court of Inquiry has yet been set up under the Army Act Amendment Act; if so, will he say who have been appointed to act upon it; whether the Press will be admitted to the proceedings; and whether the minutes of evidence and the decision of the Court will be published?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State gave the names of the members of the Court of Inquiry yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. The proceedings will be held in private and the minutes will not be published. It will be for subsequent consideration whether the opinion, if any, recorded by the Court, or the decision thereon of the Army Council (with whom the decision rests), or both, will be published.
    Mr. McNEILL: Having regard to the fact that the Court is purposely set up so as to deal with the rights of civilians, is there any reason why the inquiry should be held in camera?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand the matter has been very carefully considered by the Secretary of State, and this is the decision at which he has arrived.
    Mr. ASHLEY: If the Court was set up by an Act of Parliament, ought not Parliament to be informed what the decision of the Court is?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the facts which are being considered, was it worth while to

    1849
    pass an Army Act in order to add to this Court of Inquiry a Member of this House who is an official?

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE, DOVER.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether those over age of the seventy-nine or eighty fit men who volunteered at the beginning of the War, in response to a request from the Government, and who have ever since successfully served at Dover and in the neighbourhood in anti-aircraft searchlight and other military work, are, although now trained and anxious to continue their work, to be turned off as being no further use under the new scheme of transferring the work of protection from aircraft from the Admiralty to the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division on the 10th August.

    AIR COMMISSION.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for War when the Report of the Aircraft Inquiry Committee is to be issued to the public; whether the Committee have sent in their Report; and, if so, what the delay is due to?
    Mr. FORSTER: An Interim Report of the Committee on the Administration and Command of the Royal Flying Corps was issued to Members yesterday, and is now available to the public. I cannot say when the Committee's final Report will be ready. The Committee make a statement on this point in the second paragraph of their Report.

    NEWSPAPER POSTAGE (PERMITS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War how many retail newsagents in Edinburgh have been granted permits to dispatch printed matter under the new postal arrangements; on what principle are such permits granted; and why have they been refused in certain cases?
    Mr FORSTER: In Edinburgh the requisite permission has been granted to five publishing firms, two newsagents and
    1850
    six firms of booksellers, librarians and stationers whose business is believed to be in part the export of newspapers.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the newsagent mentioned is a wholesale newsagent, that the other shop is controlled by him, and that no other newsagent in Edinburgh has any permit to send newspapers anywhere?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot honestly pretend that I know very much about it. The questions are so numerous that it has taken me the whole of the morning to deal with them. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.

    AUSTRALIAN FORCES (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the casualties of the Australian forces in France since 1st July?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; it is not desirable on military grounds to give this information.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why is it that the lists can be published from day to day but not the total casualties?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member will see if he looks at the pages of the lists that they are anterior to the date he mentions.

    HUTTING CONTRACTS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the total sum of the hutting contracts, and what percentage is to be paid to the contractors?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope to lay a Paper on this subject to-morrow.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, FORTH-SIDE, STIRLING.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Workers' Union, on the 19th June last, reported to the Chief Industrial Commissioner a difference with regard to the wages of foremen, labourers, and women workers employed

    1851
    at the Army Ordnance Depot, Forthside, Stirling, and that the War Office have refused to submit the matter to arbitration; and will he state the reason for this violation of the Munitions of War Act on the part of the Department?
    Mr. FORSTER: The War Office reply to the Chief Industrial Commissioner asked for further information. This has only just been received, and the whole question is being investigated.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY, FARNBOBOUGH.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that at the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough, married men are being discharged while numbers of single unskilled men are being retained; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction being caused by this action, he will investigate the matter with a view to securing more equal treatment?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. I am informed that single unskilled men are only being retained in a few cases, and that these will be dispensed with as soon as suitable substitutes can be obtained.

    JAM (ARMY CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the names of the manufacturers who have been selected to supply jam to the Army without the contracts being put up to competitive tender?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPOET. [See Written Answers.]
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman give the number?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member will see the number when he sees the names to-morrow. Speaking from memory, it is eight or nine.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does not the hon. Gentleman think this is an extraordinary departure from sound business methods in giving out contracts that they should be limited to eight or nine firms, and there should be no outside competition?
    Mr. FORSTER: You have to do a good many things which are extraordinary in time of war. If the hon. Member really takes an interest in the matter and will come to the War Office lie shall see everything that bears on the question.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it is necessary as a measure of war that this contract should be confined to seven or eight firms without any outside competition?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will come and look into the question himself he will see how advantageous the arrangement is.
    Mr. G. FABER: Have you the specification?
    Mr. FORSTER: In reply to another question to-day or to-morrow I am undertaking to put a copy of the contract in the Library.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the amount spent on jam for the Army during the last financial year?
    Mr. FORSTER: About £2,000,000.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the contracts for the supply of jam to the Army are divided among a selected number of manufacturers without any competitive outside tenders; and will he say what steps are taken to secure that the prices quoted by these privileged firms shall be reasonable and in the public interest?
    Mr. FORSTER: With regard to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to his question on the 14th instant. In reply to the latter part of the question, competitive prices for making the jam are obtained from the selected firms, the quantity of jam allotted to each firm being governed by the prices quoted. The cost of the fruit tins and packing cases is controlled by examination of the firms' books.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the eight or nine firms are selected from the general list of these firms?
    Mr. FORSTER: The contracts go to the firms whose tenders are considered best, and who are best able to carry them out.
    Mr. SCOTT: When contracts involving £2,000,000 go to seven or eight firms, how can there be anything like a competitive price?
    Mr. FORSTER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with an ordinary contract by tender.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Is not one of the chief advantages of the selection that you endeavour to make sure that you secure firms which are able to carry out the contract—firms that are strong enough to carry it out?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are there not more than eight or nine firms strong enough to carry out the contract?

    MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
    Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister if he will be in a position before the Adjournment to state what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take with reference to the murder by the Germans of Captain Fryatt; whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing this subject; and if his attention has been drawn to a Motion standing in my name, and in the names of other hon. Members, making a suggestion in reference to this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are of opinion that this country would not tolerate the resumption of diplomatic intercourse with Germany after the War until reparation had been made for the murder of Captain Fryatt and similar outrages. Some of our Allies have suffered from brutalities even more gross and on a more extended scale than ourselves from the action of German authorities. We are in consultation with them as to the best and most effective steps to be taken, and as to what conditions should be exacted in the terms of peace to secure reparation and satisfy justice.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to make a declaration that Kaiser Wilhelm is wanted for wilful murder in this particular case?

    PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether, in considering an ex-
    1854
    change of prisoners between this country and Germany or their removal to a neutral country, preference will be given to those officers and soldiers who have been longest confined in German prisons, and are consequently suffering from the strain?
    Mr. FORSTER: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that should the question of an exchange or transfer to a neutral country of prisoners of war, other than invalids, come within the range of possibility, the special claims of those who have been longest in confinement will be borne in mind?
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that any special arrangements are to be made to bring that about?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the matter is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister if he can now state if he will give facilities for the passing in this House of the Registration of Business Names Bill, which has passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I hope to give facilities for this Bill when the House reassembles after the Adjournment.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MR. SHEEHY SKEFFINGTOK.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if steps are being taken to make the military officers who have knowledge of the facts connected with the murder of Sheehy Skeffington and others available to appear before the Court of Inquiry?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am assured by the military authorities that the officers referred to will be available if required.

    Miss ELLEN O'RYAN.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his statement that Irish prisoners detained in England, so far as he was aware, do not desire to be tried by a Civil Court, he will take into

    1855
    consideration the case of Miss Ellen O'Ryan so detained, who claims that she took no part whatever in the rebellion and who desires to prove her innocence before a Civil Court; and will he take steps to secure her the opportunity of trial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that I ever made the statement attributed to me in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I have nothing to add to the answers already given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people are not able to be represented by counsel before the Advisory Committee, and that the charge was only made known to her just before she went in. Why should she not have a trial if she desires it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed this lady had legal advice before she appeared before the Committee.

    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the German prisoners in this country and the Irish prisoners at Frongoch are treated as political prisoners, will he state why the Irish prisoners sentenced for political offences arising in Ireland, and at present detained at Dartmoor, Portland, and other prisoners, are treated as common criminals?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Irish prisoners referred to were convicted of criminal offences and sentenced to penal servitude or imprisonment: they are not entitled to any special treatment on the ground that their offences were of a political character. Special treatment on that ground has never been given to prisoners under sentence of penal servitude. I may say, however, that these prisoners have a liberal allowance of books, and will be allowed to receive technical and educational books, including books in the Irish language.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the German prisoners interned in this country are guilty of the murder of women and children in Belgium, and why are these men, who did not take up arms, treated on different lines from those German prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: These are men who have been convicted of criminal offences and sentenced to terms of penal servitude or imprisonment.
    Mr. LUNDON: What are those Germans but criminals?

    DUNDALK PRISONERS.
    Mr. WHITTYasked why Mr. M'Grave and Mr. Hanratty, both of Dundalk, are still interned in Frongoch Camp, seeing that the other men arrested from there in exactly similar circumstances and under identical conditions have been released; and whether there will be a revision of the cases of these two men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Advisory Committee recommended that Thomas M'Grave and James Hanratty, both of Dundalk, should be retained in internment. I may say that they also recommended the retention in internment of other persons arrested at Dundalk besides these two. I cannot reopen these cases at the present time.

    WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a circular issued by Lord Curzon to Members of Parliament in which he says that the reasons against woman suffrage are as strong to-day as they were before the War, and that it would be in the highest degree undesirable and dangerous that any measure of woman suffrage should pass into law before it has been submitted to the full and considered judgment of the country; and if he has sanctioned the issue of this circular to Members of Parliament expressing views on a controversial political question which the Cabinet will be called upon to decide?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had not seen this circular until my attention was called to it by the question. It was signed by Lord Curzon, not in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, but as an officer of an outside association, which did not purport to state the views of His Majesty's Government.

    RUSSIAN FLAX.
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the arrangement made whereby

    1857
    British flax merchants are prohibited from buying or selling Russian flax or tow is causing dissatisfaction amongst British merchants, many of whose businesses are being ruined in consequence; whether he is aware that although the leading flax spinners were consulted with regard to the scheme they disapproved of it, and that the flax merchants were not consulted and are unanimously opposed to the scheme; and whether further consideration will be given to the matter with a view to preventing unnecessary disaster to British merchants?
    Mr. FORSTER: Towards the end of 1915 there was a serious shortage of Russian flax in this country, and for this reason the Department was unable to obtain the full amount of linen goods required for military purposes. In order to secure adequate supplies of Russian flax and so far as possible to prevent unreasonable inflation of prices, it was decided to centralise the purchase of Russian flax in the hands of the four largest firms in the trade acting as Government agents. This course was rendered all the more necessary by the importance of organising transit and shipment to and from the port of Archangel. The scheme was adopted on grounds of public policy and was elaborated in close consultation with the leading flax spinners and merchants. It is not correct to say that flax spinners and merchants are unanimously opposed to the scheme, though criticism has naturally been expressed by private interests adversely affected. The arrangements for dealing with next season's crop are not yet settled, and I shall be prepared to consider any representations that may be made on the subject before coming to a decision.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that last winter, while the 3rd and 4th Battalions of the Tyneside Scottish Brigade were stationed at Warminster, the men were given a few days' leave and were informed that their fares would be paid; that, as some of the men had already paid cash for their fares, they were informed that the money would be refunded; that correspondence has been taking place with the War Office, the commanding officers, and the Paymaster, Southern
    1858
    Command, ever since last January, and that up to the present a settlement of the matter appears to be as far off as ever; and whether he will take steps to have the matter expedited?
    Mr. FORSTER: The investigation of the claims has been rather difficult, but I hope that the matter will be adjusted very shortly now.

    INFANTRY EQUIPMENT DESIGN.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether any claim for recognition or reward has been received at the War Office for designing pattern 1914 Infantry equipment from any officer or person other than the Mills Equipment Company; if so, will he state the nature of the recognition or reward; and to what officer or person has such been granted; (2) whether there is any documentary evidence at the War Office showing that a design for Infantry equipment was submitted by an officer prior to the Mills Equipment Company taking out a patent for such Infantry equipment; if so, can any explanation be given as to why a private company was permitted to take out such patents and charge royalties on the manufacture of an equipment the design of which was placed at the disposal of the War Office by an officer on the active list; and (3) whether any inquiry has taken place into the claims of the Mills Equipment Company to be the patentees of the 1908 and 1914 Infantry equipment; if so, what is the result of such inquiries; and whether during the course of such inquiries payments of royalties have been suspended?
    Mr. FORSTER: In reply to these questions, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his question of 4th July. Inquiry into the whole question is being made, but meanwhile I am afraid that I have nothing to add to that answer.

    INDIA PRESS ACT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for India if Mrs. Besant has been required under the India Press Act to give a security of Rs.2,000 for the newspaper "New India"; if so, why has this security been imposed; is he aware that this action has created indignation throughout India; that 120 meetings of protest against the

    1859
    Government's action have been held; that every Indian paper of any standing has protested against the action and has demanded the repeal of the Press Act; that the Bombay Presidency Association has taken up the matter and is drawing up a memorial for presentation to the Government; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): Security of Rs.2,000 has been required from Mrs. Besant's paper "New India" on account of articles which were considered by the Government of Madras to tend to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in India and to excite disaffection. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion which by law vests in the local Government. I am not aware that every Indian paper of standing has protested, or that the action has created indignation throughout India.

    SUGAR SUPPLY.
    Sir W. ESSEXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been able to provide enough sugar to meet the requirements of fruit preservers, jam makers, etc.; or, if not, by what percentage does he estimate his shortened supply will necessitate their lessened purchases of the oncoming fruit crop of this year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Such arrangements have been made as will enable those who preserve upon a commercial scale to preserve the home-grown fruit up to their full capacity, provided that they pulp the fruit for which sugar is not immediately available and await the additional supplies which will be placed at their disposal later. These arrangements have been made in consultation with representatives of the preservers, and are, it is believed, quite satisfactory to the trade.

    DESTROYED PROPERTY (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is intended to make any grant or gift of money from the Treasury to any persons as compensation for property in Dublin destroyed or injured in the recent rebellion; if so, from
    1860
    what Vote will this money be taken and when will there be an opportunity of discussing it; and will he arrange that from the same Vote the necessary money is granted by the Treasury as compensation to the owners for property in the East Coast towns destroyed or injured by the bombardments and air raids from which they have suffered or may suffer at the hands of the Germans?
    Mr. McKENNA: A Committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir William Goulding to assess claims to compensation in the cases referred to in the first part of the question, and the necessary funds for payment of claims are being provided from the Vote of Credit, on which the usual opportunities for discussion arise. Since the institution of the insurance scheme against aircraft and bombardment risks, compensation has not been paid from other Government funds to owners of property in East Coast towns.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if it is not the fact that if the inhabitants of Yarmouth were to destroy their own houses and property they would be rebuilt by the Government, but if the Germans come and destroy them they have to rebuild them at their own expense?

    HAY (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the, Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture holds a compulsory power of purchase over all hay in the hands of farmers in this country, at a certain price; whether he can state for how long the power extends, so that farmers may know when they are free to sell hay which is not required for their own or for Government purposes; and whether hay bought by the Government is paid for as soon as the decision to buy is notified to the owner?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The power referred to in the first part of the question exists, but it is vested in the Army Council and not in the Board of Agriculture. This power will be exercised over all hay now standing or about to be harvested, but permission is being granted as rapidly as possible to farmers to sell any surplus over their own requirements and those of the Army. An advance payment of 50 per cent, is made within fourteen days of the notification of decision to

    1861
    buy, and 5 per cent, per annum, interest will be paid on the balance of the purchase money outstanding after the 31st October.
    Mr. FABER: Does the Government fix the price or does it vary?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that the Government fixes a maximum price. It varies downwards from that price according to scale.

    ALIENS (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens of Allied nationalities who have been registered as of military age, giving the separate figures for the different nationalities?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that the figures for which the hon. Member asks are not available, as the registration of aliens has not been generally effected in age groups. I understand, however, it may be possible to supply figures in regard to Russians of military age in London when the special registration which was recently undertaken is completed. I hope to be able to give the hon. Member this information as soon as the Returns are ready.

    BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the works of British Dyes, Limited, Huddersfield, are inspected by factory inspectors; whether inquiry has been made concerning accidents and ailments due to the conditions there; whether eczema is common in certain departments to such an extent that some workers cannot sleep at nights and are frequently invalided; and whether conscientious objectors sent to these works are now engaged in production of picric acid, a high explosive, the work in connection with which is of special unhealthiness?
    Mr. SAMUEL: During the current year twelve visits of inspection have been made to the works in question by the factory inspectors, and inquiry has been made from time to time in regard to accidents and occupational ailments. Eczema is liable to occur among workers engaged in the manufacture and handling of high explosives, but the cases at these works have not been very numerous, and have only caused disablement in a compara-
    1862
    tively few instances. I am informed that none of the conscientious objectors employed at these works are engaged in the manufacture of picric acid and other high explosives, and no complaints on this subject have been received by the Committee on Work of National Importance.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the residence of alien enemies at Buckfast Abbey, Devon; whether members of this community capable of bearing arms have been allowed to return to Germany; whether the censorship of letters, etc., is exercised by a naturalised German; and, if so, whether he is satisfied that the national security is in no way jeopardised by the residence of these alien enemies under the conditions now imposed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, only a proportion of the monks at Buckfast are of enemy nationality. Frequent inquiries have been made in regard to them since the War began, and it was decided, after consultation with the Chief Constable of Devonshire, that it was not necessary to remove them from the Abbey, but strict conditions have been imposed in regard to their movements. Three women, and three boys under military age, were allowed to return from the Abbey to Germany in 1915, in accordance with the international agreements. No men of military age have been allowed to return. The correspondence of the monks is supervised by the Abbot, who is a naturalised British subject. I understand that he is a native of Württemberg of French extraction. Any letters sent out of the country are also subject to the usual postal censorship. I have asked Sir Louis Dane and the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford, who, as the House is aware, are considering the cases of alien enemies allowed to remain in prohibited areas, to make further inquiries.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the Abbot is allowed to roam about the country without any objection?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot answer that without notice. He is a naturalised British subject.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact

    1863
    that five Austrians were turned out of their employment at the Commonwealth building in the Strand by the British working men employed there; can he say whether the Government had advised the firm to employ these Austrians, as stated by the sub-contractor; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend the employment of enemy aliens?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I find that five Czechs who had been employed on the building mentioned were withdrawn by their employers on account of their fellow workmen having taken exception to their presence. No recommendation of these men for employment has been made by my Department; but I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that the sympathies of the Czech race are regarded as generally favourable to this country, and Czechs have accordingly been given favourable consideration in the matter of exemption from internment. It is desirable that being at liberty they should be able to earn their living.

    GERMAN SHOPKEEPERS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a claim for exemption recently heard by the military tribunal at Brighton, in which exemption for six months was granted to a tailor who stated that he was in partnership with a German who was released from internment on condition of his not residing on the South Coast; whether this German has a shop in London while his partner runs a shop in Brighton; and whether the tribunal was acting under any instructions in granting exemption to a man of military age in order that he might continue to manage a business for a German?
    Mr. LONG: My attention has not previously been called to this case, but I am having inquiries made.

    SHAREHOLDERS IN BRITISH COMPANIES.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the shares in the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, registered in the name of a German company, have been vested in the Public Trustee; and whether the Board of Trade propose to sell such enemy shares in order to stop the profits accruing even nominally for the benefit of an enemy?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The shares in the companies referred to which were registered in the name of a German company have been vested in the Public Trustee, and the method of dealing with these shares is at present under consideration.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the practical monopoly of the supply of boiler tubes suitable for water-tube boilers in this country is in the hands of the British Mannesmann Tube Company, and that, on the 30th June, 1915, of 15,000 ordinary shares and 19,000 preference shares in this company, 14,330 ordinary shares and 18,873 preference shares were held by enemy aliens resident in Germany; if this firm is a controlled establishment under the Munitions of War Act; and if any steps have been taken under the Trading With the Enemy (No. 2) Act, 1916, to transfer the enemy interests in this concern to British shareholders?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The British Mannesmann Tube Company, Limited, is a controlled establishment under the Munitions of War Act. The right to transfer the shares belonging to enemies has been vested in the Public Trustee, who informs me that he has now completed negotiations for their sale.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked what sums of money have been received by the Public Trustee in connection with transfers of shares in Suter, Hartmann and Rangens, Limited, and Holzapfels, Limited, from alien enemies to British subjects?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The amount received by the Public Trustee on the sale of enemy shares in Suter, Hartmann and Rangens Composition Company, Limited, is £35,725. The enemy shares in Holzapfels, Limited, have not yet been sold, as the necessary inquiries with regard to certain shareholders whose names indicate that they may be of enemy nationality are not yet complete.

    CHANGES OF NAMES.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked whether at the present time any firm of alien origin can change their name and trade under an English name without permission or consent from the Board of Trade or any other Department?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Aliens Restriction (Change of Name) Order, 1914, prohibits absolutely any such action on the part of an alien enemy, but there is ho such restriction in the case of an alien not an enemy.

    POLICE AND PRISON OFFICERS (LONDON).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a resolution from the police and prison officers of London, asking for an increase of pay of 5s. per week in view of the increased cost of living; and whether he proposes to grant the increase?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that I am not able to add anything to the reply which I gave as regards the police to the hon. Member for North Kerry on the 25th May last, and, as regards prison officers, to the answer which I gave to their petition forwarded through the Prison Commissioners.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the police under the control of the local authorities in different parts of the country are allowed a war bonus?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend has forgotten that the Metropolitan Police have also had a war bonus.
    Mr. THORNE: A very small one.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the importance to the community in general of the inquiries now proceeding, he will consider the desirability of having the evidence given before the Committee on Food Prices printed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I will consult the Committee on Prices with reference to the point raised by my right hon. Friend.

    ABSTRACTOR CLASS (PAY).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Treasury have just recently sanctioned
    1866
    an increase of pay both to the temporary men and women employed in Government Departments, he can now see his way to give an increase of pay to men of the abstractor class who are feeling the burden of the increased cost of living?
    Mr. REA (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. This question is at present under consideration.

    FOOD SUPPLIES (HOME-GROWN).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will inform the tribunals of the Prime Minister's decision that the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies is for this year and next an essential object of the first importance?
    Mr. LONG: I presume my right hon. Friend refers to the reply given by the Prime Minister on the 11th May last. If he will refer to Section 10 of the circular issued to tribunals on the 1st June last he will find that the Prime Minister's statement has already been communicated to tribunals.

    SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (CHEPSTOW).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, as a result of the establishment of a new shipbuilding industry at Chepstow, the population of the town is likely to be more than quadrupled during the next-five years; and whether, in order to ensure that the health and convenience of its inhabitants shall be properly secured, he will require the local urban district council immediately to prepare a town-planning scheme or schemes?
    Mr. LONG: I am aware of the facts in regard to the contemplated establishment of a new shipbuilding industry at Chepstow, and I am in communication with the town council on the subject of the preparation of a town-planning scheme or schemes.

    VENEREAL DISEASES.
    Major ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board whether

    1867
    any and, if so, how many councils of counties and county boroughs have not yet submitted to the Board any scheme for providing that diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission in their Report dated 11th February, 1916, and promised by him on behalf of the Government to a deputation of the National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases on 14th April, 1916?
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend does not realise that it takes some time and consideration to evolve documents containing the technical and administrative details which the Department's Order and circular comprise. I am as anxious as he is that the scheme shall be set going, and I can assure him that there has been, and will be, no avoidable delay.

    SHELL TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the use of the words "transport and trading" in the title of the Shell Transport and Trading Company; whether he has considered if it is a false trade description within the scope of the definitions given under Section 3 of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, inasmuch as it implies that that company, which is of British character, is carrying on the business of transport and trading in the products of the Royal Dutch group of companies, whereas the business in question is, in fact, under the control of a foreign company; and, if so, whether some action will be taken in the matter in order that this British cloak to a foreign-controlled concern may be removed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion in the question, and I see no reason for any action in the matter.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Shell Transport and Trading Company and the Bataafsche Company (through its subsidiary company the Consolidated Company) between them hold 40,374,000 lei out of a total issue capital of 60,000,000 lei in the Astra Romana Company, or 67.23 per cent, of such capital; and whether he will ascertain the percentage
    1868
    of capital which was held by the Shell Transport and Trading Company and the Bataafsche Company and/or by nominees or subsidiary companies of either on the date when war was declared between Germany and Russia, the percentage, now held, and if there has been any change in the holding during the interval the date on which such change was made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the information given in my previous answers with regard to certain shareholdings in the Astra Romana Company. I am informed by the Shell Transport and Trading Company that there has been no change since the beginning of the War in the percentage of the Astra Romana Company's shares held by the Shell Company or any of their associated companies.

    MALT AND BARLEY.
    Sir G. YOUNGERasked whether the export of malt and barley is to be prohibited, and when public intimation of the fact will be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The export of both barley and malt has been prohibited to all destinations abroad except British Possessions and Protectorates—barley by Proclamation dated 10th November, 1914, and malt by Proclamation dated the 3rd February, 1915.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Have any licences been allowed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes; a certain number of licences have been granted.

    ITALY.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement or convention has been signed by the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of His Majesty's Government with the Italian Government, and, if so, what are the terms, or what is the purport, of such agreement?
    Lord R. CECIL: So far as I know, His Majesty's Government have only received telegraphic reports of the proceedings at Pallanza, and the substance of what has been received has been published in the Press. Beyond that I am afraid I am not in a position to go.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Can the Noble Lord say when he will be in a position to make an announcement in Parliament about this?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot say. I am afraid we must wait until we hear from the President of the Board of Trade. We do not know any more than has been published, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Does the Noble Lord expect the President of the Board of Trade to telegraph what he has done before the House rises?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am told that he will be back to-morrow night, and in that case he will take the burden from my shoulders and put it on his own.

    Infectious Paralysis.
    Commander BELLAIRS(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Local Government Board what immediate steps are to be taken in regard to the alarming outbreak of infectious paralysis in New York in order to prevent its spread to this country?
    Mr. LONG: We are fully acquainted with the facts of the case and with the nature and history of this disease, as far as it is known, and of the steps which are taken in New York. Cases of this disease have occurred here for a long period. The ordinary administrative machinery for the protection of this country is sufficient, and no special steps are, I consider, called for in respect of this disease.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, when a soldier in receipt of a pension is admitted to a lunatic asylum, any part of his pension is paid to the asylum authorities; and, if so, what arrangements are made for his wife and family?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield.
    Mr. HOGGE: What arrangements are made?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will look at the numerous answers I have given he will see that the matter was fully dealt with.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any provision is made for financial assistance in the case of an only son, unmarried, who threw up a good position to enlist, who has been promoted to a commission, and whose widowed mother has, since his promotion, lost all her means of support and been rendered destitute?
    Mr. FORSTER: Assistance is given in certain respects by the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee if there was dependance before joining the Army.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is there any provision for a case of this kind of an officer whose mother has been rendered destitute and who has absolutely no means of support?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope in such a case the officer or those who are interested in his case would make application to those bodies which have authority to deal with the question.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it not the case that the fund for civil liabilities only deals with a few specific questions like rent and insurance, and provides nothing at all for the maintenance of a dependant?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is so.
    Mr. SCOTT: Then will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, whether any provision is made for a case of this kind?
    Mr. FORSTER: What the hon. Member wants to get out of me and what I say quite frankly is that Army funds do not provide separation allowances in the case of officers' dependants. Where officers' dependants are in need of assistance there are bodies—the Statutory Committee and the Civil Liabilities Committee—to which application should be made.
    Mr. SCOTT: Has the Statutory Committee power to give allowances in these cases?
    Sir E. CARSON: Does not this fact, that the separation allowance is lost, prevent many men from taking commissions?
    Mr. FORSTER: I know it has prevented some. I cannot say how many.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that numbers of discharged soldiers are not receiving the 10s. or 20s. per week (single or married, as the case may be) which had been promised them pending decision of question of pension; is he aware that some of these men are said to be destitute, and that in one case of a wounded man his wife had had to maintain him by charing, as he had been given nothing to live on; is he aware of the feeling of disappointment of any adequate steps being taken by the War Office to meet this provision of temporary need; and will he give directions that soldiers shall be kept on pay till their cases have been disposed of, and that then, if adversely disposed of by the War Office, that the War Office should intimate the fact to the local committee of the Naval and Military War Pensions Statutory Committee, so that they can be automatically dealt with by that body?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry to have to acknowledge that there has been delay in a number of cases. Efforts have been and are being made to expedite the issue of these allowances. Real progress has been made, but there is room for further improvement. I am giving the question my close personal attention daily, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that everyone is most anxious to get the matter satisfactorily arranged as soon as possible.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to continuing the men on pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are very considerable drawbacks to doing that, but if I cannot get this man a proper arrangement in the course of the next few days I shall be driven to take the course the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Andrew Barton, No. 37652, 18th Cheshire (Labour) Battalion; whether he is aware that this man became a victim to diabetes and has been discharged without any allowance or pension; and whether, in view of the fact that the man is at present, and will be for some time, unable to do any work, he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to granting the man some means of support?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result as soon as possible.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) how the Statutory Committee proposes to deal with the suggestions received during the Debate on pensions; whether they propose to make any alterations; and (2) whether it is intended to set up any appeal from pensions granted by the Statutory Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Member should have addressed these questions to me as representing the Statutory Committee. Regulation 37 was the subject of most of the criticism directed against the Regulations during the Debate. This will be discussed at the conference which is being arranged by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool between representatives of the mayors and of the Statutory Committee. Other points raised in the House can be dealt with in the instructions which will shortly be issued with the Regulations. I gave reasons during the Debate why the Regulations should be issued as soon as possible rather than with alterations which might involve delay. I am not aware that there is any intention to set up any appeal from, pensions granted by the Statutory Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has my right hon. Friend given instructions as to the suggestions made in the course of Debate, and are those recommendations being dealt with?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The suggestions made are being considered.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to ask leave, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the Financial Secretary to the War Office to Question No. 41, this afternoon, about discharged soldiers, to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The failure of the War Office to carry out the promise made in May last to pay discharged soldiers a weekly allowance of 10s. if single, and 20s. if married, until such time as their pensions have been determined by the Chelsea Commissioners, and to the acute

    1873
    distress prevalent, as a consequence, among discharged men, wounded or diseased, as the result of service."
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past eight this evening.

    NEW MEMBER SWOWN.
    Charles Augustin Hanson, Esquire, for the County of Cornwall (South-Eastern or Bodmin Division).
    BILL PRESENTED.
    COURT OF SESSIOX (EXTRACTS) BILL,—"to amend the form of warrant of execution on extracts of decrees of the Court of Session and to provide for the means of making and the authentication of such extracts," presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; supported by Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

  SPECIAL REGISTEE BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Before I proceed to make some observations upon this Bill, I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, on two points with reference to the Bill. I have intimated to the Prime Minister that I intended to do this, and it is, first, as regards the title of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill to make provision for framing a special register of electors. The two points I wish to ask are, first, whether on a Bill with that title it would be possible in Committee to raise the question of extending the franchise to soldiers and sailors as such, and, secondly, whether under such a title it would be possible to so amend the Bill that machinery might be set up to enable sailors and soldiers and other persons who are absent on war work to record their votes?
  Sir JOHN SIMON: May I put this further question? Is the title of the Bill such as to make it possible in case of need to propose in Committee extension of the franchise to women?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is not free from difficulty and doubt. I have had the opportunity of consulting the Chairman of Ways and Means with regard to it. I have come to the conclusion that the general scope of the Bill is to enable those persons who are engaged in war work and who have forfeited their qualification as electors to have that disability removed, and also to enable persons who under ordinary circumstances would have been qualified as electors had war not taken place to come into those rights
  1892
  which they would have obtained if the abnormal conditions under which we have been living for the last two years had not prevailed. I do not think that an Amendment to enfranchise soldiers and sailors and women and other classes of the community, which are not specially contained in this Bill, would be admissible in Committee. If accepted, the result would be that instead of the Bill being a Bill for setting up a special register, it would come out as a Bill adding large numbers, millions, to the franchise, and that, therefore, it ought to be really a Franchise Bill. On the other hand, a certain number of people who have no qualification are under this Bill to be admitted to the franchise, and if the House thinks fit to enable others to be registered, I think the House might do it by means of an Instruction. The proper course, therefore, if hon. Members wish to have soldiers and sailors as such, or women, qualified and introduced on to the register, would be to move an Instruction to that effect, and then the House will have a clear opportunity of deciding whether or not those classes are to be admitted. Having taken that decision, the admission could afterwards be made and the necessary provisions could be inserted in the Bill to enable those particular classes to appear on the register.
  With regard to the second question, as to whether an Amendment could be moved setting up machinery to enable those included on the register to record their votes wherever they may be serving away from the constituency in which they are registered, I do not think that could be done either by Instruction or by an Amendment. That is clearly an Amendment of the Ballot Act, and it would require a separate Bill to enable polling booths to be set up in Mesopotamia, or in other places, and to institute modifications of the Ballot Act—e.g., the taking of votes openly, as in the case of university elections, or whatever other process might suggest itself to the House as being a suitable one. I think that would have to be done by a separate Bill.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir E. CARSON: I shall have something to say later on the two points which you, Sir, have just ruled. They are, as the House will at once see when we come to examine the Bill, very important points upon the question as to whether this is a real Bill or whether it is a sham Bill. In any view of the matter, I cannot

  1893
  help regretting that this Bill has some on at this late period of the Session, and I am not saying that for the purpose of Scoring any critical points as regards the Government, but solely and only because of the very vast and far-reaching importance of this Bill, as I hope to show in a few moments to the House. A Bill is brought in which assumes that there may be an election upon this register during the War, and I ask the House at the outset to notice that that means that upon this register you may have a Parliament elected for five years, which Parliament may have the whole conduct;—that is, through the Ministry of the day of course—of the peace negotiations, and which may have the framing of the whole policy in the three or four years after the War, and the whole question of provision and status as regards our sailors and our soldiers returning from the front. A Bill like that is probably of more importance to the country and is immediately connected with the emergency war legislation, more immediately than people at first sight might imagine, and all we are told about this Bill is if you like to take it as it is and as we have framed it, you can have it before the Recess, and if you do not it must go over. I think that that is an extremely unsatisfactory way of dealing with such an important matter. Who is to elect the Parliament of which I spoke, and the importance of which nobody can deny? In a rough calculation which I have had given me, and which I do not put forward as being anything more accurate than a rough estimate, it is calculated that there are 2,000,000 men with the Colours who would, but for the War, have the vote. That is a quarter of the whole electorate of this country. I believe that the electorate is, roughly, about 8,000,000. I am not for the moment going to touch upon any question of enfranchisement. I shall say something about that before I sit down. Let us see what the Bill does. It purports to retain their qualification for those 2,000,000 people and for some others who, to put it shortly, are not in khaki, but who are engaged on important war work and have been moved about. So far as that goes, not only do I think it is reasonable, but I think it is just and essential.
  At the same time, while it does that which appears so fair, a very cursory examination of the Bill and consideration of the circumstances will show that, in
  1894
  reality, it leaves the sailors and soldiers disfranchised during the War. Therefore they are to be debarred from having any say in the election of this important Parliament which is to regulate, or may, if there is an election, regulate, the destinies of this country, and certainly the conditions of these men who are fighting for us. You cannot stand over that proposition. Look what our Army is! We are not now dealing with professional conditions of these men who are fighting civilians who have left their jobs and their work, most of them out of a pure sense of patriotism, all certainly with a desire to win a victory for their country. They have not gone on a choice of profession in which you may foresee that you will be disfranchised, but they are men, the very heart of the country, who have gone out to fight its battles. Not one of these men, or hardly any of them, will for five years have a vote in regulating the destinies of this country should an election take place. Why do I say that they cannot vote? I suppose there are at least 1,500,000 of them at home. Can they vote? I think not. Can you bring up the 400,000 or 500,000 men, or whatever the number is, of your Army on the East Coast? Can they be marched off to the constituencies to vote? I believe it to be absolutely impracticable. Can you get even the munition workers to vote? Munition workers who have been taken perhaps from the Tyne and brought down to Woolwich, or sent to other distant places, from the North of Scotland to somewhere in the South of England—how are they to be brought to vote? I do not believe it is possible. Take the case of the wounded at home. Are they to be brought from the hospitals to the South of England, to the North of Scotland, or to Ireland, or wherever it may be? It is perfectly plain that they cannot vote. Then, as regards the men abroad. Of course, under the Bill, it is a physical impossibility that they should vote.
  A Parliament elected in these circumstances would not be a Parliament representative of the people. The worst part of it is that in my opinion it is the most deserving element in the country that is being left out. If we accept the Prime Minister's offer and let the Bill go through as it is, that is all we get. Well, it is of no use. We must have an opportunity of raising this question. Your

  1895
  ruling, Sir, says that we cannot raise that question upon this Bill. Then we must press the Government to bring in a Bill which will enable us to raise it. Of course, the Prime Minister says, and there is a great deal of argument to be used on that side, that it is impossible to evolve such a machinery as would be necessary to enable these men to vote. It certainly is not impossible in this country, whatever it may be abroad. But I do not believe that, if you approach it with good will and with the desire to do it, it is impossible. You can very easily draw an amusing picture, as the Home Secretary did the other day, of ballot boxes in the midst of the trenches, and all the rest of it. The truth of the matter is that officers, to many of whom I have spoken, have told mc that, although, of course, it would be a troublesome thing, there is no real substantial difficulty in carrying out a procedure to enable these votes to be recorded. I would remind the House that Australia, New Zealand, and Queensland, have all set up machinery for that purpose, and so have British Columbia who, within the last few days in this country have been taking the votes of the soldiers at Bramshott Camp. I have here a letter from a gentleman, whom I have not the pleasure of knowing, who has been engaged in carrying out that election. He says:
  "I last week held a poll at Bramshott Camp for the I British Columbia General Election. There was no difficulty. I had a hastily collected band of amateur helpers, and we polled about 1,700 men in eleven hours. It was a rush, because the Regiment was just off to France, as you know. The voting qualification was six months residence in British Columbia immediately previous to enlistment, one month of which must have been in an electoral district. Being British subjects, no age limit at all. Bach man had to make an affidavit to the effect that he was qualified, and I then gave him his voting paper. It was all very simple, and I think we polled over 75 per cent, of possibles. It seems to me a very good example for us to follow."
  It is not necessary for me at this stage to argue the different ways in which it could or might be done. All I can say is, that I do not believe the House ought to allow these sailors and soldiers to the extent of one-fourth of the electorate to remain disfranchised during the War without having the matter properly threshed out in this House. I know that putting forward these points will cause delay. Nobody is more anxious than I am that there should be no delay. Therefore, I make two propositions. First, if the Government will themselves undertake to set up machinery by Order in Council, get-
  1896
  ting a very short Act for that purpose, to try and have the votes recorded, I am quite willing that this Bill should become law even as it is, although there are many things in it, as I shall show, which I do not like. Secondly, so that there may be no delay in going on with the registration, if the Government will undertake to bring in a Bill after the Recess with a view to having that discussed and seeing if we can set it up, I as far as I am concerned will allow this Bill to become law so that we may proceed with the registration. But I do not think we should be doing our duty to these sailors and soldiers, nor indeed to the country at large, if we were not to make any effort or to have any discussion as to how these matters can be carried out. I would like to make this suggestion. I hope, if the Bill is to go over, that my right hon. Friend, who is such a thorough expert in these involved and complex electoral laws, will consider whether he cannot simplify the machinery under this Bill. He will really find when he comes to carry out the Bill that he has undertaken a Herculean task. If you are really going to trace under present circumstances every man who was qualified and every man who might have been qualified if he had stayed here, if you are going to submit that matter to canvassing agents, party agents, overseers, and revising barristers, you will have a fund of litigation and an amount of delay to which it is difficult to set any limit.
  I do not profess to be an expert upon these matters, nor do I profess even to know the law in regard to them; but I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he might consider this point: Can you not make a comparatively full list without going through all these difficult steps? For instance, take the soldiers and sailors—and I am giving not my own suggestion now, but -a suggestion from a very experienced town clerk who wrote to me this morning. He suggests that there ought to be separate lists for soldiers and sailors, with their registered number, their name, and their home address, and that these should be forwarded to overseers, or clerks of the Crown, or peace, or whoever are the proper officials, and in that way you would get just as good a register as going through all the usual formalities. I do not believe in many places there are these canvassing agents, or even election agents, and I am perfectly sure there is

  1897
  a considerable shortage of all the necessary official resources. I believe, however, that we would make a great advance in registration law if some sort of system that would be more or less automatic could be set up, and I am not at all sure that this is not a very good time to commence it—when driven to see what you can do! There are one or two points which are Committee points, but I only want to show the reasons why I do not think the Bill should be hurried through. There are other points which require consideration. One is in the second Section. I am told by election agents—for I have not had time since I got a copy of the Bill to examine into the various Acts—that this would probably allow certain of the electors, or certain of the claimants, to be registered in two places. That is a matter which certainly ought to be looked into so as to take care that there is no duplication of voters. [Laughter.] I quite understand those cheers, but I am not going to be drawn into party politics, even although there may be a question of party politics arising on the next Bill—at least, I am told so by some of my Friends; but I do not attach very much importance to it myself.
  An HON. MEMBER: Oh!
  Sir E. CARSON: My observation is germane to the cheers, or ironical cheers, which I have just received. There is another point—and I have not been able to look into it in the short time at my disposal—but I am told that Section 4 has a good deal of the usual legislation by reference. I am told that under that there is a considerable power by Order in Council to enlarge the definition of war work. I think this House ought to say who is to vote, and who is to be put upon the register, and not an Order in Council. Those persons who are war workers may be settled by Order in Council! These are matters which, I think, require some consideration. That is all the criticism that I have to make upon the Bill as it stands at present, but I have, I think, said enough to show that I do not think the House ought to part with this Bill without seeing whether we are really fairly dealing with these people who constitute a quarter of the electorate. As regards the wider question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a very powerful app to the House upon the
  1898
  last occasion when this matter was before us. Nobody would deny the force of what he said. I am sorry that he said that even if we wished to go on to give the soldiers and sailors votes, neither he nor his colleagues would help us.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)dissented.
  Sir E. CARSON: Yes, you said you would not attempt it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? What I said was that, for reasons which I gave, it would let in so many other things and flood the whole thing.
  Sir E. CARSON: As I have already said, I believe that the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors stands upon a different basis from any other extension of the franchise. I do not believe that those who put forward the franchise for women do not themselves see that distinction. I cannot for a moment believe that they would think—and certainly I know that some of them do not think—that by opposing soldiers and sailors who are out in the trenches, going over the parapets, and facing machine guns, their cause will be fostered or improved, or by saying in the middle of the War, "We will not allow these men to be enfranchised unless we are." As you, Mr. Speaker, have given a ruling that it can be done, certainly, so far as I am concerned, I believe that in creating any register after such a war as this, and in giving any facilities for getting on the register, in depicting, in picturing to ourselves the sufferings and the hell through which these men have gone and are going, it would be beneath the dignity of this House to refuse, at all events, to discuss in a friendly manner, as I hope it would be in every quarter of the House, whether you would not confer the freedom of the country upon our heroes.
  Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown clearly enough that this Bill could not possibly be regarded as a Bill which provided on wide or logical lines for an extension of the franchise to all who are entitled to exercise it, and so far, I believe, the whole House will be of his opinion. Indeed, the Prime Minister, when he sketched out this Bill a couple of days ago said as much, for he told us that the Bill could

  1899
  only be regarded as a makeshift and as a stop-gap, and was perfectly willing to join any who might hold that large classes would remain excluded who ought to be included in the scope of a national franchise. I should like, in a few sentences, to point out, even if we were to accept the scope of this Bill as covering all classes who ought to exercise the vote, it is, as a matter of fact, a Bill which can only be made to work after a great deal of complication and technicality. It seems to me quite certain that this special register, whether or not it be the best that can be devised, is a special register which will be very difficult to make, and which, when made, will be very difficult to use. It is very difficult to make, because of these very technicalities to which my hon. Friend referred. Take a single instance, the instance of the lodger. If it is right that the war worker should have a vote, the real ground on which he ought to have his vote is because he is doing war work, and not because before he started doing it he happened to be a lodger. It is perfectly plain that the inquiry which will have to take place before you ascertain who ought to be put on such a register will be of a most anxious and difficult kind. You will have to ask whether in the days before the War a given individual had begun to lodge in lodgings, of a value of, and, in circumstances which, in course of time, would give him the vote. Very possibly the identical individual in the meantime has not only joined the Army or the Navy, but unhappily has been invalided from wounds or illness, has returned to civil life, and is a lodger or an occupier somewhere else, and is all the time, in course of getting his vote somewhere else. Whether it is intended that party agents or local officials shall find out these things I am perfectly confident it will be a task extremely expensive to discharge, and a task which, in the nature of things, cannot possibly be discharged at all well.
  Then comes the second point. After you have made your list, what are you going to make of? How are you going to set up your register? It will be, so far as men are added to it by this Bill, a register of absentees. Every man who has taken part in a contested election—I am not quite sure whether an exception must not be made in the case of University Members—
  Sir E. CARSON: I have had a very heavy contest with a great many absentees, and with some voters from Switzerland.
  Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend will agree with me about this—with the experience that he has shared—that the difficulty, even with a comparatively small proportion of your voters are absentees is extreme, and this is really a Bill which is going to add a series of absentees to the register, and going to do nothing else! When this is all done, what have you got? You have, on the common admission of everybody in the House of Commons, a register which does not represent the people who are fairly entitled to vote. I should like to illustrate that for a moment, not by a reference to the case of the soldiers and sailors—though for my own part I agree with my right hon. Friend that I cannot think that anybody who is in favour of a wide extension of the franchise wishes to limit the vote to soldiers and sailors, or to those particular persons who hold certain technical qualifications—I would illustrate it by a reference to another class that comes prominently forward as an illustration in these Debates. Just consider what, at this moment, is the position of women in this matter? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he spoke on Monday, referred to the women citizens of this country. After referring to the work which they were doing during the War, and the claim which it might be said to give them for consideration in enfranchisement proposals, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "What is more, and this 15 a point which makes a special appeal to me, they say that when t he War comes to an end, and when these abnormal and, of course, to a large extent transient, conditions have to be revised, and when the process of industrial reconstruction has to be set on foot, have not the women a special claim to be heard on the many questions which will arise directly affecting their interests, and possibly meaning for them large displacements of labour?—"
  The Prime Minister went on to say:
  "I cannot think that the House will deny that, and I say quite frankly that I cannot deny that claim."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th August, 1916, col. 145.2]
  To return to the question: What is the purpose for which this special register is going to be used? The speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows quite clearly that it is in his contemplation, as it must be in the contemplation of others, that it may be used for the purpose of creating this Parliament of reconstruction which is required after the

  1901
  War. As it appears to me, whatever be the view taken by the advocates of women's enfranchisement of this Bill, they are standing on very firm ground when they say, whatever else you do you must not set up this special register, admittedly so imperfect, admittedly excluding large classes which possibly ought to be included from one point of view or another, not merely for the purpose of a by-election during the War, or peradventure for a General Election during the War, but for the purpose of creating a Parliament which, after the War, is going to deal with and try to solve these problems of reconstruction. I know it is said—it was said by the Prime Minister—that you cannot approach this difficult and vital question now because of the inevitable preoccupation and strain and stress which lies upon any man who has a public duty to discharge in guiding the destinies of the country. Does anybody really think that the moment the War is over we are going to find ourselves in a time without stress or strain, and that that is the moment we are going to have abundant leisure for considering these difficult matters? I believe that, great as is the strain and stress under which the public business is now being conducted, the strain and stress which we may expect when we enter upon a period of reconstruction will be, in its own order and manner, quite as great. It is a hopeless proposition to say that these matters cannot be considered now, and that once the War is over we shall all have leisure and opportunity to solve them.
  There is a second reason. In order to solve these questions, you need not only time and opportunity, but you need atmosphere and temper in which they can be solved, and it would appear to me that, whatever may be the overwhelming preoccupations of Ministers—and I know well they are infinite—still there are an atmosphere and a temper both in the House of Commons and in the country now which are favourable to considering problems of this sort. Are we, therefore, really acting wisely if we proceed on the assumption that the atmosphere and the temper will be better and more hopeful for the solution of such problems when the anxiety of War is over, and these complex questions of reconstruction are pressing to be solved, Therefore I would, with great respect, j the right hon. and
  1902
  learned Gentleman opposite, if I may, in saying I do hope the Government will consider whether there is not a simpler way of dealing with the class of question now presented for consideration. Whatever else is done, I submit it cannot be right, it cannot be justified, to say to the women in one breath, "You are persons who, when problems of reconstruction come to be solved, will have a right to be heard," and yet to say, "We propose a special register from which you are necessarily excluded, and we provide in Clause 3 of our Act that this special register may continue to operate and be the basis of a new Parliament long after the War is over." I do not know whether the House has observed the language of Clause 3, which provides that the special register now proposed shall be created, in the course of the next few months I suppose, and shall come into operation next May, 1917. It is then to exist for a year from May, 1917, to May, 1918, and the Clause provides and authorises that, unless Parliament otherwise directs, there is to be a repetition of the process. There is to be a recreation of the special register, not in the coming winter, but in the winter after. There is to be a special edition of the register which is to come into operation in May, 1918, and will continue in operation until May, 1919. But, supposing that the War is concluded by our own victory before that time; supposing it is brought to a conclusion in the course of next year, surely you cannot, in common fairness, ask women suffragists to say, "Never mind, we accept the special register, from which we are excluded, on the ground that such subjects cannot be considered in time of war," and pass a Bill by which that special register may be the basis on which Parliament can be elected even as late as May, 1919?
  Whatever else is done, if this Bill is to be carried through, surely it ought to be qualified by saying that this special register is a special register for the period of the War, and it may be for a few months after, and not a special register which may last through 1917 and 1918, even although during the whole of that time we were actively engaged on the work of reconstruction. I would use the right hon. and learned Gentleman's illustration of the soldiers and sailors. Both of them represent the same point to this degree; both are classes in respect of

  1903
  whom a very strong argument can be made that no Parliament of reconstruction is reasonably possible unless their views are represented and expressed. That is why I think there is real common ground between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has said and what I have endeavoured to put from the women suffrage point of view, in urging that we must face such a Bill as this as being at the very best a mere stop-gap, a stop-gap which, I dare say, it may not be able to improve more than here and there, but which is a stop-gap that does not solve any franchise problem whatever. Since there has got to be, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as well as the Government themselves, some little delay, would not it really be better to see whether a simple residential qualification for adult suffrage could not be the basis on which the Parliament of reconstruction should be built up? If that were resolved upon, I cannot believe that, in the present temper both of the House of Commons and the country, it might not be possible, I do not say to devise one scheme, but, at any rate, to devise alternative schemes on which the House of Commons might be invited to judge. Unless something of that sort is done, we are sailing straight for a position where we should all agree that soldiers and sailors should have votes because they are brave men, but where a very large part of the House of Commons and the country would feel that exactly the same argument shows that women should have votes because they have been brave women. The new Minister of Munitions, who has not been distinguished for his advocacy of women's suffrage—[HON. MEMBERS dissented]. I beg his pardon. At any rate, in the speech he made yesterday, he put the argument as strongly as it could be put. I would like to quote two sentences. He said:
  "It is not too much to say that our Armies have been paved and victory assured largely by the women of the munition factories … I ask the House to consider this, together with the work done by women in hospitals, in agriculture, in transport trades, and in every type of clerical occupation, and I would respectfully submit, when time and opportunity offer, it will be opportune to ask: Where is the man who would now deny to woman the civil rights which she has earned by hard work?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th August, 1916, cols. 1700–1701.]
  Sir F. LOWE: I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You have already ruled that the question of votes to women could not be raised under this Bill, as it
  1904
  is not a Franchise Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is devoting himself to a long argument in favour of women having the vote. I ask you, Sir, whether in view of your ruling earlier in the afternoon, that is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College had raised the question of the soldiers and sailors, and went at length into their case. I think, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow is entitled to put the case of women.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think my hon. Friend opposite has quite appreciated—it is my fault—the argument I was putting. I am not putting an argument per se for a particular franchise; I am pointing out, first, that the special register which this Bill provides is a makeshift, a miserable makeshift, which would be satisfactory to nobody; secondly, that from different points of view strong arguments can be put forward for extending the franchise and avoiding the technicalities which at present make it such a hopeless tangle, and the argument is intended to lead to this suggestion, that the Government could even now take advantage of the spirit of the House, and the obvious necessity of solving those problems, before we try to reconstruct the State, by seeing whether some short residential qualification could not—as a result, it may be, of referring this Bill to a Select Committee, with an instruction or suggestion—be evolved which would really meet the views both of one side and the other. It will never be the case that we shall all agree on this matter, but the temper in which this problem may now be approached is a temper which is not likely to be repeated, and upon the solution of this problem depends all sorts of things in the future. Take, for instance—I use it by way of illustration—the utterly absurd tangle in which Redistribution is going to be after the War. You obviously cannot approach the problem of Redistribution unless you know what you are going to redistribute, and with the return of the soldiers and sailors and the shifting of large bodies of population it is obvious that we cannot go on much longer without devising a Redistribution scheme which presupposes a reconstruction for the purposes of the franchise, and I would appeal to the Government to see that their own Bill is never going to

  1905
  satisfy anybody. It is impossible to try and bring other classes within it, without immediately raising claims from other classes with just as good claims. Consequently the real solution is to say now that the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of propounding a simple scheme for a national franchise which is based on a simple residential qualification.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to detain the House long. I expressed my views in almost excessive detail two days ago, but I think it is right at once I should rise to say, with regard to the two speeches to which we have just listened, that I do not quarrel with any of the general propositions laid down by either of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen, though I may quarrel with particular details later on. Let us see exactly how this stands. I believe there is a universal opinion in the House, and, if I may say so, in the country, that a General Election in time of war is a calamity; in fact, it is attended by so many disadvantages and drawbacks that there is not a single responsible man among us who contemplates it with anything but apprehension, and more than apprehension. I do not believe that any of the great free Allied democracies of the West of Europe, Italy and France, nor do I think Russia, contemplate a General Election in the course of this War. We certainly ought not to. Can anybody in this House or out of it imagine a more disastrous state of things at a time when, as we hope, our Armies, after long months of trial, will be approaching victory, when all the energies of the country, when all the hopes and all the thoughts of the country, will be absorbed in the War, that we should descend into the political arena and revive the old catchwords, restart the old party machinery, and devote ourselves to a futile and unmeaning controversy? I do not believe there is any difference of opinion in any quarter of the House. Then you may say, "If that is so, why do you have a register?" The answer, of course, is very simple: Under the law this Parliament comes to an end, unless it otherwise determines, on a certain date, and when that date arrives—I am not prejudging at all for a moment the question what the date ought to be—but when that date arrives, you must have in existence some machinery for the elec-
  1906
  tion of its successor. What is the alternative? In the first place, to bring about the great heroic measures which my right hon. Friend has just adumbrated, franchise reform in which the suffrage will be put on a solid and an equitable basis, in which soldiers and sailors, munition workers, and, as he says, women—I have already expressed my views about that—have an opportunity of recording their vote, you must devote weeks and months of Parliamentary time to a reconstruction of the Constitution of this country. Everybody agrees that is out of the question—no one more than my right hon. Friend.
  Sir J. SIMON: I really do not agree. I believe that such a solution will be found, not more complicated, but less complicated, than this Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, it is not quite material to what I was going to say. I agree entirely with him that with regard to the Parliament which is going to undertake the work of reconstruction after the War, it is eminently desirable that you should provide an electoral basis which will make that Parliament reflective and representative of the general opinion of the country, and give to its decisions a moral authority which you cannot obtain from what I may call a scratch, improvised and makeshift electorate. Let us by all means use the time—those of us who are not absolutely absorbed in the conduct of the War—in those months to see if we cannot work out by general agreement some scheme under which, both as regards the electorate and the distribution of electoral power, a Parliament can be created at the end of the War capable and adequate for discharging these tasks, and commanding the confidence of the country. More than that, in the meantime we have to deal with the actual situation. What are the alternatives? The present register is two years old; for effective purposes it is three. Suppose you have to have a General Election, which all would regrets—suppose by a chapter of accidents or by the effluxion of time this happens, can anyone contemplate without concern an election on a register three years old? A Parliament so elected would command no moral authority either in this country or in Europe.
  Major HUNT: This does not!
  The PRIME MINISTER: At any rate this Parliament was elected constitutionally with a full electorate. The War has produced such a displacement, of population that you cannot now, by any device whatsoever, bring into existence a register which will really represent the electors of the country as they ought to be represented. Take the case of soldiers and sailors. I am in entire agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend about their claim. I do not want to repeat my right hon. Friend's eloquent appeal to sentiments which are universal in all quarters of the House. If there is anyone entitled to be heard in the choice of the Parliament which is ultimately to determine our destinies after the War it is our soldiers and our sailors. Of course, you cannot stop there. But for the moment we must content ourselves, if we are to have a register at all, with something which is better than the existing one, though far short of what we should all desire. That is what we propose in this Bill. I know it is illogical. You can riddle every Clause with criticisms and objections. I do not defend it in the least as anything more than a stop-gap to meet an emergency. I never put it higher than that when I was speaking two days ago, and I do not put it any higher now. But it is better than the existing register in this respect, that it brings in people whose lives have not been disturbed or displaced by the War up to the 1st of November next, who have satisfied a statutory qualification and enables them to get upon the register where at present they are not. To that extent it is good.
  Further, as regards the war workers, including soldiers, sailors, and munition workers and all the other categories of workers enumerated in that class, it will enable a very considerable number who would have been disqualified by the interruption of the qualifying period to get upon the register, and if they are here, and if they can, record their votes. So far, I think everyone will agree that these are distinct improvements in the case of an election held upon the existing register; but that a Parliament so elected could claim to represent the considered opinion in the country I do not for a moment assert. As regards the mechanical difficulty to which my right hon. Friend alluded, I think he made a very good point—I mean the difficulty in regard to soldiers and sailors and others, who are not in the constituencies in which they are
  1908
  registered owing to the requirements of the ballot having to go back to their constituencies before they can exercise their votes. That is a real difficulty which ought to be met, and we shall propose to-meet it by a very short amendment of the Ballot Act, although it is not germane to-this Bill, which would provide machinery to deal with that case. My right hon. Friend must not misunderstand me—I am speaking of those who are here.
  Sir E. CARSON: Cannot it be left open to us to argue the other thing on the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have heard the case of British Columbia. There is a very interesting experiment going on at this moment in which the votes of British Columbia soldiers resident for the time being in this country who are inmates of this country temporarily, are being taken at the various camps; I do not know how far the experiment has been a success, but it is not proposed to take the votes of British Columbia soldiers who are at the front. That cannot be done and for reasons which I gave yesterday which might be elaborated, but which are not germane to the present Bill. I think that will prove a very difficult process and possibly an impossible one, and in this I think the military authorities will agree. As regards those who are here, I agree some modification of the Ballot Act ought to be made to meet these abnormal conditions. Now I come to the other point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon). I think what he said was very just, namely, that the Parliament elected on a register of this kind ought to be of a purely temporary character, and ought to exist only as long as the term of the War, with perhaps some few additional months, I will not say how many, and which should be regarded as a transitory, passing expedient to meet an emergency, and which, when the War is over, will cease to exist. The Government are quite prepared to accept an Amendment to meet that point. This is not confined to the case of women, but includes also the case of the soldiers. They will be coming home at the conclusion of the War, and they certainly ought to be in the same position as the women, and ought to have the same opportunity, and the register ought to be-

  1909
  shortened and treated as purely temporary in regard to both classes as, indeed, to all classes of voters.
  Having made those points as clear as I can, I want now to ask the House what course they propose or would suggest we should now take. The Second Heading of this Bill everybody will agree should be taken, but are we to take the Committee stage now or are we to hold it over until after the Adjournment? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the complexity of these various questions is so great that we had better hold it over. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] We cannot proceed without general consent, and I think my right hon. Friend holds the same view. If that general consent is not given we shall be content to ask the House to accept the Second Heading. On the other hand—I speak in no controversial spirit as far as the Government are concerned, because they have no interest in the matter—I would point out the great advantage of getting the thing into operation, imperfect as I think it is in all respects, as soon as you can. I say this for a special reason. This register, according to the terms of the Bill, is to come into operation on the 31st May. That date was chosen because my right hon. Friend and those who advise him who are conversant with local conditions assured us that it was impossible to compile a register so enormous before that time. I agree with all that was said about the labour which will be put upon overseers and local authorities. It is something enormous, because they are short-handed, and a great number of their ordinary assistants are away at the War. The machinery of party organisation usually applied for this purpose is paralysed and is practically non-existent, and the difficulties are much greater than under normal conditions. It is for this reason that the 31st of May was fixed. This has a bearing on the other point. In view of the extension of the life of Parliament, which is fixed also to continue until the 31st May—I will not say it is the sole reason, because we have followed the precedent of the last extension, which was for eight months—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Eight months is too long.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think we proposed twelve months at first, and Parliament cut it down to eight months. This
  1910
  time we are proposing eight months, a repetition of what Parliament agreed to last time.
  Sir E. CARSON: But the extension is more serious now.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not arguing that now, because it is not relevant to this Bill, but primâ facie it does not seem logical to extend the life of Parliament to a date at which there will be no register in existence. The same considerations which determined the various dates at which the register comes into operation determined also the date at which Parliament shall expire. It was for that reason the date was fixed as suggested in the Bill for the prolongation of the life of Parliament. If the Committee stage of the Registration Bill is left over until after the Recess it will be difficult to accelerate as I should like to accelerate it.
  Sir E. CARSON: Can we get a Committee stage now at all?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Why should we not? [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit on Saturday!"] I am not arguing this point in a controversial spirit at all, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is not. I am only pointing out what seems to me the considerations in regard to time which we ought to have in view before we come to a final decision. If this is the general will of the House, the Government will be perfectly prepared to agree to take only the-Second Reading before the Adjournment, at the same time promising, as I have promised, that we will make provision in a supplementary Bill for such an adjustment of the Ballot Act machinery as will remove the practical difficulties referred to by my right hon. Friend. As regards the Bill itself, I repeat once more that it is put forward not as a logical or a complete scheme or as anything but a very halting, lopsided, and temporary makeshift, which may or may not be seaworthy, and which,. I hope, we shall never have occasion to use, but which is better than any substitute which exists or has been suggested. I think that is about as modest a claim as has ever been made by a Minister. That is the actual state of the case, as everybody knows. I ask the House now to give the Bill a Second Reading, and we shall be guided by the general sense as to whether it will be a useful consumption of time to take the Committee stage before the Adjournment or wait, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests, until after the Recess.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir E. CARSON: If the matter stands over, would the Government consider the question whether we could not have a simpler procedure and in that way accelerate the register, though in the meanwhile we may have lost a few weeks?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, we will consider that question. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) is inclined to think that it might be done by Order in Council under the Bill as it stands.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Order in Council only preserves the law as it stands.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: The Prime Minister spoke with extreme modesty of his own recommendation of the Bill that he is asking the House to read a second time, and after the speeches that have been made there will be agreement in every part of the House that no very high claim can be put forward in favour of the measure, but I am bound to confess that the prospect is very much more attractive after the speech of the Prime Minister than it was before. The whole character of the Government proposal for dealing with the situation has been altered by the short speech which the Prime Minister has made, and we ought to be duly grateful for that change. It is perhaps a little bard to understand how the right hon. Gentleman has brought himself to make the announcement which he has just made to the House, for only a day or so ago, when speaking on the introduction of this Bill, he referred to the possibility of setting up machinery for enabling absent voters to record their votes, and he then said,
  "We have tried our very hardest to deal with that problem, but so far we have found it insoluble."
  I for one am very glad that the problem which was insoluble two days ago has been found soluble to day. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that by a perfectly simple amendment of the Ballot Act which he is prepared to bring forward this insoluble problem of a few days ago can be easily got over. Everybody must have been struck the moment that announcement was made with the reflection that if by a simple amendment of the Ballot Act the difficulty can be got over with regard to voters who happen to be at a distance from their constituency the moment an election takes place it might be possible by the same process to give the vote to men serving out of the country, as has been demanded by my right hon. and
  1912
  learned Friend below me (Sir E. Carson). The Prime Minister referred to the precedent of the election going on for the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia, and he told us that at the present moment votes are being given throughout this country in that election, but he laid great emphasis upon the fact that British Columbia soldiers, while voting as long as they are in England, are not voting when they are at the front. I should like some member of the Government to explain to us exactly what the Prime Minister meant when he drew that distinction between soldiers who are away from their constituencies and soldiers who are at the front. If under the amendment of the Ballot Act, which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a Scottish Highlander who happens to be quartered at Salisbury Plain is to be allowed to vote in an election, is he to be debarred from giving his vote if he happens to be at Havre or Rouen, or some other place just across the water? So far as the British Columbia soldier is concerned, I do not know by what process of thought or language he is any more at the front if he is serving in a hospital or in the commissariat department in Normandy or in Brittany than if he is at Salisbury Plain, or anywhere else in this country.
  I entirely fail to see that the right hon. Gentleman draws any clear logical distinction between the soldiers who are serving their country when he lays emphasis on the fact that they are not to vote when they are at the front. Of course, we all recognise that it might so happen at the time of an election that a certain proportion of our troops might be engaged in operations and so occupied that it would be impossible for them to record their votes, just as at ordinary election times there are a certain proportion of voters who are either out of the country on Government duty or engaged at sea, whether in the Navy or in the mercantile marine, and who, by virtue of the operations in which they are engaged, are precluded from recording their votes. That is a principle which we should all recognise, but if it has been found possible to solve this insoluble problem and by a simple amendment of the Ballot Act to give votes to voters absent from their constituencies, I would press very strongly upon my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long), who I suppose will be in charge of the Bill, that that principle should be extended so as to give the vote

  1913
  in the way we all desire to the soldiers and sailors who are serving their country.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), in his speech just now, brought forward an illustration of the sort of franchise question which he said would be involved if this Bill were enlarged. He claimed that the illustration that he gave of the demand for women's suffrage was on a par with the demand of my right hon. and learned Friend for the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow is and has been a distinguished advocate of women's suffrage. I, too, have been an advocate of women's suffrage, differing from him only in that I am undistinguished. But as an advocate of women's suffrage I do not for one moment suggest that at the present moment the two claims are or can be put upon an equal footing. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University that, however difficult it might be by any strict process of logic to show one claim to be paramount and the other claim to be negligible, the country as a whole will recognise the perfectly intelligent distinction to be drawn at the present time between men who are actually fighting and anybody else. The Prime Minister, the other day, when speaking about the munition workers, said they were doing equally important work in relation to the War. We all agree, because the fighters could not fight if they had not the munitions. They are both part and parcel of the same job; but, although they are doing equally important work, no one for a moment could allege that the munition workers are making the same sacrifice, and it is as a recognition of that sacrifice that we ought to treat the claim of these men to be directly represented in this House by the votes which they could give at the next General Election.
  The Prime Minister has said that it is vitally important that we should get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and with that I am in entire agreement. I am as anxious as anybody can be, and I have been anxious for a long time, that some improvement of the present register should be made; but surely it is a little remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, the other day, in introducing the Bill, should have spoke of the urgency of getting a register of some sort in operation at the
  1914
  earliest possible moment and should now ask, "Can anyone contemplate with equanimity an election on the present register?" when many of us in different parts of the House for months past have been doing our best to get him to come to some decision as to an improvement of this register. I remember putting questions to the Prime Minister as long ago as last January, asking him whether the Government were not going to do something to set up a register. We made that demand time after time, but we were always told, generally by the Prime Minister and sometimes by other members of the Government, that the matter was receiving their earnest consideration—that they were thinking it over, and would make their decision known as soon as possible. This House and the country at large have got a little tired of being told with regard to all these important matters that they are receiving the earnest consideration of the Government, and of the Prime Minister coming down to the House at the latter end of the Session, when the time before a six or seven weeks' Adjournment is to be measured by hours and not by days, and speaking of the urgent importance of getting some sort of register. It makes it difficult for us and for Members on all sides of the House to come to a decision in their own minds as to the course which ought to be adopted, because of the very short time that is left for the consideration of this or any alternative proposal. I think it is not going beyond our rights to make a most earnest protest against the Government treating us in this way. The chief reason it is so difficult for the House as a whole to come to a decision on the ultimatum—it is nothing less than an ultimatum—which has been fired at us from the Government Bench, that we are to take it or leave it, is that this Bill, as has been already said by the right hon. Gentlemen who are conversant with the working of these measures, is the most complicated and difficult Bill to work that you can possibly imagine.
  I venture to say that to deny that this Bill is a Franchise Bill as well as a Registration Bill is a mere pretence. After all, upon what does the suffrage in this country, under the existing law, rest? The basis of the suffrage is length and continuity of residence in some shape or form, either as owner, occupier, or as lodger. Under this Bill people who have not got, and never have had, the length of residence or the continuity of residence which

  1915
  has hitherto been considered as essential for the possession of the vote are to be given the vote. Therefore, if you are doing that, you are doing exactly what in 1867 and in 1885 was done by Franchise Acts; you are merely altering the length of residence, or the continuity of residence, which is essential for the franchise. Therefore, I say again that to declare that this is a mere Registration Bill, and that it does not radically alter, extend, and enlarge the suffrage is a mere playing with words, and is a misleading of the House with regard to the real nature of the Bill that is before us. In these circumstances, I do think it is very hard that we should have to determine in the course of an hour or so whether we are to incur the responsibility of hanging up this Bill for some months, with the possibility of making for a considerable time to come a distorted and obsolete register, or whether, as the only alternative to that, we are to accept a Bill making large changes in the franchise which we have not had time to consider, and making changes for which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has very clearly pointed out, there is absolutely no machinery in the measure to make it effective. On paper we are making changes, but as two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have already spoken have conclusively shown, we are merely setting up these changes on paper without creating the machinery by which the Bill can be made effective. For these reasons the Bill seems to me to be of very little value as it stands. Whether or not we are to accept the new position outlined by the Prime Minister, and the new proposals for making the Bill better, as I confess they do, is not a matter for me to decide. I have no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I look upon as my leader in this House, will consider the matter, and that he will advise those of us who usually act with him as to what course we ought to take. I shall be quite content to follow him.
  With regard to the situation as a whole, while I am inclined in the new circumstances to get the Bill into Committee, and to get on with it as far as we can, to improve it as much as we can, I must say that after the months and months of delay and long expectation held up before the country of improving and strengthening the register and providing for an eventuality which we all know may occur at any
  1916
  time, I am afraid the position in which we find ourselves to-day is extremely disappointing.
  Mr. DICKINSON: The Prime Minister has with great force appealed to the House to allow this Bill to go through all its stages before the Recess. I believe that is practically impossible. I have given most careful attention to its provisions, and I feel confident that when once this Bill gets into Committee the House will insist upon thoroughly testing its proposals, and that they will see that these proposals are quite unworkable. If that is so, what is the object of setting up a system which is not by any means perfect? We are told by the Prime Minister that he does not anticipate that this register will be used for any election during the War. He says it is almost unthinkable that there should be an election during the War, and with that contention I think almost all of us must agree. He also says that any Parliament after the War, a Parliament charged with reconstruction, ought not to exist except it is representative of the whole nation, and based upon a new franchise. If that is so, surely this register is going to serve no useful purpose, and it is going to involve the local authorities, Members of Parliament, candidates, and party funds all over the country in an enormous expense in doing a work which is almost impossible to be effective—and I shall show the House a little later why I say that—and, shall I say, for no practical purpose whatever that we can see at the present moment. What is proposed by the Prime Minister? He suggests that there should be some ultimate register upon a new basis. When is that going to be thought out? Are we going to be left again, as we were left a year ago or two years ago, under the idea that the Government and this House was really going to tackle the question of the franchise? Are we going to be left like that until the War comes to an end? Then we should find ourselves face to face with the necessity for having a General Election with this very inadequate register, the new or the old one. Are we not going to be given some chance of really thinking out this great question on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite Sir E. Car son), on the lines of setting up a franchise which will really represent all the people of this nation? I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here, but the right hon.

  1917
  Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill (Mr. Long) is, and I do hope that we shall not complete this discussion to-night without some assurance from the Government that they do mean to set up some kind of Committee of this House to set to work at once and devise some scheme for the franchise which is to take effect immediately after the War. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is not blameless, for it was he, to a large extent, who prevented us having that Committee set up a little while ago. I believe a Committee of that kind would help us very considerably, because one sees all through this House and all through the country a desire to come together on this great question of the franchise. What we want is to get some system by which the people of the country shall be fairly represented, and I do not believe that it is impossible, when we have laid aside party politics for the time being, for a Committee of this House to devise a scheme which shall really be a complete solution of the question.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite claimed a right to votes for soldiers and sailors. I do not believe there will be any difference of opinion in this House in regard to that. I believe that most people are anxious and willing to give the right of franchise to every man who has given a service to the country, and a sacrifice to the country, and it is because we are willing to take that as a new basis of electoral franchise that we at the present time who have stood up for women suffrage say that the same right must be conceded to women as is given to men. Women do not say, "Men shall not have the vote unless we have the vote." What they say is that if service and sacrifice of the individual are to be the basis of the franchise, where service and sacrifice are shown to have been exhibited by women they should give the same right to women as to men. The Prime Minister says that men have sacrificed and lost their lives in the trenches. Whose death was it that sounded like a clarion cry throughout the Empire more than any other? It was the death of a woman—Miss Cavell. Who have sacrificed their lives in the same way as men through fever, in the wards of hospitals, and elsewhere? Women. There is no doubt that when you go to the bed-rock of this question you will find that where service and sacrifice are to be a right to anything, that service and sacrifice has been
  1918
  given by women as well as by men. That is the only position we take up now. That is one question that will have to be considered by a Committee of this House, and I believe that in the present state of public opinion the Committee and this House will assent to that proposition. I do not want to argue women's suffrage. As has been pointed out, it is impossible, except by an instruction, to get it into this Bill, but it ought to be considered before the War comes to an end, and before questions of reconstruction are reached, questions which, as the Prime Minister says, concern women as well as men.
  Apart from that general question, I should like to say a few words upon the details of this Bill. The Bill has been suddenly thrown upon us. I do not remember any occasion, even during the present War, on which a Bill of this nature has been put into our hands with so little time for consideration before Second Reading, and I think it is probable that very few Members have really understood, or have had time to grasp, what is proposed with regard to registration. I have said that the scheme to be set up would be quite unworkable, and the more I consider it the more I am convinced that that is the case. At the present moment the local authorities, or call them the overseers, because that is the technical term, are the persons responsible for preparing the register. That task has been difficult undoubtedly, but it is, and has always been, restricted to their own area. The overseers have had to go round their own districts, and some have done their work well and others have done it badly, in order to find out the men entitled to vote in respect of qualifications within their own districts. That has been the system hitherto adopted. They have not been concerned with anybody who is outside their district. What will this Bill come to in effect? Let me take the first part of Clause 2. As I understand it, everyone who is on the old register—that is the 1914–15 Register—will, primâ facie, be entitled to have his name left there, but if he is not found in the constituency his name has to go off; it is not there. If, however, he happens to be a soldier, or a sailor, or a munition worker, or any of this large class of persons who are going to have this particular privilege given to them, he is entitled to have his name left on the register. How is that problem to be settled, as to who is to go off and who

  1919
  is to go on? It is a very big problem, I assure the House. In my own Constituency, 33 per cent. have already removed on that register, and I could point to other constituencies where no fewer than 50 per cent. have removed. Half the old register has gone, and what is to happen to them? Someone will have to go through that register and find whether each individual man is or is not entitled to go on. As I read this Bill, if he had served a single day only as a munition factory worker he is entitled to stay on the register. If he has not served a single day as a munition factory worker he goes off. I do really ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has asked a single registration agent as to how far it will be possible to solve that problem. It is the easiest problem in the Bill! The men on the list have to go off or stay on according as to whether or not they are in a munition factory. But you cannot find these men. It is difficult enough at the present time to trace their movements. How are you going to find two or three hundred thousand men who have gone away, perhaps two years ago now, and ascertain whether they have the right to go on or go off? The result will be that the Bill will be a farce, and that the people will not be put on. The munition workers who have gone away will be lost for ever, and you will get no better register than if you had adhered to the one as it stands with regard to that point.
  The next problem is infinitely more difficult—that is to say, to get people on the register who were not on the first register at all, but who have a sort of theoretical right to get on it, because it is assumed that if the War had not happened they would have lived for twelve months in a particular dwelling. In what dwelling? As I understand it, it is this: Say I find a man in a Glasgow munition factory on 1st November, 1916, and he says to me, "I lived in No. 1, Smith Street, South St. Pancras, on the 1st of November, 1915." He has a right to go on the register for South St. Pancras, provided always that the dwelling he lived in was an ordinary dwelling, or a lodging worth £10 a year. That is all he has to say, but, of course, he has to prove it, and the man himself has to be found. I want to know how the Local Government Board imagine that all these munition workers in Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, and all over
  1920
  that part of the country, who a year ago used to live in London, or anywhere else, are going to be found and have their names put on the register for the places where they lived. Whose duty is it to be? Is it to be the duty of the overseers of St. Pancras or of the overseers of Glasgow? It cannot be that of the overseers of St. Pancras, because they cannot travel to Glasgow and find their men. It must be for the overseers of Glasgow. But how are the Glasgow people going to do that? Under the Bill, as I understand it, Glasgow people will only have the right, to do what they might do under the old law, namely, send round circulars to the people living there and find out who are entitled to vote in their own constituency. First of all, you have to get a system by which the overseers in the places where the man is living can send the name of the man to the overseers of the place where he is not living, or else you have to leave him off altogether. Of course, the result will be that he will be left off altogether.
  I must confess to the belief that nobody in any town in England, unless told to do so, will trouble his head about people who are going to vote somewhere else and not in his own constituency. The result will be that these men will be left off and will be no better off than they were before. I believe that the whole of these two proposals by which you imagine you are going to put on soldiers, sailors, and munition workers will prove absolutely inoperative. That is the reason why I earnestly beg the Prime Minister and the Government to consider whether it is really worth the trouble and the enormous expense which is going to be put on various persons throughout the constituencies in order to try to get, what you will not get, a register of the munition workers, soldiers, or sailors. I say nothing whatever about voting, because even if they get on the register, I do not see how you are ever going to get them to vote. As ~o the suggestion that each of us will have to bring up from the munition factories all the electors who have been living away, perhaps for twelve months or more, it, of course, means that they will not come, and will not get the vote. It is rather difficult to give them the system of voting which has been suggested for the soldiers in the trenches, namely, voting by proxy, or in any other way. I have ventured to point out to the House two important points of detail, because I cannot help thinking that when we get into Committee we shall find

  1921
  it is so difficult to carry out the provisions of this Bill that the Bill is not worth the paper upon which it is written.
  I have only one other point to make. The Prime Minister said that this does not affect the question of franchise, and that it is merely a preparation of the register upon the existing franchise. I venture to differ from that considerably. Under this new scheme, as I have already pointed out, a man is going to get a vote for a particular place on 1st November, 1916, for no other reason than the fact that, possibly for one night or for one week, he has lived in a place miles and miles away in a tenement which would have qualified him if he had stayed there. I submit that that is a considerable alteration in the franchise. There is no residence and there is no occupation. Simply because a man is working on munitions he is given the right, which nobody else has, to say that because he lived somewhere else a year or two before—he might have wandered about all over the country for the previous twelve months—if he can show that he occupied a lodging worth £10 a year, or a dwelling-house to which no particular value is attached, at any particular place, he is entitled to vote in that place. That is really an alteration in the franchise. That being so, I do not think we ought to contemplate such an alteration as that, without making it part of a much larger scheme which shall embrace these various other classes, such as soldiers, sailors, and women, on the electoral rolls of the country. I have ventured to put forward these few remarks to the House in the hope that we shall find a way by which, without losing time, we can really have this bigger question considered by a Committee of this House immediately after the Recess and bring up some proposals which will be capable of adoption when the War comes to an end, as we all hope it may do very soon
  Sir R. FINLAY: There is one portion of the Prime Minister's speech upon which there is general agreement, namely, when he stated the objection to anything in the nature of a General Election at the present time. Everyone appreciates those objections, and all of them were emphasised by the language used by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). At the same time, the whole object of this Bill is to provide for the proper conduct of a General Election, if by any mishap it should be forced upon
  1922
  us during the continuance of the War. Therefore the Bill is wanted purely as an emergency measure. I confess I look forward with some apprehension to the possible widening of the scope of the discussion in various directions which I need not enumerate, by Instructions before we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. If this is an emergency measure, in my judgment it would have very awkward consequences if by such Instructions we were plunged into an elaborate discussion of all the aspects of the franchise question. As regards the merits of the measure itself, the Prime Minister disarmed criticism by the terms in which he spoke of it. I do not think I have ever heard a Minister in charge of a Bill speak of his measure quite as the Prime Minister has spoken of this emergency measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) has not been deterred by the modesty of the Prime Minister from expressing, in very plain terms, what he thinks of the Bill. I am not going to enter into the question as to whether the Bill is so bad as the right hon. Gentleman thinks it. I do not think it is so extremely bad. At least it has one merit, that it will not enfranchise anyone who does not belong to a most deserving class—that is, either the fighters or those who have been engaged actively in helping the conduct of the War by munitions work. In the criticism passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras on the measure, he overlooked one fact, namely, that in order to get the benefit of Clause 2 it is necessary that the person whose period of qualification was interrupted should have been in occupation of the premises at the time the War broke out or when his service ends, whichever is the later. That answers a good deal of the observations of an unfavourable nature which the right hon. Gentleman made upon that part of the Bill. However, I do not desire to enter into these matters. They are matters we need not go into at this stage when we are considering whether the Bill, as an emergency measure, should be read a second time.
  I listened with great satisfaction to one statement made by the Prime Minister in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University, to the effect that the Prime Minister recognised that it was necessary that some provision should be made enabling persons, who would get votes by the operation of

  1923
  this Bill when it becomes an Act, to record their votes. It is no use whatever giving the franchise if those upon whom you confer it are so circumstanced that they cannot come to vote. The very same causes which led to the interruption of their period of qualification will be in existence if the occasion for an election should arise, and in that case their absence with His Majesty's Forces, or their being engaged as munition workers at other places within the constituency where they have now begun to qualify, will make it practically impossible for them to exercise the franchise in the ordinary way. Unless some such provision were made the measure would be purely illusory. It would profess to give something, but it would really give nothing at all. I hope that on consideration the Prime Minister will realise that any measure such as he foreshadows by way of amendment of the Ballot Act ought not to be confined to those who happen to be in this country. You have, with regard to the persons in this country serving with the Forces, a practical impossibility of voting in the ordinary way. You are going to make provision for them. But you have still more men who are on the Continent and who are engaged in serving the country there. I do not suggest, of course, that it would be possible that the troops in the field should have anything in the nature of an ordinary election. I remember reading that when, in the time of Louis XV., the French army invaded Germany, they took a theatre with them. One day there appeared this notice—
  "No performance to-morrow as there is to be a battle."
  You could not have a notice the other way—
  "No fighting to-morrow as there will be an election."
  The idea of anything like an election in the ordinary fashion being conducted in one day by the troops in the field engaged in active operations is, to my mind, a most difficult question. Surely the problem can be solved in a much better way—that is, by giving voting papers to the men, allowing them so many days to fill up the name of the candidate for whom they are voting, then having the papers attested before some officer and transmitted. That is not a new proposal. A practice of that kind has prevailed in all the university constituencies in this country. There has been no difficulty in working it. A simplified form of voting paper might be filled up a day or two or even a fortnight before
  1924
  it was necessary that the vote should be recorded. The problem would then be solved. The voting paper might be in a simple form. I confess I do not appreciate the enormous difficulties that some of my hon. Friends seem to feel in the matter. Difficulties there may be, but those difficulties must be faced and overcome. Some of my hon. Friends do not realise that the Army with which we have to deal to-day is not the Army to which we have been accustomed. It is not a small professional Army, but a nation in arms. You have the very flower of our poulation solving in the Army, and it is absolutely essential, if any election under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, is to have any reality about it, that you must not confine the voting to the men who stayed at home. You must provide for those who are at the front. I believe the difficulties are not very great, but, whatever they may be, they must be faced, unless the result of the election is to be one which would command neither the confidence of this country nor the confidence of our Allies. Some objections have been made by military men to anything in the nature of election proceedings in the Army in the field. I do not think soldiers very much like politicians, and they very much object to any idea of politics in the Army on active service. I cannot help thinking that these objections to some extent at least overlook the very great difference which exists now between our Army as it is and our Army as it was in the days when it was a small professional Army. Should a General Election be forced upon us the issues to be decided may be most momentous, and I cannot help feeling that a General Election conducted under circumstances which excluded the fighters from any possibility of taking any share in it would be most unsatisfactory. For these reasons I hope the Prime Minister will supplement this measure, if it should go on successfully through the perils that beset it in the House, by an adequate measure for enabling those who, on account of public service, are unable to attend at the polling booth to record their votes in some manner which will not in the least be inconsistent with military discipline and with their duties in the field.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Seldom, I think, has a Bill on its Second Beading been received with such a universal chorus of condemnation. The Prime Minister himself, who is its parent here, has abused it more

  1925
  thoroughly than any of the critics, and the more abusive the epithets he used the more responsive and enthusiastic was the House. The Bill, he said, was illogical and lopsided, and would probably turn out to be unseaworthy, but at the same time he recommended it to the House as the only practical way. I think those who have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) will agree that he has proved conclusively that this Bill is the only impossible way of dealing with the register. It gives rise to innumerable anomalies. You are creating all sorts of practical difficulties. I wonder if those who framed this Bill took the trouble to consult a single registration authority as to its effect and as to its practical working. If they did I am quite sure this Bill would never have been introduced into this House. The only excuse for its introduction is that the Cabinet is so absorbed in the conduct of the War that they have not been able to read it. If they had read it, it would never have been put forward as a practical suggestion. I can well understand why the scheme has been devised. The Government were solely thinking of the Parliamentary situation. They had, they thought, to solve a Parliamentary difficulty, and they believed that if they did it the whole question was settled. The Prime Minister found, on the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) claiming votes for soldiers and sailors simply on the ground of their service—an absolutely sound ground—and, on the other hand, he found at his elbow in the Cabinet the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) informing him that if soldiers and sailors were to receive the vote the women must also be included, while another Noble Lord seemed to indicate that the introduction of women would lead to the irreparable disaster of his resignation. These were the Parliamentary difficulties which he had to face. He was able by introducing this Bill to introduce a Franchise Bill in fact, though not in form. By ostensibly only dealing with the register he is enfranchising many people without apparently dealing with the franchise at all. But when you turn to the practical difficulties, one sees that this expedient, no matter how admirable it may be for dealing with a Parliamentry difficulty, is the most futile that could have been conceived for the purposes of a General Election. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) spoke of the great difficulties of seek-
  1926
  ing out the men who are to be entitled to be placed upon this register—men who may have removed but whose qualification is in a district far remote from the place in which they now reside. Only yesterday I saw a list of men who are at present resident in the constituency of Kirkcaldy. In it one saw men removed from Portsmouth, others from Devonport, others from Chatham, others from Glasgow, and others from different parts of the United Kingdom. All these were war workers, and on the ground of their war work they would be entitled to be registered in places as remote as Glasgow, Aberdeen, Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham. Could any system of registration more absurd be conceived? Obviously the only way to deal with a situation of that kind is to put the men on the register in the place where they reside.
  But that is not the only ground. It is not only the difficulty of seeking them out, but you may be perfectly certain that when you have solved the difficulty of finding the men who are rightly entitled you will equally find large numbers of bogus voters being manufactured.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: And no penalties against it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There are absolutely no penalties against it. Indeed, this is an invitation to the bogus voter. The register, indeed, would not be worth the cost of printing, and in these days, when we are short of paper, I do not see why we should waste all this paper and all this printing on a thing that is going to be absolutely valueless. But there are not only the difficulties of finding the bonâ-fide voter and the facilities for bogus voters to get upon the register, but you have to consider the enormous amount of time which would be occupied in making up this register. We know how difficult it is in ordinary times, and the length of time that is occupied in making all the inquiries necessary to obtain a sound register when we have the normal machinery of registration in operation—that is, when the local authority for the purposes of registration has the former year's register in existence as a basis upon which to work. But this register will be based upon facts existing three years ago. The register compiled in the autumn of 1914 was compiled in a most perfunctory way. The War broke out in the middle of the registration period, and large numbers of the registration agents all over the country simply suspended their operations.

  1927
  There was no real question of the claims in the Registration Courts of 1914. So that the register which is to be the basis for this special register is one which is based not on the facts of two years ago but of three years ago—in other words, on a qualification which began to run in July, 1912. Could there be anything more monstrous and absurd? Surely the House can hardly give this a Second Reading, at least on the supposition that they are going to proceed with it at all The Prime Minister even suggested that we might give it its Committee stage before the Recess. There can be only one possible explanation of that suggestion, and that would be his belief that had it received a moment's consideration it would never have passed this House. The only chance of its passing was to get it through before the Recess. If hon. Members took the trouble to read all the Statutes which are referred to here they would never find themselves in a position to give a real consideration to the Committee stage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: How long would that take?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Baronet is a master in dealing with legislation by reference, and he knows all the difficulties which are involved. This is not practical; it is quite impractical. I see a right hon. Gentleman from Australia. Perhaps he would give us the simple and practical expedient which prevails in that country. That would be valuable. A conclusive case has been made out that this Bill is futile and absurd. It is no use to anyone, and if we give it a Second Reading to-day we are merely giving it a Second Reading pro forma, so that in the future we may thrash out a better scheme. What is to be the better scheme? It seems to me that we ought to aim at simplicity in the first place, for the purpose of enabling us to get a register ready; and it seems to me that a short residential qualification is the ideal system, and you could include the soldier and the sailor by providing that his period of service should be equivalent to residence. Your machinery for doing that would be comparatively simple. You only require a single survey of the people actually in residence throughout the country at present, and discover from them how long they have been in this country. The matter of putting soldiers
  1928
  and sailors on the register upon this simple qualification is a very simple matter indeed. You obtain both simplicity and speed by this method.
  6.0 P.M.
  There is, of course, the other thorny question of woman suffrage. Unlike my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Simon), I have in the past, on every occasion when I have had an opportunity of voting on the question, voted against woman suffrage. But I am inclined in this matter to follow the Prime Minister. I have not been so slavish in my adherence to him that on this occasion I can be accused of having determined my course owing to any particular partiality for the advice of my right hon. Friend. It seems to me, however, that the arguments which he has put forward are of the very greatest weight. During this War we have brought into industry in this country women on a scale and to an extent which no one ever contemplated in the past. The women in fact are running the Industry of the country for the first time, and that involves very serious problems in the period of reconstruction. I think they are problems which must be determined by Parliament, and consequently problems in which I think the women have a right to be heard. At the end of the War you are going to bring back to industry large numbers of men who have been taken from industry for fighting purposes. How are you going to adjust the rights and claims of the returning soldier with the rights and claims of the women, who for national purposes you have asked to go into industry during the War? I think that for the right adjustment of this question you require to give the women a vote in the election for the Parliament which will determine them. I think both ought to be, consulted. That is why I think that both the soldiers and the sailors, on the one hand, and the women on the other hand, are entitled to be on the new register which is to elect the Parliament of reconstruction. Attempts have been made to draw distinctions between the quality and extent of the services and sacrifices of the soldiers and the sailors, on the one hand, and of the women on the other hand. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald McNeill) suggested that a soldier took far greater risks than a munition worker, and that, great as might be the services that women on munition work rendered, the same value was not to be placed on that because she did not undertake risks of the

  1929
  same quality as the soldier did in the foreign field.
  But if this analysis of the extent of the risks of different people is to be followed, it would be only the men who go into the front trenches who would receive the franchise. You would have to withhold it from the Staff, from the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and the Army Service Corps, and the people at the bases, because they do not go into a position of danger. Obviously the risk run cannot be used as a criterion for granting the franchise. If you are going to accept soldiers and sailors on the ground of sacrifices and services, equally you must yield on the same grounds the suffrage to every other war worker. It seems to me that the arguments which have been put forward are conclusive; that the present scheme is absolutely impracticable, and that if we give it a Second Reading to-day it can only be a pro forma Second Reading, in the hope that the House of Commons will devise something. The question arises as to what is the best procedure for us to adopt in order to arrive at something definite. If we adopt the procedure suggested from the Chair, we can only act by means of an Instruction to the Committee of the whole House. I doubt whether that is the best method of achieving our end, and personally I have always thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) walked very unwarily into the trap which was laid for him by the Home Secretary when the Select Committee was suggested by the Government. I think the Home Secretary deliberately intended to kill the idea of a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I understand that the House acquits the Home Secretary of any felonious intent. There was no mens rea, to us a technical legal term.
  I regretted the decision to have a Select Committee at that time. I happen to be a member of it, and my career as a member of Select Committees of this House has been exceptionally unhappy. I was appointed a member of another Committee which sat only once, and as regards this Committee, it is not going to sit at all. Probably it is my unhappy experience which has led me to my conclusion. On this occasion, after giving a Second Reading to the Bill, we might quite well refer it to a Select Committee with a view to obtaining a report as to a simpler and better method of obtaining a new register.
  1930
  This need not involve delay. It is possible for the Select Committee to sit during the Recess, and for it to prepare a report which will be presented when the House meets again. I do not say that such a report would settle the question, but undoubtedly a Select Committee would be in a position to gather valuable material and place it before the House, and upon that material the House could give a final decision. Undoubtedly the Government itself is too preoccupied to think out either a logical or practical scheme. The duty must therefore fall upon Parliament, and in particular upon this House, and it seems to me that the proper procedure and the only constitutional procedure is by way of a Select Committee.
  Captain S. GWYNN: I entirely agree with the general conclusion of the House that it can scarcely be reasonable to ask the House to carry through its Committee stage as an emergency measure a Bill which is admittedly one of the worst Bills ever presented to Parliament. For that reason I join in the general view that we should go no further than to give this Bill a Second Reading, and try then to get further on with the matter. I have risen simply and solely for the purpose of supporting the appeal made by the right hon. and learned Member for Waltham-stow (Sir J. Simon). Between him and the Prime Minister there appeared to be a difference of opinion whether this House could usefully during the War approach a question that really involved a great change in our Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman said there existed at present, just precisely because we are at war, a state of mind and temper in which we can hopefully attack problems which in normal times we should despair to attack. I do not know whether it is a very happy precedent to recall, but it is worth recalling, that the House within recent times approached one of the thorniest of all questions and one which has most divided politics in the past. And I think the House will agree that if the Irish question was not settled it was not, at all events, the fault of the House. The thing that gave a chance to us, a chance which I hope may recur, though I do not know whether it is probable, was precisely the same peculiar temper of the House which exists under present conditions.
  The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, I think quite truthfully, that the Government at the present time had

  1931
  no leisure of mind to approach such problems as the reconstruction of our franchise system, and he said that what had to be done in this matter must be done in fact by the House itself, whether by a Select Committee or directly in discussion here. I think that was a very sound observation, if I may say so, because, after all, what is the House of Commons doing at the present time? When one comes back here from outside one finds a most extraordinary atmosphere of unreality about the procedure of this assembly. I think the House of Commons might very usefully occupy itself in settling what is, after all, a House of Commons question. Members are qualified to say what shall be the qualification for a vote. It is not a matter on which the House wants expert direction. It is a matter on which every Member of the House considers himself an expert, and is, at all events, as well entitled to advise as Ministers. You have this temper which exists now and which is evidenced in speech after speech, and it is hopeful. We are all agreed that soldiers and sailors should have the vote—at least I have heard no dissentient voice. We all agree that soldiers and sailors should receive the rights of citizenship without the consideration of residence or anything else. At the present time we have the nation in arms, practically speaking. When you admit Conscription, you admit universal suffrage for men; that is perfectly clear.
  Then there is the other great question of women suffrage. Let me say this, this question has been approached in terms of sacrifice. I would like to ask any other soldier here, Who is it that really makes the greater sacrifice—is it harder for the boy to go into the trenches or for his mother to let him go? Do you think you would have 5,000,000 voluntary recruits in this country if the women had held back their men? Do you think you can test this question as to whether women should have votes on the basis of whether they can make shells or do service like men? Women are entitled to the vote on their work as women, on the work they do in governing the house, in the education of children, and in their work of preparing men to go out and take their part in the trenches. That is why women deserve the vote. When the matter comes to be thrashed out, whether by a Select Committee or otherwise, I do not think that you will find this difficulty will be in-
  1932
  soluble. I do most earnestly hope that after the House gives the Bill a Second Beading now there will be some Committee instituted which will take up the whole question under the auspices of the temper which prevails at the present time; and what I would say to the Government is this, that there is not the least use of the Government waiting. The Government must give the House a lead in this matter. If they want the House of Commons to attempt a solution of the question they can set up the machinery; they do not need to detach any more than one Minister for the work, and out of the twenty-three or twenty-four members of the Cabinet they can easily spare one for the purpose; but they must institute proceedings, and I believe, when they have instituted them, they must come to a good end.
  Major HUNT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
  The Prime Minister said that this Bill would give up a better register than the present one. I cannot agree with that statement, because in practice it will leave out the great majority of the men who have saved us. The Prime Minister also gave us to understand, after all the tragic blunders that he has made himself, that anything would be better than a General Election. I cannot agree with that. It certainly was not the opinion of President Lincoln. President Lincoln in 1864 was faced by just the same problem that now confronts our anti-democratic Cabinet—the problem of holding an election in wartime. He did not hesitate in the matter. He felt that, however great the difficulties might be, they must be surmounted. He said:
  "We cannot have a free Government without election, and if the War could force us to forego or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruled us."
  Surely that is a good example of the necessity of having an election before the terms of peace are even thought of. A General Election would do much less harm than to allow this wretched Government to go on and have the making of the terms of peace—terms which would be the result of this Bill, if it is carried. I am opposing this Bill because it is a practical disfranchisement of the huge majority of the men who have the best right to have a vote in the Government

  1933
  of the country, the men who have risked, stand, both or, at all events, are liable to have risked, their lives in defending us from the hideous barbarities of the Germans.
  We must surely, in justice and in fairness, have a register to include all men over eighteen years of age who have served or are serving in the Army and Navy or who are under the direction of the naval or military authorities for fighting purposes or for purposes, of course, of healing the wounded, and the register certainly ought to be completed as soon as possible in order to prevent the danger of an election in connection with the terms of peace from being taken under the present helplessly defective register as it is, and I think that, women having never had votes before, we must of necessity ask them to stand aside before the end of the War under, I think, the definite promise that there shall be a Women's Franchise Bill passed through Parliament as soon after the War as can be managed, and, at all events, at the first election after the War. The men of the nation are under arms and are safeguarding the future of our existence and of free peoples with their blood. Does the Prime Minister really think that he has got any right to settle the terms of peace if the men who have made that peace possible are to have no voice in those terms? It was the soldiers' vote which saved the American Union, and I have already shown what President Lincoln thought about it.
  Are our men who have fought and suffered to have no voice in the settlement on which the whole future of their race and their country depends? Under this Bill there are many thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of men who have actually fought and suffered from wounds or from disease as the result of war who, even in this country, will not have a voice in the settlement of the country's destinies, while the usually hypocritical conscientious objector, the shirker, and the peace crank will have perhaps an unusual chance of getting the vote because they have stayed at home and looked after themselves. The Prime Minister is trying by this Bill to gerrymander registration in favour of himself and his party. When millions of our best men are out of the country a way must be found, either by voting by proxy or in some other way—that was done in the American Civil War, and it has been done, I under-
  1934
  stand, both in Canada and Australia—by which as many men as possible of the men serving abroad may be able to record their votes, and the same must be the case with those men who are serving in the United Kingdom. Many of them, even in this country, will have suffered wounds inflicted actually at the front. The Prime Minister, who is really the Cabinet—because the Unionist Members do not count since they did not resign with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University—has put off this question purposely month by month in the hope of rushing this Bill through a weary House of Commons at a time when all the Members want to get away as quickly as they can for the Recess.
  I really think that Members may fairly consider what the millions of soldiers will say after the War when they find that the Members representing their part of the world deliberately decided that the huge majority of men who saved their country should have no voice in the Government. I really think the Back Benches might think that over. The Bill is not going to give the huge majority, even of the men who are serving at home, a vote because, according to the absurd argument of the Prime Minister, it would not be fair to some of those abroad who might be too far away to record their votes, and they might be jealous because they did not receive a vote themselves. The Bill has been pretty well riddled as it is. Under the Bill it is almost certain that the huge majority of those who have gone through all the horrors of modern warfare will not be able to have any influence on the Government which decides the terms of peace. I do not think that anything could very well be worse than that. These men will have paid the piper, and the Ministers who refused to prepare for war, though they knew it was coming, and have made the most hideous blunders during the War, are the people who are to call the tune. The lodgers who stopped at home in peace and comfort are to have every chance given to them of acquiring the vote. The lodgers in the Government camps in this country, or the great majority of them men with no limit, mind you, to their hours of work and no holidays even on Sunday, are to have no vote at all. The huge majority of men lodging in the wet and shell-torn trenches in France and Flanders, according to this Bill, are to have no voice in the conditions of peace. That

  1935
  is to say nothing of the men who have saved us from starvation by keeping watch and ward in the storms of the Atlantic and the North Sea.
  The Prime Minister claims that his plan is the one that proceeds on the lines of least resistance. That has been his plan both at home and abroad. In Ireland and with neutrals his plan has been to do nothing, however necessary action may be, if action can possibly be avoided. The Coalition has, to a great extent, muzzled the House of Commons, and, as far as it dares, it has muzzled the Press. We are living under the despotism of an oligarchy, and unfortunately it is not only a feeble one but a bad one. The Prime Minister having proclaimed himself and his colleagues to be indispensable, is treating us to a new edition of the Long Parliament under something very like the same conditions. I dare say that some of the right hon. Gentlemen will remember what Cromwell said about the Long Parliament. He said that they were chiefly engaged in looking after the interests of their friends and relations. The people hate the rule of this Government, which was elected in peace, and is totally unsuited for war. They are most anxious to get rid of the Government, but unfortunately they are helpless because the House of Commons refused to do its duty by giving the people a chance of electing a new Government on a fair register, and a Government which, unlike this one, can be trusted to look after the interests of its own country.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I have listened with great interest to the very characteristic speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hunt), who hit various parties very hard, and used various epithets in an address that was embroidered by various curious passages. From the historical argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there seems to be in his mind the idea that it is the people of our land who are now fighting abroad who are to vote in an election while the War is going on, because in America they had a second presidential election for the return of Mr. Lincoln, which took place before the finish of the Civil War. Whatever else we may differ about, I take it that we all appreciate that it is one thing to vote for a dictator or president, and another thing to vote in the way in which people are
  1936
  called upon to vote for a fresh House of Commons. It is not the election of an individual to govern a whole Empire, but of local representatives on grounds of general public policy. The undoubted difficulties of the position in which we all find ourselves are not made less, I submit they are made more, by these misleading analogies of other places and other times. I take it that we are all agreed that no General Election will be satisfactory in this country until it is an election in which those who are now fighting, either in the Army or in the Navy, are able to vote, and do, as a matter of fact, vote. Listening to all the speeches delivered this afternoon, they go to show, in my opinion, that a mistake was made when this House declined to prolong the life of this Parliament to the end of the War, and six months after. If that had been done we should have had no election until the whole British nation could vote, and any election before that time, even if it does include casual votes by soldiers and sailors who are fortunate enough to be able to vote, will be an election without that moral sanction and power behind it which are necessary where we have to deal with the great constructive problems of the War. Therefore, I shall not try to reply to speech after speech, first on one side of the House, then on the other, in which the whole argument tended to show the impossibility of having a really valid election until the War is over. In one or two speeches delivered on that side it was suggested that not only soldiers and sailors in England but soldiers and sailors abroad, might, by arrangement, be able to take part, if there were an election during the War. The hon. Member for Dublin University argued that it might be done by means of voting papers, or by machinery with which some of us are familiar in university elections. I submit that all these methods are no good unless you can thereby secure the votes of the vast majority of these men in whatever part of the world they may be. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir H. Meux) in his place, and I would like to know what he thinks of these proposals as to sailors voting by voting papers at a time when their ship, at the call of the country, is to go abroad to take its part in the War?
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: I think very little of the idea, if you ask me.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I felt confident that would be the opinion of the hon. and

  1937
  gallant Admiral, who knows the conditions and knows the absurdity of the proposal. It is most undesirable that there should be a register which professed to give soldiers and sailors votes, but which, in fact, did not do it, and it would be most undesirable that there should be a small number of soldiers in France who might conceivably take part in an election among their comrades in this country, but you would have no time to get votes from men who are in Mesopotamia or Egypt, or from men who are with the Fleet in various parts of the world. The dilemma is that if you are really going to get the vote of the Army and Navy you will require an electoral period of many weeks. Who imagines that the War would be benefited by an electoral interval of many weeks, and with all the uncertainties and personal issues, all the speculations as to results, which mark far too much the two or three weeks' election intervals in time of peace? The best we can do this afternoon, no doubt, is to give a Second Reading to this Bill, because of the reason given by the Prime Minister, that it may be a few shades better than the present register. In Committee we can make improvements and alterations, but, whatever may be suggested in Committee, I hope every Member of the House will set his face against a bogus register, or any register or any plan which professes to give the Army and Navy the vote we all want them to have and yet does not, in practice, do it. I may be wrong, but, for my own part, I am convinced that there is no chance while the War goes on of the men who constitute the Army and Navy—even though they may be a controlling influence in an election when they come home—exercising their votes properly. Therefore, I submit that when this Bill comes on the House should make the period of the extension of this Parliament as long as possible, because I am convinced that any election before the War must be mischievous. We all want the War to end as soon as possible, if only it ends successfully and victoriously, and after that the sooner we have an election the better. But I shrink from deciding problems of vast importance when the Army and Navy cannot vote at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Hunt) spoke about the Army and Navy being consulted about the terms of peace. What possible) method is there of suspending the terms of peace until the Army and Navy and the whole electorate have been consulted?
  Major HUNT: That is not the question. The question is whether the men of the Army and Navy have any influence over the Government when they make peace by their votes.
  Sir R. ADKINS: A very large proportion of them have already voted for this House of Commons; they have voted either for that part of the Government which was in power when the War broke out, or that part of it which is generally supported by Members opposite. At the present time a vast proportion of soldiers and sailors have exorcised their votes for one or other of the great political organisations represented in this Government. But if you have an election before the War you have no guarantee that you can devise a method by which any appreciable number of the Army and Navy could exercise their votes. Besides these considerations, there are other very wide matters; there is the question of women's suffrage. I agree with the hon. Member for Galway and other hon. Members that the work which women have done in agreeing to the voluntary enlistment of 5,000,000 men is a work for which the country cannot be too grateful, and it establishes their claim for any of the electoral privileges which they demand. Are we to have an election to decide a great question like that before the men of the Army and Navy come back to England? Surely that is a matter of social construction in which everybody is concerned. All these considerations point to the essential fact that you cannot have a satisfactory election while the War is going on, and I hope all those energies which are devoted to the Bill, and all those energies which are devoted to these dialectic suggestions and discussions may be diverted from both in order that we may all join in a united endeavour to shorten the War, and the sooner that result is attained, the sooner will we bring this problem to a solution.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): This is the first time that it has been my privilege, as a member of the Government, to introduce a Bill which certainly does not seem to commend itself to general support. I do not rise to defend it, for I have no misgiving whatever about it, and I have not the least intention of apologising to the House in respect to the measure, for the reason that, with the exception of one or two speakers, it is not the Bill which has formed the subject of their

  1939
  speeches, but it is the situation with which they have found fault and which they have refused to recognise from the beginning to the end. I do not agree with the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friends who opened the Debate, and right through hon. Members have declined to face the situation, which is a real one, and the question is do those critics of ours deliberately propose or contemplate that there shall be a General Election, with all its divisions of opinion, its bitterness, and its methods at a time when we are carrying on a War of this kind? Unless you are deliberately prepared to advocate the holding of a General Election during the War, what is your interest in the register? Our critics have refused to recognise the position which they ought to face, if they are really going to condemn the Government, and, whatever register you may have, nobody, I believe, contemplates, whatever may have been done elsewhere, a General Election at this time.
  Major HUNT: That is not my view.
  Mr. LONG: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend wants an election during the War, but if he does, I will qualify my remark in any way he likes that will make it in no way offensive to him. It is my view which I am putting, and I believe, from my own knowledge, that those who advocate a General Election during the War are so small in number as in no way to affect the real feeling of the people to whatever party they may belong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee says, "Why then have a register?" He knows the answer. He knows that under the Parliament Act for which he and others are responsible the life of Parliament was shortened from seven years to five years. These difficulties would never have arisen if that change had not been made. But as we have made the life of Parliament five years instead of seven, we have either to have an election or prolong the life of Parliament. It was made perfectly clear to the Government that a very large section of this House would resist any attempt to prolong the life of Parliament unless it was accompanied by a Bill providing a register which would be at all events better in some respects than the register we have now got. There was a strong feeling that we should have a more modern register than we now have, and, in accordance with the view of the House, we have produced
  1940
  this Bill, and I maintain that not a single word has been said to-day in any of the criticisms which have been addressed to us that goes to show that you could produce a better register in any other way. Why, I do not know an easier task for the least informed Member of this House than to criticise a Bill dealing with either franchise or registration. It is the easiest subject anyone could criticise. There are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen here who are authorities on this subject. The right hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Dickinson) is a well-known authority, and has probably a more complete knowledge of the mysteries of franchise and registration than probably anybody in the House. It was an easy task for him to criticise the Bill, but even he, in his criticism, showed that he had not mastered the Bill, and to his criticisms there is a very full answer. Another hon. Member wondered whether the Government in preparing the Bill had consulted with anybody who knew anything about registration or with the practical experts. Yes, they did, and I cannot imagine the hon. Member who asked that question thinking that we should not take all the advice and all the help we could command in the preparation of the Bill. My right hon. Friend criticised the Bill, and what was his, alternative? An hon. Gentleman in another quarter of the House criticised the Bill and said it was a bad Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway City (Captain S. Gwynn) said that this was the worst Bill that has ever been presented to the House of Commons.
  If I may be forgiven for saying so, that is all cheap rhetoric, which was very common to our Debates some time ago, but is less common, happily, now than it was in the time of an ordinary Parliament. But it is ineffective and valueless unless it is followed by alternatives which would give the House and the country something better; and that we have not had. We have got a proposal for the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waltham-stow spoke of the enfranchisement of women, and then we have the suggestion of the enfranchisement of munition workers. But what does that mean? That is not registration. That means opening up the whole question of the franchise from beginning to end. Next to a General Election during the War I cannot imagine anything more unworthy of this House and of the country than that we should plunge

  1941
  into a question of that kind at this moment. My right hon. Friend who advocates giving votes to soldiers and sailors as such draws a distinction between their case and the case of the woman. In the first place, let me say this: Supposing he and I were agreed that that distinction could be drawn, and that the great majority of the House also agreed to that, by no power that Mr. Speaker, who is the greatest authority in this House, has could he prevent those who did not hold that view from pressing their views on this House, and therefore plunging us into debates on women suffrage, and on every branch consequently of the franchise question. That is the only alternative which has been proposed so far to the Government proposals. There has been mention of a shortened term of qualification that would involve an alternative in the franchise, and therefore at once you introduce the question of the enfranchisement of women. I do not think a distinction can be drawn between the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors and women and other workers, and for these reasons. It is, I dare say, possible, I think it is possible, to draw a distinction between the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors, those who are fighting for us, and munition workers, and the enfranchisement of women as a simple question, although I do not call it a simple question, as a question as it stood before the War.
  What are we asked to do? We are asked to enfranchise soldiers and sailors because of the great sacrifices they have made and are making for us. Who is there who is likely to attempt to deny a proposition of that kind? But if sacrifices is to be the basis of our franchise, or of a special franchise, what of the women who in the Royal Army Medical Corp, and in many other capacities, have taken as great risks and have made as great sacrifices as almost any of our soldiers. I do not think it would be possible to draw this distinction. Therefore, the alternatives proposed so far have been alternatives, not of registration, but of franchise, and to plunge ourselves into that question of the franchise at this time would, I believe, be a criminal act on our part. It is bad enough as it is. This is a very short measure. I need not describe it, as the Prime Minister has done so already. I subscribe, not out of obedience to my chief, but out of entire agreement with his views, to everything that he said.
  Sir G. YOUNGERmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' gallery.
  Mr. LONG: I agree with the views which he expressed, and I share them. This Bill has given the Government and those who are responsible for it and my Department a good deal of work. Even this small measure has made demands on the time of Ministers and on the Prime Minister which I think ought not to be made at a time like this. Those of us who have been connected with the preparation of these two measures have had to put other work on one side in order that this should be done. That was necessary and could not be helped. Are you going to make it worse? Think what it would be if you got into the question of franchise with all its peculiarities, and just think of the burden you would throw on the Government and, above all, on the Prime Minister! Whatever attitude the Government might take, and supposing they made up their minds and said "No" to various proposals made to them, they must be present here and must argue the case here, and whoever the Minister in charge might be he would have to refer to the Prime Minister for authority to take certain action, so that the Prime Minister must be available for consultation at a time when all his energies are wanted for other work. He would be called upon to be always available for the settlement of very difficult questions which would arise during Debates in the House. I have been challenged, for of course it is my Department, and the Government have been challenged, to-day for their delay in dealing with this question and for not producing this measure earlier. I want to say quite frankly I take full responsibility for any delay in this matter. It is my duty, as head of the Local Government Board, to advise the head of the Government as to what the practical possibilities are in dealing with the question for which my Department has to be responsible.
  What was the condition of things I found when I examined them at the time my hon. Friend the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) raised the question, and what is the condition now? There is not a single individual who is connected with the preparation of the register in the country who was not then, and is not now, working full time and overtime at work which is essential in the interests of the country. That was the case when I

  1943
  set myself to examine the condition of things in the country, and to make up my mind, which it was my duty to do, in order to advise my chief. It was my duty to ascertain whether I could tell him that I thought there was material in the country available for this work if it had to be done. I could not so advise him, and I am not prepared to do so now. On the contrary, I told him, and I said so in this House on more than one occasion, that all the people connected with the work of registration, which as everybody knows is very difficult and very laborious work, were already working overtime. When I was asked the other day what should be the date in this Bill for the completion of the register, after consultation with my advisers and experts, and after expert advice, I came to the conclusion that the 31st May was the very earliest date which could be safely put into the Bill.
  We have been criticised in some quarters, and I see the extraordinary proposition advanced that this date has been taken for the register in order to justify the Government in taking longer time for the prolongation of the life of Parliament. It is absolutely ridiculous to make a suggestion of that kind. This date has been taken for the reason I have given because in my opinion it is the earliest time in which it could be worked out. Otherwise you will be adding to the labours of men who were already engaged on work of vital importance. What is that work? They are engaged, for instance, as clerks or members of tribunals. Already the work of the tribunals in many parts of the country is in arrears through no fault of the tribunals, but because of the enormous number of cases, and because of their complexity. Some of them are engaged in work connected with the maintenance and keeping up to date of the National Register. The overseers and assistant overseers, who are the officials who first of all deal with this work, have already work to do in connection with the rates, and they have their ordinary local government duties to perform. In many cases those overseers do not exist, because they have gone to the War or are doing war work; and in many eases, too, there are no clerks to the local authorities because they have gone to the War and other men have taken their places temporarily. In nearly all cases the officials are shorthanded, and places are filled by inexperienced men, and that is the time we are
  1944
  asked to throw an extra burden on them. It cannot be done unless you are going to interfere with the work which those men are doing and which is vital to the country. It is my duty to represent them and, so far as I can, to protect them in this House. I do not hesitate to say that I will not be a party to consenting to any extra burden being thrown on those men if it can be fairly avoided. I will not do anything, and will not advise my chief to do anything, the result of which would be to force those men to put war work on one side in order to do other work for the preparation of registration, and which would not give them reasonable time and reasonable provision under which a register, not a very good one, but better than the present, can be produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras drew a picture—anybody who knows anything about registration could do it—of the town clerk and overseers of St. Pancras and of Glasgow, and he thought that under the Bill the duty would fall on the overseers of Glasgow. I think be is mistaken. The duty, so far as it exists, certainly falls on the overseers of the place where the man has left, and not the place to which he has gone. He has overlooked the fact that we have taken power in Clause 1, Sub-section (3), and the following Sub-sections, to issue the necessary Orders in Council for the machinery for this register.
  Sir E. CARSON: Only in accordance with the present law.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LONG: I am dealing with the remarks of another right hon. Gentleman. I am dealing solely with the question of how these men are to be got on to the register. There are two ways of getting on. They can go on through the overseers in the ordinary way, but we give them what is very much more important, namely, the right to claim that their names should be inserted either by themselves or by a friend. All that you can really do in an emergency measure of this kind in reason, and all that I think the House ought to ask the Government to do, if I may respectfully say so, is to give to those men who would have had the right to vote had it not been for their patriotic service the right to claim that their vote should be made good in that way. We have done that, and we have also thrown this duty on the overseers. We are criticised, but what is the real cause of the criticism? It is not this Bill; it is

  1945
  not our proposal. It is the fact that both parties in the State now, for a long period of years, have allowed our laws in this country in regard to registration and other cognate subjects to remain so absurd, cumbersome, and ridiculous that the work cannot be effectively done. We have heard criticism after criticism passed on this Bill to-day. We have been told, "Your register will be no good; it will be incomplete." I should like to ask anybody who has ever made the most cursory examination of our Parliamentary register whether a register in ordinary circumstances is ever complete? Is there any man who will pretend that that is so, and that our register is really made in a satisfactory way? Why, what is the way in which our registers are compiled? You have the assistant overseers in the country outside London. In London you have an infinitely better system. There your town clerk is your overseer, and the whole duty of preparing the register is in central hands. In the country you have a totally different machine. This is the real fault. It is not this Bill. Of course I admit that this Bill is a good peg on which to hang a grievance, but the real truth of the matter is that the system is at fault, and much has to be corrected if you really intend to get better results. I have said, with regard to the general position, that I deny altogether the charges that have been so freely made.
  That this scheme is a bad scheme, nobody denies. I go on, and I say that during the War, and until you are able to face the question of reform, you will not get a better scheme. We are talking about a situation when we are really thinking about the reform of our franchise. Until we face that, and deal with it, we shall not get anything better than this. I believe, on the whole, that this scheme is going to work out better than many of our critics anticipate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt) said, in moving terms, "You are going to leave off all these soldiers," or at least, he said, the large majority. I ask anybody who says that how he arrives at that conclusion. I should be very much interested and very grateful to any of my critics who will tell me how they arrive at such a conclusion, because I am sure they would not make such a sweeping statement if they had not behind them some fairly reliable figures to support it. I should be very grateful to anybody who could show
  1946
  me these figures, for, although I have the assistance of great experts in my Department, I have not been able to form any correct opinion as to the numbers which will be placed on the register. But we have certain information. We know, for instance, the large number of men who have joined the Colours, and who are married, and who come from settled occupations and have homes, and who were either on the register or would have come on in the ordinary way. We know the large number of single men who joined, who were lodgers, and who either were on or who would have come on. My belief is that if this Bill passes into law, and if it is worked with good will and with a desire to make the best out of it, you will find you will get on a very much larger number of sailors and soldiers, and others who have been serving in the War, under its provisions than seems to be contemplated.
  Major HUNT: Might I ask if there would be any chance of their getting the vote in time to influence the peace terms?
  Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend asks me a very difficult question. It is no good my trying to say when peace will come. If I am right, they will get a vote very soon, and the sooner that is so the better I shall be pleased. But, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, getting a vote and exercising it are two totally different things. As he knows, that is proposed to be dealt with in a different way. I am only dealing with the right to vote, and with getting it.
  Sir E. CARSON: I should say it would be about 2,000,000.
  Mr. LONG: I think that number is very near. Many critics have said that this Bill will not do anything, that it will not put any number on, and that it will not work. I say that it is a makeshift measure, but I have heard nothing to-day from anyone putting on one side the question of the enfranchisement of soldiers which leads me to believe that anybody in this House has got a better alternative suggestion than this. It is a most ungrateful and distasteful task to have to appear to offer any opposition to the enfranchisement of those who have made this supreme sacrifice for us and who are fighting so gallantly for us on sea and on land, and who also are working for us so hard, because, although I agree that there is no comparison to be made in actual sacrifice between the men working at home and

  1947
  those fighting in the trenches, yet there are hundreds, and I expect thousands, of men egaged in different forms of work at home who have been kept at work, in many cases not from their desire and against their desire, under an arrangement made by which it was thought desirable to keep men at home for certain purposes connected with certain works. It is a most ungrateful task to appear to be deaf to the questions raised about these men. I am no authority on this question at all, and have no right even to do more than to quote the opinion of those whom I have consulted. But I have consulted more than one distinguished officer, and they have told me, without exception, that as to the practical difficulty of holding an election at the front that is not a matter for them; they know nothing about it, and they are not concerned. But they have told me, without exception, that they would view with the greatest concern and anxiety any attempt to hold a contested election with any party feeling and with all those troubles that exist here, amongst the Army whilst it is occupied in fighting in France. I only say this because other opinions have been quoted, and I think it is fair that opinions should be quoted on both sides. I do not take refuge behind that opinion alone, although as an ordinary civilian I entirely share it. I hope the House will realise that it is not because the Government do not feel the debt they owe to these men, and that there is nothing that we are not willing to do for these men in order to show how real and sincere our feelings are. It is only because we believe that, as practical proposals possible to Parliament for the time being, the one we have made is the only one that can be justified.
  Might I just say this word. Suggestions have been made as to the future. Well, I may be allowed to say that I stand here as an old Conservative, and so far as I know I have never concealed my opinions nor have I been afraid to defend them when necessary. But I believe that to-day to a large extent—I cannot say how far but to a large extent—the old shibboleths are dead. I believe that this War will have refined our people to an extent that none of us can realise or appreciate at the moment, and I think it will be not only distasteful but impossible to revert, during our time at least, to those conditions which obtained when we fought and
  1948
  squabbled about things which seem so far away and so small to-day; and when, in order that we might win a particular seat, we paid men to keep men off the register in order that our friends might get on. It seems, to my mind, that these days can never return. I belong, at any rate in age, to an older generation, and I cannot and do not expect to take any active part in public affairs very much longer. I have had my full turn. It may be said, "Oh, it is all very well for an old thing like you to talk like that, but what of the younger men who have their thoughts and aspirations?" I say that I believe that those who are to be the men of the future, the men who are to make a greater Empire and to keep the land we love, will find plenty of work to do congenial to them without having to take refuge in these tawdry questions over which some of us have wasted some of the best years of our lives.
  But certain principles must remain. Take these questions that we have been debating to-day. The House has found fault with the Bill, and has criticised the Government. But the fault is not with the Government or the Bill, but with the law of the country as it stands owing to the refusal of this House and previous Houses and previous Parliaments to face these questions and to deal with them as they ought to have been dealt with But, there are three main principles on which we can agree. We all wish that there should be fair and reasonable representation of the people, and that there shall be a reasonable distribution of political power having regard to the people and their interests. We all desire that there shall be good and efficient machinery for securing to the people their rights. Is it not ludicrous that under our registration law up to a particular day in July you can make a claim, but if you do not get a vote then you will not get one for eighteen months or two years? How much better is the Canadian system, which has a continuous register, and where the work is done by registration officials? I have no right to speak in these matters on behalf of anybody but myself, but it has been suggested that we ought to send this Bill to a Select Committee. I do not think that that would really be a practicable proposal. I hope that the House will pass the Bill, not because they love it, or perhaps I should say, because they like it so well that they will be glad to see the end of it! I hope they will pass it. I believe

  1949
  the Bill will turn out very much better than the critics think. There are some who have been listening to this Debate to-day, not on these benches, but looking on, and they have said to me that much of the criticism that has been offered is without foundation, and that the Bill, on the whole, will work very well. My hope is that the House will pass this Bill. Let us pass it, and make the best of it, and then set ourselves to find a solution of these greater questions.
  I myself believe that if we agreed amongst ourselves, and the Government offered any assistance which they could, and which, I believe, they would gladly do, to set up—I will not say a Committee, because that is not exactly what I mean— but a representative conference, not only of parties, but of groups, a conference which would really represent opinion on these three subjects: electoral reform, revision of your electoral power when you have got it, and registration, I believe— and I do not speak altogether out of books—that such a conference of earnest men, holding strong views, bitterly opposed to each other, if they were face to face with these difficulties, when we are all longing with a great longing to see something of a better prospect for our country in the future, would produce an agreed system for all three questions upon which the great mass of opinion of the people of this country could come together. How easy, then, would be the work of Parliament? These differences having been removed, this Bill having been passed, the necessary legislation could be put through in a very short time, then you would, I think, once the War is over, and peace returns, have as a result of the labours of practical men a machine which would give them the power which they will be entitled to have. As my right hon. Friend says, you would make them a gift, not a barren one, but a real one, and provide them also with the opportunities and the machinery by which they could record their votes, and so add to the services they have already rendered to their country by giving to it the invaluable privilege of their votes and opinions as to the future of the Empire which they have done so much to serve. I believe that a conference such as I have suggested would have a great result. I hope that in the short time during which Parliament is released from its duties we shall all turn our attention to this question. If my hon. Friends in any quarter of this House, or outside of
  1950
  this House, were to invite me to help to get together such a conference I would do it with the utmost pleasure. I believe that is the way in which we are more likely to find a solution to these problems than any other plan of which I have yet heard. It was recommended by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport in a speech lie made, as being put forward either in public or private by many of those who-have given time and attention to this question. I venture to say to the House it is our duty, one and all, not to criticise the Government or to find fault with this Bill, but to set ourselves to find a solution which may be a lasting settlement of a very old and difficult problem.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In the course of the latter portion of his eloquent speech, to which the House listened with much pleasure, the right hon. Gentleman accused those who had taken part in the Debate of not facing facts. Is the Government facing facts? Have the Government faced the facts of this question now before us? First of all, let me ask the right hon. Gentleman, Has he yet faced the fact that it is quite impossible for this Bill to be regarded as an agreed Bill? The course of the Debate must, at any rate, have made that fact plain to him. So far as I have heard the Debate—and I have listened during nearly the whole of its course— almost every speaker, consciously or unconsciously, avowedly or by accident, has condemned the measure for which the House is now asked to vote. The right hon. Gentleman himself was no exception to this general rule. He told us he agreed with the Prime Minister. This is what he now says to us: That Bill is an unseaworthy Bill, an illogical Bill, a bad Bill, a Bill, as the hon. Member behind said, for setting up a bogus register—all these defects, all these evils! Therefore what? Therefore pass it! Pass it at once. Pass it with scarcely any study. Pass it with very little discussion. But pass it with general acclamation! Surely, Sir, when measures of consequence are put forward in such a very half-hearted fashion, and with such evident lack of conviction behind them, those who make themselves responsible for them should not blame the House if it asks for reasonable time and opportunity, and if it declines to pass propositions of this character without reasonable time and opportunity for considering them. There is no reason whatever, as has been said repeatedly during this Debate, why we

  1951
  should have been placed in this position. The Government have no right to come to us and say that this measure is urgent because of the immense delay, without any purpose, which has placed us in our present position. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he wants this Bill? I listened very carefully to his speech, and to the speech of the Prime Minister, and I could not discern in any of those utterances anything which showed the use to which they proposed to put this measure.
  First of all the Prime Minister pointed out in the most eloquent and powerful manner that it would be absolutely absurd to use a measure like this to elect a great Parliament of reconstruction. That is not to be thought of, and when the Prime Minister had demolished the utility of this register for a reconstruction Parliament the right hon. Gentleman, with not less vigour, demolished its utility in regard to a war Parliament, any war Parliament, be cause he said: "It is unthinkable that there should be a General Election in time of war." So it is not to be used for a reconstruction Parliament, nor for a war Parliament, nor what then is it to be used? Why has the right hon. Gentleman burdened the harassed officials he told us about? He spoke about his time being abstracted from his vital war work, which, he says, absorbs him. After all, can he find any practical use for this Bill? He believes in his heart it is wholly unsuited to serve as a basis for any practicable political operations. The right hon. Gentleman was extremely frank—in fact, I hesitate to use such an expression about a Minister so universally respected in this House, but I really bad almost said that he was indecently frank. What did the right hon. Gentleman give as his reason for bringing in this Bill? We want, he said, to get a prolongation of Parliament. He said there was a general feeling in the House, and not confined to one House only—
  Mr. LONG: I did not say that.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg your pardon.
  Mr. LONG: I said not confined to one party.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not confined to one party only! Possibly my addition may after all not be incorrect. Not confined to one party only, and possibly not confined
  1952
  to one House only. There was a very strong feeling that the register ought to be put in working order before Parliament was committed to a new prolongation of its own life. The right hon. Gentleman said that. He said, if I understood him, that he had to give way to that strong feeling, so that really as a matter of fact this Bill is introduced by the Government—this unseaworthy, illogical, bad Bill—is introduced by the Government under duress. Left to themselves they would never have introduced it. Can anybody doubt, having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that left to themselves the Government would never have introduced this Bill, or that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the present moment are only doing it reluctantly and under duress? I am one of those who think that the register ought to be put in order, but I must say that I believe the Government would gain power and weight if they acted up to their convictions. If you really believe that the business of setting up this register is injurious, if that be your opinion, and has been your opinion all the time, would it not have been better to have said so boldly and to have faced the consequences? The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's whole argument was designed to show the disadvantages of the course which the Government has adopted because the House is placed under duress in the matter. I really think the right hon. Gentleman, and other of his colleagues, would really find their paths easier if they were bolder and simpler, and prepared to take the consequences of honest opinion — whatever the consequences of that opinion might be. The line of least resistance is not always to be found by the avoidance of difficulties. The latter part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was designed to show, I think, that the circumstances of the present time may be very favourable to much larger resolutions than those within the scope of this Bill.
  I heard with the greatest sympathy, as doubtless did hon. Members in other parts of the House, and with the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing true views when he said that the petty party questions of former days are, during the continuance of this great struggle, dead, and consequently the whole series of solutions for questions of the franchise and registration which are not open at any time of party strife are now within the range of practical politics. I know the

  1953
  arguments of over-burdened Ministers, of war-burdened Ministers. I hope, however, the House will not take that too much for granted. I have seen a good deal of the Government both in peace time and in war time. There are a great many Ministers in the Government whose work during the War is much lighter than it was in time of peace. The War Committee have, no doubt, most absorbing duties, and so have the great executive officers. The right hon. Gentleman, too, has very arduous work. But on the whole the work of the ordinary Minister, not directly engaged in the War, during this War, has been much less than it was in time of peace, when hotly contested measures were going through Parliament, when Sessions were almost continuous, and sittings prolonged night after night, and far into the night. I do not think the House will for one moment accept the statement that the Government have not the mental resources available to make a very sincere and earnest attempt to settle the problems which lie before us. We are told that local officials, the overseers, will be overburdened, and that those who have to prepare this register will be overburdened. It is possible, however, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, that with a simplification of qualification that burden might be greatly lightened, and might be lightened to such an extent that the whole process of forming the register might be accelerated. It is said that Parliament is overburdened. The Prime Minister said what a shocking thing it would be to draw the attention of the House and the country off the War; hut surely it is hardly reasonable to say that sort of thing on the eve of the House of Commons going away for six or seven weeks' holiday.
  After all, these questions which lie before us are very great questions. If they could be settled in a satisfactory manner they would be an inestimable boon to this country, and if this hour should be apt and ripe for the settlement, if, in spite of the fact that the War is going on, the conditions of the party truce at home render the passage of these measures easy and possible, surely we ought not to let this chance slip by, perhaps for ever. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, find that an earnest effort made by a united Government with real guidance and leadership would enable, without undue labour or loss of time or friction, a much happier solution to be reached upon these
  1954
  questions than any provided by this Bill. It is necessary sometimes to face difficulties. What is the attitude which the Government have adopted? They recoil from everything. They discuss this matter in their conclaves and find difficulty in coming to a decision, and so they postpone it. The House of Commons demands a decision, and so they go back again to face the difficulty. Then they come down and suggest a Committee. That is not acceptable, and they go back and face the difficulty from which they previously recoiled. So we come to this measure, and we are told that if there are difficulties in the passage of this measure it will be postponed. The Government should govern and its leaders should lead. They should have a conviction, and a strong one. It need not be a conviction which carries with it everybody else's conviction in every quarter, but if the spirit of conviction animated their action they could say, "That is what we are going to do, and if you do not like it, get someone else to do it." This would get them a position very quickly here and in the country which would render the solving of these problems, which now seem to them so difficult, and which are difficult, so long as they are approached in a niggling fashion, very much easier of solution.
  Take this question of what is called facilities for soldiers' votes. I am just as hostile to a General Election as the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else on that bench in time of war. There is a universal feeling that it would be a deplorable event if it should occur; but it might occur. It might be forced upon us, as has been repeatedly pointed out and admitted. It might be forced upon us by a break-up of the Coalition Government in one of those recurring crises. It might be forced upon us by great personal differences in the Administration. It might be forced upon us by the House of Commons withdrawing its confidence in the Government. It might be forced upon us by the House of Lords refusing to prolong the life of Parliament or refusing some indispensable measure. If an election did come, although it is an event which ought to be avoided by every possible means—and it would be one of the greatest misfortunes if such an election did come during the course of the War—is it not perfectly clear that the soldiers who are fighting our battles ought not to be excluded? We are not now considering at all the question of an election;

  1955
  we are considering the question of placing our Parliamentary and political machinery in working order, so that if an election were forced upon us the supreme means of settling constitutional questions should not be denied to the people of this country. If that is so, why should the Government so hastily dismiss the means by which soldiers could be enabled to record their vote? The Prime Minister has conceded the principle already of soldiers recording their votes, and of soldiers recording their votes when in a position of danger and in possible contact with the enemy. The soldiers in the East Coast garrison towns and fortresses are liable to attack at any moment from the sea, and those towns have been bombarded. While the Prime Minister is perfectly ready to concede a machinery—he has promised it to my right hon. Friend—which shall enable those soldiers to record their votes, at the same time we are told it is an absurdity to suggest that men who happen to be the other side of the Channel in France should have similar rights and facilities. The objections to persons under military discipline recording their votes and taking part in elections are no greater in regard to the Army abroad than they are to the Army serving at home— [HON. MEMBERS dissented]—in principle.
  Mr. G. FABER: In practice—not in principle.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Then let the practice be extended. I hope hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter patiently, because it is a very important matter indeed. I say that the Prime Minister has conceded the principle of large numbers of soldiers under military discipline in this country, where they are in contact with political influences of various kinds, recording their votes at an election, should an election come, and I contend that to go a step further and to say that soldiers who are serving in France, if the circumstances render it possible, should also record their votes, is no difference of principle. Let us see whether in practice it would be a great difficulty. I am speaking all the time on the basis that it is extremely undesirable to have an election during war time, and every resource of the Constitution must be resorted to so as to avoid it, but, if you have an election, soldiers must vote, and if soldiers vote no distinction can be proved between the man who is in danger abroad and the man in safety at
  1956
  home—certainly not an invidious distinction. A great exaggeration of view prevails as to the difficulty of getting soldiers to vote when they are in the trenches or in the fighting zone. I know what I am talking about in this matter, and I am certain there are other Members in the House with experience of the Service abroad, who are fresh from France, who know perfectly well that the difficulties are largely illusory and greatly exaggerated of the mere mechanical process of collecting the votes of, we will say, a battalion of Infantry in the field. Why there is no organisation in the world so complete as the organisation by which a military unit is maintained. If an officer commanding a battalion were asked in the morning for the most minute details as to men in the battalion, which required the filling up of papers and forms, by nightfall they would all be in.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about the Navy?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There would not be the slightest difference. Of course, there are objections, but there are objections to electing a Parliament and excluding enormous classes of men so deserving of enfranchisement. I believe that if a fortnight's latitude were allowed to the commanding officers of ships and battalions to take the polling, the actual process itself would not take more than a few hours, and would not be the cause of the slightest inconvenience or injury to the Service in any way, nor be the least detrimental to discipline, because the disciplinary powers possessed are so overwhelming, so efficient, so effective, that nothing like disorder or want of discipline would occur. The House would make the greatest mistake to deride this matter. I am not in the least disturbed by; an attitude of derision with regard to it. Of course, opinions naturally differ, but what my right hon. Friend has asked for is, not that this matter shall be decided by the House, but that it shall not be brushed aside as unworthy of discussion and be regarded as so absurb and ridiculous as not to be treated of in Parliament at the proper opportunity, and that we are to make up our minds quite willingly to create a register, which may be the basis of the election of a Parliament, from which the whole of this great body of men should be excluded. In all these things you have a choice of courses, to each of which there is objection, and in

  1957
  this case the balance of objection lies far more on the side of those who wish to create a register to the exclusion of the soldiers than it does on the side of those who are making an effort to see whether the practical and admitted difficulties cannot in some way or another be solved, just as they have been solved and adjusted in other great crises of the history of the world. The right hon. Gentleman must not look forward to a smooth passage for his Bill. Certainly it seems to me a measure which requires most careful detailed examination in Committee. I do not see in the least why, when the Government have not their hearts in the measure, do not believe in it themselves, abuse it in language hardly Parliamentary, deride their own measure like they did the proposal for a Committee, they have any right to expect Parliament to subscribe cheerfully to all the anomalies, all the unseaworthiness, and all the, illogicalities which the Prime Minister and the Secretary to the Local Government Board declare there are in this measure.
  Sir H. MEUX: It seems to me my misfortune to have to disagree with the right hon. and gallant Member. He said just now that he did not see any practical difficulties in giving the vote to sailors at sea during the War. I think the difficulties are absolutely insuperable. How long is it between the decision to have an election and the election? [HON. MEMBERS: "Six weeks!"] What is going to happen during those six weeks? Will not the soldiers and sailors all that time be fussed about by politicians who want their votes? Of course I except the hon. Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt), for he is the most honest man in the House. As for the speeches which have been made to-day, how do you think they will be read in the trenches and on the ships? Do those speakers imagine that their speeches will make them more popular in the future? Without any hesitation at all I say that I believe the leading admirals, if this proposal is put to them, would say, "No, certainly not." What does General Haig say about it? Are we allowed to know that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not yet!"] But those on the Treasury Bench know. I feel very uncomfortable in opposing, not only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), but also the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), whose
  1958
  felicity of phrase and modulation of tone leaves me overcome. I feel towards him like a very bad admiral felt in regard to a very distinguished person of whom he said, "You remember what Mark Antony thought about Brutus." I think the same about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, for if ever there was a gallant and honourable Brutus it is he.
  Since I have been in the House there are two subjects which are on the tapis: one is that there is a large body, but by no means a majority, of Members in this House who think the way to win this War is to get rid of the Solomon at the head of this Government. I say "Solomon" because I do not think there is any hon. Member who will deny that he is by far the cleverest man in this House. But we must remember, when Solomon left this world, who succeeded him. It was Rehoboam, who broke up the old Hebrew Empire. Who is going to step into the right hon. Gentleman's shoes and break up this Empire? Is that a question you are going to ask the Army? Are they going to vote on that subject? The only question they are very anxious about at the front now is the attempts of various ecclesiastics and other well-meaning people to stop their grog. Are you going to have a General Election on that? I do not propose to say anything now in favour of our soldiers and sailors, but I hope you all know what I think of them. I wish to repeat once more that, seriously speaking, to think of having a General Election for our troops abroad or our sailors at sea, to my mind would be absolutely fatal, and if this House was foolish enough to adopt that scheme we deserve to lose the War.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board commanded the general assent of the House when he said that party calls and party ties have died down during this war. Where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is in regard to what he said when he dealt with the question of a General Election during the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee showed that circumstances might arise under which a General Election may be forced upon us by causes over which the Government and this House have no control. The whole object of criticising this Bill is to prepare the electorate for that General Election. I cannot agree with those who

  1959
  say that it will be impossible to take the votes of the soldiers and the sailors. On this point I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Meux). I think our soldiers and sailors who have had their minds concentrated on this war more than any other body of men, are more entitled to a vote even during the War than anybody else if a General Election should take place. Nor do I see any difficulty about the machinery or any interference with discipline. It only requires the good will of the candidates to arrange that their election addresses shall go in the same envelope, and that no General Election literature should be sent to soldiers and sailors. If there is that good will on the part of the candidates there will be no question of any interference with the discipline of the soldiers and sailors by the fact of their voting.
  I had not intended to intervene in this Debate and should not have done so but for the fact that I was called out during the Debate by the representatives of an important section of the organisation amongst women to repudiate the statement made by the Prime Minister. First, let me say that I entirely disagree myself with the view that if you are going to give the vote to the soldiers and sailors you thereby drag in the question of women's suffrage as well. Because you do a fair measure of justice to those who have risked their lives—and all sections of soldiers risk their lives who go to the front, whether they are in the Army Service Corps or in any other section—it does not follow that you must at the same time bring in the women. I am sure the women would repudiate the idea that you should necessarily bring them in because you give the vote to soldiers and sailors. The quotation from the Prime Minister's speech, which I have had brought to my notice and which is repudiated by this very important section of women, is as follows:
  "I have received a great many representations from those who are authorised to speak for them, and I am bound to say that they presented to me not only a reasonable but, I think, from their point of view, an unanswerable ease. They say they are perfectly content, if we do not change the qualification of the franchise, to abide by the existing state of things, but that if we are going to bring in a new class of electors, on whatever ground of State service, they point out— and we cannot possibly deny their claim—that during this War the women of this country have rendered as effective service in the prosecution of the War as any other class of the commtvmty,"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1916, col. 1451.]
  1960
  I have been authorised on the part of the Women's Social and Political Union, with whom I have always differed in the past, to say that they repudiate that statement altogether made by the Prime Minister. They express the utmost anxiety that the soldiers and sailors should be given the vote, and the statement I have made I am authorised to make by Mrs. Pankhurst on behalf of the Women's Social and Political Union, who, after all, brought this question of women's franchise to the forefront, however much we may differ from their methods. They authorise me to say that they will not allow themselves to be used to prevent soldiers and sailors from being given the vote.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The Prime Minister has left the House within the last half hour, but he has asked me to say on behalf of the Government, and I think the whole House will agree, that the Debate has shown that it is really no use whatever trying to proceed with the Committee stage before the Adjournment, and we do not propose to do so. I am not going to take any part in the discussion except to say with reference to what has been said by my hon. Friend who has just eat down, that what seems obvious to us we cannot help thinking must seem obvious to others, but unfortunately they do not always take that view. What the Government have to consider in framing a register is not what in itself may be right for the time being, but whether or not it can be carried through the House without fighting, and without that kind of thing which everyone should try to avoid at a time like this. That is our whole consideration. It is not a question of what any of us would wish. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee pointed out what the Prime Minister himself had said and its effect, but nobody denies it. May I point out that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee nor anyone else offered any alternative except one which would mean, in my opinion, raising the whole question of the suffrage at this time, which would, to my belief, be one of the most absurd things that could be done. I am almost tempted to enter into this discussion, but I do not wish to do so. I think it is obvious that we cannot proceed further, and I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I also think that the House should give a Second Beading to

  1961
  the Bill for extending the life of Parliament. We shall not ask the House to go beyond the Second Reading to-night, and to-morrow in Committee the points which require to be cleared up can be dealt with. I hope now that the House will agree to give us the Second Readings of these two Bills.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.— [Mr. Bea.]

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir E. CARSON: I do not wish to delay the proceedings on this Bill, but I desire to say that there are two Amendments which I shall certainly move to-morrow —one is to reduce the period of eight months to six months, which I think is a reasonable time to go on extending from time to time our own life, and that will give us an opportunity of reviewing the matter in six months' time. My other suggestion is this: We all know that we have not had a new register for a considerable time, therefore, if through any untoward circumstance an election occurred, it would take place on the old register. I think some of my Tory friends might like that, but I think the old register was entirely out of date, and that register would elect a Parliament which would have no moral force. For these reasons I mean to put down an Amendment securing as a condition of extending the life of this Parliament that if by any unforeseen circumstances an election is held on the old register, that the duration of the Parliament set up by that election shall not be for five years, but for two years and no longer. The House can consider in Committee whether two years is too long or not. I think that is a proposal well worth looking at, and, subject to these reservations, so far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest objection to the Bill being read a second time.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. BONARLAW: Obviously I am not called upon, and my right hon. Friend cannot expect me, to pronounce an
1962
opinion on either of the Amendments he has indicated just now. I may say, however, that the Government will be perfectly ready to consider the first of his proposals. With regard to his second Amendment, everyone will feel that a Parliament elected under such conditions would not have the moral force which a Parliament ought to have if elected under normal conditions. I do not see any strong objection to such a limitation of time, but obviously it must be considered from many points of view, and before the Bill comes up to-morrow I think the Government will be in a position to express their view whether the period should be six or eight months. That is not a matter of primary importance either to the Government or to the House of Commons, although I am inclined to think that eight months, under the circumstances, and in view of the delay in getting a new register, is not unreasonable, but I certainly do not believe that the Prime Minister would regard that as anything in the least degree vital. I believe he will be perfectly ready to consider it on its merits when it? comes up for discussion to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

MUNICIPAL SAVINGS BANKS (WAR LOAN INVESTMENT—No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. — [Lords.]
As amended, considered.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to move the new Clause ("Automatic check on excessive rents and prices") standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Commander Wedgwood).
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to move a new Clause on behalf of an absent Member.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Board to Acquire Land for Small Holding Colonies.)
The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Section shall not at any time

1963
exceed six thousand acres, of which two thousand acres shall be located in Wales, including Monmouthshire, and in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired the Board shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval or military forces of the Crown in the present war.
Amendment made: Leave out the words, "six thousand acres, of which two thousand acres shall be located in Wales, including Monmouthshire," and insert instead thereof the words, "four thousand five hundred acres in England (excluding Monmouthshire), or two thousand acres in Wales and Monmouthshire, or six thousand acres in all."—[Mr. Gulland, for Mr. Acland.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Application to Scotland.)
This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, "arbiter" shall be substituted for "arbitrator," "the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908," shall be substituted for "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund shall be substituted for the Small Holdings Account, "easements" mean servitudes, and "small holding" means a small holding as defined in Section thirty-three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911:

(b) Paragraph (b) of Section four and Sections six and eight of this Act shall not apply:

(c) Section one shall be read and con-trued as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres, provided that the two thousand acres so acquired shall, to the extent of three-fourths thereof, consist of land suitable to be sultivated as arable land.

Amendments made: In paragraph (a) leave out the words "'easements' mean servitudes," and insert instead thereof the words "'easement' moans servitude."
In paragraph (b) leave out the words "six and seven," and insert instead thereof the words "seven and nine."— [Mr. Munro, for Mr. Tennant.]
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres, provided that the two thouand acres so acquired shall, to the extent of three-fourths thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, for the purpose of Section one of this Act, shall not at any time exceed two thousand acres, of which three-fourths shall."
Mr. MORTON: Will that shut out my Amendment to leave out the word "two" and to insert instead thereof the word "seven"?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. MORTON: Very well, then I shall be allowed to go on with my Amendment first.
Mr. SPEAKER: No, the Government take precedence of the hon. Member.
Mr. HOGGE: I do not think the House ought to agree to this Amendment. I have not heard it very clearly, but if it involves, as I imagine it does involve, from what I did hear from the Chair, a ruling out of the possibility of Scotland having a larger acreage than was proposed in the original draft of this Bill, then we Scotsmen cannot accept this Amendment without a protest. The question involved is one of the amount of land which ought to be given to the three separate countries. We have stated that in England it will be 4,500 acres, and it has been agreed that 2,000 acres shall be given to Wales and the county of Monmouthshire. The whole acreage of Wales is so very much less than the acreage of Scotland that it is perfectly obvious that 2,000 acres are inadequate for Scotland as compared with Wales. It is also perfectly obvious, if you consider the nature of the soil in the two countries, that the conditions under which the 2,000 acres in Wales can be used are totally different from the conditions that apply to Scotland. When we were discussing this matter in Committee, the suggestion was made that if in Scotland the land were to be limited to 2,000 acres then three-quarters of it should be arable land. That argument was used because we felt, if we were to be limited to 2,000 acres, that the best use to which that land could be put would be to have market gardens in the

1965
vicinity of our large towns. The House will at once see what an enormous convenience that would be to the disabled soldiers in our large cities. You do not want to have to move them long distances from the towns to settle them on the land if it is only a very small acreage. They could largely live in the cities and devote their time to working on the land using it for the purposes of market gardens. That is a very different problem from the one we Scotsmen thought was going to arise out of the suggestion.
We have in Scotland large areas of land which are uninhabited, or which carry very few men to the acre. We have millions of those acres. The further north you go the more sparse the population becomes, and the more room there is to plant men upon the land. If you are going in far an experiment of this sort, surely it ought to be of such a nature as to command some success. It is perfectly obvious from what hon. Members know about Scotland that 2,000 acres beyond Inverness would be perfectly hopeless to make the experiment in all respects successful. It is therefore obvious, if we are to be limited to 2,000 acres, that the land should be adjacent our large towns. The Scottish Members are divided about this very important subject. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Morton), who was not quite sure whether he could move his Amendment, represents one of the Highland constituencies. The problem in the Highlands of Scotland is largely a crofting problem. It is not the same problem as that which exists in the Lowlands of Scotland, where' we have large farms and probably some of the best tilled farms in the world. My hon. Friend questions that statement, but he must know that it was from that portion of the country between Berwick and the Tweed and Edinburgh from which the Scottish farmers exported to England and laid the foundation of England's approaching greatness to Scotland in agriculture. The problems are different, and the Members from Scotland are divided. I am a City representative, and while I have every desire that the Highlands of Scotland should be re-populated and, so far as possible, that in its initial stages this experiment should be devoted to householders, yet as a town-bred man, if the acreage is to be limited to 2,000 I want to see some use made of the nation's money. This is going to cost some millions of money, and I do not think we are entitled, even in a time of war when we are doing all sorts of emergency
1966
things, to spend the nation's money in an experiment which begins without any chance of success. In Scotland apparently we have more generous landlords than they have in other parts of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, up to the present moment the only offers of land that have been made for this purpose have been made by landlords in Scotland, and landlords elsewhere have yet got to make any offer. I do not want, however, to occupy too much time, because I know there are many Members who wish to join in the discussion, and I certainly desire to give my hon. Friend behind me, who all the years he has been in this House has devoted himself to the interests of the crofters in the Highlands of Scotland, an opportunity of saying something in favour of his Amendment. It looked as if the Amendment were going to fall to the ground, and I felt it my duty to give this opportunity to my old and trusted colleague.
Mr. MORTON: I am sorry that anything technical should shut me out from having an opportunity of moving my Amendment, as I should have preferred to have had a straight question before the House as to whether we are treating Scotland fairly in the proportion it is proposed to give her. My hon. Friend knows enough about the Highlands of Scotland to know that the question of arable land there is different from some parts of the Lowlands of Scotland. If you pass the Bill as it now stands, with the provision that three-fourths shall consist of land suitable for the cultivation of arable land, it will practically shut out all the north-east counties from the benefits of the Act.
It being a quarter-past eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, "That the House do now adjourn."
  My excuse for putting the House to the inconvenience of debating this matter tonight is that I think we should not go into recess without making some definite provision for the payment of the soldiers

  1967
  discharged between the time of their discharge and the time they get their pensions. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster), when he is here, will not think that I am raising the question out of any spite towards him, because there is no more sympathetic Minister who sits upon the Front Bench. I wanted to raise the matter because I believe and feel sure that he is with us, and I think that if he has the sense of the House on the matter he will be in a better position to deal with it satisfactorily. I want it to be perfectly clear that I am not raising the general question of pensions. That question if raised in all its ramifications would take a long time, and would probably result in nothing at all. I hope, therefore, that the Debate will be confined strictly to the smaller question I have mentioned, so that it may be fruitful—that is to say, to make provision for that hiatus between when a man has done with the Army and the time when his pension is settled one way or the other. Up to May last there had been no provision, and then provision was made on paper in something like these terms. It was then provided, by a warrant, I think, issued by the War Office, that when a man was discharged from the Army, and until his pension was settled one way or the other, he would get 10s. a week if single and 20s. a week if married. Then, if subsequently he got a pension and it was more it would be made up to him, or if less the amount he had had in excess of the pension granted to him subsequently would be taken away. I believe it was also stipulated and laid down by the War Office that in the event of a man getting no pension subsequently the War Office would not in any way seek to recover the money. That was fairly satisfactory—at all events it looked fairly satisfactory. It is true that some men would be very considerably reduced, either on the 20s. or on the 10s., and in the case of a married man who was going home the 20s., of course, was an amount of money which would involve considerable hardship to him until the question of his pension was settled, because he would be getting less than his wife was getting on separation allowance, in many cases. But it looked a fair and square settlement, having regard to the fact that the 10s. or 20s. was to be paid whether a man was entitled to a pension
  1968
  or not, and we were all grateful that that arrangement was made.
  What we have to complain about now is that it has not materialised—at least, it has not materialised in very many cases. There it is on paper. Unfortunately, the fact of its being on paper does not satisfy the grocer or the landlord, and therefore there has been a great deal of distress in consequence of the money not having been paid. I know, speaking for the Statutory Committee, that we have had a great many complaints. At one time they were a deluge, and recently they have become almost an avalanche. They are greater absolutely, I do not know about relatively, because part of the trouble is the "Big Push" on the Western front. During the last few weeks men have been sent over in thousands, I suppose, and the whole machinery has been congested therefore, and probably that is the reason for so many cases coming to hand. It has certainly become a physical impossibility for the Statutory Committee to deal with them. I get cases, however, every day. Probably I get more than my fair share I do not know, but it so happens that I am a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which has branches all over the country; I am also on the Statutory Committee; and I have been more or less associated with the question of pensions during the last two years. It is possible, therefore, that I may get more than my fair share. At all events, the fact remains that there never passes a day over my head without my getting a letter from some poor soul in distress, hard put to it to get the bare necessaries of life, either for the man's wife or for the man himself, whose claim has gone in for a pension, who is waiting for a pension, and who sometimes has nothing to eat. I must admit that they are getting on my nerves. I send the cases to the War Office or hand them over to the Statutory Committee, and then, in a few days, I get a reminder about some particular case. I cannot trace it because, as I say, it gets on my nerves so that I cannot sleep for it, and, whatever happens, I shall have simply to give it up, because I cannot face it.
  Apart, however, from our own individual experiences in this matter, I want to point out to the Financial Secretary the effect of this in the country. I sent the hon. Gentleman the other day a newspaper article written by R. J. Campbell, who is a man of great influence with large sections of

  1969
  the community, and who was writing a two-column article in one of the illustrated Sunday papers of, I think, last Sunday. In it he gave details of cases of hardship which have come under his observation, in one particular case where he has seen the soldier himself, who had been disabled some time ago, who had got no pension, no allowance, no anything, and whose wife had to char to keep that man alive. These cases are having an effect on public opinion throughout the country. People are getting incensed that after all the high-faluting rhetoric that has been indulged in in every town and village, from one end of the country to the other, and after all the bills saying that "Your King and Country Need You," and that your wife and family will be looked after, and all the rest of it, it comes down to this: that if a man goes away, and remains away for months on end in the trenches, and is wounded, there is no assurance that when he comes home he will get that pension or allowance which has been promised. Let me read one letter. As I say, I have letters every day. Here is the last one, which I received this morning. It is written from Swindon:
  "I am writing to solicit your assistance on behalf of the person named in this letter, whom I am personally acquainted with, Under the distressing circumstances, and knowing the interest you take in Army pensions, and being a member of the A.S.E., I thought I could not do better than to put the matter in your hands. The particulars are as follows: Private John— 4th/7th Middlesex Regiment, E Company; enlisted Maidstone Barracks 9th March; was sent to Purfleet on the 10th, was vaccinated, and inoculated—"
  And then he goes on to say:
  "This poor man was sent ultimately to an asylum at Maidstone, where he is at the present moment. After he had been there three weeks he received his discharge from the Army. His wife's allowance of 17s. 6d. for herself and child was discontinued, and she is now left to her own resources."
  That is the last letter; that came to hand this morning, dated from Swindon yesterday. The one before that was also of yesterday, from a constituent. It says:
  "Dear Sir, as I am one of your electors from the South Side I was told by one of the Health Commissioners to write to you and explain my case. I joined the Highland Light Infantry in March, or the beginning of April, 1915. I was took ill during my drilling. I returned, was examined by the doctor, and put on light duty. I…got worse, and was sent to —Hospital—"
  And then he goes on—I need not read all of it, but the upshot is this—speaking of the Health Commissioners:
  "They told me they would do their best for me about a pension. I waited, and then received a letter from the Commissioners…saying they were very sorry the Committee could not do anything for me."
  Those are the last two of my letters, one received this morning and the other re-
  1970
  ceived last night, or in the early hours this morning, after I got home. These letters are coming to me almost daily. I want to put in a letter showing the case of a borough. I have a letter here from the local committee serving under the War Pensions Committee in a borough just outside London, not twenty miles from here. I am not at liberty to say where it comes from. It is from the town clerk, who says:
  "I enclose a schedule of cases in which, so far as I know, no temporary pension has been given to the man on discharge. This schedule has been made out in a great hurry. If necessary I shall be glad to go into any of the cases further, and forward them to you. I was under the impression that every man discharged from service was entitled to this temporary pension, and that it was given as soon as a man came out. It would save much anxiety to the man and much expenditure of money by this committee…If the pension comes through at a later stage it does not become known to myself, and the man is too heavily in debt to recover."
  He goes on to give me a list of cases. There are no less than thirty-four cases. The name of every man is given, and the hurt or disease, as the case may be, is set out in tabulated form with the date of his discharge. The town clerk says that not one of these men has, as yet, got that temporary allowance to which, on paper, he was entitled as from May last. The first one is:
  "Private Frederick Charles Rich, 3rd East Surreys, No. 1010. Suffering from rheumatism and rupture. Discharged 9th June, 1916."
  That is over two months ago. The next one is:
  "Private John Matthews, 24th Labour Battalion,—"
  he is suffering from some long name which I cannot pronounce—
  "discharged 23rd June, 1916."
  "Private Stanley Wenham, 2–4 Queen's, 3180, right leg amputated, discharged 6th June, 1916,"
  That is over two months ago. I will not weary the House by reading them all through, but here they are. I shall be very glad to hand them to the Financial Secretary for his inspection and to deal with them as he thinks proper. I assume that they are all right. They come from a duly accredited local committee, acting under the Statutory Committee. The letter is from the town hall, and the name of the town clerk is printed at the top of the letter.
  That is the case. Let me say a few words about the cause of the trouble. It is perfectly clear. One would have thought, having regard to the immense expansion of the Army during the last two years, that the simple, logical and proper thing would be to lessen work as much as

  1971
  possible, instead of which the root cause of all this trouble lies in unnecessarily increased work. Take the first of these cases. Here we have Private Frederick Charles Rich, who was discharged from, the Army on 9th June last. I do not know how long he had been in the Army; probably for a year. What could be more simple than to leave that man on pay until his pension is settled? That seems to me to be a very simple thing to do, and not only simple but the right and just thing to do. What business has the War Office to discharge that man? Mr. Rich may have left a good job two years ago in order to join the Army. He might have been in receipt of £2 a week. He has been away all this time serving his country. His wife may have been in receipt of a separation allowance of £1 a week, or a little more than that, just sufficient to keep body and soul together for herself and her children. He cannot have saved much out of the 3s. 6d. a week which he received when in the Army, because by the time he had bought beer and tobacco it was all gone. The War Office seem to think that this man has a banking account. He has not. Therefore the proper thing to do is to keep on his pay, whatever it may be, until such time as the War Office may decide one way or the other whether he is to have a pension. Then if he is not to have a pension we have set up a Statutory body to deal with that kind of case, one of whose functions is to see that these men, who for some reason or other are not entitled to a pension from the War Office, are dealt with. There are such cases; we all admit it. We need not go into them. In the cases of men who are subsequently found not to be entitled to a pension, the proper thing for the War Office to do is to keep the man on his pay, whatever it may be, and on his separation allowance, until such time as the question of pension is settled. Then the man would automatically go on from the pay to the pension, or from pay to the allowance from the statutory body, as the case might be.
  What is the objection to that? If there are objections, let us face them. There are some cases where a man is not entitled to a pension. There it may be said that it involves the payment of State money to a man who is subsequently found not to be entitled to it. Also it is open to the objection that a man might receive more when he was getting 10s. or 20s. a week than he would be entitled to receive
  1972
  subsequently from his pension. Let us look at what happens on the other side. A man is on pay fight up to the time of his discharge. I assume, that there is a certain amount of book-keeping to be done in regard to that—entries to be kept up and a staff to make them. But as from that time you start another set of books. As from the time the man is discharged until he gets the pension—it may be two, three, or four weeks, or, as in these cases, over two months—you start a wholly new set of machinery, with, I suppose, a large staff in Baker Street, and with all the expense involved therein, to deal with these men for the temporary period or that hiatus that ought to be filled up by continuing the man on his pay. There is that on the other side to be set off against the expense involved in continuing a man on his pay. There is also the simplicity of it. Why go in for unnecessary expense and complication when it is so simple to keep a man on his pay instead of making any alteration at all1? That is my case. I should like to conclude, as I began, by assuring the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who was not here then, that I do not raise this question out of any spite of him.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Hear, hear!
  Mr. BARNES: He has always been very sympathetic, and I have no complaint to make of him at all. I hive never put a case to him without his attending to it promptly and, as far as he could, satisfactorily. I want rather to arm him with sufficient powers, coming from this House, on behalf of the country, to stop this scandal, shall I call it—it is a scandal— of men who have gone in response to the appeal of the country to serve it finding, after they come back, that they have to wait from two to five weeks, or as in the cases I have quoted, from two to three months, without receiving any money, being in some cases unable to work and almost put to their wits' ends to get at the necessaries of life.
  Mr. CROOKS: I beg to second the Motion.
  I, like my right hon. Friend, am a little uncertain as to how the Financial Secretary is taking it. The whole House is full of sympathy. The whole House believes in what he proposes, but the difficulty is to get it carried out. There has always been a circumlocution office in Government

  1973
  Departments, where one Department hands it on to another, and you never get there all the time. The difficulty of keeping a man going when he comes out of the Army is far and away greater than one could imagine offhand. A man endeavours to fight bravely for his country, but when he comes out he wants something to fall back upon before he can start work, and the reason why we are pleading so hard for that man is because you are breaking his heart. If he gets into debt he will never get out of it. The pension will not allow him to do it. The House is in favour, and who will deny that the country is in favour? I have been on platforms by the score, and I have said, calling attention to the placards on the wall, "Your King and Country need you," and I have always added, "Your wives, your children, and your sweethearts demand you, and never again as long as Britain stands will it see its wounded warriors either begging in the streets or going to the workhouse for an order to go in." What is the result of that speech-making? I know a case, which I will not identify because the man is too sensitive, but it is sufficient to say that he is discharged on 7s. 6d. per week pension. A lady who heard me make the observation I made a minute or two ago wrote me a letter: "My dear Sir,— I heard you speak in So-and-so town. You said that every wounded warrior would be properly looked after by his country. You are a liar. And the worst of it is, you knew you were lying when you said it." I at once wrote and sent her down the scheme of the Statutory Committee. She was appeased. All this time we are waiting, waiting, waiting. Is it because there are not men enough to carry it out, or is it that there are too many officials already doing the same kind of work? The work is duplicated. This is not the fault of the Financial Secretary. In this scheme civil paymasters and military paymasters are so mixed up that it takes a Department something like 5,000 strong to deal with the duplication every day. If it was well known that a man's pay would continue until his pension was settled, surely they would hurry up the Pension Department and they would pay to get him off his military pay. But I need not prolong the agony. I heartily ask the House, and I know the country ask the House, and I know the country is asking the Treasury,
  1974
  to see that these men do not suffer. After all, if you break a man's heart you cannot easily mend it again.
  Mr. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) was good enough to refer to the fact that at any rate I am not hostile to the views which he has put forward. I do not think anyone else charged with the responsibility of administering pensions under circumstances such as we find ourselves in in these days could take a hostile view of any Motion which is designed to strengthen his hands in dealing with cases such as my right hon. Friend has brought forward. He has asked to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite lacuna in our system. He has given a brief outline of the history of the conception of the allowance of 10s. or 20s., according as to whether or not a man is entitled to separation allowance, reminding the House that this was specially created and designed in order to tide him over between the date of his discharge and the date on which the pension is fixed. He put a question to me to-day with reference to the delay in getting these allowances into the hands of the men who ought to receive them. I have been giving close personal attention to this question for some weeks and when I saw my right hon. Friend's question I hesitated as to whether to take the usual attitude of a man who stands at this box and says everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds or whether frankly to admit that there has been delay and to try to satisfy his mind that I was taking such steps as were open to me to deal promptly and effectively with the evil which I recognise.
  Mr. BARNES: I intended to say that the reply to-day was so satisfactory that in ordinary circumstances I should have been quite satisfied, but I had in my mind that we adjourn next Tuesday, and therefore I wanted the pressure of the House to be brought to bear before we rise.
  Mr. FORSTER: Then I shall not say anything more about it. I was going to say that my frank acknowledgment that there was room for improvement has not met with a very encouraging response. I am not sure that I do not realise now better than I did before what my right hon. Friend has in view. I think what ho wants, besides an assurance that things are being done, is an assurance that this

  1975
  question is not going to be allowed to slide the moment the House rises. I can give him that assurance in the most complete form, and with the greatest possible intention that it shall be carried out. I am responsible for having started this allowance and I intend to be responsible for seeing that it is paid. It is not a question of my Department. I take the responsibility on my own shoulders. I am looking into the matter myself, and I intend to see that if there is any obstacle put in the way of this allowance being issued it is going to be removed. When we are dealing with a very large number of men, and when we have to deal with them according to definite and settled rules, it is inevitable that there must be a certain number of cases where delay occurs and difficulties arise. Whatever system we introduce there will always be a certain number of cases where prompt action is not taken, and we can only do everything that is possible to reduce that number to the lowest possible point and to trust to other agencies, either voluntary or statutory, to take care of those whom the officials whom I represent are unable to deal with at the moment. The Government had this very point in view when it called into being the Statutory Committee of which my right hon. Friend is so distinguished a member. I entirely agree with him that we must see to it that the number of cases where delay arises is reduced to the very lowest possible point. My right hon. Friend made an offer to send me a list of thirty-four cases of delay in which no pension has been given, and in which this temporary allowance has not been issued. I do not know how long my right hon. Friend has had that list. I think he said it had only just reached him.
  Mr. BARNES: I will hand it over now.
  Mr. FORSTER: Thank you. I would appeal to all Members of the House, and to all members of the public, if they know of cases like this, do not let them bottle them up, but send them along, and let us get them attended to. I should like to say —recognising, as I have done, that there is delay in a larger number of cases even now than I care to contemplate, or that I contemplate with pleasure or satisfaction —that applications by the men or by those representing the men in person or by letter to the Pension Issue Office will be sufficient to put the issue of these special allowances
  1976
  to the men in train. Some people may imagine they have to go through all kinds of ceremonies and formalities and fill up all sorts of forms. That is not so in connection with this allowance, which is intended to be elastic, to be easy of issue, and to be free, as far as possible, from the trammels of red tape. As regards these allowances, we do not ask for anything further than a simple statement of the facts, and on that we proceed to go to work.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: May I ask if the application has to be sent to the Pension Office in Baker Street, London, by letter?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, either by letter or in person.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I am thinking of persons in the provinces?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, they can apply by letter.
  Mr. SCANLAN: Does that apply to Ireland?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
  Mr. SCANLAN: And Baker Street?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, and to all soldiers discharged on medical grounds—those whose cases will eventually go to Chelsea. My right hon. Friend said, "Let us go to the cause of the trouble." Well, I have been trying to get to the cause of the trouble for weeks, and I get a little nearer to it, I think, every day, and I am not sure that I have not got right to the bottom of it. I should like to remind the House that the best way of dealing with this particular case that we are reviewing to-night is to speed up Chelsea—to speed up the issue of the pensions to which the men are really entitled. That is the thing I have been trying to get done ever since my attention was drawn to this matter in, I think, March or April last. It is only fair to Chelsea to remind the House of the difficulty of the problem with which they have to deal. The issue of all these pensions according to special regulations are necessarily matters that involve very great care on the part of the staff that has to deal with them. One of the difficulties that we have had to encounter has been the difficulty of getting a trained staff. The second difficulty was that, owing to the enormous increase in the numbers with which we had to deal, there was great difficulty in getting sufficient accommodation. That accommodation has

  1977
  now been provided in the form of hutments and so forth, and I hope by dint of gradually improving our trained staff, and gradually training those who are imperfectly trained in the first instance, and also by gradually increasing our accommodation, that from this month onwards we shall be in a position at the Royal Hospital to deal with the enormous numbers which we presently will have to cope with. Difficulty No. 3 is this: The House will remember that they kept urging me in the interests of economy and urging my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant), and urging everybody connected with the War Office to clear out of the Army the enormous number of men who, it was alleged, ought never to have been taken into it because they were physically unfit, and who were, therefore, costing the country large sums of money which ought to be saved. I need not go into ancient history. Certainly I did as far as I could, and I know my right hon. Friend did, impress upon the military authorities the desirability of getting these unfit men out of the Army, and although our efforts were possibly not brought to full fruition quite as speedily as we hoped, at any rate in the past few months there has been a heavy exodus of unfit men from the Army.
  I am stating the position quite frankly, so that the House may realise the difficulties with which Chelsea has had to deal. If you take a comparatively untrained staff, with insufficient accommodation, and you throw upon them an enormous increase in the burden of work which they have to do, you cannot avoid having delay. Supposing you had thrown it upon the shoulders of the. Statutory Committee, or any other body, you would have had just the same difficulty, because an untrained staff cannot deal with it with rapidity. That was one of the difficulties which we had to face. We have now at the Royal Hospital an increased staff and increased accommodation, and we are able to deal more rapidly with the cases, and I think it is only fair to say that we have already improved by 100 per cent, the number of the cases in which the pension is settled before the man is discharged. That, however, is not good enough. It will not be good enough until we have dealt with practically everything, and that is what we are aiming at, that is the goal towards which all of us strive. Meanwhile, we have got to deal with the number of cases where, the man is discharged and the pension is
  1978
  not fixed. My right hon. Friend says, "Why not carry on his pay?" That is a very simple proposal, and it is the first thing I looked at before I started this temporary allowance. I said, "Why not continue his pay until his pension is fixed?" and, as I said in answer to my right hon. Friend to-day in a supplementary question, there are practical difficulties of continuing this man on his pay. I will not go into all of them, but let us take two—the case of a man in hospital, and that of a man not in hospital. The same thing practically applies to both. The man is discharged and goes home, and you say, "Continue him on pay." But there is nobody to pay him. The whole system of Army pay is payment by the regimental officer. When a man goes into hospital-the actual payment to him in cash stops.
  His pay is credited to his account in the office of the regimental paymaster. He can when he leaves hospital get into communication with the regimental paymaster and draw such balance of pay as may be due to him. But the regimental paymaster, in issuing payment, naturally has to be careful that he is in possession of all the man's transactions with regard to his pay before he was wounded or fell ill. There is exactly the same state of affairs in the case of a man who is discharged and is not in hospital but in one of the Army depots. He goes home. There is nobody to pay him. It was because of the difficulty in actually getting the money into the man's hands that we started this scheme of interim allowance. This is infinitely simpler. Payment must be or ought to be infinitely more prompt. The payment will be made by the men who will issue the pension as soon as the pension is fixed. That is another great advantage in favour of this allowance as against the retention of the man on pay. Why, then, are there so many men who are not getting their allowance? A considerable number of soldiers have been discharged on a form of discharge which is improperly filled up. They are discharged as unlikely to become efficient soldiers on medical grounds. When a man is discharged as unlikely to become an efficient soldier on medical grounds he is generally a man man who has not become medically unfit, but it is because he has got some inherent defect which prevents him from becoming an efficient soldier. The man who is discharged as medically unfit as a rule is a man who has been fit, but who either

  1979
  has been wounded or owing to disease or some other cause has ceased to be medically fit. We have issued the most strict instructions with regard to the proper filling up of these forms, in order that that particular mistake may be avoided in future.
  9.0 P.M.
  It may be said, "After all, suppose you have a mistake of that kind, surely that does not account for withholding the allowance in these cases." It does account for a great many of the cases of delay in this matter. That is one of the causes that I have been able to run to earth. Then I have found a number of claims where there was really no claim to a pension at all. Then there is the question to which I have alluded, the very heavy clearances from the Army and the consequent enormous increase of work on the part of the pension authorities. What are we to do to remedy it? We are all agreed that some remedy must be found. During the last two or three days I have been going closely into this question with all the various branches of pay offices, pension offices, record offices, medical people and everybody concerned, and I hope that as a result of numerous conferences which I have had we may be able to cut out a large chunk of the present procedure and simplify the communication of the fact that the man is going to be discharged from the record office to the pension issue office, where the allowance is issued. I have found cases of quite avoidable delay in various steps of the channel of communication. I propose to cut out a number of those steps and to make the communication from the record office to the pension issue office direct, and I hope by that means to convey the fact that the man is going to be discharged to the pension issue office at a considerably earlier date than the information reaches them, and I hope that by that means we shall be able to provide for the issue of this allowance in every case.
  I do not think that I need elaborate the matter further. I think what my right hon. Friend wished to know was whether there is any real intention to push the thing, whether he could get any real assurance that the matter was not going to be allowed to drift during the Parliamentary Recess when he and others would no longer be able to exercise such direct pressure on those who are responsible, and
  1980
  whether the thing was being approached in a practical and sympathetic spirit. I can assure" him that it is. I can give him an assurance on each of these three points. I am not going to allow red tape to stand in the way of getting those allowances into the hands of those who are entitled to them. It has been said that we have got a large amount of red tape. I hope that what I have said may at any rate show my right hon. Friend that we are alive to the real necessity of pressing this matter forward, and I hope that in those circumstances he will not think it necessary to pursue the matter further.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am one of those who have always acted on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that we should send cases such as these along to him and his staff without delay. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been marvellously successful in dealing with an enormous problem. I am full of admiration for the way in which he has done so. At the same time I have quite recently had to send on particulars of one or two really very distressing cases. Though constituencies like mine, and those of many other hon. Members, are not full of eases of that kind, yet, still, there is a sufficient number to amount to something when they are piled one on top of the other. I was enormously relieved to hear what the hon. Gentleman has told us to-day. I would like to make one suggestion, which I hope he will find practicable, and I am sure that if he can fall in with it he will do so. He tells us that he is just on the point of bringing some further reforms into operation, but before we part for the Recess I would ask the hon. Gentleman, can he give us an assurance that he hopes and believes that within, say, the next fortnight or three weeks these reforms will be in operation, and that no further cases of this sort of complaint will be arising. Possibly, within a very few days, he may be able to bring these reforms into operation.
  Mr. FORSTER: I shall be very much disappointed if they are not in operation by the end of this week.
  Mr. CURRIE: Then I have no more to say.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I must say that everybody must have been struck with the very sympathetic manner in which this question has been dealt with by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I have been closely associated with

  1981
  my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), who moved the Adjournment of the House on this question, on the Statutory Committee. On that body, I confess, I took, very strongly, the view which we conveyed to the War Office, that the only way to deal with this was by detaining the men on pay until their pensions were settled. But on going closer into the matter, and when I listened to my hon. Friend just now, I felt convinced that the real point that one had to aim at was that where the Army authorities lose touch with the man who is not yet taken up, as it were, by the Pension Pay Office. I was going to make the suggestion, which now comes rather late, because I think my hon. Friend is going on the same idea, which was in my mind, that a man should not be parted with by the military authorities until they are certain that his case is dealt with at the pension office, or that they are prepared in that Department to deal with him, and will probably grant him his demand before he goes away home, if he stays at home, or keep in communication with them if he does not. There does not seem to be any great difficulty about that, except the difficulty of detaining him, which I am glad to see is being dealt with by the capable hands of my hon. Friend. I feel, after the words that have fallen from him, much easier in my mind as to these men who will be dealt with, and there will not be that terrible time of waiting and uncertainty which has been experienced. Personally I must say, though perhaps it may seem a little ungracious to my hon. Friend, that I do not like these temporary pensions at all, for this reason, that there is connected with them the condition that they may be asked to refund a portion of what they have received, if the pension eventually granted is found to be at a lower figure than the amount of the temporary allowance, in which case a deduction will have to be made.
  Mr. FORSTER: May I correct my hon. and gallant Friend by stating that we are deliberately taking on the shoulders of the State the difference, where there are any of these ordinary deductions. Where the pension is less than the amount of temporary allowance, we do not recover from the recipient of the pension the difference between the two.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: I am very glad to have had that made quite clear, and I will not pursue the subject any further.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) on having brought forward this grievance, which is felt very much here, and which is also felt in Ireland. I also congratulate him on having brought this matter to a successful issue, because no one who has had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office can fail to see that he has taken in the matter of pensions for soldiers a most sympathetic interest, and the pledge he has given that he will himself take personal charge of all applications of this kind I think affords us all reason to believe that the cases in which such grievances as the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has brought before the House will be extremely rare in future. The sole point, as I understand it, which is raised in the present discussion, is the difficulty and hardship which are met with in the case of discharged soldiers from the time of their discharge until the amount of their pension is fixed by the War Office. I have known cases myself brought to the attention of the hon. Gentleman's Department, cases from the West of Ireland, where great distress was felt and great hardship inflicted not only on the discharged soldier but on members of his family, through the delay of issuing to him the £1 allowance provided for married men, and 10s. for single men. It has occurred to me that you have not only hardship on the discharged soldier himself and his immediate relatives and dependants, but you stultify the work of the Statutory Pensions Committee, because the Statutory Pensions Committee is debarred from taking up and dealing with cases of this kind until the War Office has determined the amount which it is prepared to pay to the discharged soldier. The simple remedy for this grievance would be to compile in the Register Department a special register of men discharged from the Army, and on the discharge of the individual soldier seeing that the rate has been fixed, upon the advice of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, on a flat basis of £1 for married men and 10s. for single men, it seems incomprehensible that there should be a delay, in any case, of three or four weeks before the money is paid. I received to-day a case from Sligo, my Constituency, where a man had been kept for five or six weeks without an allowance, which it had been intimated to him would be paid to him. I must say that immediately on my representing the facts of

  1983
  the case to the hon. Gentleman's Department I received the assurance that instructions would at once be issued, and that the payment would be made. I am very pleased indeed that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has given such a sympathetic answer to the Member for Blackfriars, and I join in the hope that in future there will be none of the delay which has occurred in the past.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I think the House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars for bringing this matter to our attention, and I desire to associate myself with him in what he has said regarding the hon. Gentleman who holds the office of Financial Secretary to the War Office. I think all of us must feel indebted to him for the unvarying kindness and courtesy with which he tries to meet us in connection with the many cases we have to bring under his notice. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars I have had a considerable number of these cases. I think that must be the common experience of most of us who have the honour and privilege of representing large industrial constituencies. I think our indebtedness to the Financial Secretary is increased to-night by the sympathetic way in which he has met my right hon. Friend. Personally, however, I should like to say that I am not at all sure that the sketch he outlined to us to-night will meet the difficulties of the situation. I recognise the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is under in carrying out his good intentions. In outlining what he thought might be done with a view to reducing the complaints regarding this matter, he said one of the first things that we should turn our attention to is speeding up at Chelsea. I think that the Commissioners at Chelsea have a very difficult task and that the best thing for the Financial Secretary and those associated with him at the War Office to take into serious consideration with a view to speeding them up would be to multiply the staff there ten times. That was the remark made by an hon. Member beside me when the hon. Gentleman spoke of speeding up. He was of opinion that that extension would be required in order to speedily deal with the number of pension claims which are likely to come before that body.
  Mr. HOGGE: You would want to alter the system.
  Mr. ADAMSON: There is also the difficulty brought before us of getting an adequate trained staff to deal with the method which the Financial Secretary outlined. I am not sure but that he would be well advised to consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that he should keep these men on their Army pay and continue the separation allowances until the question of pensions had been settled, and I am not sure that it would not be an easier way out of the difficulty and a less expensive way than the setting up of an entirely new Department to deal with the question of temporary allowances. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of sending the pay to the soldier when he is discharged, but I think it would be no more difficult for the paymaster and his staff to do so and to continue the separation allowance than it would be to set up a new staff and a new office. I urge on the hon. Gentleman to give this suggestion serious consideration and also to give attention to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Currie) as to this matter being attended to in the next fortnight and also as to paying the arrears that are due to a considerable number of men in various parts of the country. The simplest method, I think, would be that of continuing the pay and the separation allowance.
  Mr. HOGGE: I spoke so recently on this subject that I do not propose to refer to it at any length now. I do want to put a suggestion in the form of a question. This delay is a very serious one to the poor soldier and his dependants. We all recognise that. I think my right hon. Friend perhaps agrees that what the Financial Secretary said about continuing the Army pay may make it impossible to adopt his suggestion. What the House wants, I think, is a suggestion which will avoid the delay and get the money promptly into the hands of the men in whose hands it ought to be. I think that the real danger is the first week in which the man leaves the Army medically unfit before he gets to Baker Street, or before he writes to any of us or consults anybody who is able to go to Baker Street. I suggest that before he leaves his regiment the first 10s. or £l, as the case may be, should be given to him so that he could carry it home and thus provide for the first week, and inside that week Baker Street could deliver to him his book of drafts, so that at the end of the second week he could go to the

  1985
  post office and get the second draft. I do not know whether that is practicable, but, if it is, I think it would solve the difficulty.
  Mr. FORSTER: A man is entitled to a gratuity of £2 on his discharge, and we have arranged that he shall have at least £l in his pocket, which is intended to carry him over the first week, and that we should be able to see that he gets his money before the end of the first week. That is what I am trying to do, but he does take away at least £1.
  Mr. HOGGE: Could he not also have the advantage of having the book of drafts in his pocket, which could be sent from Baker Street to the regiment? That would leave him in the position of having the gratuity, and with the drafts he could go in the local post office in Leith Burghs, Blackfriars, Fife, or wherever it might be, and get the second pound. I commend that suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. I believe in the Financial Secretary, and I think he is pushing the thing as hard as any man could push it. I have sent him probably as many letters as anybody, and I have never had a discourteous reply from him. He has settled the bulk of them very satisfactorily, and I am very well satisfied. I am sure he does not deprecate discussion of this kind, because he realises that the more often we discuss the matter the more likely are we to straighten it out.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I am sure that the House will consider the statement made by the Financial Secretary one of the most satisfactory announcements that he has ever made. We seem really to be getting close to a solution of what is a very distressing difficulty. I think we are all very glad to see that the Financial Secretary has not hesitated to use the scissors, and I say more power to the scissors that cut difficulties of red-tape in this way. As I understand it, if a discharged man belongs to the provinces and does not live in London he will still have to apply by letter to Baker Street.
  Mr. FORSTER: This is only in the case where he does not get the allowance. What ought to happen now—what does happen in the great majority of cases and what ought to happen in all cases—is that the man's name, address, and date of discharge are communicated to the Pension Issue Office in Baker Street. As soon as they get that information, they send the weekly payment to the man at that address. If the man does not get his
  1986
  payment, let him write to Baker Street and make his application. But there ought to be no need for making any application.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: That explanation quite meets the point I had in mind, and I hope the fact will become widely known as a result of the explanation made in this Debate. The point is that all those people who are not getting their payments now, or someone on their behalf, had better make application straight to the office in Baker Street, but in all the new cases the hon. Gentleman hopes that the matter will be seen to. In a short time we ought to be able to work off all the past cases, but if any do recur we shall know how to cure them by communicating at once with Baker Street. But I have rather a feeling that the pressure will increase. More men will be discharged disabled; and I am not sure whether this system will avoid all the accidents which the hon. Member said occur when there are such large numbers to be dealt with. I still have the feeling that it might be advisable not to shut out of mind the question of letting a man go on furlough and continuing the separation allowance and pay. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), would it not be better to continue the separation allowance for a week rather than give the man extra money just when he was going home? If the wife knew that there would be separation allowance at the end of the week, many of these cases which are so distressing would be met. In regard to the lack of machinery for paying the soldiers, I do not see why, if the separation allowance was continued, that could not be left over and settled up at the same time as the pension. The pension is granted dating back. There is some money to be sent, and a settlement might be made according as the War Office decided. If the family had something equivalent to the separation allowance the difficulty would be very largely met.
  Mr. WING: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blackfriars and to thank the Financial Secretary for the sympathetic reply he has given. I think the discussion will show to the country that the House is really interested in this question, and that the Financial Secretary is doing his best to cope with the difficulty. I do not know whether the experience of other hon.

  1987
  Members is the same as my own, but I believe that these difficulties are much fewer than they were. There has been a sensible decrease. I wish to say that because people are so apt to imagine that there is no improvement and no dealing with the matter. Personally, I think there has been a swift diminution during the last three months, and also that the Sailors' and Soldiers' Society in my district have been dealing very promptly with such cases as I have brought to their notice. There is really something that the local people have to do as well as the War Office, in paying attention to these people and seeking the aid of such associations as exist. I should like to associate myself with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Blackfriars, that if possible the full allowance should be maintained until such time as the matter is settled. I am sure that all Members of the House feel that if the Financial Secretary had the settling of these matters there would be a swift adjustment. But there seems to be some formal machinery which makes for delay, and this delay causes much dissatisfaction. It has a very bad effect in the country. It leads writers to exaggerate the state of affairs, and a large number of people who have no claim whatever themselves begin to exaggerate the matter. I really believe that there are more complaints by people who are not entitled to any payment than there are by people who are so entitled. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] That is my belief. Personally, I am exceedingly pleased with the spirit in which the Financial Secretary has responded to my right hon. Friend's request, and I feel certain that this discussion will do good in the country by showing that this House is in earnest, and that the War Office itself is endeavouring to deal with the difficulty.
  Mr. PETO: It is quite evident from this Debate that the Financial Secretary's attention has been closely drawn to this question, and I have no doubt that the attention of the Chelsea Commissioners, whose staff we have been told is very much overworked at present, has also been very closely called to this particular branch of the pensions question. The Financial Secretary stated that the incorrect or improper filling up of the discharge papers was responsible for the delay in a great many cases. I hope that in dealing with
  1988
  the question of men discharged from the Army through disability, the even more serious case of men who die leaving widows dependent will not be left out of account or delayed by the settling of these other cases. I understand that the 10s. and the 20s. allowance, which the hon. Member has come to the conclusion is the best interim solution, docs not apply to the case where a man dies leaving a widow. I have had one or two cases brought to my notice lately which show that in some instances, at any rate, extraordinary hardship is involved. I have one case in mind where a man died as the result of gas poisoning as far back as the 16th April last, and the widow has received no pension and no assistance whatever except from the Church Army people, with the result that the home has been sold up and three of the children are now in the workhouse. I hope that, in his anxiety to deal with the case of the discharged soldier, the hon. Gentleman will not allow the Chelsea authorities to rail behind in settling these even more grievous cases.
  Mr. FORSTER: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because that is covered by what I said before.
  Mr. PETO: I am glad to hear that. I have sent the hon. Gentleman, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, whose business, I thought, it was to deal with the matter, particulars of the case to which I have alluded. I hope that during the Recess the matter will be satisfactorily dealt with, and that there will be more promptness in dealing with the cases of men who die leaving widows or other dependants.
  Mr. HODGE: The subject which was originally introduced seems to me to have been so satisfactorily met that it is hardly worth while to pursue it further. But we must not think that it exhausts the sum of grievance against the War Office. I have had a case placed before me of an old woman of seventy who gave her only son to King and country. He was killed. She had an old age pension of 5s. per week. Her War Office pension has ceased as a consequence of her being an old age pensioner, and the only allowance that she has for the purpose of keeping her from starvation is an old age pension. It is a disgrace to those responsible for it. It is one of the things which I am sure the-

  1989
  country as a whole would agree with me in characterising as I have done. I had a letter of the widow's pointing out that the pension had been taken from her. I have sent all the particulars to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and I dare say that he will give them every due consideration. He has always done so in any case that I have submitted to him, and, like many other Members, I imagine I have had more than my share. At the same time, if there is a declaration from a responsible member of the Government that such a thing is absolutely wrong, it may prevent some busybody doing the same thing with some other poor person. Another case that I have requires to be dealt with, and that is the question of a soldier who is very badly wounded and receives a very small pension. Fortunately, ho was in the position of getting two local doctors to examine him, and give him a certificate, which was sent on to my hon. Friend with the result that an increased pension was given. The man thus demonstrated the medical board was entirely wrong in its conviction as to the amount of the pension which he should receive. When, however, his arrears were paid, much to the man's astonishment, the sick benefit which he had been drawing from his approved society was deducted from the pension. There, again, the Army had nothing to do with what the approved society had paid the man. One of the things which, I think, approved societies have a right to complain of is that a burden, that of war, was never contemplated in the actuarial valuations upon which the Acts were passed; yet the War Office are throwing a burden upon the approved societis which was never contemplated. It is unfair and unjust, because it is placing upon a section of the community a burden which ought to be borne by the whole.
  There are many similar cases in which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Chester district. My experience is that half the truth has not been told as to the amount of suffering that has resulted from the out-of-date methods of the War Office in dealing with this matter of pensions. That there has been improvement does not get rid of the difficulty, or of the right of Members of this House to criticise, and does not relieve those who have suffered as a result of neglect. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars is to be congratulated in having the question
  1990
  raised even on the narrower issue, be cause it gives an opportunity for placing before the House the wider question. I hope that some member of the Government may be able to give us some assurances upon these particular points that I have raised. Another point I think that requires to be dealt with is the case I have also sent to my hon. Friend—the case of a working man and his wife in my Constituency who made great sacrifices to send their son, a promising lad, to the university. He left his university course, enlisted, and was killed, I believe, at Neuve Chapelle. They are told that because there was no dependency there is no pension. That is a case which really needs dealing with. It is all very well to say that the Statutory Committee should deal with it. Something more is required. My hope is that the Government will, as a whole, demonstrate that they are inclined to deal more generously in the future than in the past with such cases. I join with all those who have spoken that we could not have anyone more sympathetically inclined than the Financial Secretary. Those in association with him, I think, require to be imbued with some of his sympathy. The Chelsea Commissioners, in particular, may have plenty of sympathy, but there must be a great many mistakes made by the Medical Board who advise them, because continuously I am getting complaints of men who earned good wages previously to enlistment, and now, unable to go back to their former employment, and finding great difficulty in getting light employment, have had to have the miserable pittance of a pension they have received supplemented by parish relief. That is a very great disgrace to us. It appears to me it would be much better if my hon. Friend would convey to the Cabinet the necessity of having a Committee of this House, or outside the House, for dealing with these cases—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a great deal beyond the terms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars. The Debate, in a case, of this sort, is strictly limited to the subject of the definitely urgent matter on which leave to move the Adjournment was granted.
  Mr. HODGE: I am very sorry if I have transgressed. I shall simply conclude by asking that the observations I have made may be taken to heart by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. SUTTON: I cannot agree altogether with the hon. Member for Hough-ton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) when he says that these cases are getting much less in number. My own personal experience is that they are getting greater in number. They will become greater yet, because of the larger numbers of men that are now being discharged from the Army practically mained for life. I stated a few weeks ago that this state of things made it very difficult for those of us who have been doing some little recruiting, and persuading men to enlist in the Army. I, myself, have been met in my Constituency by persons putting to me the query: "Do you not think that the amount of the pensions that are being given to certain men who are now discharged from the Army is a shame and a disgrace?" Last week half-a-dozen people came to see me personally, and one man who has a wife and three children to keep, and who is still unable to work, but who has been discharged, has had his pension reduced to 7s. 9d. a week for five of them, and out of that amount he has a rent to pay of 5s. 3d. a week. He threatened to go into the workhouse on purpose to expose the whole thing, but I persuaded him not to. Yesterday I sent that case on to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. Gentleman and say that whatever cases I have sent him he has always attended to very earnestly indeed. My own opinion is that there is not a sufficient staff to deal with these cases of pensions.
  For the first time I went last week to Baker Street. I was treated very kindly there, and the case I went about was put in hand at once, and the man received all his arrears of pension. He has a wife and seven children, and yet he had to wait two or three weeks without anything at all. In his letter to me he stated that the War Office authorities must think discharged soldiers had large banking accounts. Another case I have is that of a man with a wife and two children. I sent the case yesterday to the hon. Gentleman. The man is practically paralysed, and, in my opinion—because I have had a long talk with him—will not be able to work again for many months to come. Yet they pensioned him off with 12s. 6d. a week to keep four of them and pay house rent as well. I think the Chelsea Commissioners, at least, are rather too anxious to get rid of that temporary £l a week. For four weeks, I believe, this man got the £l, and
  1992
  then it was reduced, and he had not been, I am informed, examined by the Medical Board. What is 12s. 6d, to keep four people and pay rent? I do hope, if these different Departments are short of staff, a larger staff will be put on, so that these people will not have to wait two or three weeks with nothing at all coming in. If these cases are small in number in comparison with the thousands of cases going on all right, yet if you have ninety-nine cases going on all right and one going wrong, that one is able to create a great deal of disturbance and difficulty in the district where it happens. I hope the hon. Gentleman—I believe he himself has done all that is possible—will at least see we get as little complaints as possible.
  Mr. FINNEY: I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have said in respect of the desirability of these cases being dealt with as early as possible. It is quite true to say that some of the cases that are reported to us are of a very heartrending character. We can scarcely find any sort of words to use in dealing with those cases. While my hon. Friend was speaking I was reminded about the case that has lately come to my attention of a man, with a wife and four children, who is in receipt of a pension or allowance of 5s. a week. That man does not understand it, and I am quite certain I do not understand why a man should have a pension so low. It cannot be regarded as satisfactory in any sense. It almost seems to me that we are getting a little bit short of money. We appear to have plenty of sympathy, and can express it fairly well. I admit that sympathy is very good, and all of us feel it more or less, but such cases as we have to meet with in our constituencies demand something more than sympathy. They should have some substantial allowance. I do not know whether I should be quite in order in referring to it, but I noticed that the seats here this afternoon where very full. There was geat excitement about votes for soldiers at the front, but what becomes of such demonstrations in the light of the empty seats here to-night, when we are trying to urge upon the attention of the Government the desirability of making substantial allowances to those who have risked everything in order to defend our interests and country at the front?
  I should like to say, so far as the cases I have had to deal with are concerned, I

  1993
  have met with every courtesy and every consideration from the hon. Gentleman who has these cases in hand; but, at the same time, we should like to urge upon the attention of the Government the desirability of doing all that they possibly can, not only to reduce the delay, but also to increase the amounts of allowances in such cases as those to which I have referred. It is very evident that this will have a very discouraging effect upon the people in the localities where those cases occur. We are not out of the wood yet, and it is still necessary to keep up the feeling on a firm foundation that we are in earnest when we tell these people that if they come to the help of the country the country will see them through any difficulties they get into. In these circumstances I should like to associate myself with all that has been said before, and I hope these cases will be attended to.
  Mr. KEATING: I should like to draw the attention of the War Office to a kind of case that has always been to me a mystery. I have several cases of the kind in my own Constituency, but I am not sure that I shall come within the narrow scope of the subject we are debating to-night, though I should like, if I may be allowed, to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the type of case I have in mind. It is this: You have a soldier who has been doing his duty at the front, and has been returned home either wounded or no longer fit to perform his duty at the front. He comes home to a little village, and he is informed in due course that he is not entitled to any kind of pension whatever, on the ground that the shock or injury his system has received was due, not to the duties of the soldier, but to something anterior to the time he enlisted in the Army.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not come within the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. KEATING: Then I will content myself with associating my humble voice with what has been said by the Labour Members on behalf of those who come within the scope of this Motion. I think it is a very serious thing that we have found it necessary to have to draw attention to these matters in the House of Commons. The men who risked their lives and who gave up their private opportunities even before Conscription came are entitled not only to a sympathetic but to
  1994
  an efficient system whereby they will not suffer neglect through the inefficiency of the staff employed by the Government dealing with these cases. It is a very serious matter to the women and the children, and I wish I had the silver tongue of Demosthenes to plead their cause. I hope we have succeeded in impressing the Financial Secretary and the members of the Government with the seriousness of this matter, and the importance of doing something immediately to remove these grievances.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I have thought for some little time that the Debate was assuming a breadth and comprehensiveness which could not very well be brought within the limits of the Motion upon which the Adjournment was granted. I do not think we can let this question stop at compliments to the Financial Secretary, but I am quite sure that, even when he has done his best, he will find himself utterly unable to keep pace with the enormous number of cases that must of necessity crowd upon him under the conditions which we know will obtain in the War in the near future. Even if he does all that ho can he will not be able to give real satisfaction. It is said that there ought to be £1 a week paid to these men until the pension is decided upon in the case of men with families. I wrote to the Army authorities at Woolwich some time ago, and I received an answer that, in the case I had submitted to them, it was not right that the man should go without any money at all. He is a man who was discharged from the Army after a month's furlough, during which time his case was to be considered, and he was discharged without a halfpenny and his family were left without any money at all. Later I got a reply saying that the man was not entitled to £1 a week. The authorities at Woolwich told me that they would do their best to get this man £1 a week until his pension is determined. I have since got a statement from the authorities stating that this man is entitled to 10s. a week, and they sent him a money order for two week's pay. That is a typical case. This is the case of a man who enlisted a long time ago. This point, I think, comes within the terms of the Adjournment Motion. I am convinced that however much we lavish compliments upon the Financial Secretary, not only is his staff insufficient, but the whole system has absolutely broken down. Unless we have a definite system of co-ordination we may simply whistle for

  1995
  the results to which the wounded are entitled. If we could only stop there it would be bad enough, but it is as true as hon. Members are in this House that already there is growing up a feeling that will sweep away all this complicated mechanism. Months ago I raised similar points in this House. If I have written one letter to the War Office and the other, organisations with which it is almost impossible for human intelligence to cope. I have written a couple of hundred letters I have letters throe months old that have never yet received an answer. What is true in my case is true in the case of a large majority of the. Members of this House. Under these circumstances, what is the good of keeping up the pretence that the Financial Secretary himself will be able to cope with the tremendous influx of work that must inevitably accompany the conditions at the front to-day. I think this Debate will undoubtedly do good, but we really must keep in our minds the promises we made at the beginning of the War. The whole thing will have to be reorganised under one definite organisation, and then Members of the House of Commons will know to whom they have to apply. The disabled soldier himself will also know to whom he has to go, and then we will have simplicity where at the present moment there is the most absurd complication. I am sure we shall be ultimately driven to that.
  I know there is no person who has worked so hard as the Financial Secretary, but the labours that will devolve upon him are beyond the power of any single man to cope with, and the hearts of hon. Members are almost broken in the struggle to try and get something like decent justice done to the people who have the very first claim upon the finances of the nation. If the hon. Gentleman will consider those views I am quite sure he will find that they are the only views which will give us success. I am sure he docs not want to keep up an absurd or complicated mechanism. I could reel off quite half a dozen cases in regard to the different authorities where these men have been bandied about from pillar to post. At the War Office you may be told that the allowance is so-and-so, but you must see the Statutory Committee or the Chelsea Commissioners, and in no single case will you get satisfaction. All the time in the big centres of population feelings of
  1996
  disaffection are springing up. We have told them that this is the greatest nation on earth, as we believe it is, and that this is a nation for which they ought to be willing to lay down their lives and incur the greatest peril that can face mankind, and yet we are fobbing them off in this way. If the Debate has the one effect of helping to do away with the cumbersome and numerous authorities that at present exist, this Debate will not have been in vain.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I can heartily endorse almost every word that has been said by the least speaker. I do not think that the more or less conflicting pension authorities which we have in this country have the least conception of the storm of indignation which is rising on this subject. I ventured to indicate this in the Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee in a very recent Debate, and the letters which I have received since only confirm me in the opinion that I then expressed. What is the reason of it? After all, those of us who allege that this feeling exists are bound to prove the case that we put forward. First of all, there is the great delay in securing the proper pension on the part of the various pension authorities, and that in itself is due to the fact that the pension authorities are so various and there is no proper co-ordination. I do not want to fling unnecessary or superfluous terms at Chelsea, but clearly this is what has happened: You had there an organisation managed by certain officials who were perfectly capable of coping with things under ordinary circumstances. Then suddenly you had to flood that organisation with an enormous number of cases, and you had to construct a great and new business. You have done it, and you have added building to building and clerk to clerk; but you have not got new brains in at the top of the business. If you were going to construct a new department of your business, it would be no use having a new clerk or getting a new room. You would have to get one strong, capable man to manage the department. That is what you have got to do in this business. You have got to see that the brains at the top are right, and then all the other things may be added to the organisation.
  I venture to make an appeal very much in the terms of the last speaker. I am sure that the Government will be forced

  1997
  to do it sooner or later, and they had better do it sooner. Let them lay their plans now for one Minister of Pensions under one roof dealing with the whole matter both for the Army and the Navy. Let them have one unified plan, so that we may know where we are, and one office to which all applications may be sent. Let them have one roof under which all the allied voluntary societies may find shelter. Then, and only then, will they be at the beginning of a satisfactory solution of this great question. It is not a difficulty of twenty-four hours, it is not a difficulty of to-day or to-morrow; it is a difficulty which will be with us for many years, and we had better begin now and put our house in order, although it may involve a great deal more labour for the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I should like to pay my tribute of thanks and satisfaction to him for the kindness which he has extended to me, but that is not the point; the real point is the organisation. We are under great obligations to our constituents. One gets piteous letters from those interested, and cases of much gravity arise, and although one does get relief when he writes, he ought not to have to write those letters. The machine ought to work right, but it will not work right until there is more co-ordination on ordinary business lines.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Many compliments have been showered upon the hon. Member on the Treasury Bench, and I want to add another. I want to congratulate him upon the fact that he is prepared to assert himself in his own Department rather than merely be the mouthpiece of the officials in the office. It is rather disappointing, after his very satisfactory statement of a few weeks ago in regard to the payment of those two sums of 10s. and £1, to find that this great delay has taken place and that so much dissatisfaction has arisen. He has told the House that he has been using a pair of scissors to cut the red-tape, and I hope he will continue that process and that we may have the satisfaction of his hopes being carried into effect very rapidly.
  Mr. BARNES: The Financial Secretary will be thinking that it is well for him to be wary when all men speak well of him. I am not going to add to the compliments paid to him for that reason. I quite agree that he has his difficulties I paid particular attention to what he said about the antiquated formalities of
  1998
  which he is a victim in connection with payments to a soldier after his discharge. I quite see that there are difficulties, but I do not see why those difficulties should not be overcome in regard to the separation allowance. Surely they are not so acute there. I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep that in mind and see, if he cannot continue the soldier's pay, to continue the allowance to the wife.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not entitled to address the House a second time. I thought that he was rising to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Mr. BARNES: I was, but I thought that I was entitled to say a word or two with regard to what has happened, but, if not, I will simply content myself by saying that, having regard to the sympathetic reply of the hon. Gentleman and the assurance that we have had that he will have his system in operation within a week—and I hope he may very soon clear off the arrears—I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL.— [Lords.]
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Bill, as amended.
Amendment proposed: In paragraph (c) to leave out the words, "Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres, provided that the two thousand acres so acquired shall, to the extent of three-fourths thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words, "The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purpose of Section one of this Act shall not at any time exceed two thousand acres, of which three-fourths shall."
Question again proposed.
Mr. MORTON: I should like to ask, as a point of Order, whether I can move to strike out "two thousand" and substitute "seven thousand"? A manuscript Amendment has been handed in without notice, and I understood you to say, though I could hardly hear owing to the movement of hon. Members, that the terms of it cut me out from moving my

1999
Amendment. I must say that it is an extraordinary thing that we should have this manuscript Amendment at all. I was very careful last night to get a copy of the Amendments, which, of course, is the fair way of dealing with one another, and I should like to know if I can move to amend this Amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER: The best way will be to strike the words out of the Bill, and then when the Amendment comes on it will be open to amendment by the hon. Member.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Mr. MORTON: I understand that the words to be inserted are those as you read them out. Mr. Speaker, but I do not know whether I can move my Amendment to strike out the word "two" in order to insert the word "seven."
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I have just told the hon. Member so.
Mr. MORTON: That is exactly what I want to do. I do want to bring before the House the condition of Scotland in regard to this Bill. It has been made worse by the fact, though I do not object to that, of there having been given out of the 6,000 acres 2,000 acres to Wales. I always consider Monmouthshire a part of Wales. It has been made worse by this fact, that you give 2,000 acres to Wales and only 2,000 acres to Scotland, a place two or three times as largo. As I say, I do not object at all to Wales getting their 2,000 acres in any shape or form, and I should have been glad to vote for giving them more if necessary. Nevertheless, I do think Scotland ought to be treated according to the size of its population in dealing with a matter of this sort. What I want to do is to get 7,000 acres instead of 2,000 acres. I do think we are entitled to ask for that for Scotland. This land question in Scotland is a most serious question, and it will be more serious still when the War is over, and the crofters come back— and I hope a great many may come back safely—and want something to do. We are indebted to the crofters very much for the way in which they have turned out to protect the country, and the least we can do is to give them a chance of taking the land. They are quite willing to give a fair rent, although they may not always be so, for security of tenure, but they do ask that
2000
they shall be treated well. I understand that there is a larger proportion of men who have gone out to join the forces and to fight for this country from Scotland than from any other part of the United Kingdom. At any rate, there is a larger proportion in Sutherland than in any other county in Scotland, so far as that goes— so I am informed. We ought to make a suitable answer to these men, because I know a good many families where seven sons are out fighting for this country, and others of six, and five, and so on, and it is a poor answer to them to say, "Although we are dealing with the land question, we will not deal with you better than with Wales. We will give you the same only. We refuse to make any concession whatever to Scotland." That is a shabby way, of course, of treating Scotland, and it is not fair treatment either. There are other ways in which I should like the Government to take notice of better treatment for Scotland. They have taken off the Post Office carts which have been of the greatest use, and instead of helping the people they have done as much as they can, apparently, to injure a great part of Scotland. Now they say, "Notwithstanding that, you go and fight for us; you shall not have a fair share of land."
Then there is this provision: that of the 2,000 acres that shall be acquired three-fourths shall consist of land suitable to be cultivated as arable land. This new addition to the Section which was put in in the Committee stage of this Bill would, if carried and worked, be of no use to Lowland Scotsmen, because they can get their share of it in any case; but it would practically cut out the crofters of the Highland counties in Scotland altogether. That, of course, I hope the House would be loth to do. It was proposed the other night with the object, apparently, of securing that the 2,000 acres, or the best part of it, should be good arable land, and not merely hill pasture. Hill pasture, although it does not bear much rent, is very good in itself. The crofting counties should not be cut out of the benefits of this Bill. It is a very little, shabby Bill, which is not going to do much good, and the proposed treatment of Scotland is very shabby indeed. I trust the time will come when we shall treat the Scottish people, and especially the crofters, who have done so much for the country, in a fair and decent way and give them a fair share of what is going. They

2001
are willing to pay a fair rent for security of tenure. When they come back from fighting our battles they will want an opportunity of obtaining a better living in their own country and among their own people. The result of not giving them a fair share of the land or an opportunity of working it is that they have been compelled to leave the places where their families are and work elsewhere. On account of that the population of Sutherland is now no more than it was 100 years ago. I would like to see you give them an opportunity, by colonising their own country as was promised to them, of living and working in their own country and among their own people. If you gave a fair share of the land to the people in the Highland counties you could easily double the population, provide nice places in which the people could live, and you could produce more cattle and sheep intead of having to go to foreign countries to purchase them. By looking after your own country you will do good to everybody concerned.
Even at this, nearly the last moment, I hope the Government will give Scotland something fair and reasonable in connection with this Bill. I do not expect that they are going to do much. I do not like the way in which they have introduced this manuscript Amendment. I told the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that I was going to move my Amendments, and that others were going to do the same. I took particular care last night, at the last hour, to hand in the Amendments and get them on the Order Paper, so that no one could say I had sprung anything upon them. This Amendment is now sprung upon us. I have not had an opportunity of studying it to find out what it means. It is a bad way of doing business to spring these things upon us. The Government, which has more opportunities than I have to get things printed, should take care to give us fair notice of manuscript Amendments of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman really ought to be ashamed of himself for not having treated us in a better and more reasonable way. I hope he is sorry for it, and will not do it again. I object to the words I have mentioned, and trust that something will be done in the way of fair and reasonable conduct towards Scotland.
Mr. AINSWORTH: Looking at the time of night and the period of the Session and the business which has to be done in the
2002
next few days, we may all agree that what we have to do is to make this an Act of Parliament as early as we can, but I should like an assurance. If we are to understand that the Bill stands as an experiment, I should like to be assured that the experiment shall take place at once. It is only a small thing. The amount of land is only the size of a very ordinary farm in Scotland. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) suggests that a certain proportion of the land should be arable, but I think he is wrong. It would be much wiser to leave the whole matter in the power of the Board of Agriculture, and give them as large powers as we can. There will be no difficulty whatever if 2,000 acres is to be the limit of the experiment, in finding suitable land at a reasonable price in any part of Scotland. Remembering the gift which has just been made by the Duke of Sutherland I really think if the Board of Agriculture feels it desirable to apply to every landowner in Scotland whether he is prepared to find suitable land for this purpose the answer in every case will be Yes. I think the Board of Agriculture should be prepared to consider from every point of view the question of afforestation. Forestry is going to be one of the great industries of Scotland in the future, and it will be of enormous importance in the development of small holdings. The whole difficulty about small holdings is that a man often cannot make a living for himself and his family off the small holding only, and in that case he wants a larger industry to fall back upon in his spare time, and what could be more advisable for that purpose than the industry of forestry? A friend of mine has had a great deal to do with land questions, and his solution of the land question in Scotland, and no doubt in a good many other countries, is forestry as a permanent industry' and small holdings with which to fill up their spare time. Scotland has supplied the flower of our Armies, and you should do all you can to increase the population by developing industry, afforestation, and small holdings in every part of Scotland. By that means you will not only be increasing the production of the country but the population from whom you may draw in the future as you have in the past for the best recruits for your Armies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed at once with his Bill for carrying out this experiment. We all hope it will be a success.
Mr. MORTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned when I commenced my speech just now that I wanted to move to substitute 7,000 acres for the 2,000 in the Bill. I forgot to move at the end of my speech.
Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had thought better of it, and he sat down without moving it.
Mr. MUNRO: I want to make it quite clear to the House, if I may, that the Amendment which I propose has not by any means been sprung upon the House. My Amendment is a purely drafting one. Some criticisms were made on the Committee stage with regard to Sub-section (c). In order to make it quite clear that in Scotland we shall have 2,000 acres without any doubt at all it was thought proper to remodel Sub-section (c), and accordingly I am moving that instead of the words which appear in the Bill in that Subsection we should substitute the words, "The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purpose of Section 1 of this Act should not at any time exceed 2,000 acres, of which three-quarters shall consist of land suitable to be cultivated as arable land." That was in no sense sprung upon the House of Commons: it is merely a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that we shall be entitled in Scotland to 2,000 acres. It is nothing new; it simply makes quite clear what is in the Bill already. Therefore I must protest at once against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire that this Amendment was sprung upon this House.
Mr. MORTON: I have not spoken about it.
Mr. MUNRO: Then I must have misunderstood my hon. Friend. As to his suggestion that 7,000 acres should be inserted instead of 2,000, I dealt with that during the Committee stage, and I do not want to repeat myself. I will only say that we cannot accept the proposal, and therefore I hope the hon. Member will not press his point. He has made a very good fight for it. My Amendment being of a purely drafting nature, and designed to make it even more clear than the Bill makes it that we shall have 2,000 acres and no less in Scotland for the purpose of this Bill, I hope, in the circumstances, my hon. Friend will see his way not to press his point.
Mr. MORTON: Will the Lord Advocate be good enough to give his opinion upon the point as to three-quarters being arable land?
Mr. MUNRO: So far as that is concerned, my information is that the Board of Agriculture has been consulted with regard to it, and I have no objection at all to my hon. Friend's suggestion being embodied in the Bill. More than that I do not think he will ask.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I have to inform the House that His Majesty, having been informed of this Bill, has consented, as fur as His Majesty's interests are concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, having been informed of the Bill, has consented, as far as His Royal Highness is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
Sir F. BANBURY: The House will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill, when I made a statement as to the "Daily Mail" holding, I was contradicted by certain hon. Members. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst) contradicted a statement which I made, or rather the inference which I made, from the fact that we had not seen for some years any reference to Lie "Daily Mail" holding. I am not misrepresenting my hon. Friend when I say that he said that the "Daily Mail" holding was the most prosperous holding in England.
Captain BATHURST: I said the holding to which the hon. Baronet referred, and I hold to that statement.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad that my recollection of what took place has been confirmed. The holding to which I referred was the "Daily Mail" holding. My few remarks had the rather extraordinary effect of attracting the attention of one or two people in the country. They communicated with me and I find that everything I said was absolutely correct. The "Daily Mail" holding was a failure, a dead failure. The owner of it could only obtain a living by erecting a sort of out-building in which he housed certain workmen from

2005
the engineering works at Grantham. And his son, having learned by experience what a small holding was, instead of succeeding his father when his father died, went into the engineering works at Grantham, and the success of the small holding, if there is a success, has been arrived at by pitting in a foreigner, a Dane, and by enlarging the holding—I think doubling it.
Captain BATHURST: No.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is my information. I have here a letter written to me from the University of Oxford which will appeal to my hon. Friend. It is from the Institute for Research in Agricultural Economics. It says:
"With reference to your remarks in the House on Monday—"
I will not read it all, but I shall be happy to show it to any Member who desires to see it—
"I am able to give you full information, having been the agent of the estate on which the small holding was created. It comprised a fifteen-acre field of land in good condition, on which I built house and buildings on behalf of the 'Daily Mail.' The place was run entirely by the sale, retail, of the milk, eggs and vegetables in the town of Grantham, about half a mile away. In spite of the fact that the tenant, who was a booking clerk from Grimsby Station, was thus able to secure the profits of distribution as well as those of production, he could not make the place pay, although he tried his best. By building a large addition to his house he was able to eke out an existence by boarding a number of men employed at engineering works near by. After three years the man died of tumour on the brain and the whole was taken over by the landlord and enlarged. I should imagine that the balance sheet to which Mr. Bathurst referred related to the large profits of a large holding; otherwise I cannot explain his statement."
I have since ascertained that the next holder was a foreigner—a Dane. Under those circumstances I venture to say that the statement which I made on the Second Reading were quite correct, and that the small holding in the hands of the Englishman was a failure, though he had the advantage of a special building being erected for him at the expense of the "Daily Mail," and though he had the advantage of being close to a large town, where, at any rate, he could obtain the advantages both of producer and retailer. With regard to the Bill itself, we are wasting so much money that I do not think it very much matters whether we waste a little more on this absurd proposal. Nobody, I do not think even the right hon. Gentleman himself, thinks that these proposals are going to be successful. If they are to be placed on an economic basis, if the buildings on the land are to be let at a price which does not coincide with the cost, and if the value
2006
of money is to be taken, not at what it is at the present time, but at what it was at some other time when it was particularly low, it may be that, under those circumstances, a more or less prosperous result may be obtained. But if this is to be a genuine experiment to solve a very important question, the proposal and the experiment should be made upon an economic and proper grounds. If it is made on these grounds, even though at the present moment the opportunities for making a living by agriculture are very different from what they were a year or two ago, and even though it is to be carried out on economic grounds, yet I doubt very much whether it will be a success. I am perfectly certain that it will not be a success when we revert to the ordinary prices. The hour is getting late, or I have several figures and statistics relating to small holdings which I could give; but I rose more especially in order to confirm the statement which I made on the Second Reading, and which had been challenged.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Before the Bill leaves this House I should like to enter my protest against attempting to deal with a great and pressing question, which will become more important every day, in such a way as has been done, because the way in which it has been done is futile, and will be entirely ineffective, I believe, in practice. We certainly will have a good deal of administration, a very considerable amount of detail, an annual report, and a good deal of expenditure on management, but what we should aim at is the promotion of production in this country, and opening up the land to soldiers and sailors returning from the War or, in so far as we take it, it will be quite inadequate to the amount of time and trouble and money which will be expended on it. The fundamental difficulty is that the Government in producing this Bill have not faced the questions which lie at the very root of things. We have had all over the country advertisements, picturesque and effective advertisements, asking that men should go and fight for their land. Then the question comes up what do we mean by their land, and have they any right to the land at all. The question of the rights of the gallant men and of the people as a whole to the land is a question which the Government have never yet faced. This measure, like most governmental measures dealing with

2007
this subject, seems to assume the landlords' right to the land is as absolute as his right to his watch. That is the view of some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I suppose he paid for both land and watch?
Mr. WHITE: I would like to point out the distinction that the watch is the result of industry and the land is the gift of Nature, and I maintain that the people of the country have some rights to it. If the landlord likes, shall we say, to lock his watch up and not to use it and not to let anyone use it that is a matter for himself, but we are not prepared to allow him to pursue that policy with the natural resources of the country. That is one of the difficulties we find ourselves up against whenever we try to seek reform. Here we are in this measure, as in various other measures, trying to set up people in outlying districts on a basis which is practically uneconomic, and when we try to get better land we find ourselves faced with the difficulty of being held up against us. You could not have a better place for small holdings than some of the land round about the towns that is being kept back for building, and that so far as agriculture is concerned is hardly being cultivated at all. If that were let out in small holdings that land would produce infinitely more than it does now, but you cannot get it for that purpose on fair terms or on satisfactory tenure. I know that my right hon. Friend is much interested in the question of education. Agricultural education is a very good thing, but the education is very little use unless you get the land to work upon. If we look over the country we rind that no land is so productive, acre for acre, or quality for quality, as the land which is held in allotments and small holdings by men who have had no special agricultural education at all. They soon get into the way of developing the land. Even along the sides of railways, where there is a little spare ground and the railwaymen have a chance of working it on fair terms, you see production springing up on all sides. You might have the same thing on a great deal of land near the towns, where the small holder would have an easy market. You cannot have it, because when you try to get that land you have to pay so much for it above the agricultural rent that the landlord is receiving now that the attempt to set up small holdings is strangled at the outset.
2008
My hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Wedgwood) proposed a new Clause to the effect that in some degree the price of land secured under this Bill should be limited by the valuation. My right hon. Friend would not consider that Clause, even with all the concessions my my hon. and gallant Friend proposed, because apparently he held the view— the correct view—that there is nothing like a parity between the valuation on which the landowner pays to the State and the valuation on which the people have to buy the land from him. So long as those who are holding up land which might be made useful are exempted from taxation that they ought to pay, so long will land be held up against us. In fact, whenever we seek to solve this problem we find ourselves up against the problem of land monopoly, and the holding up of the resources of the country against the people. If my right hon. Friend desires a true solution of this difficulty—and I believe that no Member of this House more earnestly desires a satisfactory solution—he will have to face this fundamental problem. Hitherto it has not been faced, and the Government will not face it. Hence they land themselves in all sorts of difficulties when so-called practical proposals are put forward Instead of trying to reform the fundamental conditions which prevent the development of the country, they try to make experiments of one kind and another, and the result is failure after failure. The hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Bathurst) referred to the success of various small holdings. I want to see some sort of balance sheet showing how that success is worked out. Until I see something of that sort, I am afraid I must admit the efficacy of the argument and of the quotations made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). However that may be, the point is that the Government will not face this fundamental problem. Instead of tackling this land monopoly they try to get round it, and always with the same result. I would remind my right hon. Friend of the lines
"Tender handed stroke a nettle.
And it stints yon for your pains:
Grasp it like a man of metal,
And it soft as silk remains."
I believe that when the Government have the courage to grasp this nettle of the land question in the way in which it should be grasped, the difficulties will be found to disappear. If only they will adopt the

2009
solution which my friends and I have advocated again and again they will find that those who are holding up their land will let go of it, and under the pressure of having to pay whether they use the land or not they will—
Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill does not deal with that subject. The hon. Member must confine himself to what is within the four corners of the Bill.
Mr. WHITE: I thought I was in order on the Third Reading in discussing the basis of the Bill, but of course I bow to your ruling. One of the results of the Government having acted as they have is that we have never been quite certain on what basis this Bill is framed. We have had it put forward as an experiment, and from the success of that experiment we were to see whether we should carry it further and how far. If the experiment is to be of any value, it must be more or less on a business basis. But from what the right hon. Gentleman has said it appears perfectly clear that the Board in administering the measure are not to take into account the rate of interest, the actual cost of materials, or anything else. They are to expend the taxpayers' money, and then and there the land' and the property is improved, and subsequently let at any rent they think fit. I am not saying that may not be done in individual cases. It may be well to do it in individual cases, but these should promote production at the best interest and profit. So far as the experiment is concerned, the more you extend the experiment that heavier will be the burden on the taxpayer, and so will the ultimate burden on the workers of the country, who after all are the producers of this wealth. You have in effect to choose between one of two plans—the one, broadly speaking, is a business basis, and the other is a subsidiary basis. The latter is very interesting not only for its immediate and direct effect, but for its rather more remote and indirect effect. Those of us who have had experience in attempts at municipal housing, and in particular subsidised housing, know how it works out You narrow the sphere of private enterprise and narrow the housing accommodation. I am very much afraid that this plan of subsidising particular holdings will have a similar effect. Throughout the country I believe there are many landlords who would be very pleased to do what they could towards the promotion of small hold-
2010
ings on something like a business basis, but a business basis may be made impossible if the State comes in and subsidises particular cases. That is one of the great dangers of subsidies. There is, of course, the question of purchasing the land, and particularly of purchasing it at present. I am one of those who believe that if people have certain rights in the land that those rights should be asserted, and that whenever the Government, without recognising these rights, goes into the market to purchase land, that the result is to strengthen rather than to weaken the land monopoly. That is particularly the case just now. Owing to the greatly increased prices of agricultural produce we have had a great rise in the price of agricultural land. When the war time and prices are considered, too, I think it is not wise for the Government to purchase. Indeed, on that point alone, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the administration of the Bill he should, so far as possible, try to avail himself of the provisions which I, for one, have always welcomed in Clause 6. I think it is dealing with the powers of leasing and that he should try, until the War rates and prices are over, to deal as much as possible by lease, and as little as possible by purchase.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but will he kindly tell the House on what grounds he finds that agricultural land in Scotland has gone up? The value has gone down steadily.
Mr. WHITE: I do not agree with my hon. Friend.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Give us facts; let the House have facts?
Mr. WHITE: I am sure that all of us who have followed the reports in the newspapers have seen what I say. I really thought it was common knowledge.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Nothing of the kind. Estates have gone down 30, 40, and 50 per cent, since the War, notwithstanding agricultural prices. I will give the hon. Gentleman mine for 40 per cent, less than what I paid for it if he likes.
Mr. WHITE: The hon. Member makes assertions. I would really like some figures to back them up.
Sir G. YOUNGER: So would we!
Mr. WHITE: I am sure that the hon. Members who have been following the papers have seen the higher prices and profits of agriculture. There has certainly been no tendency for agricultural land generally to come down. I feel perfectly certain that if the hon. Baronet looks into the facts he will find that my statement is absolutely justified.
Sir G. YOUNGER: What has that got to do with the facts of a nineteen years' lease in Scotland? Rents do not change at all.
11.0 P.M.
Mr. WHITE: Now the hon. Gentleman is on a different point. I feel absolutely certain that if the hon. Gentleman will look into the facts he will see I am justified. I would remind him that this Bill applies to the country generally, and, taking the country generally, I have no doubt whatever he will find that the facts are as stated. If it could be shown, of course, that prices of agricultural land now are no higher than they were before the War and before the days of the high food prices, then, of course, there would not be the grave objection to purchase as in special circumstances. I only call attention to the high prices of food and to the very great profits the agriculturists have been making, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that the profits of agriculturists during the last year or two have been almost unprecedented in recent times.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Those are the tenant farmers—not the proprietors.
Mr. WHITE: Yes, but does not my hon. Friend see that where the profits of agriculturists have become far higher, if agricultural land is sold it will command a higher price?
Sir G. YOUNGER: No, it does not. It is subject to a nineteen years' lease.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should approach the Bill. These land questions, which are very wide indeed, might be left for another occasion.
Mr. WHITE: I would very respectfully point out that I did refer to special provisions in this Bill. I referred to the powers of acquiring land by purchase and also of leasing land, and the point I made—and it would have been passed long ago if I had not been repeatedly inter-
2012
rupted by my hon. Friend—was that, owing to war prices, I suggested to my right hon. Friend that there was an additional reason for preferring leasing to purchase. I submit respectfully that it is well within the four corners of the Bill. I have no desire to go into further details, but I do express my disappointment that there has been no more adequate attempt than this miserable Bill to meet the great problems we have to face. We shall have millions of men coming back from the front, and a great many munition workers set free. Those problems will become more urgent, and if this House is to perform its functions properly, the difficulties which are bound to arise before very long should be met by intelligent anticipation on wider and sounder lines than the lines adopted by the Government.
Captain C. BATHURST: I cannot help thinking that the speech of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. D. White) is somewhat inopportune as well as being somewhat irrelevant as far as this Bill is concerned. His attitude and that of his friends is clearly directed against the land-owning system of this country. I doubt whether there has ever been a period in recent history during which the landowners of Great Britain have demonstrated to a greater extent their liberal intentions and desires and their sympathy with the idea of settling ex-Service men upon the land of the country which by their exertions has been saved from invasion. I will only mention the names of Lord Lucas, the Duke of Sutherland and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire as instances of extreme generosity, with the view of advancing the purposes of this Bill. I do not want to enter into an academic discussion as to whether or not the present conditions make for high prices of land in this country. I would like to remind the hon. Member that it is an economic axiom that as the interest on Government securities goes up so the capital value of agricultural land goes down. That appears to have operated so far as I am aware—and I have kept my eye very carefully upon the market for agricultural land—generally over England and Wales whatever may have happened in Scotland.
An HON. MEMBER: Do rents fall?
Captain BATHURST: No, rents do not fall, because the rents of agricultural land keep pace vary much with the interest on Government securities. I rose with two

2013
objects, first of all to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Acland) upon his courageous persistency in carrying this Bill to the stage it has now reached. What with our land-taxing friends on the one side and the Welsh enthusiasts in another quarter of the House, and finally our North British enthusiasts, I think it is marvellous that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to steer this Bill so successfully through the House.
The other reason why I rose was to say a word to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). My interruption the other day was evoked by the suggestion that this particular holding belonging to Mr. Christopher Turner, in the County of Lincoln, was a good instance of how unprofitable small holdings were, I was unable to say what had been the fate of this particular holding in the hands of the "Daily Mail," or the tenant for whom the "Daily Mail" may be deemed to have been responsible, but I visited this holding about three weeks before the right hon. Baronet made his speech, and having discovered an extraordinary state of prosperity upon that holding I could not help ejaculating that that particular holding was a practical instance of what a small holding ought to be. It is true that a Danish tenant occupies that holding at the present time, but it is not substantially larger than it used to be in the hands of the previous occupier, but I am able to say that on that comparatively small farm there is being grown to-day a quantity of wheat, oats, and lucerne, and a very large herd of cattle is being raised which is far beyond what has hitherto been deemed to be the reasonable capacity of production of an English farm of that size. A certain hon. and learned colleague of mine, who was present on the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman referred to this holding, was able to tell the House that the profits actually made by the Danish tenant were such as to make most English farmers' mouths water.
Sir F. BANBURY: He did not say that he was a Dane.
Captain BATHURST: I am glad that it has been stated here to-day that he is a Dane, because the bulk of the holdings in Denmark are just such holdings as we want to constitute under this Bill, and those Danish holdings are an economic success in almost every instance, because
2014
they recognise the fact, which we want to try to persuade English agriculturists to recognise, that it is quite possible to raise and to raise with success on the same holding a large quantity of meat and also a large quantity of bread stuffs. That is just one of our aims in connection with one type, at any rate, of the colonies which are proposed to be constituted under this Bill. I rather regret that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the City of London talks about waste of money in connection with this Bill, and I notice that the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White) was glad enough to echo that complaint. So far from it being a waste—
Mr. WHITE: I do not want to interrupt—
Captain BATHURST: The hon. Member is interrupting.
Mr. WHITE: I did not speak of it being—
Captain BATHURST: I think the hon. Member has had his turn this evening.
Mr. WHITE: I think I am entitled—
Captain BATHURST: I suggest that this is not, in fact, likely to be a waste of money, but, on the other hand, a very good national investment, because in the first place you are going, I hope, to put a larger number of healthy and enterprising men upon British land to earn their own living and so prevent their being a drain either upon the rates or taxes of this country in the future, and because in the second place every single penny that is going to be applied towards setting up these holdings may be expected to result in a return to the Government of as good a percentage as is being reaped in the case of the best-managed county council holdings in this country. When I hear the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division talk about small holdings as though they were an economic failure in this country, I would recommend him to visit some holdings to be found in Cambridgeshire, or in Norfolk, or in Lincolnshire, or in the Isle of Ely, where small holders, not only during the War, but prior to the War have been making very good returns not out of market-gardening, which it has been suggested is the only possible source of living for a small holder, but out of the ordinary mixed farm of which wheat forms a staple product. I wish all success to this scheme, although I am bound to say that it

2015
is a much smaller scheme than I should have liked to have seen. It has been a great source of disappointment to me that suggestions have been made, not merely in this House, but in another place, that this scheme and other schemes like it will involve a large expenditure of public money which we can ill afford. My answer to it is: See what the Dominions overseas Are doing in this same matter; see what an excellent example they are setting to us, and which we might follow. So far from quibbling as to whether buildings and equipment are going to be provided with money which is advanced at less than the current rate of interest, the Overseas Dominions are wanting to take these men to be settlers in their dominions, and in order to encourage them to go they are not merely offering them a free passage, but they are offering them land at a very low cost, and also offering to equip their holdings at a much lower rate than is being offered here, and they are being offered working capital, provided by the Government, at a considerably lower rate of interest than that at which we are likely to obtain any money for similar purposes in this country. We cannot spare these men after this War is over; we cannot spare the able-bodied manhood of this country to go to other countries, even to our own Overseas Dominions. We shall want them here, and I venture to hope that if this experiment proves a success, and even during the time that the success of this experiment is being demonstrated, the Government will make a much bigger effort to settle a much larger number of men on British soil in order to keep them leading a healthy life in the country where, above all, they will be so valuable. If it is impossible to settle them straight away on holdings because of the difficulty of providing land at such short notice, I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government that they might do well to keep these men employed upon reclamation and afforestation work, both of which will be urgently necessary when the War is over, and so keep them employed until such time as there will have been found land suitable for the purpose, and upon which they can be settled, either in colonies or by the county councils, on smaller areas in those counties from which they went out to fight the battles of their country. I venture to hope that this is only a small beginning of a very large scheme of land
2016
improvement and land settlement in this country, and in that hope I cordially wish all success to the scheme constituted under this Bill.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down dealt with a particular criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. White) by misrepresenting what he had said. As he was not allowed to make an explanation himself, perhaps I may say a word with regard to it. He did not say, so far as I remember, that this Bill involved necessarily a waste of money. I think his argument was that this Bill was presented to us as an experiment capable of extension, and that as we have heard from the Member in charge of the Bill that it is only going to be made to work by virtually subsidising the holder, the extension of it to any great degree would involve a large expenditure of public money uneconomically, and that therefore it is not a solution in itself of the land problem. That was, so far as I recollect, his line of argument, and I do not think anything the hon. and gallant Member said would controvert that. It is not necessarily a waste of money to subsidise the soldier upon the land, bus it is not a solution of the land question; it does not enable us to secure that a man shall make a living from the soil. It is making a living partly from the soil and partly from the Treasury. My hon. Friend, I am sure, never said that small holdings were uneconomic. They are often a most economic form of holding.
The hon. Member spoke of what is being done in the Overseas Dominions, how they are presenting to the returned soldier land on specially favourable terms, and enabling him to secure capital for his buildings on favourable terms. That is not brought forward as a solution of the land problem in Australia. These farms are to a large extent gifts, an acknowledgment of the people of the obligation due to the soldier. They are virtually much the same thing as if they gave the men a cash bonus, and they are recognised as such. As to the Bill itself, I regard it with rather mixed emotions. In the first place it is futile, but at the same time it is small, and may keep busy those people who think that by all sorts of piffling measures you are going to solve this great problem. There is one good thing of which this Bill gives evidence,

2017
and that is that there is a growing recognition of the difficulty of the problem which has to be solved.
What is that problem, which this Bill proposes not so much to solve as to provide an experiment for its solution? It is one the magnitude of which we are scarcely able to apprehend. We know that one day, when peace is declared, some millions of men will be disbanded from the Army and other millions of men will be disbanded from munition works, and this country will be confronted with a new problem such as neither this nor any other country has had to face before. This Bill shows that in some quarters there is dawning a recognition of the fact that the only way in which these millions of men can be absorbed in employment is by enabling the land to be utilised to the fullest extent. We shall have to break down the present conditions in this country under which certain men—dogs in the manger—prevent other men from utilising the land who desire to do so. That system will have to go. At the same time it is being realised that ahead of us lies an enormous increase of taxation. We are piling up a gigantic debt, and the interest upon that debt will necessitate this: that unless we are to be driven down into poverty an enormous increase in the production from the soil must be provided.
Again, when we come to the necessity of increasing the production of wealth, we see that we are confronted with the fact that production from the soil is limited to-day by the system at present prevailing. This Bill seems to be some earnest of a recognition of the solution of this aspect of the problem that will confront us. But while it recognises the problem ahead of us, and the fact that in larger production lies the solution, we cannot regard this as even a modicum of that solution. It is enough to provide a foothold upon colonies for some 600 men when there are millions for whom provision should be provided; it is no solution of the problem in itself. I should like to say one word in regard to what appears to me to be the field for the solution of this problem. I am very pleased to see the great change that has come over hon. Members on the other side of the House in dealing with the land problem. I remember that when a few years ago I was writing articles with regard to the conditions on the countryside in Scotland and England I used to be met with derision when I said
2018
that the land of this country was under-utilised and might maintain a far greater population. Now we hear that on all sides—from the other side of the House—from which derision came in the past. In particular it was contended that the land in the Highlands of Scotland could not possibly be put to a better use than for the grazing of red deer. Yesterday we found the Secretary for Scotland waxing most indignant because I pointed out the fact from the rating return that the land offered by the Duke of Sutherland was evidently some of the poorest land in Scotland, as it had not a capital value of more than from 15s. to £l an acre at the outside. We are told from the Front Bench that this is a valuable and generous gift, and is a solution in fact of the problem of providing land for the soldiers of Scotland. If that land is capable of providing sustenance for the returned soldiers of Scotland what millions of men could find employment and a livelihood on the valuable land of the lowlands of England, of Scotland and of Wales. As we come to this experiment with the land we find arguments being used to show that our contentions in the past are going to be realised, that an enormous increase of production might be provided from the land of this country and millions of men might find employment upon its soil.
We are undoubtedly going to be confronted with changes in many ways which will bring about drastic reforms. I think a change is coming in a solution of this land problem very largely from the attitude of mind of men who return from the trenches. They were told they were going to fight for their country, and I remember one of the recruiting posters of a Highlander overlooking a beautiful valley and smiling homesteads, and underneath were the words: "Is not this worth fighting for? He was not overlooking a barren deer forest of the Duke of Sutherland, and saying: "Is this worth fighting for?" He was overlooking the rich valleys of Scotland. I think when these men come back, having been told to fight for their country, they will have a claim upon it, and will establish that claim, and I do not think they will be prepared to pay great sums in compensation to the landlords when they have saved this land of England and Scotland and Wales from foreign possession as they have been told.

2019
It will be theirs, not by right of conquest, but by right of having saved it from conquest, and consequently they will regard it with an entirely different aspect, and it is for that reason that they will be prepared to go on far different lines from those proposed in this measure. It has been suggested that they will establish their right, and the right of all the people to the land by methods which we must not discuss in connection with the taxation of land values. This Bill realises that the problem that confronts us after this War can only be solved by way of the land. I remember when the Australian Premier was here he delivered a speech in which he pointed to the problems which would arise after the War, and the necessity of their solution, and he told his audience of the fate of Rome, because it did not pay attention to the problems created by war. I wish to point to the conditions that arose in Rome after the days of its great conquests, and how the suggested measures to solve them are extraordinarily appropriate to the days which are upon us. I desire to quote a speech of Tiberius Gracchus as to the conditions prevailing after the great wars. Hon. Members will probably be interested, not only in the statement as to the conditions, but as to the reception that his words got from the crowds of Rome and the views we are expressing to-night will get-from the unemployed crowds of this country in a year or two. He said:
"The wild beasts of Italy have their caves and dens to retire to for repose while the brave men who spill their blood in their cause have nothing left except light and air. Without houses, without any lands or habitations they wander from place to place with their wives and children, and their generals are but mocking when on the eve of battle they exhort their soldiers to fight for their sepulchres and their domestic gods. There is not. perhaps, a single Roman who has an altar that has belonged to his ancestors or a sepulchre in which their ashes rest. They fight and die in order to advance the wealth and luxury of the great, and they are called the masters of the world though they have not a foot of ground in their possession."
That is the position of the British soldier to-day. They may later on be called the masters of the world, but they have not a foot of land in their possession. They fight for the luxuries of the rich and the great. I say that when they return they will establish themselves in possession of the land of this country, but not on the lines adumbrated in this measure.
Sir JOHN SPEAR: I do not propose to detain the House long at this late hour, but I wish to support the Third Reading of this Bill for two reasons; first, it is
2020
framed in the interest of some of the gallant men who are fighting our battles at the front, and secondly, because it recognises a lesson we have learned from this War, namely, that we must do what, we can to grow more food at home than hitherto. That can only be done, I submit, by securing in our country holdings of different sizes to suit the capability and the capital of each individual toiler on the soil. The small holder produces milk and butter and vegetables; the larger holder produces corn and cattle and affords employment for men on the soil. The two systems are indispensable. We want the small holder or the agricultural labourer to get a lift up, and an opportunity to improve his position and ultimately become a larger owner and so afford an encouragement which has not existed until recently in this country. Therefore I believe the Government are taking a step in the right direction, and I confess that I would rather have seen a movement to provide throughout our country good cottages and three or four acres of land adjoining so that the small holder could, in addition to tilling his holding have the opportunity of increasing his earnings by rendering service to the adjoining farmers. I believe that system-would have been better than this which the Government has decided on.
But this is only an experiment, and I cannot imagine the motive of hon. Members on the other side of the House in opposing this simple experiment—an experiment made in the interests and to meet the wishes of our soldiers returning from the front, and to gain experience as to-whether these colonies conducted on the co-operative principle can be a success. I certainly hope that they will be successful, and if they are successful certainly all will be willing to extend their operations. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging that part of these holdings shall be arable and part grass. I am convinced from my knowledge of agriculture that unless you have a mixed holding there is very little prospect of success. With a mixed holding, if you get a bad harvest and the corn is lost the man can recover his position somewhat from dairy cattle and grass, and if he happens to lose a cow or two he will, on the other hand with his arable land, recover himself by the crop he is growing. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the appeal of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. D. White), as to the

2021
system of purchasing the land from the small holder. The hon. Member says that a fair price should be paid for the land. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme urged last night that the payment should be on the basis of the rateable value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who say "Hear, hear!" do not realise that rateable value is always eight per cent. in the case of house property, and six per cent, in the case of land below the rent. Do they think it consistent with honesty to buy the land for less than the fair price? Six or eight per cent, less than the rateable value is not honest dealing with the owner of the land. But immediately the hon. Member for Tradeston got up and said "No; we will give twenty-five, thirty, even fifty per cent, more than the rateable value." Why such a preposterous waste of public money? To-night, the hon. Member wanted land taken almost at prairie value. Last night he was urging that from twenty-five to fifty per cent, above the rateable value should be paid.
Mr. WHITE: No!
Sir J. SPEAR: I am within the recollection of the House. The OFFICIAL REPORT will prove that my recollection is correct. Passing from that, I am astonished at the objection to helping these men to acquire their holdings at a little less than the economic cost. It amounts to this. These gallant fellows have gone abroad to fight our battles. It has made labour scarce and consequently dear, and all that is proposed by this Bill is that we shall pay a price that would have been moderate if it had not been for the War, and if these men had not had to go abroad to fight our battles. It is astonishing that hon. Members who are interested in getting people to live on the land are always advocating principles that would drive people from living on the land. It is most inconsistent. I am an enthusiast on the great question—it is a great question—of getting people to live on the land, but the way to accomplish that is to make it worth while for people to live on the land. I cannot conceive any arguments less likely to accomplish that purpose than such arguments as those of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Unless you have security in the development of the land you will not get people to spend their money on it. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Hear, hear!"] An
2022
hon. Member says "Hear, hear." I ask him if he realises what the present value of agricultural land represents. I make bold to say that the—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering into a discussion of the general land question, which we are not now considering. The Bill is of a very limited character, and deals with only a small part of the general question, and that is all he is entitled to discuss on the Third Reading.
Sir J. SPEAR: I was following the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I pulled him up.
Sir J. SPEAR: I certainly will not follow up that part of the subject, save to say that I want to see more people living on our land, and to see them raising a greater volume of native foodstuffs. While I believe that larger holdings are essential, granted certain capital and capabilities, I think that at the same time we want small holdings, and consequently I am of opinion that the Government are taking a step in the right direction. I hope sincerely that the Bill will be a success. I support having more small holdings all over the country, with a better provision of cottages, and, instead of having so many people crowded in various centres, we should have a healthy and bold peasantry being developed all over the land. We must do something to keep our returned soldiers on our own land. The Colonies are making enormous preparations to receive all the soldiers they can get. It is to their economic interest that they should do so. We rejoice at anything which will benefit our Colonies. I love the Colonies, but I love the Home land more, and I think that we should keep men of the old stock on our own land, and by and by our Colonies will be able to receive emigrants from this country, who will develop our Dominions abroad. From the national point of view, in the interest of the soldiers themselves, in the interest of increased native food supplies, which we have been told are most important for us in time of war, I shall vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, which I hope will be a successful experiment, and will be the means of still further increasing the number of people living on the soil, and consequently increasing our food supplies.
Mr. PETO: I only rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make his addition to Clause 4 a really effective part of the experiment which this Bill is to promote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Col-lings) is a very strong advocate of the system of ownership, but he was not able to get inserted in the Bill the whole of the Clause he would have liked to include in it, making the ownership principle an operative part of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did put certain words in paragraph (c) of Clause 4 to carry out, as far as he could, what was the wish and intention of the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the whole Bill is only a small experiment, and I ask, those words having been intentionally put into the Bill, that at least one estate, and not an unfair one, should be tried on the principle of ownership, so that we may be able to see in a practical way whether a colony based upon the ownership principle thrives and prospers better than where the leasehold principle is in force. A great many Members on the other side of the House have shown themselves opposed to this Bill, not for anything that there is in it, but because they have such a rooted objection to anyone holding land at all; they do not like to see the Government purchasing land even for the benefit of our soldiers returned from the War. I am glad to think that the House, as a whole, sees perfectly clearly through their position, and that it will welcome this small measure designed to show the way to something more in future. The House, as a whole, wishes it success, and I believe it is confident that under the Board of Agriculture, which, as I know, is intensely interested in this experiment, it will show itself to be a success, with the result that there will be a demand for a very much larger measure in the very near future.
I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) is to be congratulated on the efficient way in which he has worn down all opposition, and on the skilful way in which he has conducted a not very easy measure through a certainly rather dangerous course, and brought it safely into port.
Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Member has just stated as to the very skil-
2024
ful way in which this Bill has been piloted through the House. We heard a good deal of talk about Scotland and England, and the House will realise that Wales also takes a special interest in this Bill. I should like to say on behalf of my colleagues in the representation of Wales that the arrangement arrived at with regard to the Welsh colonies in the Amendment which was proposed by the Government as the result of an interchange of their views between the Welsh Members and the Government is very satisfactory to them in every way. All we can do in Wales to make the scheme practical and successful will be done.
Mr. RAFFAN: I desire also to associate myself with hon. Members in bearing testimony to the courtesy and fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this Bill. It has been suggested that my hon. Friends and myself have been amongst his warmest critics. I do not think so, but if anything we have said seemed to him to be unduly severe I hope he will not object to us bearing our tribute to the manner in which he has conducted the Bill. I rather take exception to the suggestion made in speech after speech that my hon. Friends and myself have been engaged throughout in fighting this Bill. The position on Second Reading was this. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told us that this was a small measure and that he hoped it would be a self-supporting measure, and that he had promises which enabled him to reassure us on one point which we regarded as specially important, namely, the very high price of land. We understand that he had in some cases offers of land, either practically free, or, at any rate, on extremely favourable terms, and that under those circumstances we might look on the scheme as likely to be a self-supporting scheme. It was a scheme which proposed them to deal with 6,000 acres of land in England, and Wales, and 2,000 acres in Scotland. As we gathered, the right hon. Gentleman, although he was not able to disclose the full plan, had his plans matured with regard to England. That is to say, he had in his mind estates which he could obtain on favourable terms. Under these circumstances our position is what I might call one of benevolent neutrality. If it had been suggested that any measure of this kind was to help to solve the land question or to deal in any way in what was to happen on demobilisation, we should have regarded it as

2025
a perfectly preposterous proposal. But we did not understand that that claim was being put forward. If this was merely a self-supporting experiment to see what could be done where men had the benefit of co-operation, agricultural training, credit banks, and mutual marketing, we had no special objection to the Bill. If hon. Members who have been making attacks upon us will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find on practically every occasion when we have taken part in the Debates it has been to resist Amendments to the Bill. In some cases, we have supported my right hon. Friends in resisting them. But I regret to say that in our view the Bill emerges on Third Reading in a much more unsatisfactory form than that in which it entered Committee. While I bear my tribute to the courtesy of my right hon. Friend I hope he will forgive me when I say—I am making no personal attack—that I think he has carried his courtesy rather far in meeting practically every claim, however incompatible with the original scheme, made upon him from the other side, while he has turned a deaf ear to proposals from this side of the House which would have helped him to make this experiment what he trusts it to Le—an economic proposal. We were met in regard to valuation, but not in anything else.
12.0 M.
I do not propose to divide against the Third Reading, but I say that in its altered form the Bill is open to many and grave objections. The right hon. Gentleman has made concessions under which the schema ceases to be self-supporting. That being so, what is the value of the experiment? If this was an experiment to show that men may live partly on the land and partly on State assistance, I do not think you need have set up this scheme to establish that. If anybody suggested that wounded soldiers ought to receive recompense or reward in that particular way, we would not be among those who opposed that. That is a totally different thing from saying that you are setting up an experiment for the purpose of seeing whether small holdings will pay or not. The hon. and gallant Member for the Wilton Division (Captain Bathurst), to whose practical experience we all bear tribute, however much we may differ from him on points of economics, says that there never was a time when there was justification for the suggestions which we have repeatedly made, that the real bar in the way of the success of a scheme of this
2026
kind is the high price that has to be paid for agricultural land. That, of course, is not the whole of our contentions. We also say that you cannot have success unless you remove the rates for the improvements and put them on the land. But the hon. and gallant Member deals specifically with that part of the case He says: how can we talk in that way when we have generous offers from the Duke of Sutherland and others? Well, you require under this scheme in England—as apart from Wales—4,500 acres. The generous donor's gift sometimes appears in a shadowy way in the speeches of the hon. Gentleman, yet when we try to get down to close quarters and ascertain whether we can get land at a reasonable market price, the reply is that the hon. Member has a tenant on Crown land and that he expects he may be willing to let us have his farm at the same rent as he is now paying! I do not want to detract from the tribute to the donors of land, but men of that kind are so few that not only can you not get donors of 4,500 acres throughout the whole of England, but apparently you cannot get landowners to come forward with the 4,500 acres for this experiment at a fair market price! When we ask for that our request is resisted and we are told that if we insist on it we are wrecking the Bill! If we are able to get the land at a fair reasonable market price, and the scheme succeeds, what does it prove? It proves—if it succeeds!—that you have been able to deal with 450 men in England, 150 in Wales, and 200 in Scotland. Are you able to deal with 6,000 on the same terms? There is one point which may reasonably be put to the right hon. Gentleman before the Third Reading of the Bill is concluded. Here is a very limited experiment—he has admitted it himself. Is it possible for us to have any estimate of the cost? Has any calculation of any kind been made? What is to be the capital expenditure? What is to be the annual expenditure? Is there to be a profit and loss account? Has he any estimate of any kind he can submit to the House? In an experiment of this kind it would be only fair to this House if some estimate of the kind had been made. If the hon. Member is in negotiation with any particular individual, and the negotiations would be prejudiced by giving us details, surely that would not preclude some estimate being formed.

2027
With regard to Scotland, on the Committee stage we elicited that there is neither scheme, nor plan, nor purpose, nor estimate of expenditure whatever, and it is because we know that in Scotland, again and again, when land has been required for public uses, the landowner has found that the nation's need was his opportunity, that we were so anxious to put a limit of expenditure in this Bill. If this scheme is to succeed in Scotland it could succeed no better than outside one of the great towns of Scotland. If you had your colony immediately outside Glasgow, I am quite sure, if land were obtained on favourable terms, with that great market at the door, the scheme would undoubtedly be made a success. Outside Glasgow there are hundreds of acres of land rated as agricultural land. I would ask the owner for no favour of any kind, but I would ask, him simply to hand over to the State 2,000 acres of land at 25, 30, or even 40 or 100 years' purchase at the rateable value of the land as in the rate-book. Does that seem to be an unreasonable thing to ask if this scheme is to succeed? If there cannot be a reasonable provision like this, how can you go on from scheme to scheme if you have to pay these monopoly prices? I know something of the Scottish land question, and if anyone thinks the land hunger in Scotland is to be finally assuaged by crumbs that fall from ducal tables he is very much mistaken. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, we shall only be able to meet the needs of the men who come back if we are able to deal with the whole question of land monopoly, which is not in any way touched by this Bill. Hon. members for Wales have asked for, and secured, 2,000 acres. I know something from practical experience of the working of small holdings in Wales. Before coming to this House I was chairman of the second largest county council in Wales, and I worked very hard on the passing of the Small Holdings Act to make it a success in that area. I put in a good deal of spade work. I knew the difficulties, but endeavoured to do the best I could. We found there, as elsewhere, that immediately the county council comes in as a purchaser of land, not only do they raise the price of land for themselves, but they raise it for everyone who wants to be a purchaser of the land in that particular locality.
2028
Then, of course, the improvements on a small holding are a very much larger proportion of the total value than on a large holding. That is perfectly familiar. The result of paying a monopoly price for the land is to make the rent about twice as high for the small holder than for the large holder. In addition, he has to pay the extra return on his improvements, and the annual increased rate upon these improvements makes his rates four, five, and six times as high as that of surrounding people. If land is to be acquired under these conditions in Wales, it will be fairly difficult to avoid the same difficulties that we have in all small-holding schemes. The scheme will be waterlogged from the start by the excessive rent which the tenant has to pay and the increase in the rates. The right hon. Gentleman would have been well advised if he had not allowed these cuts into his scheme by reason of which this small limited area cannot be all retained for the purpose of the experiment outlined in the Verney Report, He has yielded to pressure from the other side, and now even a portion of this limited acreage may be given up to co-partnership and co-operative societies, who may take over the whole of the colony or bits of it. Then, in addition, he has agreed to the selling of portions of the land to the tenants. If that is done, these two or three smallholding colonies of 4,000 or 5,000 acres will shrink and shrink until the scheme will not get anything like a fair chance at all. We have taken exception to these alterations which have been made, and now the scheme goes forward hopelessly handicapped, as I think, from the very start, and it will be of little use even as an experiment. At any rate, so far as we are concerned, we do not at this stage record any voice or protest against it, but we say that it does not have any chance of proving a settlement of the land question as a whole, or even of the problem of finding an opportunity for the men who are returning from the front to settle upon the land. You may try experiment after experiment, and you may yield to one voice after another advocating one suggestion after another in this House, but unless you are prepared to deal drastically with the whole question of land monopoly, and to see that an opportunity is provided through economic influences of getting access to the land, and unless you lift the rates off improvements and put them upon land values, all your experiments are

2029
bound to fail, and in the long run it will be necessary to grapple with this problem fundamentally.
Mr. ACLAND: I have to thank hon. Members for their kindness to myself and for their consideration in allowing us to obtain the Third Reading of the Bill, in spite of the consuming interest which they have in questions other than those with which the Bill deals. I am myself going to fall a victim to the temptation of referring to one of these slightly irrelevant questions. I am not going to quote Tiberius Gracchus, but with regard to the offer of the Duke of Sutherland, I should like to quote this week's "Punch," to the effect that now that this Bill is passing he might "bite" some of the other landowners in England and Scotland. We should be very much indebted to them if they would make equally generous offers of land for the purpose of this Bill as that which he has made. With regard to what hon. Members have said as to conducting the Bill, the passage of it in its later stages has been helped by presence of body rather than by presence of mind in dealing with questions which have arisen. I am glad that it is passing, as I honestly believe it will lead to a really useful piece of land settlement work. I have one regret, and that
2030
I is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings), whom we were so glad to see here day after day, did not have an opportunity of moving the Amendment which so long stood upon the Order Paper in his name. There is one person whom I should like to congratulate on the Bill passing, and that is the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North Buckinghamshire (Sir Harry Verney), from the Report of whose Committee—it was an exceedingly fine piece of work—the Bill takes its rise. In the speech which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill my hon. Friend will find the financial estimate for which he asks.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS (WAR BONUS).
  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS (WAR BONUS).
  DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCES.
  DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCES.
  SICK LEAVE (ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES).
  SICK LEAVE (ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES).
  JAM (ARMY CONTRACTS).
  JAM (ARMY CONTRACTS).
  OFFICERS FULL-PAY SICK LEAVE.
  OFFICERS FULL-PAY SICK LEAVE.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  HOME DEFENCE.
  OVEE AGE ON APPOINTED DAY.
  OVEE AGE ON APPOINTED DAY.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
  SERVICE IN THE FIELD.
  SERVICE IN THE FIELD.
  CENSOR'S OFFICE (LINGUISTS).
  CENSOR'S OFFICE (LINGUISTS).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
MUNITIONS.
  HAIGH, GRUBAN AND COMPANY.
  HAIGH, GRUBAN AND COMPANY.
  CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (PIECE RATES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (PIECE RATES).
  WORKERS DISCHARGED.
  WORKERS DISCHARGED.
  TRAIN SERVICE (CRAYFORD).
  TRAIN SERVICE (CRAYFORD).
  SWANSEA WORKERS (WAGES).
  SWANSEA WORKERS (WAGES).
  MOTOR-CAR DUTY.
  MOTOR-CAR DUTY.
  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES, IRELAND.
  RAILWAY EMPLOYES, IRELAND.
  HOP IMPORTATION.
  HOP IMPORTATION.
  SUGAR IMPORTS.
  SUGAR IMPORTS.
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
  LIGHTING REGULATIONS (JEDBURGH CASE).
  LIGHTING REGULATIONS (JEDBURGH CASE).
  PETERHEAD CONVICT'S SENTENCE.
  PETERHEAD CONVICT'S SENTENCE.
  DUKE OF SUTHERLAND'S OFFER.
  DUKE OF SUTHERLAND'S OFFER.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  SUPERPHOSPHATES.
  SUPERPHOSPHATES.
  PROVIDENT FUNDS (MEMBERS' RIGHTS ON ENLISTMENT).
  PROVIDENT FUNDS (MEMBERS' RIGHTS ON ENLISTMENT).
  OCCUPYING LANDOWNERS (GERMANY).
  OCCUPYING LANDOWNERS (GERMANY).
  Mussel-Cleansing Tank, Aberdovey.
  Mussel-Cleansing Tank, Aberdovey.