Sitting of 28 March 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Cork Improvement Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Sugar (Restriction) Order, 1917, and Freshwater Fish Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
Copy presented of Application received from the Royal British Nurses' Association for the grant of a Supplemental Charter incorporating the said Association and the College of Nursing Limited, tinder the name of the Royal British College of Nursing, together with a copy of the Draft Supplemental Charter applied for [by Act]-; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT. 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment. by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Essex (urban district of Tilbury)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTI0N8.
  WAR.

    SALONIKA FORCE (OFFICERS' LEAVE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the-Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state, since leave was opened from Salonika last autumn, how many regimental officers have had leave granted and how many staff officers; and whether regimental officers have been over eighteen months without leave?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am sorry that I have no information available; but I am sure that the. General Officer Com-manding-in-Chief has done, and will do, all he can to grant leave, subject to the exigencies of the Service and availability of transport.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the- Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities recently requisitioned a 22-acre field of autumn- sown wheat for a military camp, and that complaints have been made about the- matter in the neighbourhood where the camp is fixed; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given in another place on the 20th instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. The field was required for necessary extension of the aerodrome to secure safer landings and to provide additional accommodation, and it was the only field suitable for the purpose. The original aerodrome was dangerous for pupils when it was a one-squadron station; now that a second squadron is to be stationed there the danger is doubled. In fact, the additional squadron could not be stationed there unless the wheatfield were acquired, and the alternative would have been to acquire a new aerodrome, which would have entailed the acquisition of perhaps 200 acres of agricultural land and the expenditure of thousands of pounds on road-making, water supply, and other services.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the statistics as to the killed, wounded, and missing in the Royal Flying Corps recently given embraced the whole Flying Corps or only that part of it operative on the Western front; and, if so, can he now state our losses for the last six months of killed, wounded, and missing of the whole of the Royal Flying Corps both at Home and abroad?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question, the figures I gave related to the Western front. In reply to the second part, I am sorry that, in the public interest, these figures cannot be given.
    Mr. WATT: Does the hon. Gentleman still maintain that we can hold our own in aeroplanes on the Western front?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the exhaustive statement I made the other day.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When the late Lord Kitchener was Secretary of State for War did he not think it was not against the public interest to publish these details and why does the present Secretary of State for War think it is inconsistent with the public interest?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not consulted my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, and I am not aware that my late Noble Friend made any such statement.
    Mr. BILLING: Why is it possible to publish the losses on the Western front and not the losses at home?

    DEFENCE AGAINST AERIAL ATTACK.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under- Secretary of State for War whether the scheme for the defence of this country from aerial attack initiated by his predecessor some twelve months ago is now complete?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not known to which particular scheme reference is made, but while it is undesirable to publish details, everything possible is being done, as events have shown, for the aerial defence of the country.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the last raid?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; to many raids

    CO-OPERATION OF SERVICES.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is complete co-operation between the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps for the protection of our coasts and of this country from aerial invasion; from whom do the respective Services receive orders to engage the enemy; and at exactly what point do the Royal Naval Air Service hand over their quarry to the Royal Flying Corps and vice versa?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an answer which I gave on 7th August, 1916, to a question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. I regret that I have nothing to add to the information therein contained.
    Mr. BILLING: When orders are given in the event of a raid alarm are they given simultaneously to both Royal Naval Air Service and Royal Flying Corps'! Is one officer responsible for the issuing of these orders and are they issued to either corps without being issued to both?
    Major BAIRD: I must ask for notice.

    ACCIDENTS DURING TRAINING.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the percentage of accidents, fatal and otherwise, that have occurred during the training of pilots for the Royal Flying Corps for the last six months of 1915 and 1916, respectively?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: 1.5 per cent. in 1915 and 1.53 per cent. in 1916.
    Mr. BILLING: What is the percentage based on? Is it percentage on number? Is it percentage per hundred?
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many of the Royal Flying Corps have been accidentally killed in this country during the past three months; in how many cases the accident was due to defect in the aeroplanes; can he say in the latter cases what action has been taken to fix responsibility; and with what result?
    Major BAIRD: The total number of casualties in the Royal Flying Corps in this country for the period 1st December to 28th February Was fifty-eight. Of this number three were due to breakage of

    391
    machines. Every accident is reviewed by a Court of Inquiry, and in any case where it appears advisable that some structural modification should be made in any particular type of machine, action is taken accordingly.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If not due to structural defect, is it due to ineffective training of the pilots?
    Major BAIRD: I think it is impossible to say to what a flying accident is due. Flying is a very difficult thing to do, and is a new service. It is quite impossible to say on each occasion of an accident what it is due to.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the position as it is to-day? Does he think there is no remedy for this large casualty list?
    Major BAIRD: No one can say he is satisfied with anything connected with aviation. It is in its infancy, and improvement is being made in every respect as regards training as experience suggests.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that the best material is being used and the best workmanship, and the best possible engines are being put into the machines?
    Major BAIRD: I can safely say the system of inspection is as thorough as it can possibly be made. Like everything else connected with aviation, it is being perfected every day.
    Mr. BILLING: As I understand 30 per cent. of our total efficiency is being killed during training, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of altering the system of training, which is largely at fault for all these accidents?
    Major BAIRD: If I rightly understood the hon. Member to say that 40 per cent. of our total efficiency is being lost in training, he is entirely in error. I have not the figures in my head, but I know they are nothing like that.

  INDIA.

    RESTRICTED IMPORTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the prohibition of the import of coffee, besides bringing near ruin a large body of
    392
    planters in India, will cast adrift many thousands of employés and coolies; that the two last coffee crops were so poor that the planters were already embarrassed and that they depended upon the crop now affected to save them; that if this crop is retained in India after picking it will so deteriorate as to become of little value; that, if this prohibition is enforced, bankers will refuse to give the usual advances and estates will go out of cultivation; that London is the almost exclusive market and the United Kingdom the chief consumer; that this home-trade coffee should have preference over the produce of Brazil and other foreign countries, of which stocks here are chiefly composed; that the total stock of East India coffee in the United Kingdom at the end of February did not exceed 4,370 bags; that this year's crop is how almost all gathered, and that every day's delay in shipping is a serious matter for the owners, who have no other than the British market and cannot store in the monsoon; that the tonnage required for the crop is small and that the crop is always shipped in small parcels; and that the industry is British all through; I whether the Government will in the special circumstances issue licences for the import of this year's Indian coffee crop?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend, who is unavoidably absent on public business, has asked me to answer his questions. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Board of Trade in the matter.

    GERMAN EAST AFRICA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether documents found by General Smuts at Moshi included a copy of a circular signed by the Governor of German East Africa, and dispatched to all military stations in that territory, in which circular officers of the Government of German East Africa were asked to consider whether the religion of Islam could be altogether prohibited, and intimating that the encouragement of pig breeding among the natives was recommended by experts as an effective means of stopping the spread of Mahomedanism; and, if so, whether any steps have been, or can be, taken to make known in India, and in Mahomedan countries under British rule, the attitude of German administration in this behalf?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A circular signed by the Government of German East Africa was found at Moshi, in which inquiry was made whether the propagation of the Moslem religion by Government officials, and especially by schoolmasters, could not be prohibited, and in which it was stated that the encouragement of pig breeding among the natives was recommended by experts as an effective means of checking the spread of that religion. Steps were promptly taken by His Majesty's Government to make widely known to Moslems this illustration of the real attitude of the German Government towards them.
    Sir J. D. REES: Did those steps include the publication of this fact in the Indian Press?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put that to the Secretary of State.

    PEHSIAN AND AFGHAN FRONTLERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers and men of the troops serving in Persia and on the Persian and Afghan frontiers will now be given the same rate of exchange of rupees into krans as that granted to gazetted and non-gazetted officers of the Indo-European Telegraph Department in Persia?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Government of India referred this question to a Committee, whose recommendations are now under consideration. A decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

    MOTOR SPIRIT EXPERIMENTS.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give information regarding certain experiments made at Hyderabad, in the Deccan, by Mr. G. E. C. Wakefield, Director-General of Revenue, anent the production of a motor spirit from the flowers of the mhowra tree?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Secretary of State has received no information on this subject.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in November, 1915, the Director-General of Ordnance in India made a favourable report to the Government of India on certain experiments and results made and obtained at Hyderabad, in the Deccan, by Mr. G. E. C. Wakefield, Director-General of Revenue, to His Highness the Nizam and Professor M'Ewen, of the Nizam College, regarding
    394
    an Indian raw material useful for munitions; whether these experiments and results have been tested in this country and the report submitted to the India Office; and whether he is in a position to say what steps have since been taken?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Secretary of State is not aware of the reports to which the hon. Member refers. But it is the case that Mr. Wakefield brought to the notice of the Government of India the possibility of using a certain material for the manufacture of munitions. Experiments while showing the utility of this material have not yet established its superiority over other materials, and consequently no final decision as to its employment has yet been taken.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the "Times of India" as to the result of this, and as to the establishment of a factory in India?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will ask my right hon. Friend if he has seen it?

    ROYAL MARINES (PENSIONS).
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether those non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines called up to serve during hostilities and those who have completed twenty-one years' service since the 4th August, 1914, who already have earned the maximum pension allowed under paragraph 1198 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions will, by reason of their additional service, be permitted to exceed the maximum pension of their rank; and, if so, to what extent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret I am not in a position to give my hon. and gallant Friend an answer to this question, which, as he probably knows, has been under discussion between ourselves and other Departments concerned. If he will be so good as to put the question down again early next week, I hope then to give an answer one way or the other.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what authority the Press is now prevented from publishing any account of any vessel sunk in connec-

    395
    tion with the War, even when it is a transatlantic liner; whether he will give the House any particulars of a Cunard liner said to have been recently sunk, the number of persons on board, and the number lost; whether their relatives have been communicated with; whether the cause of the sinking was a British mine; whether in deep or shallow water; and whether any inquiry will be instituted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is that any such request is made on the authority of the Government. No discrimination is made in such request between liners and other vessels. It has been decided by the Government, in consultation with its Allies, that only numbers of ships lost shall be published, in order to withhold information from the enemy which he has, in many cases, no means of otherwise obtaining It is not, therefore, in the interests of the country to give the information desired. But it may be stated that in all cases Lloyd's and the owners are confidentially informed, and the latter communicate with all relatives.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the Admiralty aware that enemy newspapers publish every day a list of the ships, giving the name and tonnage of the ship, of British, neutral and Allied countries, and, if that is in the knowledge of the Admiralty, can he say whether the lists published in enemy newspapers are accurate or inaccurate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say whether they are accurate or inaccurate. I do not propose to give any indication as to whether they are or not.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the business of the Admiralty to watch things like that and see if they can derive any advantage from them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With all due respect to the hon. Member, I think the Admiralty might be trusted to do that without the hon. Member suggesting it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in the things not to be told in the public interest the question whether any inquiry will be held in this case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot add to my answer.

    MINE-SWEEPERS (VICTUALLING MONEY).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why certain men employed on mine-sweepers are only allowed 1s. 5d. per day victualling money, while the allowance of certain other men is 1s. 7d. per day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The rate of 1s. 5d. allowed to all small vessels is really a victualling allowance, and carries with it the right to take up Government provisions on repayment, which is an advantage to the men. The rate of 1s. 7d. a day is fixed when no such privilege is accorded. My hon. Friend is wrong in supposing that the rate varies with the locality upon which the vessels are based.

    NAVY ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS (CHARGE PAY).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will arrange that accountant officers on sea-going ships carrying 650 complement and over shall have 3s. 6d. per diem charge pay as is at present the case with accountant officers in ships with complements of 900 and over?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend apparently bases his question upon a supposed analogy between the medical and accountant officers. The former receive charge pay of 3s. 6d. a day when in charge of the medical duties of a ship of war at sea with a complement of not less than 650. The latter receive charge pay at the same rate when in the position of senior accountant officer of a sea-going ship in which the average number borne per quarter exceeds 900. I do not agree that there is, or can be, any real analogy between the two classes of officers in regard to their duties or responsibilities which would necessitate or justify their being treated on exactly similar lines. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  MUNITIONS.

    ELECTROLYTIC COPPER.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now

    397
    state whether Mr. Frank Baer, a German-born subject and a member of the firm of Messrs. Henry It. Merton and Company, Limited, who was permitted to go to New York for the purpose of the purchase of enemy interests in the Ore Trading Company, which negotiations proved abortive, availed himself of the opportunity to make purchases in America of copper or other metals; and, if so, whether such action might have been instrumental in raising the prices of materials, the supply of which is of great importance to this country and to the Allies.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Major Sir Worthington Evans): I have been asked to answer this question. I understand that the purchase of electrolytic copper were made in the United States by Messrs. Merton during Mr. Baer's visit, but I am unable to say whether Mr. Baer negotiated those purchases. As my hon. Friend knows, any purchase tends to raise prices, but I have no information to show that these particular purchases had, in fact, this effect.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that this man will now be allowed to leave America and go to another neutral country and play the same game with the consent of the Government?
    Sir W. EVANS: I am not sure, but I rather think he has already returned to this country.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will you keep him here?
    Sir W. EVANS: That is not a question that should be addressed to me.

    WEEK-END RAILWAY TICKETS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have yet been made to issue week-end tickets to the men working away from their homes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): Arrangements are being made for the issue through the Ministry of Munitions, as an experiment, of 20,000 vouchers a week to enable the munition workers to whom they are issued to travel home at week-ends at reduced rates.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Am I to understand that vouchers are being issued?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The arrangement is with the Ministry of Munitions, and the whole matter is in their hands now.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATES (SHEFFIELD).
    Mr. ANDERSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the methods of administration of the Munitions Acts are causing grave industrial unrest in Sheffield; whether he has received a resolution passed unanimously at a mass meeting of 10,000 engineering munition workers demanding the removal within seven days of Sir William Clegg from the chairmanship of the Sheffield Munitions Tribunal; and whether, in view of the present critical position, he will cause immediate investigation to be made in respect of the grievances regarding leaving certificates and other matters?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am not aware of any justification for industrial unrest being caused by the administration of the Munitions Acts in Sheffield. I have had no official intimation as to the matter mentioned in the second part of the question. I under- stand however, that such a resolution was passed and that it contained a threat that unless Sir William Clegg were removed from the chairmanship of the tribunal cessation of work would follow. I cannot too strongly deprecate any such resolution, and I am certainly not prepared in any circumstances to hold an inquiry under pressure of such a threat. The only complaints of the administration of the Acts in Sheffield which have been brought to my notice have been based on a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Acts. If, however, specific complaints for which the Acts provide no appropriate remedy are brought to my notice, I shall be prepared to consider them on full particulars being supplied.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that discontent regarding the administration of leaving certificates is not confined to Sheffield, but that there is general discontent in every part of the country; and, apart from this threat, will he not institute an inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The information that reaches the Ministry of Munitions does not bear out any such sweeping statement as that.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in Yorkshire the greatest part

    399
    of the unrest among the working classes is dissatisfaction with the proposed increase in the price of beer?
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether it is not a fact that I have brought a definite case to the hon. Gentleman's notice, where a man was given a week's notice, served his six weeks' penal period, and then applied for his leaving certificate to the gentleman who has been mentioned, and that gentleman absolutely refused to give him his certificate?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: In those circumstances there is no obligation on the chairman of the tribunal to grant a certificate.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Why does he not explain that? Has an inspector been sent to Sheffield by the Ministry of Munitions to investigate the very serious industrial position that now obtains in that city?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: We have had inspectors in Sheffield now for some time, and the Ministry is fully aware of the circumstances in Sheffield which are aggravating discontent, but those circumstances are not circumstances arising for the most part out of the administration of the Munitions Acts.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for a man to get work anywhere, after he has served his six weeks' penal period, unless he has a leaving certificate? No employer will employ him.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no obligation on the part of a workman to have a leaving certificate if he has been out of employment for six weeks.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this provision is being used to compel men to stay in their present occupations, and that men have no freedom of contract whatever?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is the question at issue. If my hon. Friend will show any specific instance in which it is being used in that sense inquiry will be made, as it has always been made.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether senior Army officers and non-commissioned officers are being appointed to
    400
    naval units of the Royal Naval Division in France; whether such a step is necessary considering that the Division was raised at the commencement of the War, has served with distinction, and contains a number of officers and men with experience gained on two fronts; and whether such a course will unfairly prejudice--officers and men of those units whose prospects of promotion are limited to their own units by the fact of their serving under the-Navy and not under the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Some warrant and non-commissioned officers have been sent out specially at the request of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief for certain battalions of the Royal Naval-Division, as he considered it necessary. I am afraid I have no information as to the first part of the question. The matter would lie within the discretion of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is every opportunity being given to the Naval Division to train for superior commands?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am told that is so.

    SMALL-POX AMONG TROOPS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how- many cases of small-pox have occurred since the War began in the British Army amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated soldiers, respectively, in the different theatres of war?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that this-information is not available at the War Office.

    "GLASGOW HIGH SCHOOL MAGAZINE."
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in December last, the editor of the "Glasgow High School Magazine" applied for a licence to post copies of the magazine to subscribers in neutral countries; and whether the licence can now be granted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that this letter was overlooked accidentally, and a reply is now being sent. School magazines contain much information useful to the enemy (e.g., details of dates and localities in casualty lists, letters from

    401
    the front, etc.), and it has been necessary to refuse all applications for permits to export them under Defence of the Realm Regulations, No. 24 B.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department has any statistics of the number of military representatives at tribunals throughout the country who have received promotions or decorations or honours since the passing of the Military Service Act; will he say for what work these honours are given, in view of the fact that these men are always in the zone of safety?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A small number of military representatives appearing before the Appeal Tribunals who already held military rank as lieutenant have been promoted to the rank of captain because it was considered essential to the proper performance of their duties. A few gentlemen who had also been engaged as military representatives were mentioned in the list appearing in the Press recently for good service. Beyond this no promotions, honours, or decorations have been given to military representatives for their work as such.

    HAMPSHIRE APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
    Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Myles Foster, who was referred by the Hampshire Appeal Tribunal, on the 23rd November, 1916, for examination by the Central Medical Board, but received a notice calling him to the Colours before such examination had taken place, namely, on the 9th February, 1917, and joined up; whether he is aware that the Poole recruiting officer, although his attention was called to the mistake, refused to cancel his calling-up notice, and threatened that if he did not present himself on the day named at 9 a.m. he would be arrested as a deserter; whether he is aware that the man has not yet been released, although the Appeal Tribunal called the attention of the Director-General of Recruiting to the circumstances by letters dated the 12th and 26th February, 1917, and by telegram on the 8th March, 1917, the only answer given to the Appeal Tri-
    402
    bunal being a letter dated the 8th March stating that inquiries were still proceeding and that Foster had expressed his willingness to serve; and, in view of the fact that this was an employer's appeal and that Foster is therefore not the aggrieved party, whether the Army Council will give immediate instractions-that Myles Foster should be returned to civil life in order that he may be examined by the Central Medical Board?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry has been made into this case, which was, as stated brought to the notice of the War Office by the Hampshire Appeal Tribunal. It appears that a calling-up notice was sent to Foster in error, as his case had not been finally disposed of by the tribunal, but it is not known that the recrutiing officer at Poole refused to cancel the calling-up notice or threatened that Foster would be arrested as a deserter. Any man is entitled to join the Colours if he wishes to do so, notwithstanding that there may be an outstanding application before the tribunal, whether lodged by himself or his employer. It is reported that when Foster reported at the recruiting office, Dorchester, on the 9th February, he was informed that as the application was in fact outstanding he was at liberty to return home, but he stated that it was not by his wish that so much had been done by his employers to get him exempted, and that he did not desire to have any further delay in entering the Army and was prepared to join at once. On this statement he was posted to the Colours accordingly.
    Sir G. BARING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Foster has since specifically denied that he ever said he wanted to join the Army and is at present anxious to return to civilian life, and under these circumstances will he cause further inquiry to be made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will certainly inquire.

    DURATION OF SERVICE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether enlistment under the Military Service Act on reaching eighteen years of age carries with it any obligation to serve for a longer period than the duration of the War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Men who are called up under the provisions of the

    403
    Military Service Acts, 1916, are deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve for the duration of the War.

    SKILLED LABOUR.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the Prime Minister whether skilled men are still being returned from the Army to the shipyards and marine engine works; and whether any labour, skilled or otherwise, is being, or is about to be, withdrawn from the shipyards or marine engine works in order to transfer the men so withdrawn to the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative; to the third that nothing is known at the War Office of any present intention to do so.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (AGRICULTURE).
    Mr. PETOasked whether it is still the policy of the Government to take no more men from agriculture for the Army beyond 10,200 out of the 30,000 authorised by the War Cabinet to be taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As men can be spared from, or satisfactorily replaced in, agriculture, they are being withdrawn for military service. There is no policy of limiting the number to 10,200 or any other figure below 30,000, provided that the interests of food production are safeguarded.
    Mr. MORRELL: Are the War Office still taking men from agriculture.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, they are.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Who is to decide what are the interests of food production—the War Office, the Board of Agriculture, or the Food Controller?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is constant consultation with the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Who is to decide?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If there is any difference of opinion the matter always conies before the War Cabinet.
    Mr. DILLON: For every man!
    Mr. PETO: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of the President of
    404
    the Board of Agriculture being given the power of dealing with individual men where he is convinced that it is not in the interest of food production that any particular man should be taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: So far as the general principle is concerned. I have already stated the facts of the case In every individual case the military representative always consults the local agricultural representative, and I think that in any case where the President of the Board of Agriculture has recommended that no man should be called up the War Office has always agreed.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: How many Irish applications have been dealt with by the War Office?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot say without notice.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have replied to that.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the local military representative acquiesce when objection is taken to an individual engaged in agriculture being called up?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that, but I am certainly right in saying that arrangements have been made that in every case where agriculture requires the services of a man that man is not taken.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Does that apply to Scotland?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is a case where a consultation does not take place subject to revision by the tribunal?

    CEREBRAL MENINGITIS (COLEY, READING).
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the inquiries into the case of cerebral meningitis at the jam factory, Coley, near Reading, then occupied by the School of Technical Training, have now been completed, and with what result; and if he can make any statement regarding the maladministration by the military authorities alleged at the coroner's inquest?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Two men have died from cerebro-spinal meningitis. Contacts were carefully segregated until pronounced free from infection. In the case

    405
    of the man referred to in the question, the seriousness of the illness was not recognised either by the patient himself or by the orderly until the day after he was taken ill. As soon as it was recognised, the medical officer was summoned and arrived within half an hour. Men who report sick are not punished by having extra parades, but a man who is marked "medicine and duty," and who misses a parade by going for medicine, has to make up the lost parade later. The medical staff both of the district and of the command have visited the premises, and the sanitation was found to be very good.
    Captain HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very serious complaints made at the coroner's inquest against the military authorities?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My attention has been drawn by my hon. and gallant Friend, but that is all. I will make further inquiries.

    KINMEL PARK CAMP.
    Mr. HADYN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private Norman Humphreys, of the 13th Platoon. No. 2 Camp, Kinmel Park; whether he is aware that on the 9th instant, when at drill, he fainted and remained unconscious for an hour, and that on the 20th instant he was ordered on parade and had to remain exposed to the cold for two hours waiting for medical attention; whether he is aware that Humphreys was not admitted to hospital till seen by Dr. Roberts, of Corwen; that he had a temperature of 105, and was found to be suffering from pneumonia; whether he is aware that three other soldiers were seen by Dr. Roberts and found to have similar temperatures; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the medical officer responsible for these cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Strict investigations are being made, and my hon. Friend will at once be informed of the result.

    SANDHURST COLLEGE (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can yet give any information as to increased hospital accommodation at the
    406
    Royal Military College, Sandhurst, in view of the addition to the number of cadets; how many deaths have taken place there within the last five weeks, and from what causes; and whether further hospital improvements are proposed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Temporary arrangements have been made to provide extra hospital accommodation in the Commandant's quarters at the Staff College, where twenty beds have been allotted, and during the recent outbreak of mumps certain of the halls of study were utilised. Further hospital improvements are under consideration. There have been two deaths—one from cerebrospinal fever and the other from pneumonia.

    COURT-MARTIAL, WINCHESTER.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under- Secretary of State for War if two brothers named Baldwin are now confined in the guardroom, 9th Eastern Company, Non- Combatant Corps, M Lines, Morn Hill, Winchester, awaiting court-martial; if these men have been brought from Win chester Prison after serving two and a half months of a nine months' sentence; if they have been released because the court-martial which sentenced them has been found to be irregular; and, seeing that these men have been illegally kept in prison for over two months, what action is the War Office going to take to compensate them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Further inquiries are being made in this case, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    PRIVATE REID (ARGYLL AND SUTHERLAND HIGHLANDERS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under- Secretary of State for War if he will take immediate action in the case of Private Robert Reid, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who on Monday, 12th March, was remitted from Partick Police Court to the military as a deserter, seeing that Reid has on two occasions been discharged from the Army, the last time unfit for further military service, and granted a pension of 25s. a week, but since his discharge has acted in his parents' house for six months in an insane manner, drilling imaginary soldiers, throwing articles about which he believed to be bombs, and that it was

    407
    during this period of insanity that he enlisted for the third time; and, seeing that these-facts are within the knowledge of the recruiting officer, Bath Street, Glasgow, will proper action be taken to deal with the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; this has been done.

    HORSES AND MULES (CLIPPING ORDER).
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a War Office Order was issued to clip all horses and mules; and whether this Order has been the cause of the loss of a large number of both animals during the past winter, especially in Salonika?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The clipping of horses overseas is left to the discretion of the Commander-in Chief of the Force. There is no evidence that clipping has led to loss of animals; on the contrary, the Commander-in-Chief at Salonika reports that the health of the animals, when clipping was introduced, compares most favourably with that of the year previous, when the majority were unclipped.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POTATOES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether an Army Order was issued to the troops that all potatoes were to be peeled; whether he is aware that the most valuable parts of the potato are next the skin and are thus wasted; whether the Order is still-in force; and, if so, will it be cancelled?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir; no Army Order has ever been issued that potatoes should be peeled. On the contrary, as I informed the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 13th instant, the peeling of potatoes is strictly forbidden, except when the dietary of the troops makes it necessary.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that a potato merchant named Boot, residing in St. George's Road, Forest Gate, East, was selling pota-
    408
    toes to the people at 2½d. or 3d. per pound and had a notice up stating that they were seed potatoes; and if he can take any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I am obliged to the hon. Member for bringing this case to my notice. I am causing inquiries to be made, and proceedings will be taken if it can be proved that any of the Potato Orders have been contravened.
    Mr. BRADY(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that there is a serious shortage of potatoes in Dublin, and whether any steps have been taken to meet the difficulty?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am aware of the shortage of potatoes in Dublin. The city was not in fact without supplies, both wholesale and retail, when wholesale dealings were suspended, but the stores were being rapidly exhausted. Steps have been taken to bring forward such potatoes as are immediately available in Ulster, and temporary relief will no doubt be thus obtained. Next week increased prices to producers will come into operation and this is expected to release some additional supplies. It must be borne in mind, however, that the partial failure of the potato crop is an inevitable cause of scarcity in Ireland as well as in Great Britain. As to possible future action, I am consulting with the Food Controller in the hope that arrangements may be devised which will ensure better regularity in the marketing of such supplies as are available.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the wholesale merchants in connection with this whole question of food in Dublin?
    Mr. DUKE: Certainly.

    COST OF LIVING, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the cost of living in the city of Dublin has increased 89 per cent. since August, 1914, and that a further advance is expected in the price of bread; and whether instructions will be given that the recent advance in bonus to labourers and others will be extended to all employé's who are on the wages list?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. The exclusion of certain classes from this advance is not confined to Ireland or to the War Department.

    ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the whole value of the powers given to local authorities to seize land for food growing is destroyed by the fact that the land must be handed back by January, 1918, seeing that no allotment holder will take derelict land, dig it, and clean it, to lose it after the first crop; and if it is possible to make some change by which a longer tenure of occupation can be secured?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board do not agree with the statement made in the first part of the question. Over 66,000 plots have already been taken up under the Order, and the demand has by no means been yet fully satisfied. The true position is that the Board have said they could not guarantee possession of plots after the 1st January next, but it does not follow from that that the plots will have to be given on that date. The whole question is, however, under consideration, and it is hoped that a further statement on the subject may be made shortly.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this difficulty about the surrender of plots is one that engaged his own personal attention three months ago, and has nothing been done yet to secure either compensation or security of tenure?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, Sir. It has engaged my attention, and I hope to make a further statement shortly which will be of a satisfactory character.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Then why is this statement to go out to the public that plots have to be handed back on the 1st January?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The latter part of my answer states that the whole question is still under consideration, and it is hoped to make a further statement shortly.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Three months.

    VEGETARIAN DIET FOR PRISONERS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked, with a view to economising on the con-
    410
    sumption of meat, if arrangements can be made for conscientious objectors and other prisoners at present confined in His Majesty's gaols who are vegetarians to be served with a vegetarian diet on application?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This is now the case. The medical officer, in the ordinary course, prescribes a vegetarian diet to any prisoner who refuses meat on the ground mentioned.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the vegetarian diet allowed in lieu of meat is wholly insufficient?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think not.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the insufficiency of this diet?
    Sir G. CAVEindicated assent.

    FOOD HOARDING.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the privation which the poorer classes in this country are now suffering through food shortage, he will consider the advisability of introducing a legislative measure offering a reward to any person giving information which leads to a conviction for food hoarding, and thus effectively check this practice?
    Captain BATHURST: I have been asked to reply. The expedient suggested by the hon. Member is open to so many objections that I hope that no ground may arise for considering it seriously. May I add that the suggestion made seems to me to smack of Rorne in the unhappy days of Nero?
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among the poorer classes as to the action which is taken by some of the richer people in reference to food?
    Captain BATHURST: That possibly may be the case. I think that to a large extent it is so, but I believe that it is unfounded. In any case, I am quite sure that to establish such a system of espionage would be entirely foreign to English ideas.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: In the public interest, does the hon. Gentleman not

    411
    think that there might be a new Department started with five or six well-paid officials who are Members of this House?
    Captain BATHURST: I do not think that the practice suggested would be desirable, or one which the hon. Gentleman would like to sec established.

    IMPORTED MEAT.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that on Thursday, 22nd March, at the premises of the Griffin Meat Company, Smithfield, a quantity of River Plate lambs marked T, which had evidently been in store a considerable time, were offered for sale; whether he can say the date at which the same were landed in this country and the names of the firms through whose hands they have passed in the interval; whether he is aware that on the same date a quantity of River Plate Iambs of old storage were offered for sale at the premises of J. K. Buer and Company; whether he can say in this case the date of landing in this country; and (2) whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that on Thursday, 22nd March, there was on sale on the premises of Armour and Company, Limited, of Smithfield Market, and on several other premises, a quantity of frozen beef labelled National Cold Storage Company, New York, and bearing labels that the goods had been received into store on the 9th of July last; whether he can state what boat carried this beef from America, what date it was landed, and in what refrigerator it was stored in this country; whether he is aware that on the same day beef from the same company-was on sale at W. and R. Fletcher, Limited, bearing date of receipt in store of 3rd March, 1916, and will he say by what boat this was shipped and where stored in this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The meat referred to was not the property of the Government, and the Board of Trade have no information regarding it.

    BALTIMORE AND CORK FISH MARKETS.
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company have proposed to supply only a limited number of wagons for the conveyance of fish from Baltimore to Cork and other markets this season; and, seeing
    412
    that a failure on the part of the railway-company to supply an adequate number of wagons will seriously handicap the fishing industry in the Baltimore district, where hundreds of poor families are dependent on it for a livelihood, will he see that facilities for marketing the fish are not curtailed by the railway company?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will look into the matter.

    BACON PRICES.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, if, and when, he will equalise the maximum prices of Irish and English bacon; and if he is aware that Irish bacon commands the highest price in any part of the world in which it is placed?
    Captain BATHURST: There appears to-be no justifiable ground for equalising the prices of English and Irish bacon, which have almost invariably differed in the past under normal market conditions. I am well aware of the high value and reputation of Irish bacon.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not the fact that Irish bacon is a superior article to any other bacon, and will he not take into-consideration the fact that the carriage from Limerick, Cork, Waterford, or Belfast to this country equalises the extra cost with pigs sold in the English market; and is it intended under those circumstances to make a difference in price of from 5s. to 7s. 6d. and put the Irish curer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received resolutions from war pensions committees in Ireland urging that the system of basing separation allowances on pre-war dependence needs reconsideration, and giving reasons therefor; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. I cannot trace having received any such resolutions.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Mrs. Walker, of Glin, County Limerick, wife of Sapper James Walker, No. 103548, Royal Engineers, has not received the separation allowance of 12s. 6d. a week which she was receiving from June, 1915, the date of her husband's enlistment, to September, 1916; is he aware that she received a memorandum from the paymaster at Chatham stating that her separation allowance had been reduced to 8s. 6d. a week and that, as she had been overpaid, 1s. 3d. a week would be deducted from the same; and whether, as she is a very poor woman in delicate health and has at present to live on the charity of her friends owing to the fact that she has received no allowance for some time, will he take steps to see that she gets the allowance at the old rate of 12s. 6d. a week and that the arrears due to her are paid at once?
    Mr. FORSTER: The allowance of 12s. 6d. was paid in ignorance of the fact that the soldier and his wife had been separated before his enlistment. she is entitled to Ss. 6d. only. I am inquiring into the statement that she has received no allowance for some time.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wife repudiates absolutely the charge that she was separated from her husband? Is he aware that her husband was in Scotland and that she was at home suffering from ill-health, and that that was the reason why she could not be with him? Having regard to these facts, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the case if I put the facts before him?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, if there is any doubt on questions of fact.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the grant of £3 to widows under the new Warrant is a retrospective payment?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): The grant is not retrospective. It will be paid in cases where the notification of death is received on or after the 4th April.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Pensions Minister if he has received a resolution from the Waterford war pensions committee, proposed by the Marchioness of Waterford and passed unanimously, which resolution has been adopted
    414
    by many other war pensions committees in Ireland, urging that the refusing of a pension because there was no pre-war dependence needs reconsideration and giving four reasons therefor; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BARNES: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the question which has special reference to parents, and the hon. Member will, no doubt, have observed that provision is made in the new Warrant whereby pensions may be granted to parents in certain; circumstances, although there was no prewar dependence. If cases of hardship arise in other circumstances they can be dealt with under Statutory Committee-Regulation 32 of Part I.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister if the £3 gratuity for widows of soldiers in addition to their pensions will be paid in all cases or whether it will be refused under exceptional circumstances; and, in the latter case, what is the nature of the exceptional circumstances that would disqualify a soldier's widow for the gratuity?
    Mr. BARNES: The gratuity will be paid in all eases when the widow is qualified for pension, or temporary pension.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister if men who have been discharged from the Army in consequence of disablement by reason of wounds or disease and widows and dependants of soldiers who have been killed in action or died of wounds due to or aggravated by military service, whose applications have already been made for pensions or gratuities but have not yet been dealt with, will be paid according to the provisions of the new Royal Warrant; and whether applications previously decided against applicants but which under the new Royal Warrant would be allowed may be renewed by the persons concerned?
    Mr. BARNES: The provisions of the new Warrant will be applied to all existing pensions and to any pensions under consideration with effect from the first weekly payday in April. The answer to the latter portion of the question is in the affirmative.

    ARMY HORSES (PRICES).
    Mr. O'SHEEasked whether the-present prices for horses purchased for

    415
    the Army are on a scale fixed in 1915; and whether these prices will be raised, having regard to the increased cost of keep and labour?
    Mr. FORSTER: The prices of horses are fixed in accord with the market, and it is not intended at present to raise the price of any class.
    Mr. O'SHEE: What are the prices as compared with 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: The price of riding horses is, I think, the same as in 1915, and the price of the draught horses is, I think, above that.

  REBELLION IN IRELAND.

    PRISONERS AT LEWES.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Irish prisoners at Lewes are still existing on food supplied to criminals; if they are sleeping on plank beds; if they wear convict garb; if any requests have been received from America for their release; and if he will say what the Government proposals are for the future as regards these men?
    Sir G. CAVE: The prisoners at Lewes are receiving food on the dietary scale to which they are entitled; they sleep on mattressfts; they wear the clothing prescribed by the prison rules. I have received no application from America with regard to these prisoners.

    AMNESTY.
    Mr. BYRNEasked if the Government will adopt a similar policy to that upon which they have congratulated the Provisional Government of Russia and declare a general amnesty of Irish rebel prisoners and a revocation of the recent order of deportation upon other Irishmen?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Resolution passed by this House on the 22nd instant contains no reference to the policy of the Provisional Government, on any point except the prosecution of the War with steadfastness and vigour. It has therefore no bearing on the question of an amnesty to prisoners.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be well to follow the excellent example which has added great strength to the new Government of Russia?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think this country must judge these matters in its own way.

    LITERATURE FOR PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if he will state the grounds or principles on which certain literature sent, carriage paid, to Irish prisoners of war in this country last year was not allowed to reach them; and whether such of it as was not contrary to those grounds or principles will now be returned to the owners on application by them?
    Sir G. CAVE: The object of censorship was to prevent the passage of printed or written matter which might tend to excite or perpetuate hostility to this country or sympathy with the enemy. Very little literature sent to the Irish prisoners was stopped, and, so far as the censors are aware, none was withheld except in accordance with this principle. The last part of the question, therefore, does not seem to arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not defined what sort of literature is calculated to excite antipathy to this country. For instance, does it include the book in my hand, the Four Gospels in the Irish language which was so treated?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir; that is an old question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether literature, so stopped, of which this book is a part, becomes the perquisite of any official in the Censor's office, and will he say how this book came to be sold by a person in that office to a second-hand bookseller in London, from whom I bought it? Will the right hon. Gentleman give any information on this interesting subject?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that.
    Mr. GINNELL: I want to know why this book, sent to a man interned at Fron-goch, was not allowed to reach him?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have answered that. It is not a fact.
    Mr. GINNELL: It is a fact.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Home Secretary whether any general Order has been issued that all Government officials between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one must enrol under the National Service scheme, and, if so, by whom; and, if such an obligation has been imposed, will he -explain how it can be reconciled with his pledge given to the House of Commons that there would be no compulsion under the National Service Bill?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Prime Minister has invited Civil servants to enrol as National Volunteers, but there is no obligation on them to do so.

    COMPULSION.
    Mr. BILLINGasked whether the inclusion of the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act into the Bill for national voluntary service would enable the Director of National Service at his discretion to introduce compulsory measures to enforce the fulfilment of a voluntary obligation?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): An assurance has been given that compulsory measures should not be introduced by the Director-General of National Service under the powers conferred upon him by the Ministry of National Service Bill. Clause 1, Sub-section (2) of 1ihe Bill, as amended in Committee, is intended to give effect to this assurance.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Director has no power, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to force a man to do anything he does not want to?
    Mr. BECK: If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will find that there is no compulsory power. There are no penalties.

    TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP (POLICE).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Police Constable M'Shea, Police Constable Danies, and Police Constable Chane, all of the R Division, have all been penalised to the extent of £54 in connection with the police agitation for joining a trade union; if he is aware that twenty other police-
    418
    men have been penalised to the extent of £15 12s. for the same offence; and if he can see his way clear to reduce the penalty inflicted?
    Sir G. CAVE: The cases of Police-constables Davis, Moshea, and Chane were dealt with two years ago, and I would refer the hon. Member to the full replies given by my predecessor on the 4th and 8th March, 1915; and, with regard to the latter cases, to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Islington on the 28th February of this year.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reasons why these policemen are not allowed to join a trade union when all the other thousands of Civil servants, both men and women, are allowed to join, and when there is no restriction upon any policemen under the control of the municipalities in joining a trade union?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have answered the question before. The police are under military discipline, and are responsible for peace and order in London and elsewhere and I do not think they should be allowed to join a trade union.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards the whole police problem identical with that of his predecessor?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself belongs to one of the strongest of trade unions?

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN (WAGES).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause independent inquiry to be made as regards the wages paid to employés in the Army Ordnance Department at Dublin with a view to an immediate advance of wages, in view of the unrest among the employés?
    Mr. FORSTER: An increase of 3s. a week was given last month, and I do not think any fresh general inquiry is called for, but, as I stated on Wednesday, 21st March, in reply to questions by the hon. Member and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, I am further investigating certain points.

    FISHING RESTRICTIONS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked whether the Government propose to compensate poor fishermen on the South and West Coast of Cork who were deprived of their means of livelihood for at least six months by the restrictions on fishing imposed by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In so far as compensation is properly payable to the fishermen referred to in the question, the matter will be one for inquiry and report by the Royal Commission set up for that purpose on the 31st March, 1915. I understand that application to that Commission has already been made by Irish fishermen similarly situated, and no doubt the Royal Commission will examine and report on the matter in due course. Of course, my hon. Friend must understand that I have no authority to express any opinion whatever as to the view that Commission may take as to whether the cases he now puts to me are such as properly call for any compensation. The principles upon which the Commission works are very clearly expressed in their first report, already published.

    RUSSIA (FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked whether the financial obligations to this country of the late Russian Government have been assumed by the new Russian administration?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the ExCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the affirmative.

    NATIONAL REGISTER.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the National Register drawn up in 1915 has been kept up to date; and, if so, if he will consider the possibility of employing it as a basis for a Parliamentary register?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. Speaking generally, the National Register has, I think, been maintained as provided for by the National Registration Act, but the register in its present form would be of little value for the purpose suggested.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the register at present in force of any value at all?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It has been of very great value.

    OFFICES OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN.
    Mr. S. MacNEILLasked whether, having regard to the possible change in the Parliamentary status of Members of this House on acceptance of office of profit under the Crown or of payment or pensions, without portfolio, from the Crown, held at its pleasure under the provisions of the Place Acts, and the various modifications thereof, temporary or otherwise, and the doubts and difficulties incident to this position, and the penalties incidental to sitting or voting in this House in contravention of the provisions of the Place Acts, a Motion will be made on behalf of the Government, as in the case of Sir Stuart Samuel in 1913, that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or consideration the questions of law involved in the position of such hon. Members, and further praying that His Majesty upon receiving the advice of the said Judicial Committee will be pleased to communicate such advice to the House of Commons in order that it may take such action as seems to it proper under the circumstances?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The Law Officers are of opinion that the Ministers referred to in the question are not recipients of a payment or pension at the pleasure of the Crown. But the matter is far too technical to be discussed by question and answer. If my hon. and learned Friend can spare an afternoon for the purpose, either the Solicitor-General or myself will be very pleased to consider with him the very complicated statute law which is relevant to the point raised by my hon. Friend, and we hope to be able to satisfy him that his apprehensions are ill founded.
    Mr. MacNEILL: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he allow me to share with others the treasures of wisdom and learning which he is going to communicate to me? Why not argue it before the Privy Council and I will come

    421
    and attend? Why should he give to a single individual the treasures that are meant for mankind?
    Sir F. SMITH: There is much force in the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, but quite a sufficient answer for the moment is that to give him the information in private will cost the Treasury nothing, while an inquiry of the kind indicated by him would cost a very large sum of money. There are very many legal inquiries proceeding at the present moment, and there is every reason for limiting them as far as we can to those inquiries which are absolutely necessary having regard to the War. Perhaps my hon. Friend will come and see me?
    Mr. MacNEILL: Oh, yes.

    IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked whether the Imperial Cabinet now sitting is an executive body or, like the Imperial Conference, only consultative?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Imperial War Cabinet is both an executive and a consultative body, its functions being regulated by the nature of the subject under discussion.
    Mr. MORRELL: What is its real relation to the War Cabinet, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member? Is it superior or is it subordinate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is rather difficult and not very advisable to attempt to define relations which are entirely friendly, and in regard to which there are no controversies.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what are the relations between the War Cabinet and the Imperial Conference, and whether the same subjects are presented for discussion?

    MESOPOTAMIA AND MACEDONIA.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has any news to give the House relative to our operations in Mesopotamia and Macedonia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is nothing to add to the official communiqués which have been issued. As soon as news which can be published is received it will be communicated to the House.

    BRITISH PRESS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the manner in which the German Government has supported the German Press in a variety of ways, including a full provision of paper and a conservation of journalistic man-power sufficient to en sure the continuation of the German newspapers with unimpaired efficiency; whether His Majesty's Government re cognises to the full the necessity for a strong Press in this country; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the British Press, already working under difficulties in respect of paper supplies and man-power, shall not be further impaired in carrying out its national work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no detailed information as to the first part of the question, but are fully alive to the advantage of giving facilities to the Press so far as national needs permit.

    RUSSIAN CITIZENS (INTERNMENT).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the Government is now prepared to follow the example of the Provisional Government of Russia, which has released all political prisoners, and order the immediate release of Petroff, Mrs. Petroff, Sairo, Hasse, and other Russian citizens who are now interned in British prisons without having had a civil trial?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The four persons named are interned under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14 B, in view of their hostile origin or associations. They have all made representations to and been heard in person by the Advisory Committee mentioned in the Regulation. In each case the Advisory Committee were satisfied that their activities or sympathies were definitely hostile to this country and her Allies. I find nothing in the recent events in Russia which would justify me in setting these persons at liberty in this country.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Russian Government as to their feelings about the detained persons, who are known to many leaders of the Russian Government at present and are in active sympathy with them?
    Sir G. CAVE: Better wait for some application to be made.

    PRODUCTIVE TRADES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will consider the advisability of immediately appointing a Committee to inquire into and report upon the relations of credit to the trade of the country and to the War and the possibilities of extending credit to productive trades, not merely after the War but now; and whether he will keep in mind the fact that the making of the necessary arrangements under such a scheme would involve much time and that the deferring of an inquiry until after the War and until commercial affairs might have become critical would be attended by unnecessary risks?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I entirely agree with the hon. Member as to the importance of avoiding delay in this matter. The late President of the Board of Trade appointed last year a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Faringdon, to consider the best means of meeting the needs of British firms after the War as regards financial facilities for trade. The Report of the Committee has been presented to Parliament. Lord Faringdon has been invited to proceed with the formation of an institution on the lines recommended by the Committee, the preliminary steps have been taken, and an institution to be known as the British Trade Corporation will very shortly be formed under Royal Charter. The object of the Corporation will be to afford credit facilities for British trade, especially in cases falling outside the scope of existing banks and banking houses.

    PRICES AND PROFITS (CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE SOCIETY).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that at a meeting of the Co-operative Society held at Manchester, at which 900 delegates were present, a resolution was passed recommending the Co-operative Wholesale Society to take steps to reduce prices and profits, so that they would not be liable to excess profits in the future; and if he intends taking any action to counteract such proceedings?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of this resolution. The question is engaging
    424
    my attention, but in its present position it would not appear that it calls for action as suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WING: Would it not be wise to reduce the prices and the profits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is precisely for that reason that I did not think any action was called for.
    Mr. CLYNES: Would it not be impossible to pass a resolution in those terms, inasmuch as there are no profits made from co-operative societies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not follow.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Irish national teachers, in accordance with the statement made last October to a deputation from their central organisation by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, have not in the granting of their war bonus been treated as Civil servants and given the equivalent of the Civil servants' bonus?
    Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The war bonus for men national school teachers in Ireland has been granted at the same rates and subject to the same conditions as in the case of men Civil servants. Owing to special circumstances affecting their position as a class women national school teachers are allowed war bonus grants at the same rates as those provided for men although the war bonus payments allowed to women Civil servants are only half of those provided for men.

    NEUTRALS IN GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of neutrals and their nationality residing in this country on 28th February this year; and can he say how many of the males are of military age?
    Sir G. CAVE: The latest figures available show that there are about 52,000 aliens of neutral nationality residing in this country, of whom 43,000 are males and 9,000 females. If the hon. Member desires to have the figures of any par-

    425
    ticular nationality I shall be happy to furnish them; but I am unable to state how many of the males are of military age.

    INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECT (READING GAOL).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if Ferdinand Kehrhahn, a British subject, is interned in Reading Gaol; and if he will say what are the regulations governing the treatment of this person in the matter of being allowed to receive food from outside, to write or receive replies to letters, or to receive visitors?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The regulations applying to persons interned at the place of internment, Reading, do not permit of food being sent in from outside, but there is a canteen at which food may be purchased. The regulations allow two letters in and two letters out a month, and one visit a month, but Kehrhahn, having abused the privileges he previously enjoyed at Islington by escaping from internment, is at present not allowed to write or receive letters unless they relate to his forthcoming appeal against the sentence passed on him at Liverpool, last January, or to receive visits except from his legal advisers.

    MOTOR SPIRIT.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade why the Petrol Committee has issued an Order that motorists buying kerosene at a garage must enter it on their licence, when anybody can buy a barrel at the nearest oil and colour shop; and under what authority they have issued such Order?
    Mr. ROBERTS: All substitutes for petrol which come within the definition of "motor spirit," in the Finance Act, 1910, can legally be supplied only under licence, whether supplied at a garage or elsewhere. The increase in the use of these substitutes, the importation of which involves the use of tonnage which it is necessary to economise, caused the Petrol Control Committee to issue a warning to the effect that motorists who use such substitutes must in future, like those who use petrol, comply strictly with the legal requirements.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the request of the Ministry of Munitions and the Admiralty, a recent attempt was made to pool all petroleum products in this country and so economise in transport and personnel; whether the Shell Company, the Standard Oil Company, and other producers all agreed, but the German-owned British Petroleum Company, the control of which is with the Board of Trade, refused to agree; and why this was so?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In answer to the first part of the question, the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty, and the Board of Trade have intimated to the principal importing and distributing companies of petroleum products in this country that it is desirable to pool their tonnage distributing organisations and supplies. The organisation is already practically complete, and the scheme will shortly be in full working order. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the last part docs not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the hon. Member aware that if he had answered the question when it was first asked the reply would have been in the affirmative? You know it would.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I answered the question on the Paper.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the motor companies have taken off some of their motor omnibuses from the road, which will inflict hardship upon the wage-earning travelling public; if he can state if it is because there is a shortage of petrol; if he is aware that there are thousands of gallons of petrol used by the owners of private motor cars and taxi-cabs attending horse-race meetings from time to time; and if he will take steps to have horse racing stopped at once?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As regards the first part of this question, I am aware that, owing to shortage of motor fuels, certain omnibus services have been reduced; but I hope that in making this reduction the less important routes have been selected. As regards the latter part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to questions asked by him on the 19th March and by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire on Monday last.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Director of National Ser-

    427
    vice suggested to a large number of Members of this House that they should go about and ask men to join the National Service, and so long as foolish games of this sort are going on does he think that Members would be justified in doing so?
    Mr. FRANCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that many motor omnibuses have been taken off important and busy routes in consequence of the shortage of motorfuel; and if he will take steps to prevent this popular form of public conveyance being curtailed while private cars are being used solely for pleasurable and luxurious purposes?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that in consequence of shortage of petrol motor omnibus companies are reducing then-services, but this reduction will primarily affect the less important routes. No licences are now being granted or renewed for the supply of petrol for use in private cars which are not used for purposes of national importance.
    Mr. FRANCE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where owners of motor cars get petrol from?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can only say there are no more licences issued.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the licences as they expire not be renewed?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is so, except for work of national importance.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    TOBACCO.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the stock of raw tobacco at present in bond in this country is equal to only one year and four months' consumption at the pesent rate; that raw tobacco being an article which matures in bond the usual stock carried in the pre-war period was about two years; that of the present stock in bond a large proportion has been imported for the use of His Majesty's Forces, and is not available for the use of home-trade manufacturers in Ireland or any part of the United Kingdom; that the business of many old-established tobacco manufacturers is in consequence placed in jeopardy
    428
    and some have already been forced to close down; and whether, in these circumstances, he will grant to the importers of raw tobacco licences to bring in 50 per cent. or 66 per cent. of their imports of 1915, the standard year, so that the markets of the United Kingdom, on which such manufacturers depend, may be supplied before the present crop is sold abroad for consumption in foreign countries?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abereromby Division of Liverpool, which was printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Monday last.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small manufacturers in Ireland have been crushed out?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information of that fact. The whole subject is under consideration. It is mainly a question of tonnage.

    MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICES.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has received representations from the Liverpool local marine board on the subject of the appointment of superintendents of mercantile marine offices, to the effect that the persons selected should in all cases have the advantage of practical nautical experience in responsible capacities at sea; and whether he intends to make a condition, in making any appointments to those posts, that the, persons appointed shall have had the necessary practical experience?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The representations to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been received, and they will be fully considered when a vacancy occurs, but, as stated in the reply to him on 12th October last, the Board of Trade cannot bind themselves to give priority to any particular class of applicants in making these appointments in the public service.

    FREIGHT CHARGES (BLUE BOOK RATES).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the freight charge on a bushel of wheat from Australia at Blue Book rates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. An exact equivalent cannot be stated, but the liners are paid at the rate of 70s. per ton, which is calculated to be equivalent to Blue Book rates. This may be taken to be roughly a rate of Is. 10½d. a bushel.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the hon. Gentleman state the rate at which wheat is now being imported from Australia?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; 1s. 10½d. per bushel is the figure for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is wheat being imported at the rate which has been given?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The answer is in the affirmative. That is the rate.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the high freight charge which is responsible for bread jumping up 2½d. per loaf? [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] I say yes, absolutely.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is 1½d. on the four-pound loaf.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are about 42,000 uncertificated teachers in elementary schools; that these teachers have the same hours of work, like duties and responsibilities, and frequently teach as many scholars as certificated teachers, but receive less pay; that. many local authorities prefer such uncertificated teachers as serving for lower salaries; and whether he proposes in his coining reforms to raise the status and improve the position of uncertificated teachers?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for West Bradford on 12th March, a copy of which I am sending to him.

    LONDON POSTAL DISTRICTS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General why a certain London firm has
    430
    been given a special advertisement on page 13 of the recent booklet issued by his Department with the numbers for London postal districts; if it has been paid for; if so, how much; and why other competing firms have not been allowed the same privilege on other pages of this booklet?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hlingworth): The note to which the hon. Member refers is not an advertisement. It has appeared in the List of London Streets in the Post Office Guide for several years, and its object is to simplify sorting. If the hon. Member wishes to know in detail why it is necessary to refer to the premises of this firm and not to any other firm in the London area I shall be happy to explain by letter.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WAGES PAYMENTS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that 1d. is deducted weekly in lieu of stamp from employés in the Ministry of Food when signing for their wages; why this is done; whether the practice obtains in any other Government Department; and, if not, whether he will have it discontinued?
    Captain BATHURST: In accordance with the requirements of the Stamp Acts, whenever wages amounting to £2 or upwards are paid, a revenue stamp, value 1d., is affixed to the pay-sheet by the cashier. The employé signs the pay-sheet over the stamp, and the value of the stamp is either deducted from the wages paid to the employé or repaid by the employé who has received his wages in full. This practice facilitates the payment of a large staff, and is universal in Government Departments.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand that this applies to other Departments besides the one in question, because my information is to the contrary?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does it apply to a signature in a wages book where a receipt is not given?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot answer as to that, but one or other of the processes I have described actually take place in every Government Department.

    CENTRAL PRISONERS OF WAR COMMITTEE.
    General IVOR PHILIPPS(by Private Notice:) I beg to ask the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he can give the House any information regarding the informal Committee proposed to be set up to inquire into the organisation and methods of the Central Prisoners of War Committee, who is appointing such a Committee, and on whose authority will it act, and to whom will it report?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, has nominated four Members of this House to serve on this Committee and all these have now consented. I am informed that the Chairman of Committees in another place has similarly nominated three Peers, but I have not yet heard whether they are able to serve. The Committee is being set up with the approval of the Government, and in pursuance of a decision of a representative meeting of Members of this House interested in the subject, to whom the Committee will report.
    General PHILIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the four Members willing to serve?
    Mr. HOPE: I think it would be better to announce the appointment of the Committee as a whole.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will this be regarded as a House of Commons Committee?
    Mr. HOPE: No; it is not a House of Commons Committee. It is an informal Committee appointed on the suggestion of the Prisoners of War Committee itself, and at the meeting it was thought essential, whether or not any more formal inquiry may be anticipated afterwards, to get going at once a businesslike Committee of Members of both Houses.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Has the House as a House any authority over this Committee—is it not a private Committee?
    Mr. HOPE: Certainly.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Do you intend to put an Irishman on the Committee?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes.
    General PHILIPPS: Will this Committee have any power of any kind?
    Mr. HOPE: No. I do not think they need it.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill,
    Ministry of National Service Bill.
    Coal Mines Regulation (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) BILL,—"to enable the exception from Military Service of men excepted on the ground of previous rejection. or the previous relinquishment of, or discharge from, Naval or Military Service, or un-suitability for Foreign Service, to be reviewed," presented by Mr. MACPHERSON; supported by Mr. H. W. Forster, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what business the Government proposes to take before the rising at Easter, on what date it proposes to rise, and for how long?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The two measures which, as I intimated yesterday, we wish to get before the Adjournment are the Bill for the prolongation of the life of Parliament and the Military Service Bill, of which I gave notice yesterday. If, as I hope, we get the Second Beading of the Military Service Bill to-morrow, the House may perhaps be ready to pass the Bill for the extension of the life of Parliament through all its stages on Friday, and in addition to take the subsequent stages of the Military Service Bill. That is not perhaps so unreasonable as the statement of it sounds. On the last occasion on which the Bill for the extension of the life of Parliament was carried through this House—and this Bill is in exactly the same terms—though there were three different stages, the total amount of time consumed was about three hours; and as regards the Military Service Bill, it is a one Clause Bill, though I dare say there will be a good deal to be said about it, but it will be more a question of Second Reading than of Committee stage Debate. In any case, if that is found possible, it will also be possible on Monday to move the Adjournment of the House, to take effect on the following day—after the Commission has reported from another place. If we cannot get through all these stages in time to do that, I hope it may be possible, at all events, to adopt that course on Tuesday, and the House will then adjourn for a fortnight.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill be the first Order to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it will be the first Order, and in order that the House may know exactly what it is, I have made arrangements under which, I hope, the Bill will be in the Vote Office in an hour or an hour and a half.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill before Easter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not a Bill on account of which we should delay the Adjournment.
  Mr. CLANCY: Is it intended to take the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill before rising?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is time, but I do not anticipate that there will be.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the question in regard to the exchange of prisoners was not able to be discussed yesterday, as was suggested the day before, may I ask whether the Government can give half a day, now or after the Recess, for that matter? There is a very large volume of opinion on the subject.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be possible to discuss it on the Adjournment, but probably some better opportunity will come after the Adjournment.

FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.

  MR. SPEAKER'S SERVICES.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I beg to move, "That this House records its thanks to Mr. Speaker for his services in presiding over the Electoral Reform Conference, and is of opinion that legislation should promptly be introduced on the lines of the Resolutions reported from the Conference."
  4.0 p.m.
  The present Parliament met on the 31st January, 1911, and its legal term under the Septennial Act would have expired on the 31st January, 1918. Early in its history it passed the Parliament Act, which reduced the maximum life of Parliament from seven years to five. Accordingly, at the beginning of the War, Parliament was due to come to an end, and a fresh House of Commons to be elected, at the latest on the 31st January, 1916. Immediately after the declaration of War, on the 7th August, 1914, an Act was passed to prevent voters from being deprived of their right to register through absence during the qualifying period on naval or military service. In the next year, 1915, Parliament decided to suspend the normal annual registration, and the existing register—that is, the register compiled in 1914 for 1915—was continued in force for the year 1916 and until Parliament should otherwise determine. In

  463
  January, 1916, when Parliament would otherwise have expired, its life was extended for another eight months, and the existing register was continued in force again till Parliament should otherwise provide. Later in the same year, August, 1916, a Bill was introduced, and ultimately passed, further extending the life of Parliament to 30th April of the present year. We have before us, as the right hon. Gentleman has just told us—and he hopes to pass the Bill this week, or at any rate before the House rises for Easter—the third prolongation—quite properly I think—of the life of this Parliament, Which, I understand, will be to 30th November of the present year. The result is that if a Dissolution were to take place, or a General Election were to be held, at the and of this last extension, November or December next, it would be on a register compiled in 1913, admission to which register depended upon a state of facts in regard to qualification which existed as far back as 1913. If, apart from the stale-ness of the register itself, you add the notorious fact of the absence of a large number of the electors on naval and military service, and the great shifting of the population which war work has involved, it is not too much to say, and I do not think I am using exaggerated language when I say, that an election on such a register would be an absurdity, and that any House of Commons so elected would lack from its birth even the semblance of real representative authority. In these circumstances various attempts have been made, or suggested, during the last two years to deal with the problem by the creation of some form of ad hoc temporary or special register. None of them were fortunate enough, as my right hon. Friend knows, and as I know well, to commend themselves to the House of Commons. Our failure to do so was naturally put down to the ineptitude of an incompetent Government. As a witty Frenchman once said, Jolie hypothese clle expliue tant de choses.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Translate?
  Mr. ASQUITH: Even if you had had a consensus of heaven-inspired councillors, which unfortunately in this place you have not, you would have been no better off for this particular purpose, because the embarrassments with which, not only
  464
  the Government, but Members of the House were faced were due to the inherent and irremovable difficulties of the situation. In particular, let me point out two circumstances. In the first place, there-was the unfairness, and manifest unfairness, of excluding, and yet the practical impossibility of including effectively, the men who are absent in the various theatres of war on land and sea and those engaged in munitions and other work. They were due, in the second place, to the fact that no measure—as we soon discovered, and as the House was very quick to discover—no measure for the desired purpose could be framed which did not directly or indirectly raise questions of franchise, and so open the doors to controversy about women's suffrage, about plural voting, and about a host of other highly disputable and contentious problems. The Amendment which I see is down to this Motion of mine in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) asks that Parliament should legislate
  "to obtain an immediate register and to provide means of voting for those electors who are absent on naval and military service."
  I venture to say if my hon. Friend were to ask the War Office, or the Local Government Board, or the members of the Speaker's Conference, they would all tell him the same thing, namely, that that is an absolutely impracticable proposition. In these conditions, and speaking in the House on 16th August last, and supported by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Local Government Board—the present Colonial Secretary—I made an appeal which is set out in the fourth paragraph of Mr. Speaker's Report. I may, perhaps, be allowed to quote one of the sentences I then used. I said:
  "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."
  My right hon. Friend and colleague, the President of the Local Government Board emphasised what I had said, and suggested the setting up of a representative conference, not only of parties but of groups, a conference which would really represent opinion on all these subjects. The idea found, I think, a good deal of general favour, and at my request Mr. Speaker was good enough to consent to summon and to preside over

  465
  a representative conference of Members of both Houses. Everyone, I think, will agree that the Conference, as finally arranged, was constituted with admirable impartiality. It began its work on 10th October, and continued it until the end of January, having in the meantime, when the change of Government took place in December, been invited by the present Prime Minister to continue its work with as much promptitude and dispatch as possible. During that time it held, I think, twenty-six sittings. The first part of the Resolution which I am going to submit to the House asks the House to record its thanks to Mr. Speaker for his services in presiding over the Electoral Reform Conference. I am perfectly certain that that part of the Resolution will not only command universal, but the enthusiastic assent of the House. The task which I presumed to offer you, Sir, was, upon the face of it, a thankless, and, indeed, to many people it appeared at the moment to be a very unpromising one. There was, first of all, the difficulty of getting the right people together. There was what was perhaps an even greater difficulty, when you have got them together to keep them together. You, Mr. Speaker, succeeded in both branches of a very arduous undertaking. I am sure that all members of the Conference will agree—I know it is their universal opinion—that it wasvery largely owing to his tact and—I do not like to use such a word—Mr. peaker's "adroitness"—and—what is of not less importance—upon fit occasions to his initiative and driving power, that the successful result of the Conference was due. The House, I am sure, will only be too anxious to tender to you its gratitude for this, not one of the least of the many debts, which it owes to you. As Mr. Speaker points out at the close of the Report which he has made, we must not exclude from our consideration the members of the Conference itself. I should like to quote his language, because it is very material when we are considering this Resolution. Mr. Speaker uses these words. He says:
  "They were convinced of the great desirability O amicably settling this thorny question, and of finding a solution for issues fraught with the possibility of engendering grave domestic friction and internal friction. They were desirous of rendering, at a time when the national energies were almost wholly centred upon the successful prosecution of the War, a service which might prove of the highest value to the State, and result in equipping the nation with a truly representative House of Commons, capable of dealing, and dealing effectively, with the many and gigantic problems which it will have to face and solve as soon as the restoration of peace permits of their calm and dispassionate consideration"
  466
  What is the result of these prolonged and arduous labours? The result is that we have in this Report what I confess I was hardly sanguine enough to hope for—thirty-seven resolutions dealing with all the thorniest problems which have divided parties and been the subject of embittered controversy during the lifetime of a generation. Of these thirty-seven resolutions no less than thirty-four were passed with unanimity. That is one of the most remarkable concordats in our political history. In my opinion it would not only be folly, but it would be something like criminal folly, if we were to throw away such a unique opportunity. None of us, it is true, wishes to distract attention from the War, or to divert energies which ought to be concentrated upon it to-purely domestic concerns. But in that connection there are two things which ought to be remembered. The first is that this is a matter which in one form or another you cannot avoid during the War. You must have some electorate to which you can appeal, an electorate which is not a sham or a simulation, but a real electorate which represents the considered opinion and will of the nation as a whole. The next point which is equally relevant when such criticisms are made is that the agreement come to in this Conference was really a microcosm of our political world; the agreement come to in this Conference encourages, certainly it does to my mind, the hope that a similar spirit will be shown in Parliament, and that with a comparatively small expenditure of time and of labour a settlement on the Conference lines can be attained. But if that hope is to be realised, it must be—and now I come to the second part of my Resolution—because the legislation introduced proceeds on the lines recommended by the Conference. Almost everyone of these Resolutions has been arrived at by a process of give and take, and both individually and together they must be looked at as part and parcel of an agreed compromise. I do not suppose there is one of them to which some of us—probably a considerable number of us—if it were regarded by itself on its own merits, otherwise than what I may call a dovetailed part of a composite scheme, would not be ready to take exception, and more or less serious exception.
  It may be convenient briefly to summarise what is described in this Motion as the lines upon which the Conference has proceeded, and in the following of it

  467
  —and only in the following of it—is there hope for prompt' and agreed legislation. The main points appear to me to be five in number, and as to four of thern—I leave out the fifth for the moment—the Conference was unanimous. The first is franchise and registration. They agreed to get rid of the existing tangle of diverse qualifications, so that there should be only two grounds of qualification left—I leave out the university qualification—residential occupation and occupation of business premises, and that in all cases the qualifying period should be reduced to six months. Some of us would like to go even further; others, I am sure, do not wish to go so far. But it appears to me to be a very reasonable adjustment of the franchise aspect of the matter. Secondly, the question of plural voting, as to which there is the old Liberal formula, which we have proclaimed and fought for now for 30 or more years, of "One man one vote." Under the resolution of the Conference, no man is to have more than two votes—residential qualification, and, if he possesses it, either the occupation of business premises or qualification as a university graduate. That does not go as far as many people would have liked, but it is a great step in advance, and, coupled with it, you must take the recommendation of the Conference that all polls are to be held on the same day—one of the greatest reforms, I think, you could introduce into our electoral system.
  Thirdly, there is the question—a very important one—of registration and election expenses. It is proposed by the Conference that the cost of registration should be shared between the localities and the State, and that in the case of actual elections, the raturming officers' charges should be paid by the State. Those are both great reforms, and equally important, in my opinion, is the proposal to cut off these outside influences and organisations which have enormously increased the cost of elections, and evaded the whole spirit and intention of the Corrupt Practices Act. The fourth point is Redistribution, where you come to—I will not call it the rival formula, because there is no incompatibility between them—the other formula of "One vote one value." The dual effect, as I understand it, of the recommendations of the Conference on that point is, taking 70,000 as the normal unit of representation, that
  468
  constituencies with a population of between 50,000 and 120,000, will return one member; between 120,000 and 190,000, two members; between 190,000 and 260,000, three members, and so on in proportion. It is no part of my purpose to go into any detail as to what the effect of those proposals would be. I believe the result would be that about sixty constituencies in Great Britain would lose their separate representation. The consequence is that the exaggerated representation which the present system gives to relatively small areas will disappear, and I imagine that the other proposals in this part of the Report dealing with what is called proportional representation—I express no opinion as to their value—are put forward by the Conference with the cognate object—not the same object, but the cognate object—of preventing large local minorities from being wholly excluded from representation. On all those proposals, I understand, the Conference was unanimous.
  I come now to the fifth point, upon which the Conference report that they were divided, and that their recommendation represents the opinion of the majority. The majority—although, as Mr. Speaker tells us in his Report, in forming the Conference he had endeavoured to obtain on this point an even division of opinion—decided, first, that some measure of woman suffrage should be conferred, and next, to translate that into concrete form, any woman who possesses herself, or is the wife of a man who possesses the proposed new Local Government qualifications—that is to say, six months' occupation as owner or tenant of land or premises, and has attained the specified age, say, thirty, or perhaps thirty-five—shall have the Parliamentary franchise. Here we are upon much more delicate ground. The House will not be unprepared to hear that I myself, and I believe many others, no longer regard this question from the standpoint which we occupied before the War. During the whole of my political life I have opposed the various schemes which have been presented from time to time to Parliament for giving the Parliamentary vote, whether piecemeal or wholesale, to women, while it is only right I should say I have as consistently advocated, and done my best to promote, the opening-out to women of other spheres of activity, which have been in the past confined exclusively to men.

  469
  Why, and in what sense, the House may ask, have I changed my views'? There was in ancient Greece a poet named Stesichorus, who was ill-advised enough, in a fit of pervorted inspiration, to compose a lampoon upon the character and conduct of Helen, the wife of Menelaus. She was a lady who had the advantage of being connected by relationship with a god. The result was that Stesichorus was smitten with blindness. Thereupon, I think, after consulting the oracle, he conceived the happy idea of writing a Palinode, some lines of which are preserved by Plato, and in which he developed the novel theme that it was not Helen at all, but a phantom who had simulated her form, and whose elopement with Paris of Troy led to all the subsequent trouble. Thereupon, by way of reward, the poet had his sight restored. I am not going to follow the devious and not very candid procedure of Stesichorus. Some of my Friends may think that, like him, my eyes, which for years in this matter have been clouded by fallacies, and sealed by illusions, at last have been opened to the truth. In point of fact, as far as I am concerned—I do not know what is the case with others—there has been no occasion for the intervention of any supernatural agency. I am not the least ashamed—indeed, I am glad to have the opportunity—to disclose the process which has operated on my mind. My opposition to woman suffrage has always been based, and based solely, on considerations of public expediency. I think that some years ago I ventured to use the expression, "Let the women work out their own salvation." Well, Sir, they have worked it out during this War. How could we have carried on the War without them? Short of actually bearing arms in the field, there is hardly a service which has contributed, or is contributing, to the maintenance of our cause in which women have not been at least as active and as efficient as men, and wherever we turn we see them doing, with zeal and success, and without any detriment to the prerogatives of their sex, work which three years ago would have been regarded as falling exclusively within the province of men. This is not a merely sentimental argument, though it appeals to our feelings as well as our judgment. But what I confess moves me still more in this matter is the problem of reconstruction when the War is over. The questions
  470
  which will then necessarily arise in regard to women's labour and women's functions and activities in the new ordering of things—for, do not doubt it, the old order will be changed—are questions in regard to which I, for my part, feel it impossible, consistently cither with justice or with expediency, to withhold from women the power and the right of making their voice directly heard. And let me add that, since the War began, now nearly three years ago, we have had no recurrence of that detestable campaign which disfigured the annals of political agitation in this country, and no one can now contend that we are yielding to violence what we refused to concede to argument. I, therefore, believe, and I believe many others who have hitherto thought with me in this matter are prepared to acquiesce in the general decision of the majority of the Conference, that some measure of women's suffrage should be conferred. In regard to the form which their recommendation takes, I understand it has been prompted partly by a desire to prevent a preponderance of female as compared with male voters, and partly by a feeling that a discrimination by way of age was fairer than the setting up of any special class or business qualification. I say nothing on the delicate point of age or ages which are suggested.
  A very able and energetic lady, a strong advocate of the cause, came to see me the other day and made a counter suggestion that it was the younger women who most needed enfranchisement, and if age was to come into the matter at all it should rather be at the other end of the scale. I do not pronounce any judgment as between those two views. I myself have always thought, and I have often said, I think in this House, that when once you have resolved to ignore the differentia of sex it was difficult to introduce any other discrimination between the case of women and that of men. That is pre-eminently a matter for adjustment and compromise, and I feel confident the proposal will not be allowed to founder upon that rock. I have gone through the various recommendations which are the result of the work of this Conference, and in this Resolution which I am about to move I invite the House and the Government, confident in both cases that my appeal is addressed for the most part to willing and sympathetic hearers, to declare that we should legislate and legislate promptly in regard to all

  471
  these matters. I have endeavoured to show their urgency, an urgency which, as I have said, is not removed and is not lessened, but is to a large extent created by the continuance of the War. No one would propose to introduce a Bill on the lines of these Resolutions, bristling as they do with what used to be considered highly controversial points, unless there was, as there is, a good prospect that it will be handled here on the Floor of the House of Commons in the same spirit which animated the Speaker's Conference. In no other way—that is my deliberate and considered opinion—can we make the next House of Commons, whether it is elected in consequence of a sudden dissolution, or whether it springs into existence by the effluxion of time, an authentic and authoritative exponent of the national will in the infinitely varied and complex array of problems both domestic and Imperial, which at the end of the War it will be its first duty to confront and to solve.
  Mr. SALTER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "on the lines of the Resolutions reported from the Conference," and to insert instead thereof the words "to obtain an immediate register and to provide means of voting for those electors who are absent on naval and military service, but, save as aforesaid, considers that the attention of Parliament should be wholly devoted to the prosecution of the War."
  In moving this Amendment, I will not attempt to supplement in any way the words which the right hon. Gentleman opposite used in recognition of the indebtedness of this House to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the Conference. We are told that the Conference has made suggestions for legislation, but to my mind they are a great deal more than suggestions, for to my mind they are an augury for the future of the happiest kind. We are witnessing the dissolution of the old order, and as soon as the War has ended we shall look about us in a new world. It may be that we shall find old divisions meaningless and old controversies futile. It may be that the work of this Conference may aid and guide us to great reconciliations in the future hitherto undreamt of, and if it should have that effect it will, indeed, have been a work of great magnitude. But whatever else we do at this most difficult
  472
  time, confronted as we are by a problem the difficulty of which I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly fully stated, do not let us at any rate make the mistake of turning this great work from being a help to strength and union in the future to a cause of dissension and weakness in the present. In these Resolutions I find, as I expected to find, in so long and varied a list, some things as to which I would desire further consideration, as well as many things which are very welcome to me. These Resolutions touch at more points than one on a matter which comes close to us all at the present time, namely, the position of the sailor and the soldier and their relation to the State. I nave had the honour to represent in this. House in normal times now for eleven years a larger number of Regular soldiers than any other Member of this House, and I am hoping that, among the many good results of this War, one may be that the sailor and the soldier in the future may receive more consideration than they did in the past from the State. I have always thought, and I have often said that every sailor and soldier while with the Colours should be enfranchised by his calling. I should be very glad to see that a part of our permanent law, and if I could do it to-morrow, without opening the door to domestic controversy at a time like this, I would enfranchise for the purpose of this next register every sailor and soldier of full age, every mine-sweeper, and every merchant seaman. [An HON. MEMBER: "And every munition worker !"]
  Whether what I have suggested is possible or not at the immediate moment I cannot say, but in any case, and whatever happens, so soon as this War is over, every sailor and soldier and mine-sweeper and merchant seaman who has served the country in this War must, for the purpose of the next register, be put upon that register before the election of the Parliament which will take our place here. It would be interesting, but I do not propose to do it, to go through the matters in these Resolutions, because I am here to protest against their enactment at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has just addressed this House with his accustomed power and charm for three-quarters of an hour, and except for one perfunctory reference, he might have been addressing a country wrapt in the profoundest peace. Those of us who have decided to set down this Amendment and to support it have done so under a sense of responsibility,

  473
  and because we have felt that our duty left us no option in the matter and no other course. The Resolution recommends the immediate introduction of large measures of controversial domestic legislation. That demand is made under no compulsion of military necessity. The times are very grave, and in our humble judgment it is unspeakably essential that for the next few months, during which this legislation will be proceeding, there -should be the utmost concentration of every thought and energy and fibre of the mind and muscle of this country inside and outside this House upon the prosecution of the War. After the best consideration we can give to the matter, it seems to us that the course proposed would perturb our Allies. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Russian revolution?"] think that it would perturb all our Allies. I certainly made no exception of that great Ally. I think it would disconcert and discourage our fighting men, and I am quite sure that it could not fail to weaken and to divert the energies of our people in the country and in this House. The view that we respectfully present to the House is that this legislation should be introduced as soon as the public discussion of such matters can be conducted without detriment to the public safety. We think that such time will be reached, and not before, when the strain of this War is lifted from off the people. The late Prime Minister hoped that these labours would not be thrown away. If they are put before the country as soon as peace is with us, and if, instead of being considered by a harassed and burdened people, they are considered by a people relieved from this nightmare and able to apply their minds happily to the future, will that be throwing away the labours of this Conference? We are here to protest against the course suggested, and to back our protest with such force as we may have.
  I see it suggested—the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest it—that we have desired to upset some settlement. When the time comes and these matters can be safely discussed, it will be found that we are not less conciliatory than those who now lecture us for our conduct, but we will be no party to dividing the people in face of such an enemy as confronts us. It never occurred to my mind, since this Conference was initiated, to doubt that of necessity any resolution reported from it must form the subject of legislation to be
  474
  introduced into this House and to be considered in Parliament like any other legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman's Motion had suggested the introduction of legislation on these lines, I should have thought it an unexceptionable but quite unnecessary Motion; but, under the small and specious word "promptly," the right hon. Gentleman is desirous that we should enter upon this course at the present time, and it is upon that point, so studiously avoided throughout the whole of his speech, that I challenge the decision. To our minds it is the present circumstances of the time and of the country that dominate the entire situation.
  There was a courteous suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which has been repeated in crude language in some organs of the Press, that we must agree—it appears to be addressed, as I understand it, to individual Members and to the House as a whole—to the decisions of this Conference, because, we are told, "Your representatives have agreed to these things." It is so much urged, and it is so important, that I ask leave to say a word about it. The members of this Conference were men of mark and of distinction. They were very fairly chosen. They were certainly representative in a very real sense of that word. They were representative in the sense that they were typical of the various groups and parties from which they were fairly chosen. They were good samples of our various bulks, but I am not quite sure, even in these days, that you can argue back from sample to bulk as if we were so much merchandise. They were not plenipotentiaries and they were not delegates, and, great as is my respect and affection for those political Friends with whom I have shared adversity for so many years, I protest for my part against the assumption that I am bound to agree in advance to anything any other typical Tory may accept. I have been sent here by my Constituency to use my own judgment, and, with great respect, I shall do so. This suggestion, when made to this House as a whole, borders, to my mind, upon the intolerable. The suggestion seems to be this: "Here is the Special Register Bill, which is a failure. Here is a matter which is too great for you. Therefore, a number of representative gentlemen shall discuss it in a parlour, and whatever they agree to the House must accept, and not merely accept, but must enact and fix as agreed upon." Looked at more closely, I suppose it

  475
  means this: Some draftsman must prepare a set of Bills enacting in detail what he supposes the general resolutions of the Conference amount to—and those Bills must be introduced in Parliament and passed through Parliament without substantial modification, whatever that may be, and therefore without substantial debate. Such a suggestion as that, if it were not fantastic, would be really insulting. The Constitution of this country is not to be thrown together in that sort of way, nor has this House been accustomed to abrogate its functions and to evade its responsibilities in that manner.
  5.0 p.m.
  I have ventured to suggest in this Amendment certain immediate legislation. I think one is bound to do that if he challenges the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. It it not a case in which nothing can be done. The present register is most unsatisfactory, and an election during the War, of course, must be avoided, if it can be avoided, but it may be unavoidable. The quinquennial period has long since past, and the septennial period, I believe, will expire at the end of this year or in January next. A register prepared in the ordinary way, if undertaken now, can be ready, I am advised, in the early part of October, and therefore in ample time for the expiration of the now proposed extension of life of this Parliament. That will be a great advantage, and I think the preparation of a register should be immediately undertaken. It is quite obvious that register can bring the old register up to date, and can remove from it a mass of names which ought not to be there and place upon it a great number of names of people long since qualified under the ordinary law. It can at least do that, and it will greatly improve the position. I should be very glad if it were possible, even in a temporary and precautionary register, to make large additions. That involves difficult and technical questions of procedure. I should like to be able, for the purpose of this next register, precautionary and temporary though it be, to reduce the qualifying period for all civilians to three months. I should like to be able in the case of every sailor and soldier who has left a constituency to join the Colours to assume a qualification in the constituency which he has so left. I think most of us would desire to do that. We all remember, when the special Register
  476
  Bill was before this House, that you, Mr. Speaker, delivered certain rulings, and we all know how difficult it is and how impossible it may be to make such changes as I have suggested in a Registration Bill without opening the door to endless controversy. I desire to make my position—I think it is shared by others—as plain as I can. If this can be done without opening the door to general strife, then let us make these generous additions even in the temporary register which I immediately suggest. But I am clear, if you cannot do this without opening the door to those matters to which I will refer, that we must wait for the enfranchisement of those soldiers and sailors who are not now upon the register until this War is over; and as soon as this War is at an end we must put upon the register every sailor and soldier and every merchant seaman who has risked his life in the service of his country. That is a plain suggestion. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman brush aside in a somewhat summary manner the suggestion I have made in my Amendment for a vote for absent sailors and soldiers. He referred to the War Office. I should like to be sure that the War Office authorities have considered the suggestion I now desire to make. I have discussed it with competent and experienced soldiers, and they have seen no difficulty about it. It is a scandal, to my mind, that our sailors and soldiers are disfranchised by their very calling, and, in saying this, I speak as a representative of many soldiers. I have spoken to an old soldier who held Queen Victoria's Commission for forty years. He told me in that time he was upon the register in countless constituencies, but he never once had a chance to record a Parliamentary vote. In my Constituency, where there is a military vote, more than half of the military electors are always out of the constituency before the register comes into force, and not one-tenth of them ever have a chance of recording their votes at an election. At the next election, whenever it may occur, large masses of our soldiers and sailors will be absent from the country because the country needs their services, and it will be an intolerable scandal that they should be disfranchised for that cause alone—I am assuming they are on the register—and that being so some means ought to be devised for escaping from that difficulty.

  477
  It largely becomes a mere technical question. I have heard two suggestions put forward—that they should vote by post or vote by proxy. I do not think a vote by post would be feasible or acceptable; there are great difficulties in that. Voting by proxy affords a much better chance of solution. I know enough about these matters to be aware how full of technical difficulty they are. My suggestion is that immediately a soldier has been placed upon the register he should apply to the proper authorities to have his name transferred to the Absent Voters list, that he should then be given a proxy form, which should be signed by him and countersigned by his proxy, and this would enable the proxy to record his vote. I have been advised by people of experience that such a scheme is perfectly feasible, and any Government which in these circumstances put the suggestion lightly aside, considering what our soldiers and sailors have done, would be incurring a grave responsibility. I would not give any general right of voting by proxy for people's personal convenience; it should be a right given entirely to the classes of whom I am speaking. There should be an option to the man to keep his personal vote if he pleases, but then the vast majority who did that would run the risk of not being able to vote. That is my humble suggestion.
  I now ask the House to consider briefly and to realise what the carrying out of the right hon. Gentleman's programme would result in. How long would it take to carry it out? It would mean three Bills at least—a Franchise Bill, a Redistribution Bill, and a Registration Bill. It would be an ambitious programme of domestic change and a complete review of our whole electoral law. A Redistribution Bill alone took twenty-eight days in this House in 1884. We are fairly busy on our ordinary work at the present time, and if this were to be undertaken it would mean that all through the summer and through the autumn this House would be meeting here—it would be dragged back to these domestic controversies with all the old familiar machinery—Whips, Divisions, Debates, and, indeed, the whole thing. I confess I was amazed when I came into the House to-day to see the benches so crowded. No doubt it was due to the fact that the late Prime Minister was going to speak, but I have seen only half the attendance when matters of real national emergency connected with the War were in
  478
  debate. It is the smell of the old arena. I ask the House to consider the questions that will be involved in these proposals. I say nothing about the Irish question; we have it with us; it is a war question, and we have it with us in its most dangerous form. Do we consider we ought to add to our domestic troubles?
  Mr. GINNELL: Why not?
  Mr. SALTER: Then it brings to us the question of women's suffrage. I have always myself been an advocate of moderate suffrage for women. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rich women !"] The proposals of this Conference on that subject are very welcome to me. I am told that the opposition to women suffrage is shrinking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, I hope it is; but I am sure of this, that if it is shrinking in volume it is hardening in quality. It is an intense and bitter opposition. This question is one which divides the people with particular bitterness. It does not divide the people into large parties or crowds; it divides families; it divides individuals. There is another matter which has to be borne in mind: you cannot consider one part of the constitutional question in isolation. You cannot consider the franchise of one House without considering the franchise and constitution of the other. It is impossible to do so. Personally, I would be ready to accept the widest suffrage that any civilised country has, if I can have with it the constitutional safeguards which every civilised country except our own possesses. But in this particular case there has existed for the last six years this difficulty, that our Constitution has been incomplete and in suspense, and it has been so under a pledge that that abnormal state of tilings shall be corrected so soon as the opportunity for constitutional revision shall arise. That is an obligation of honour which brooks no avoidable delay. Four years of peace went by and no opportunity of constitutional revision happened to arise—four years of profound peace in the country. Two years of war with increasing strain followed, and no one will be surprised to hear no opportunity arose then. It is in the third year of the War, when this country is rocking in the grip of an enemy like Germany, that the first opportunity of constitutional revision since 1910 arises. At any rate this is undeniable: if there has now arisen an opportunity for consti-

  479
  tution revision, then the whole question of the Constitution confronts the House and comes up for decision.
  I will say nothing about proportional representation. If we could confine our disputes to ourselves there would be something to be gained. But the disputes in which we shall be engaged will be shared in a miserable, half-hearted way by a harassed people outside. Have we not all of us been flooded with circulars and representations from extreme people on both sides of this question? At the very first note of the trumpet of domestic war these people are rushing to the fray and flooding us with their views as if this country was in a period of profound peace. I believe there are people who would argue with you about proportional representation were the last trump sounding. It was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), in a speech in this House, that this matter would perhaps be best debated and with less acrimony under the chastening influence of war—a very seductive suggestion. But I feel sure these matters will be debated in exactly the opposite way; you see it in every indication that reaches us from anti-suffragists, and it is certain that the opponents of change on each of these questions will feel that they are not being treated with justice, that an unfair advantage is being taken of them by bringing this matter forward in a time of war and by making appeals to their patriotism.
  Will the House consider at what a time these proposals are brought forward? The most dreadful suggestion I have heard about the War was made the other day in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). He spoke of the probability of what he called "a broken-backed war"—the thing going on indefinitely after both parties had reached the climax of their powers—going on with diminished forces but undiminished animosity. That is an awful prospect. We are standing upon the threshold of the greatest crisis of the greatest war in all history. We must win victory, if not peace, in the next few months. I wish it were in my power to put into words my sense of how the national existence depends upon utter, absolute, unreserved, complete, passionate devotion on the part of all men and women inside and outside this House to the purposes of the War at the present time. We have a great number, unhappily, of indif-
  480
  ferent people among us still. It seems impossible to rouse them. Are they likely to be brought to a sense of their country's position by seeing us betake ourselves to a task which suggests to every mind perfect leisure, complete detachment, and absolute security? I said that I had much to do with soldiers. I believe I am right in saying that if our soldiers have any fear in connection with this War, it is only one. I think they have a fear sometimes for the constancy of the civilians. Whether the civilian will stick it out, is the only thing that troubles them. Their only demand is that there shall be concentration at home to back them, and, above all, no sound of dispute. If, as they go forward to what awaits them now they look back at this House and see us counting votes and adjusting boundaries, they will say, "The politicians have got us unto this. We are suffering to get the country out, and when it comes to the push they lose interest in the War and go back to their old ways."
  Look for a moment at the general body of the poor people at home—the parents, wives, and connections of the men at the front. Look at their position. They are beginning to bear pretty well all they can bear. It is not only privations, it is bereavement. It is not only bereavement, it is the worry and anxiety for those in danger. They see no end. They feel that the worst is yet to come. They have been told by a great soldier that if they can clench their teeth faster than the Germans and keep them clenched longer, they will win. They are going to try to do that as they go about their work. It is to these poor people, bowed down with these sorrows and anxieties and utterly absorbed in their share in the War, that the politicians wish to go. The politician is to go to them unabashed and complacent, and is to say, "This will be an admirable time to enter upon a discussion of many interesting matters of domestic concern. We propose to revise our electoral laws; we shall reconsider every boundary and every constituency. Do you think town clerks should have charge of the registers, and what are your views on woman suffrage?" I believe that the people will turn round, if this goes further, and will say to us, "For goodness sake, have you not had enough of party even now?" They will say, "Look at your handiwork ! Have you learned nothing in three years?" I believe that if we enter at this time upon the proposed course, we shall not have

  481
  gone far upon it before there will be a gathering tide of popular exasperation. We shall get clogged in all the difficulties of this ambitious programme. We shall be unable to go forward. We shall be unable to go back. We shall all be committed, there will be no more reconstruction possible, and there will be nothing for it but an appeal to the country. [An HON. MEMBER; "On what register?"] If the hon. Member will allow me, I will endeavour to make my position clear. I am struggling to prevent that appeal. Let us not be misled by those political specialists with whom we are in touch—these active local politicians. They do not represent the people at all. The general body of the people hate and loathe the notion of entering upon these domestic matters at this time. I desire to refer to the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister in this House last August. He had been asked to touch the franchise. He declined, and he gave his reasons. He would not introduce domestic disputes, and especially he would not open the question of woman suffrage. He said:
  "It seems to me, and it seems to all my colleagues—although I do not profess for a moment that we are in agreement on all these points as to whom ought or ought not to be enfranchised—that nothing would be more injurious to the beat interests of the country, nothing more damaging to the prosecution of the War, nothing more fatal to the concentration of the national effort, than that the floodgates should be opened on all those vast, complicated questions of the franchise, with an infinite multiplicity of claimants, each of whom can make a perfectly plausible if not irresistible case for themselves, and that at this stage of the War that that should be thrown on the floor of the House of Commons, and into the arena of public discussion outside, and that we should he diverted from that which ought to be our supreme and sole purpose to what is practically a review of the whole basis of our electoral constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1916, col. 1451, Vol. LXXXV.]
  We ought to remember that we are not alone in this matter. It is not merely the country and the Empire of whom we have to think. There are countries who have been called upon to stake even more than we have, who have got their all staked in this issue, and they are looking to us in this great and dreadful hour. Friend and foe admit that we have become the keystone of the Alliance. All depends upon our cohesion. If we are divided, we must weaken. If we fall, all fall. We are the trustees of interests which transcend even the Kingdom and the Empire. In moving this Amendment I humbly entreat this House not so much as to look in the direction of any matter of internal difference at this time, seeing what great issues hang
  482
  upon the continued maintenance of unbroken unity and concord in this nation and in this House.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I beg to second the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. and learned Friend. In the first place, I wish to associate myself most thoroughly with the expressions which have fallen from the two previous speakers of appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Speaker and the members of this Committee for the very valuable services which they have rendered into inquiring into this difficult subject, and for the valuable Report which they have presented. I do not wish it to be supposed that, because I am seconding this Amendment, I am necessarily opposed to all the recommendations contained in the Report, or that I am so high and dry a Tory that I should always object to any extension of the existing franchise which might at any time be proposed. I can assure the House that the exact opposite is the case. I have long been of opinion that something equivalent to adult manhood suffrage, with electoral redistribution of seats, was bound to come sooner or later, and also that when it did come the claim of women to have some share in the franchise would have to be very seriously and sympathetically considered. I do not hesitate to say that personally I am quite ready to approach the consideration of these questions with a perfectly free and open mind, directly we are free from the pre-occupations of the War and are at liberty to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to matters of domestic concern. That, however, is a very different matter from considering proposals such as these at a time like the present, when our one aim and object should be to devote the whole of our thoughts, influence and strength to the prosecution of the War, and to avoid, as if it were the plague, any question which might by any possibility stir up strife and tend to lead to a difference of opinion or to interfere with our national unity in the face of the enemy who is still thundering at our gates. To act otherwise at a time like this would be to show a great lack of any due sense of proportion, and reminds one of the Emperor Nero fiddling among the ruins while Rome was burning.
  Although I quite approve of some of the recommendations contained in this Report, we only had to listen to the speech of the late Prime Minister in order to be sure that a good many of these recom-

  483
  mendations are of a highly controversial character. I need only give a very few instances of what I mean in order to prove this. First of all, there is the question of Ireland. Ireland is excluded from these recommendations—Ireland is generally now excluded from any question which is at all inconvenient—but at the same time if we acted upon these recommendations the number of Members of this House coming from Ireland would remain just the same, and the disproportion existing between the representation of Ireland as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom would remain unremedied. Then there is the doing away with single-Member constituencies in large boroughs. I feel that very acutely, because I happen to represent a single - Member constituency—one of the divisions of Birmingham—and it seems to me that that is a retrograde and reactionary step, because these single-Member constituencies were set up in the year 1885, after a great deal of careful thought and inquiry, and they have remained established ever since, and now it is proposed that we should return to the old and cumbersome process of increasing the size of the constituencies, and having them represented by several Members. The only reason I can find for it is in order to enable the next suggestion to be carried out of proportional representation.
  I do not quite understand what proportional representation means. It has often been explained to me, but I have not yet quite grasped it, I have always regarded it as a sort of fanciful theory which was held rather by politicians than by practical statesmen, and it seems to me it must have this effect—that if the number of Members of the House is to remain the same, and minorities are to be represented in the House, it must mean that some candidates who have obtained majorities in the constituencies will have to give way and surrender the position they have fairly won in favour of other candidates who have only obtained a minority of votes at the poll. Then there is the question of women suffrage. I do not think it matters what our opinions are on that question. I think we shall probably have to grant some measure of women suffrage, probably on the Local Government Board's system, or something of that sort, but I know there are a great many Members who are absolutely opposed to any form of women suffrage, and no one can
  484
  say it is not a highly contentious matter. The very fact that it has been frequently the subject of acute controversy and close division in this House has been quite enough to show that it is an undesirable thing to enter upon just now. Then there is the grouping of the universities. I am sure my hon. Friend (Sir P. Magnus) would not like his university to be grouped with a number of other universities and to have to join with them in returning several Members instead of being free to return its own Member. Then there is the total abolition of the property qualification. There are a great many Liberals who used to say that taxation and representation should go together, and I think there are some people who now hold that view. I do not say whether I do or do not, but it is a thing that ought to be seriously considered and debated. Then there is this new proposal to confer a dual vote on certain persons simply because they happen to have a business as well as a residential qualification. It seems to me it does not matter at all whether those persons exercise those votes in one constituency or the other. They may even vote twice in the same constituency, as far as I can make out, for the same man. I should like to know whether any sane person imagines that questions of this kind could ever be settled without the most prolonged and acute controversy—controversy which will probably last until the War was over, and in the meantime we should have wasted a good deal of valuable time which ought to have been devoted exclusively to the War.
  Then I want to ask this other question: Is this House of Commons a suitable body, as at present constituted, to deal with important constitutional changes of this kind? It was elected on a register which was compiled nearly four years ago, and, therefore, it does not properly represent those who would be the electors of this country if it were brought up to date. Its existence has been prolonged on several occasions, and we hear it is about to be prolonged again. What for? Not for the purpose of dealing with questions of this kind, but simply and solely for the continued prosecution of the War. There is another unreformed and unregenerate Assembly which would be entitled to have a voice in the settlement of this question—of course, I refer to the House of Lords. We were told a long time ago that if we were to have another constitutional change he reconstitution of the House of Lords

  485
  was to form part of that change. That promise is long overdue, but there is no mention in these proposals of anything about the Second Chamber at all, and, therefore, under these recommendations the House of Lords, in its unreformed state, which in former times many hon. Members used to say was unfit to deal with anything, would have to have a final voice in the settlement of a question of this kind. It will be said if we do not welcome the whole of these proposals with open arms all the labours of the Speaker's Conference will be thrown away, and he and all the rest of the members of the Conference will have had all their work for nothing. I do not think anything of the kind. They certainly have investigated the whole of this complicated question most thoroughly and have considered it from every point of view, and have presented to us a most valuable Report, but I do not think we ought to consider ourselves in any way bound by the findings of that Conference. It was not even appointed by the House at all. It was appointed by Mr. Speaker, and, although we are very much obliged to it, I do not see that we should be precluded from holding our own opinions. I have the utmost respect for the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and if he told me to accept these recommendations I am not sure that I should not feel bound to accept them. But he has not told me so, and I feel perfectly-free to exercise a private and independent judgment on the matter.
  I am perfectly certain, whether we accept these suggestions or not now, this Report will form a very valuable guide on this subject. It will form almost a monument of wisdom and research, almost a text-book for students of this subject, and I am sure, even if we cannot act upon it now, it is calculated to help us very much when we come to deal with this question after the War is over, and I hope we shall not deal with it before. If I may tender a piece of advice to the Government I should say, "Let sleeping dogs lie until the War is over." I am quite sure that if you once begin to meddle with the franchise you are touching a very thorny subject indeed, and one which is certain to bring a perfect hornet's nest of criticism and controversy about your ears, and I think that is what none of us want at present. But registration is a very different matter. I have said this all along. I have said it when Bills were being introduced by the late Government. You can
  486
  deal with registration without provoking controversy, but not with the franchise. I sincerely hope and trust it will not be necessary to have a General Election until the War is over; but a certain set of circumstances might arise which would necessitate a General Election being held whether we liked it or not. To my mind the idea of taking an election on the present worn-out register, from which soldiers and sailors are absolutely excluded, is well-nigh unthinkable; but I do not see at all why the Government should not introduce a Bill to have the register brought up to date on the basis of the present franchise without any alteration in the franchise whatsoever, and as far as I gather that is what this Amendment asks them to do—to immediately introduce legislation to bring the register up to date and to afford opportunities for soldiers and sailors to vote. At all events, that is what I want done. I think it is perfectly simple to have a new register, and that is all I ask for. I see no reason why it should not be made on the basis of the present franchise, and I do not see why, concurrently, legislation should not be introduced to enable soldiers and sailors, althougth they are absent on active service, to record their votes and to extend the franchise to munition workers. I do not profess to suggest any detailed plan—I think that is for the Government—but I am perfectly certain it should be done.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): There is one part of my right hon. Friend's Motion which will excite no controversy, and that is the sentence in which he expresses the thanks of the House to you, Sir, for the part which you have taken in conducting this Conference. I am sure there is general agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in the words with which he thanked you for the great services which you renderod on that occasion, and never have the great qualities which have distinguished Mr. Speaker in the tenure of his high office been so conspicuous as in the way in which he handled this most difficult problem. It is a problem bristling with difficulties. One has only to summarise these various questions which came under review in order to realise what a difficult task must have been that of anyone who presided over an inter-party Conference to consider them—women's suffrage, plural voting, university representation, redistribution, all the controversies which have provoked he most bitter dispute for a whole

  487
  generation. It is nothing short of a miracle that you, Sir, should have so piloted the proceedings as to achieve such a measure of unanimity at the Conference. In the judgment of the Government, on whose behalf I am now speaking, it would be a great misfortune and a national waste if the results of that Conference were thrown away without being utilised for the purpose of settling all these controversies. I am sorry to say that I have very little time for preparing speeches and, therefore, if the House will allow me, I will indulge in a little plain talk on this subject, in which I will try to make the mind of the Government as clear as possible on a very complicated topic. I agree with everything that fell from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Salter) in an exceedingly able and eloquent speech. Whatever one may feel about his case, or about the arguments he advanced, no one can challenge the superb ability with which he presented that case to the House. I agree with him in all he said as to the desirability of avoiding all political controversy during the War. I can say for myself that I have certainly done my best during the last two or three years to avoid political discussions of every sort or kind, and when I have been dragged into them it has always been against my will. They divide and distract at a time when you want to unite and concentrate, and if it had been possible to avoid controversy I am entirely with him.
  If I could see any way, if We could see our way—and here I am speaking the mind of all my colleagues—to settle this question without any controversy or to have a register without controversy, I can assure him that the Government would have neither lot nor part in supporting, and certainly not in introducing any measure which would divide the House of Commons into two sections. I want him to consider exactly what the position is. I want him to pass through the experiences which Ministers have passed through during the first few months when they have attempted to deal with this problem. First of all, there was the experience of the Government of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith). We were confronted with the fact that we had a stale register. It is the War that has put us in this position. It is common ground that by some means or other you must bring that register up to date. The whole point is, what is that register going to be? We attempted, first
  488
  of all, to deal with it on the basis of merely a Registration Bill. Every effort-was made to eliminate anything in the nature of a franchise proposal. Why? Because we were afraid of provoking controversy. We found it impossible. The moment it was introduced on the floor of the House both parties started condemning our proposal on the ground that you were excluding men who had an absolute right to pronounce upon the kind of settlement you are going to make in England after the War. There are two reasons why you cannot merely have a renewal of the old register. The first is this. The War has forced us to confront questions; the War has compelled us to decide questions practically in a single Parliament after the determination of the War which in the ordinary course might have taken a generation to settle. There is no doubt that the Parliament that is elected after peace is the Parliament which will have-to settle questions which will practically determine the course of things, not merely in Great Britain and in the British Empire, but very largely throughout the world for generations to come. We are a country where questions of this kind take a long, long time to settle. We settle them very gradually, and under ordinary conditions practically every man before they are settled would have a voice, because they would get on the register. That is so far as the men are concerned. That is not the case now. These questions will be settled practically in one Parliament, so far as their outlines are concerned—there will be Amendments, there will be alterations, there will be modifications, but the general outline of the course that events will take will be settled practically in the course of one Parliament. Therefore, there is a special reason for having a different kind of register when you are going to elect a Parliament which is going to settle the destiny of your country for some time to come.
  My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) referred to reconstruction. That is a word which has become a commonplace now of political parties, if there were political parties. It is accepted that you must get something in the nature of reconstruction. What does reconstruction mean? One has only got to think of the sort of problems with which we shall be confronted—the problems we shall have to discuss, decide, and settle after the War. The trade of this country, the industries of this country, the relations of capital and labour in this

  489
  country, the relations—and this is very important in reference to one of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference—of one class of labour to another class of labour, questions of the conditions of life in this country, the health of the people, the housing of the people, the education of the people, the relations of this country to the whole Empire, and the relations of the Empire to the rest of the world. These are gigantic problems which will have to be settled by the Parliament which is elected on this register. You cannot have the old register. Why? Because by taking the old register you would be excluding the men that had made the new Britain possible.
  An HON. MEMBER: And the women!
  The PRIME MINISTER: The men and the women that had made the new Britain possible. I will just show my hon. and learned Friend how impossible it would be to have merely a Registration Bill which would exclude problems of franchise. He saw it himself. Take two men. One of them has gone to the War, he has risked his life, and if he comes back with the loss of a limb he may count himself fortunate. He may have no vote under the old register when he comes back; he would not. Perhaps he is a young fellow who was too young to acquire a qualification before he went. [An HON. MEMBER: "No !"] He might be a young fellow who was too young to acquire a qualification before he started out. There are hundreds of thousands of them, and in all classes. They are not merely privates, but officers. What would happen to them? The England they have fought for, the Wales, the Scotland, the Ireland, the Empire they have fought for, when we come to settle the conditions under which they and their children are to live—the country for which they had fought would say, "We do not want your opinion; we are not asking for your voice." How could you say that? Take another class of man—the medically unfit. He is at home. He would have a qualification. I forget what position the conscientious objector would be in. I am not sure whether he would acquire a vote. Take the men you have got in every country—the men who successfully somehow or other manage to shirk—they would have votes. In this House of Commons let any hon. Member move an Amendment to say that the soldier, at any rate, shall be treated on the same level as the shirker;
  490
  that the men who are driving back our foes now, mile after mile, at any rate, shall be on a basis of equality with the shirker. That is all! How many men in this House would vote against that Amendment? Not many. [HON. MEMBERS: "None!"] No, I do not think so; I do not believe there would be one. The moment you do that you are in a Franchise Bill at once. I want to let my hon. Friends pass in the course of half an hour through the processes we passed through in six or seven months.
  This is why we were driven—absolutely driven, perforce, by circumstances which were irresistible—to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to preside over a Conference in order to arrive at some measure of agreement between all parties. I understand there is perfect agreement that you must give the soldier a vote and a voice in the settlement of the new conditions. There was a suggestion that you might say that a soldier who was beginning to acquire a qualification before he left England shall be deemed to have completed it. That was attempted by us as members of the late Government, and it absolutely broke down. Why? Because the men who were too young then and could not have started to acquire a qualification, either as lodgers or as householders, would have been left out. Not merely that, but the machinery would have been absolutely impossible. A man may have started as a lodger in Newcastle and he may come back and become a householder in Birmingham. It would have been an impossible piece of work from the machinery point of view. The result is—and there is no doubt that here I can command common agreement—that the man who has fought must have the right to determine how the fruits of his peril are going to be dealt with.
  6.0 p.m.
  I come now to the next point. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the sailors and the mine-sweepers. Their perils are great and incalculable. Of course, they have the same claim as even our gallant soldiers, whether they are sailors of the mercantile marine or sailors in the Navy; but that is not the end of it. Come to our miners and our munition workers. What is the position there? They are not in the mines, instead of being in the trenches, of their own choice—a very considerable number of them. What happened? When you had voluntary recruiting in this country, because the mines had been depleted and because the great engineering works had been depleted, we had practi-

  491
  cally to warn the recruiting officers on these places, and we had to make an appeal to them not to recruit, otherwise hundreds of thousands of them would have gone to the front. As a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands were going. It was becoming a serious matter. The first thing I had to do, as Minister of Munitions, was to appeal to Lord Kitchener to use all his power to get back men who had already gone. Otherwise, our engineering works would have been crippled. How unfair to say to them, "If you had only volunteered, if you had only fought I It is true you are rendering greater services where you are, and that you remained where you are at the request of your country because you are serving your country better there, but we cannot recognise that. Therefore, we refuse you the vote." That is absolutely indefensible. The moment you bring in your Bill to enfranchise soldiers and sailors with complete unanimity, if any one moves an Amendment—and an Amendment would be moved—enfranchising the people who had been asked to stay at home to do their work, I venture to say that it would be carried, if not unanimously, by an overwhelming majority.
  Where are we now? That is in itself a measure which in every particular carries out the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Conference as far as men are concerned. There are two or three other very controversial questions which would arise in any Bill you introduce in this House, whoever introduced it. You could not avoid it. It is common ground that you could not settle the affairs of this country without consulting the people who fought for it. That means the Franchise Bill. You cannot bring a Franchise Bill in without raising all these other questions. The Government might not raise them, but somebody would raise them. My hon. and learned Friend's hypothesis is that you must not have any controversy. With all respect to him, it depends on 670 Members of this House. He might say, "Why do you not leave plural voting alone, or university representation, or women's suffrage?" but I think the majority of Members of this House would take a different view, and they are surely entitled to put forward their demand, and the moment they do that there is controversy. Is it not far better that we should try to settle that controversy by means of a reasonable agreement between the
  492
  parties so as to get substantial agreement? If you could avoid controversy, for heaven's sake do, because the task we have in hand is a terrible one, and we do not want to be taken away from it. The hon. and learned Member's Bill would provoke more controversy, the only difference being that he would have the majority of the House against him, and in the case of this proposal there will be, I think, probably a minority of the House against it. That is the only difference. The question for the Government is whether they are going to quarrel with the majority or the minority. Can anyone doubt the wisdom of our choice? It is inevitable when you come to settle this imperative question that you should have a certain measure, I am sorry to say, of controversy. What we want is to limit it as much as we possibly can.
  I come now to two of Mr. Speaker's Conference recommendations on which I should like to say a special word. Here I also speak the mind of the Government. I do not put the proposals about proportional representation in quite the same category as the others. I express no personal opinion upon it. I have not got any. I never made up my mind, and I really have no time to make up my mind upon it. Unless I am really forced to do so, I do not propose even to study it during the War. It is an entirely novel suggestion; it is not an essential part of the scheme. I think that the feeling of the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference—if I am wrong here I shall be corrected—is that they would not imperil the rest of their plan by pressing this. I cannot imagine their doing so. The common sense they have shown generally in their conclusions proves to me that they are sensible enough not to press this at the expense of the whole of their scheme, and I earnestly trust that it will not be regarded as an integral part of the proposals, because if it is it will undoubtedly make it much more difficult for the Government to find the necessary time to carry this into effect.
  I come to the other proposal—that with regard to women's franchise. Here, differing from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), I have always been a supporter of women's franchise, but what he said about the effect of the War is absolutely true. There is no doubt that the War has had an enormous effect upon public opinion so far as this question is concerned. I can see that in the effect of some of

  493
  my colleagues who are not above being influenced by public opinion. And rightly so. The facts have altered public opinion completely, and between facts and public opinion their views have been altered. Women's work in the War has been a vital contribution to our success. It would have been impossible to produce that overwhelming mass of ammunition which we had at the Somme had it not been for the work of these women, and they have shown a devotion and zeal, and may I say a courage, which are beyond challenge. In many cases I remember perfectly well that when I was Minister of Munitions we had very dangerous work. It involved a special alteration in one element of our shells. We had to effect an alteration. If we had manufactured the whole thing anew it would have involved the loss of hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, at a time when we could not afford it. But the adaptation of the old element to the fuse is a very dangerous operation, and there were several fatal accidents. It was all amongst the women workers in the munition factories. There was never a panic. They stuck to their work. They knew the peril. They never ran away from it. I remember that when the first Zeppelin raids were made, when bombs were dropped outside important munition factories—I do not want to say too much about the men: we had some diflieulty for two or three days afterwards with some of them in getting them to work at night in the munition factories, but we had never any difficulty with regard to the women. Why? They were rather pleased for the simple reason, they said, that "this is our only chance of participating in the dangers which our brothers run in France," and they were proud of it, and boasted of it, and they helped to save the situation at a very critical moment.
  When we come to settle the conditions of labour with hundreds of thousands, running now into millions, of women in work in which they were never engaged before, when we come to recast the whole of our industrial system, are we going to fling them out without giving them a voice in determining the conditions? All I can say is it is an outrage, it is ungrateful, unjust, inequitable. I do not believe that the people of this country will do it. That is why the women's question has become very largely a war question. It was often said before the War that the moment you came to war women could contribut
  494
  nothing, that they would pass out of the way and then men would come forward. That has not been the case. With regard to this, the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference are not quite in the same category as the other recommendations. For instance, they are not unanimous. In the second place, in one important respect they are indeterminate. That is the question of age. Here the Government proposed to leave this question, in so far as they have any authority or voice in the matter, to be determined by the House of Commons. I have not the faintest doubt what the vote of the House of Commons will be.
  I now come to another part of my hon. and learned Friend's case. He said that if there was any controversy at all he would postpone even votes for soldiers until after peace. Has he really thought that out? Let him consider what it means. It means that you are to bring in no register for the election of Parliament that will settle these gigantic problems until after the peace. Does he think there will not be crying questions, questions you cannot put off for a moment, questions with regard to demobilisation, perhaps finance, perhaps unemployment. Questions will crowd upon us immediately after the peace. You will not have time, but suppose you had, suppose you had nothing to do but pass a Franchise Bill after the peace, you would have to keep this Parliament, or a Parliament elected somehow on a still older and more stale register, alive. What should we be doing in the meantime? My hon. and learned Friend said we should be free then to fight. We can fight all these questions, not in an atmosphere of War, but in the freer atmosphere of peace, a more encouraging atmosphere for political controversy. All the regrets, and all the controversies of the past, which have been kept under with great difficulty during the three years of war, will then have full and free play. What a prospect! My hon. Friend may call that peace.
  And what must we settle before we begin the election of a new Parliament? We must settle plural voting, adult suffrage, and women's suffrage; but that is not all, for we must settle the roconstitution of the House of Lords, and all this while England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are panting for something better, thinking about their trade, thinking about their commerce, and thinking about the Empire and the condition of its people. It would be a waste of time to open

  495
  barren and wretched controversies about such a question as this. What a prospect! But that is not what my hon. and learned Friend says: he asks what will the soldier think of the politician, and we say to him, "We cannot give you the vote that you want, or if we can we will do all that after peace. Meanwhile all the problems that you are thinking of about your home and the conditions of your life for the future, we will put them all off whilst we are wrangling." I cannot imagine a greater disaster to this country than that. There has been a new temper created in this country. There will be a new temper created by the peace, a new determination, a new spirit, not the spirit of party-wrangling and conflict, but the unity which you have had during the War will be transposed to, will be infused into the efforts of peace. Is all that spirit to be thrown away? Is all that temper to be destroyed, merely in order to wrangle about these questions that my hon. and learned Friend is so full of? It would be a disaster to this country.
  I know the suspicions that are in the minds of my hon. Friends. They have been in the minds of everybody who has ever considered the Franchise or a Redistribution Bill since the first dawn of popular election, thinking what will be the effect of this thing—I do not say my hon. and learned Friend does that—but there are always men who say, if you support this, or if you do not accept that, see what the effect will be on such-and-such occasion; we have always got calculations, but they have never been verified by the events. One of the greatest of party leaders and one of the greatest statesmen of this country (Mr. Disraeli) saw that in 1867, and he told his party that; and there is no doubt at all that the fact that he did so was one of the greatest assets of his party whenever they came to fight in the boroughs. As our party could say to the agricultural labourer, "We gave you the vote," so Mr. Disraeli and his followers could say to the town artisans the same thing. He saw it with wisdom and foresight. After the Reform Bill of 1832, a very short time afterwards, the very people who introduced it were thrown out by a great majority, and this at a time when they thought they were going to be in for a whole lifetime, while those who opposed them thought they would be excluded for a generation. In
  496
  1884 we introduced a Franchise Bill, and in 1886 we were out for practically twenty years. I am glad that Mr. Speaker has given us the opportunity of considering this outside the atmosphere of party. It is an opportunity such as we have never had, and it is an opportunity such as we may never get again, and I do hope that all these calculations will be put on one side. Unless I am mistaken in the temper of the people of this country, they do not mean that the tremendous question of the reconstruction of this country and of this Empire shall be entrusted to the control of any party machine. They mean-to take it into their own hands, and I am so glad that Mr. Speaker has, with unrivalled skill and wide experience, been able to get men of all parties and of all political faiths in this House to agree to recommend to us a basis for an electorate, millions of whom have faced sacrifices for their country, and the rest of whom were prepared to do it, and have contributed to the results which we have achieved; and I earnestly press that the House of Commons will show the same spirit not merely of consideration, but, may I say respectfully, of good sense, and carry through all these recommendations substantially in the form they were made, and without any of the bitterness of political controversy.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I wish to say a few words on the Amendment and to confine my observations to the question of votes for women, without prejudice to the rest of the scheme of electoral reform. I listened to the speech of the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith), and, speaking as a very great admirer of him and as an earnest supporter of his Government during the War, I believe that there will be many who will agree with me in thinking that, as we listened to him this afternoon, we witnessed a great lapse on the part of one of great intellectual qualities. The late Prime Minister seemed to be under the impression, as there are many under the impression, that the opposition to women's suffrage has ceased and has been practically withdrawn. I submit that is not the case, and if we are given fair play and a fair opportunity we shall yet show, both to the House and to the country, that the case against women's suffrage, so far from having been weakened by the events of the War, has been immeasurably strengthened. We cannot do it now. The opponents of women's suffrage, both men

  497
  and women, unlike the suffragists, who place their question first and foremost, having no other object in politics, have been absorbed in work connected with the War, and their organised opposition, both in this House and in the country, has been allowed to become disintegrated, while the work of education on the subject and of propaganda in the country has been very generally neglected, and rightly neglected, I venture to say, because the opponents of this change have put their hands to far more pressing national work.
  Of course, for the time we have allowed our case for the moment not to be kept before the country, but to draw the conclusion, from that circumstance, that the opposition to women suffrage has disappeared and that there is no one left but a few bigoted opponents, is to draw an inference not worthy of consideration. On the contrary, at the proper time we shall show that we have drawn from the lessons of the War an entirely new series of overwhelming facts and illustrations of the principles on which our case was founded before the War, and we hold that the War supplies a world-wide demonstration of the truths on which these principles are founded. I ask the attention of the House for a few minutes to the arguments brought forward by the late Prime Minister this afternoon. He told us that there were two new facts which had caused him to change his mind, and the first was the work done by the women during the War—that, short of bearing arms in the field, women have been able to do practically every kind of work which men did before the War. I think that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat of an exaggeration. But, even if it were accepted as substantially correct, why did the right hon. Gentleman not deal with that all-important exception, namely, the fact that the women of this country have not fought, and have not asked to fight. Why did he not deal with the fact that in all the operations connected with the War the work of men has been decisive and the work of women has been auxiliary? Has the Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister asked himself the question and answered it, whether the work of women during the War, admirable as it has been, is really comparable to that done by the men? Our answer to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman adduced is that women's work has been shown in the clearest light to be auxiliary to that
  498
  of men, and that has been brought clearly to light by the War. The position of women in politics ought to continue to be an auxiliary one, doing indirectly more useful and valuable work, such as they did before the War, and that the men, who decided the issue during the War, should continue to be the masters in time of peace.
  I turn to the second argument which the late Prime Minister brought forward, and which has undoubtedly influenced many minds, and that is that at the end of the War the interests of women in the industrial sphere, and particularly of those who have recently joined up in industrial occupations, will require special protection which can only be given by the Parliamentary vote. I wish to say with regard to that, we always maintained in opposition to women's suffrage that in the past the interests of women have on the whole been fairly justly looked after by a Parliament of men elected by men. I do not. think that that is seriously disputed by any historian of the nineteenth century. It is not disputed that in all industrial legislation the interests of women were most carefully protected, often in the very teeth of opposition from the advocate of the so-called emancipation of women. It is not seriously disputed that, to quote the words of Lord Loreburn, the law in England and the administration of the law is more merciful to women than to men. Why, having had that experience of the history of the nineteenth century of the fairness with which this Parliament elected by men has treated women's interests, should it be assumed beforehand that in the great settlement and in the reconstruction, Parliament at the present time will treat women's interests unfairly? I venture to think that the danger lies in the opposite direction, and that you have to consider the interests of those millions of men who are now serving overseas and who will, or the majority of whom will, probably still be oversea at the time of the next election. Have not their interests got to be protected, and is it wise to place upon the register a mass of necessarily inexperienced voters liable to be swayed by the arguments of hysterical agitators and consequently liable to use the vote to the detriment of the interests of our soldiers and sailors?
  I pass to the third point which the right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech, and that was as to the propriety of including women's suffrage at this time and in this

  499
  scheme of electoral reform. The late Prime Minister said, and rightly, that this must be a matter of give-and-take, and that if there was going to be resolute and certain Parliamentary opposition it would make it extremely difficult and very invidious in this stage of the War to attempt to force a hotly contested measure through the House of Commons. That qualification, I think, applies to all the other parts of the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference. You can have give-and-take upon registration, upon plural voting, upon redistribution. No one's political principles prevent him from negotiation upon all those points of electoral reform. But there cannot be any give-and-take on the subject of women's suffrage, and you cannot expect the opponents to offer to its inclusion in any scheme anything other than the most uncompromising opposition. I say it is very unfair indeed in this time of war, with many of us preoccupied with military duties, to force us into the position of having to come up here to indulge in a bitter, and what may be a very prolonged fight. For that reason, even more than any other at the moment, I ask the Government if they intend to proceed? We had very little light thrown this afternoon in the speech of the Prime Minister on the precise form the Government intend to adopt, and at all events I feel justified in asking the Government, if they do proceed with the Bill founded on those recommendations which were unanimous, to omit this majority resolution, which is bound to lead to the most bitter conflict both in and outside this House.
  The last point to which I desire to refer is one which cannot have been absent from the thoughts of many hon. Members, and that is, the constitutional aspect of the question. Whatever may be thought about the arguments, the reasons, the new facts for or against women's suffrage, how can it be constitutionally right to pass such a momentous change as that at the close of a very long Parliament, which, under conditions of peace, at a time when all parties had fair play and plenty of opportunity of developing their views in the country, had twice rejected this very proposal. It can only be because the supporters of women's suffrage think they have a better chance of smuggling it through in this unfair way than they would have if it were placed properly before the electors of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister himself told us that it
  500
  would be an outrage not to include women, and ungrateful. But I notice that, speaking less than two years ago he spoke in a very different spirit. He said then:
  "I cannot conceive of a revolution of this character being introduced into our Constitution without the opinion of the country being asked upon it definitely."
  And again he said:
  "It can hardly be said that, the 400 Members of Parliament who voted for women's salirage have really consulted their constituents about it."
  That was in Glasgow on 11th November, 1907. While we bitterly resent the subject being brought up at this time and in this way, there are none of us who wish to shirk after the War a fair fight on the subject of woman suffrage. We do say that it ought to be presented to Parliament and the country in one of two ways only, namely, either by a Government united upon woman suffrage and prepared to stake its existence upon the success of woman suffrage, or else by means of a direct poll of the electors themselves. I have no authority to speak in this matter for anti-suffragists as a whole, but I know that I speak for the individual, and with the concurrence of a great majority of them and for many of the most eminent among them when I say that they would be heartily ready to submit the case of woman suffrage to a Referendum or poll of the people, and are willing to abide by the result of a vote of the electors, and willing to have that vote of the electors preceded by a consultative vote of the women themselves, so that the voters when they go to decide whether they shall take these new partners into the sovereignty of the United Kingdom may be guided by really knowing once and for all whether the majority of women desire the vote or not. That seems to us to be a fair solution of the question. If we are beaten we shall do our best to co-operate and make woman suffrage a success. If this proposal is to be forced on the House in this way, we will oppose it and fight it with every means in our power.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The House has listened to a number of powerful speeches. I think one of the speeches which deserves that description in particular is the speech that was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Basingstoke Division of Hampshire (Mr. Salter) who proposed the Amendment which is now before us. He spoke with all that precision and weight to which I am able to testify, and also with that force and effect

  501
  which I, for one, know to be all too powerful. But as I intend to vote for the Motion and not in support of the Amendment. I desire to say on what grounds I feel that it is quite impossible to support the Amendment. Up to a certain point, both his speech and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) travelled on much the same ground. My hon. and learned Friend was very careful to emphasise the fact that in his view the necessity for granting the franchise to soldiers and to sailors was a question of pressing importance, that it was urgent, and one which it was essential should be tackled without delay. He also felt the great difficulty of dealing with that subject, and he also felt that some largo questions would arise as to whether or not certain classes ought to be placed among the number of what we call soldiers and sailors, a number of munition workers, and a number of others who have assisted, and who are undoubtedly entitled to the same privileges and the same rights for which he pressed so urgently for what we call soldiers and sailors. After all, it is a question of what your limitation will be. We all believe "he also serves who only stands and waits." That is the problem which the hon. and learned ember pressed upon the attention of the House.
  Am I right or am I wrong in saying that during the course of the last twelve months we tried to settle that question on two occasions, if not on three, and was not that the very difficulty which led to the Conference over which you, Sir, presided, being appointed. Was at not because of the impossibility of finding any sort of solution of that difficulty? But now, says my hon. and learned Friend, you must not deal with the subject which has been surveyed by the Conference in isolation, and if you are going to deal with this question at all, you must throw in the question of the whole of the Constitution and the question of the House of Lords, and I think one or two others of the old controversies which have divided us. But my hon. and learned Friend desires to deal with this difficult problem of votes for soldiers and sailors in isolation, and he urges us to go so far for the soldiers and sailors, and says you must not go further. But he says, if we do go in for a comprehensive scheme, then we must add to it a great deal more. He really shares with us the view that it is
  502
  quite impossible to stand at any one particular point, and that if you wish to withdraw one of the keystones of your bridge you must be prepared to rebuild the bridge entirely. When he was dealing with that question he foresaw a great danger of discord arising. The very reason why we are asked to pass this Motion, is because the Conference both records and demonstrates the possibility of unanimity, and, for my part, as I hope this Motion will be carried by a very large and substantial majority, I think the discord that my hon. and learned Friend foresaw may be reduced to very small limits, and, after the Debate has taken place in this House, I hope it may pass away altogether.
  At the present time we are endeavouring, in regard to all the old controversies that have divided us, to try and seek some way out of them; and instead of, after the War, coining back to the old difficulties of Ireland and of party controversy we have endeavoured, by means of a committee, or a commission, or an atmosphere of unanimity, to try and raise them out of the rut of party politics. Is this difficult subject alone to be one which is to be left until the War is over and until party controversies arise again? I think that would be most unfortunate, and I ask all those who are tempted to vote for the Amendment, to consider where they are leading the House by such a course? This question is one which has always evoked controversies. There is no subject which has evoked so much controversy for two generations as the questions which you, Sir, were asked to deal with, namely, the questions of the reform of the franchise and a basis for the redistribution of seats, the reform of the system of registration of electors, the method of elections, and the manner in which the cost of elections should be borne. My hon. and learned Friend seems to think, supposing the War was over, we should be able at once to concentrate our attention and devote our energies to working out, I will not say with unanimity, but certainly without bitterness, some of these problems. If he will look back to the history of the last sixty or seventy years, he will find he is expecting the impossible, and that during that period no controversies have been so bitter or so keen as those which deal with the four subjects which were debated by your Conference, Mr. Speaker.
  My hon. and learned Friend allowed himself one or two purple passages.

  503
  There was the purple passage as to what the soldier thinks of us now, and what he will think of us if we devote our energies to some useful purpose, such as passing an electoral reform Bill. He said the soldier would look back and see the horrid spectacle of Members of this House talking about woman's suffrage, the franchise, and so on. I think the soldier may find that we are devoting our energies to a more useful piece of legislation than he sometimes finds us occupied with at the present time. A little time ago I had the opportunity of reading a letter from a soldier who wrote from Mesopotamia, and BO far from his being satisfied with What was going on in this House and looking at the way in which we are peacefully fulfilling our duties and supporting him, his observation was a remarkable one. He said, "As for Westminster, if only Robertson would march a battalion or two and shut the whole place up, he would have done a real service to the War and to the nation." That is a not infrequent, if impatient, observation which is expressed by persons engaged in the War. I believe, for my own part, that if we could explain to those who are fighting for us that while they are fighting we are engaged in giving them something which will be useful to them when they return home, and that we are providing them with the means of recording their votes after the War, we should earn their gratitude and not their obloquy.
  This is a question which, as I say, has always been of a most highly controversial nature. The Franchise Bill of 1867 was preceded by one in 1854, one in 1859, one in 1866, and then ultimately came the one which was passed in 1867. I observe that one of the Amendments to-night says that it is essential that Ireland should be introduced into any measure. Why should it be? If we go back to precedent, in 1867 Ireland was specially excluded, and so was Scotland, The franchise at that time for Scotland and for Ireland was dealt with by separate Bills passed in the subsequent Session of the year 1868.
  Sir H. CRAIK: But before an election took place.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If you please; and let me remind the hon. Member that if you pass a Franchise Bill, in accordance with the doctrine of our Constitution it is the
  504
  immediate duty then to have a Dissolution, because there is no foundation for sitting on and continuing a Parliament which has been elected by persona who, after a new Franchise Bill has been passed, are not the only persons who ought to be represented in the House. Therefore you come to this vista: If you reject this Motion to-night and say you will not deal with the matter until after the War, what is it that you are doing? You are putting back the clock by saying you will only take up this subject as and when peace has been declared, and that you will then enter into what have proved to be some of the most bitter controversies that have ever engaged political energies. Then, as soon as you have passed your Bill, you will have to have another Dissolution in order that a Parliament may be elected in accordance with the new franchise and redistribution of seats, and during that time you will have to leave alone the many questions which I believe the people at large urgently desire to see settled. That the old problems which we had before the War ought to be settled is the view of the people at the present day. So far as I can judge their attitude, I think they have gone far beyond this House and that they regard the sort of questions that we deal with here with a certain amount of lassitude and want of interest. They have made up their minds what they do mean, and I think they are determined to have it.
  I believe that as soon as the War is over we ought to be equipped to deal with Imperial problems. We want immediately to deal with Imperial questions, with the maintenance of the alliance between our present Allies, with the severance from Germany as far as we possibly can, and with the prevention of all German taint and the possibility of German penetration in the future. That is what the people mean to have, and if you are going to tell them you cannot deal with these questions until you have settled the franchise, and then got a new Parliament, the impatience will be extreme, and so far from us having a peaceful opportunity of adjusting these delicate matters, I believe the people will turn from us in disgust. These questions of Imperial preference, and all Imperial problems, are urgent and momentous, and we ought to be ready, by a new Parliament elected on a wide basis-—and we all agree it must be widened—to deal with these questions. I have carried the matter as far back as 1867. Does anybody think

  505
  at the present time that you are going to carry a Bill in this House brought in by one side or the other without the assent and without the unanimity of the other? Does anybody in this House, who has studied the question, believe that you are going to deal with this from one side only, and carry your Bill by gag and guillotine? Is that what is suggested? Not at all! Ultimately you will have to follow the method adopted in 1884. The most violent controversy had then been aroused. I was a young man, but I well remember the controversy, and there are those in this House who remember it accurately and are able to advise us upon it. I have refreshed my memory to some extent, and I think it was the present Foreign Secretary who was the instrument or messenger who ultimately acted and brought all parties together to avoid what was then going on. So far from the matter being then peacefully adjusted and carefully considered by a House of Commons in repose, matters were then discussed, not in this House, but there was an appeal by demonstrations in the streets, and, as Lord Salisbury said, "They are attempting legislation by picnic," because of the protests which were made all over the country.
  7.0 p.m.
  Does anyone expect that any legislation of any sort on these subjects will be carried not by one side or the other? No, Sir ! It can be done by a Conference and by securing a compromise, and only by a compromise; and the Conference that you have presided over, Mr. Speaker, has offered us a compromise which it would be madness, in my opinion, to throw away. That was the history of 1884. In 1905 the Unionist party attempted a system of redistribution, and from the Unionist point of view it must be said that that question is twelve years overdue. How are you going to get redistribution? Are you going to oppose your will on the one side or the other on this question? No, again! That is a matter which must be dealt with only by bringing both sides together. You then ask the question whether one party gain or lose. I believe that is an entirely wrong touchstone to apply to this question. It is a false standard—it is wrong, it is constitutionally wrong. You have got to try and see what system will give the fairest representation, and what redistribution will make most effective the wishes of those voters to whom you have entrusted the franchise. That is the sole consideration, and to those who, like myself, under this scheme would lose their seats I say,
  506
  "Be it so." At least you would be in this position, that you would have secured a fair mirror of what the thoughts and feelings of the people are. There is another difficult question, so difficult that you may find traces of it throughout more than a generation, but you have dealt with it, Sir, and you have got a large measure of agreement upon it, and that is the question of the method of elections and the manner in which the cost of elections should be borne. You will find six, I think seven, Bills which have been passed dealing with methods of election concentrated in that Bill that we pass every year, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. You will find we have carried forward some half a dozen measures which have been so controversial in the past that they have only been given one or two years of life; or like the Ballot Act of 1872, which was given eight years' life, because no one party or the other has ever ventured to make it a permanent Bill for fear of once more arousing controversy. I look upon this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill as a sort of Madame Tussaud's legislation—as a place where persons who have aroused controversy in their lifetime, and are famous of infamous, can be found. We have got to remember that neither side have been able to tackle questions like these because they can be tackled and dealt with only by general agreement, and by that course only. I desire to call the attention of the House to one more point. It is said that you have got no right in an old Parliament, a Parliament which has outlived its time, to deal with these questions of franchise. My own view is this: I do not hold very strongly as to mandates of Parliament. For my own part I believe I stand here as a representative, but with freedom to exercise my own judgment and discretion, and to pay attention to the trend of feeling, views, and thoughts in my Constituency. It would, however, be idle for me to say—and they would never expect me to say—that because this matter was not mentioned between us in 1910 that it was impossible for me, after the War has brought new features into prominence, to deal with this question according to my discretion and according to the views that I have learned and know that they hold. You can listen and hear an audible expression of feeling in the country, and that expression is this: People desire to see the whole of these controversies moved out

  507
  of the way; they desire to see the country equipped in as strong a way as possible to deal with vital questions of recovery after the War; the conservation of the energies of the Empire, and the advancement of our trade.
  It is because I feel so strongly on this matter that I am unable to vote for the Amendment. I venture to hope that those who may have done me the honour to listen to what I have said will think more than once before they vote against this Motion. Think of what the past has taught us? What possible hope is there of succeeding by one side or the other unless you have agreement? Let them pause before they cast aside the chance, Sir, which you have given them. The fact that many persons dislike either one limb or another of the Resolutions which have been passed is a matter which counts for nothing. In a proper compromise there ought to be some persons in a body who dislike every portion of the Resolutions that have been reached. A compromise is not a compromise unless there are portions which are distasteful as well as others which are acceptable to those who have been engaged in it. It is because I find a certain number of portions of it which I dislike, and also certain parts with which I can agree, that I recognise that this scheme partakes of the true character of a compromise. May I close my speech by a short passage which has been drawn from the close of a very old religious controversy some fifty years ago, and which was concluded in these words:-
  "And now, if some shall complain that these changes are not enough and that wo should have taken this opportunity of making things as perfect in all respects an ever they might be made, or if others should say that these changes have been unnecessary or excessive, let them on the one side and the other consider man's judgments of perfection are very various, and that what is imperfect with peace is often better than what is otherwise more excellent without it."
  Mr. MACKINDER: It is not very likely that there will be an opportunity for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I should, therefore, like to say a few words on the Amendment now under discussion, which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I want to -say these words from a point of view which has not been put forward, I think, in this Debate. Hon. Members no doubt will have noticed the Amendment which stands in my name is set down to six Scottish Unionist Members. I will not say that there is unanimity in the Scottish Unionist party, but there is a very large
  508
  body of feeling, as expressed, at any rate, by one of the great newspapers, and as expressed in one of the great councils of the Unionist party in Scotland, a very considerable body of opinion, which, so far as we have been able to put it into words, is indicated by the words of my Amendment. That body of opinion is not satisfied with the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. For this reason: For the moment, and often in the past, the Scottish Unionists are one of those large local minorities to which the ex-Prime Minister referred. It may be because there is a difference of political atmosphere in Scotland, it may be because of the fact I have just stated, but those who are engaged on the Unionist side of politics in Scotland wish to get put forward in any future contests after the War, substantive questions, questions which affect the life of the people; they do not wish to be fighting upon questions of mere political machinery.
  We believe that the past century has seen far too great a time in the total of Parliamentary time given to questions of political machinery. We believe that not a little of the trouble which has come upon us in this War is due to that fact. It-has been at the root of a very great deal of the party bitterness which has existed at various times. It will be noticed that we suggest that this is a time not merely for arranging a compromise in the matter of electoral reform, as applied to this House, but also for the arrangement of a more general compromise affecting the whole political machinery. My feeling is that at the end of this War you will have a perfect torrent of great substantive questions affecting the daily life of our people, the relations of the various parts of the Empire, the relations of this country to foreign countries, and so on, and if you dam that torrent by great controversies of the ordinary kind in regard to political machinery you will get this country into a very restive condition and one which will threaten us with trouble such as we have not experienced for the last couple of centuries. That is my cool opinion: that is an opinion which I feel perfectly sure in uttering. I have lately been among those of my Constituents who have not gone to the front. I think it is an entire mistake to imagine that they have lost interest in politics. But they are taking quite a different interest in politics. They will say, "A plague on both your houses" if at the end of this War we have to go

  509
  before them with questions concerning franchise, redistribution, the House of Lords, ay, and with Home Rule. Somehow or other it seems to me we have got to get an arrangement on these matters. Politicians are interested in these questions. They are not. Many of those immediately surrounding us in our different constituencies, the chairmen and secretaries of the organisations, are interested; but the general mass of the people of this country are not interested in the political machinery; still less will they be interested if they become anxious about the huge questions which affect their lives and those who are dear to them at the end of this War. We shall then be in this position if we have the ordinary bitter controversies on these questions- and they will be long—for you cannot settle three or four of these great questions of machinery without spending two or three Sessions of Parliament upon them. If we devote ourselves to that work, then, indeed, the contempt for the politician which is said to characterise our young men in the trenches will become rooted in this country, and we shall tend to be swept away, and with us, perhaps, some of the old and valued institutions of the country.
  It is vital, I feel, that so far from limiting arrangements of compromise amongst ourselves, we should go further. We ought to arrange compromises in regard to the whole political machinery—in regard to the House of Lords, in regard to Home Rule. Then we should have weapons in our hands, and there will be weapons in the hands of the country, of adequate power to enable us to settle these tremendous questions which are coming upon us at the end of the War, as I say, like a torrent. I believe the atmosphere of the present moment is an atmosphere in which we politicians should join in conferences presided over by Mr. Speaker to arrange matters and settle our differences, ay, Sir, and to compromise in regard to the deeply cherished convictions that we may have held in the past. I do not believe that we ought to trouble the country at large with these great controversies, even if they must be raised in this House. My feeling is that we have got to adapt our Constitution to the new time.
  Questions of this sort can only be settled by agreement, by sinking differences, by compromise. If need be, let us do the whole thing, and then at the
  510
  end of this War, if the laboratory work, as I call it, has been done, I feel quite certain of this, that very quickly you will put into force the whole of that well-thought-out scheme arranged among us, because the pressure of all the other questions which will be upon us will be such that we shall willingly agree at that time to carry out what we have thought out previously. That is the broad idea that we have in our mind—the broad idea that, however much we may differ upon this or that detail, we hope and expect that this compromise which has been arranged by Mr. Speaker's Conference will be accepted. We see, however, that there are certain great difficulties connected with it, and for that reason in the Amendment I have put down I have indicated the difficulty of dealing with such questions at the present time in a legislative and effective sense. But there is not the smallest reason why yon should not be dealing with them, and so arrive at compromises such as we have arrived at in this matter. It is because we want to go further, and not because we do not want to go as far as Mr. Speaker's Conference has gone, that we wish to differ from the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke. That Amendment says nothing in regard to the Report of the Speaker's Conference itself. It leaves it open, therefore, to be said up and down the country, as it is being said, and as it will be said, that, for some reason best known to ourselves as a party, we wish to shelve this matter, and have left it to be settled in the future because it is not convenient to settle it now.
  My view is: Certain work has been done; let us accept that work. Whether this is the convenient moment for putting it into effect is another question. You will raise certain great questions. Well, my belief is that you settle this question more easily if you settle it with other questions, than if you try to settle it alone, for this reason: We all know by this time the difference between tactical attack and strategical attack. If you attack in a frontal way you meet the whole opposition of your opponents, but if you attempt a flank attack it is often much easier. There is a difficulty in regard to this question because of Ireland. Ireland on any system of equal representation is frankly over-represented. If you can arrange a compromise in regard to Ireland, you will have taken that difficulty by

  511
  a flank attack. It will have ceased to exist. Then there is the question of the balance of the Constitution. I am strongly of opinion that, far more effective as a safeguard against hasty legislation than any small checks in your electoral system, is an adequate Second Chamber, and if you can have an adequate Second Chamber I will go further than this permits, and will be as democratic as ever you will in regard to this First Chamber, but I do feel that all history shows that a nation can form hurried decisions just as an individual, and that there must be an appeal, if I may venture to put it so, from the nation drunk to the nation sober, that you must have a Second Chamber representative of the people, capable of saying to the First Chamber, "We too, represent the people," but elected in some different way, so that they represent other moods of the people than the mood of the moment. I believe that in equipping ourselves with the machinery that is necessary for the future you have got to face that question.
  Now you have the atmosphere of compromise, the atmosphere which is not embittered in these questions, the atmosphere in which a conference could sit down and consider that matter. If you can once get an adequate Second Chamber, and a Chamber adequately placed in our Constitution, then many of these points which some people are inclined to regard as being granted to this party or that in this compromise, cease to have this importance. My belief is that half the difficulties that are seen by some hon. Members and supporters in the -country would disappear if you attack this whole constitutional question boldly during the months in which we can devote? our thoughts to these matters to prepare a compromise which is important to us far more than it is to the masses of the people of this country. It is we politicians, we who know the workings, the checks and the wheels of the Constitution; it is we who follow the checks and balances and all the intricate working of the Constitution. The mass of the people care for the output, for the amelioration of their condition, and for the sane management of their country's affairs in the face of foreign countries. They only say to the politicians, "Manage your own machine, arrange your own machinery, but secure to us efficiency and the various needs of a modern State." That is the view we take in this matter. We believe that you
  512
  should go further. We believe that this is the very atmosphere in which you can arrange these questions of machinery. We believe that when you have got them carefully thought out, and when we politicians have arranged our differences, then quickly, when you need that machine, you will be able to give effect to it, and the country will be equipped with that which it will then need. But I certainly feel that if we leave the thinking, the balancing, the compromising to be done in the atmosphere that will become embittered after the War, we shall run very great risk in the unparalleled conditions which then prevail of finding this country do sweeping things in order to get forward somehow, in a way we have not thought in the past to be very British.
  We all admit that we are coming to a time without parallel. We have had to adopt very powerful, and perhaps arbitrary, rough, crude methods in order to render this country capable of dealing with this great crisis of war. We have to face the fact that the crisis after the War will be equally difficult, and that there will be equally crude methods of equipping us with machinery, unless we do what we did not do before the War, and that is, think out the matter beforehand, and, as a body of politicians, do our expert work as a contribution to what the nation will then need. That is the reason why we have set down this Amendment. That is why I desire to speak on this other Amendment, because what matters now is not so much the particular Amendments that may be carried, but the views that are held among us and exchanged among us, in order that we may seize the opportunity, not in a party spirit, but in a spirit of harmony for the purpose of thinking out what we have got before us. I personally feel that I cannot vote for the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend, and, though I feel that the Resolution moved by the ex-Prime Minister is inadequate, and though I would very much hope that more things might be done than are there indicated, yet, as a choice between the two, I certainly shall vote for the Resolution and not for the Amendment.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): I desire to take a part in this Debate for a short time, not speaking as a member of the Government, although as a member of the Government I desire to say later on that I from the very

  513
  beginning, when this Conference reported, have felt—and I do not think anybody will dispute the orthodoxy of my original opinions, which belong to my own party—that the recommendations which have resulted from this Conference ought, by a wise House of Commons and a wise and prudent country, to be accepted, if necessary in full, rather than we should run the chance of future trouble and future difficulty by a rejection of them now. There is one difficulty in connection with this Debate which is not altogether strange to our experiences in this House. It is that those who rose to criticise have appeared to me to have made some of the most forceful speeches which have been made in defence of the policy of my right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke made it perfectly clear that he and his Friends would not tolerate the continuance of the existing register, and he went further. He wanted a register which would not only include all those who have worked for the country on sea or land, whether it be in the fighting field or other forms of national labour, but he desired to provide special facilities for them to record their votes. Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that he is really asking the House to embark upon an even larger programme than that indicated by my right hon. Friend's Motion, and that he has not got the advantage that my right hon. Friend and those who support his Motion have—namely, that behind their recommendations is the mature examination of these questions by a representative Conference, and, in regard to seven of them, unanimous recommendations by men who were so opposed to each other's political views that I have no doubt many people thought when the Conference first sat that they would never arrive at any agreed conclusion?
  My right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister has reminded the House of his action as Prime Minister. Serving under him it was my privilege to be also connected in a minor degree with what was done, or attempted to be done, at that time with regard to the vexed question of the register, and while I make no complaint of the action of those who are criticising us to-day, I do venture to say that their action is extremely belated. What are the facts of the case? Speaking as the Minister in charge of the Regis-
  514
  tration Bill of that time, and not by any means to a thin House, I threw out, on behalf of the Government, a suggestion that a Conference of this kind should be summoned, and when I made that suggestion I made it perfectly clear—my language is in the White Paper which has been circulated with the Report—speaking for the Government, that that Conference was to consider not a branch of this question, not a portion of it, not merely soldiers' and sailors' votes, but the whole system under which the electorate of this country is constituted, the way they are registered, and the whole procedure in connection with elections. There was no question at that time raised; there was no opposition in this House; there was not a single critic who rose to say, "You must not do this." Let me remind the House that there was no haste over our proceedings. We did not rush the thing. After this Debate in the House of Commons, when, as I say, not one single voice was raised in criticism, and nobody got up and said, "You must exclude this or that subject. If you have a Report on that we shall not be prepared to accept it," this House agreed, if ever a House did in my long experience of it, sub silentio, perhaps, but they agreed to our recommendation. I confess, being an old Parliamentary hand, I was rather suspicious of this appearance of general unanimity. I have been concerned on both sides, as we say in connection with what is known as vested interests in this House, and I know how bitter that kind of controversy is, and I know in these electoral matters there are vested interests, small boroughs, particular kinds of franchise, and, above all, the exercise of that highly-trained ingenuity which is devoted to securing a man the vote, or preventing another man getting a vote. I thought to myself, "This consent of the House of Commons is only transitory, and when I wake up to-morrow morning I shall find the newspapers criticising and attacking." The newspapers next day contained no criticism or attack. On the contrary, there was some support, and the curious thing is that, as day followed day, the support given to the suggestion made by me, with the approval and sanction of the Prime Minister, increased in volume. Newspapers had articles, letters were written, and hon. Members came to me and begged me to go on. Hon. Members spoke in this House expressing their hope that action should be taken. Therefore, I

  515
  say, the criticism to-day is rather belated, because I am not going to suggest that hon. Members allowed us to start that policy, deliberately intending that, if the Conference came to an agreement, they would then raise objections which they were not prepared to raise at the moment. I am not going to suggest anything, because I do not believe it to be true, but I say that their criticism to-day is belated, and in common fairness and from a business point of view, if we are ever to make progress and get anything done by compromise or agreement, criticism of this kind should not be made to-day, because it was not made at a time when it could have really been effective. You might have said, "It is no use; we are so divided, and whatever your recommendations are we cannot support them." But this has not been said, and it is too late to tell us that we are opening up this vista of bitter controversies. But that is not all. The Conference which did me the honour to ask me to take part asked me to say a few words at their first meeting, and I appealed to Mr. Speaker and the members of that Conference, and I tried to make it as clear as my small powers would permit that the issues were great, the problems difficult, complicated, and numerous, and further that their solution was indissolubly bound up with the future strength of the country and the Empire. It was in that spirit that I begged the Conference to approach their labours, and if possible to find an answer to the questions addressed to them. Therefore I say that the action of the Government at that time was deliberate and that it was taken in face of Parliament and the country; that it had general consent and assent, and to-day it would be folly, indeed it would be criminal folly, to turn our backs on the possibility of settlement which the Prime Minister said if we reject now we shall never have at our disposal again.
  I know that some of those who have been the most severe critics in connection with this policy in regard to the adoption of this Report say that we cannot deal with these questions in war-time. The Prime Minister has already replied to that criticism, and therefore it would be superfluous for me to say anything further. In regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder), he is not satisfied with our policy, and he says that it does not go far enough, and he
  516
  made a suggestion that I most cordially endorse. He said that we did not go far enough, because we are not dealing with the unsolved problem of a second chamber. I gather from his Amendment and his speech that he would rather the Government held their hand and did not proceed because we have not the solution ready for that problem, and that we should hang up this other question until we are ready to deal with the Second Chamber. I do not see much wisdom in a policy of that kind. The Conference has been successful in making recommendations, and it seems a strong argument in favour of the adoption of a similar policy in regard to the Second Chamber, but that is no argument for staying action in regard to a question with reference to which we have found a solution. I have no authority to speak for anybody but myself, but I hope with all my heart that this will prove to be a precedent for the treatment of other questions, and there is nothing that I should like so much as to see a representative Conference, under the presidency of Mr. Speaker, endeavouring to find a solution of this question of a Second Chamber. But because we have not got this solution ready it would be foolish on our part to throw away the heritage we have received as a result of these long, patient, and exhaustive counsels.
  We are told that we ought not to deal with this question in war-time, but every speaker, and even those who have criticised these proposals most severely, have realised, as the Prime Minister said, that that is not the choice before the Government and it is outside our powers. The late Prime Minister told the House his experiences, and very unpleasant experiences they were for any Prime Minister; but it is no fault of his, and, if anybody was to be blamed, I was. But the late Prime Minister is always loyal to his colleagues and subordinates, and he stood up in this House and took the blame when I was really to blame, because I was the Minister in charge. It fell to my lot to draw up a Bill. Do my hon. Friends say, as is stated in the Amendment, that there ought to be some interim register or some temporary measure? Do they think that we did not try to find a measure of that kind, or that we did not examine the question in all its bearings? I say that at the Local Government Board there are to-day men with greater knowledge and experience in regard to these questions than you would find anywhere else, and I believe

  517
  they are men more capable of dealing with them than there has ever been in any public office for a very long time. There is Mr. Jerred, the Assistant-Secretary to the Local Government Board, and I am confident that I may be allowed to include him in what I have said, because I know him to be a distinguished Civil servant, and there is no man who understands these questions so well as he does, and no one so able to find a way out of these difficulties, if there is one to be found. When speaking to the Conference, I pointed out that the Bill which was introduced was universally condemned, and it is all very well now for my hon. Friends in this House, in conversation, to say that we had better have your Bill, and their support for my Bill is as belated as their criticism, although their support would have; been valuable at the time. But where were they? Some of them told me they did not succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye; but I did not observe any great desire on the part of any of them to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and those who did succeed, and I expect they were a fair sample of the bulk, adopted language very different to that which they are adopting now.
  It is the same with regard to women's suffrage. Like the late Prime Minister, I have been a lifelong opponent of that question, but I am sure many of those who opposed it, and many who supported it, would have been glad to have got a solution, but once you throw those opportunities away they do not come back to you. I confess I listened with amazement to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) when ho told us that in his belief the soldiers who are fighting in the trenches will criticise us because we take a partial step in the enfranchisement of women. There may be critics in the Debates which will follow on this question, but they will not be critics of those who are giving some recognition to the women who have meant so much to our soldiers in the trenches, and who have suffered so much with our soldiers. I am convinced that, whatever the general opinion may be about this question, if you ask the soldiers to say whether women should have a voice in the government of the country, there would only be one side to the cortroversy, and a soldier would not criticise the Government because it takes advantage of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference to make this change in our Con-
  518
  stitution. I for one do not want to discuss these particular proposals, and it is not necessary for me to do so. They were discussed by the present Prime Minister and by the late Prime Minister, who are more competent for a task of this kind than I am. But I want to say one thing more about the women question. I have been all my life a consistent opponent of the extension of the franchise to women. It is not the first time I have spoken in this House, and I imagine I am pretty well known. Therefore, I need not tell my right hon. Friends and my hon. Friends that I am not very rich in finding arguments and making attractive speeches on different questions.
  I frankly confess that I came down to the House absolutely beggared in my supply of material for criticising and attacking the extension of the franchise to women, and I am almost driven back to the single argument—man is man, and woman is woman. I firmly believed that women were physically prevented from performing most of those tasks which are closely connected with government, and therefore you could not fairly ask them to govern, because they could not take their share in maintaining and enforcing the government of the country. No man can say that now who follows what women have done. I frankly confess that I still believe that it would be better that the franchise should not be extended to women, and I believe it for reasons that I have already given to the House; but whatever my views may be, and even if I still held the opinions I held in the old days as to women's franchise, I would vote for the recommendations of this Conference wholly from beginning to end, much though I dislike some of them, rather than raise my voice to-day against the granting of recognition to the women who have not only, as the Prime Minister said, suffered and died for their country in many of the fields of war, but, let there be no mistake, without whose heroism, self-denial, skill and physical strength and endurance, this country could never have successfully faced the crisis through which we are passing. If all my views were unchanged, and I were still unconvinced in face of all that has happened, I would still give my vote for these proposals as they are, rather than run any risk of losing what is to me a golden opportunity.
  May I say a word about another aspect of this case? I was rather sorry to hear

  519
  my hon. and learned Friend indicate that those who support the Motion of my right hon. Friend are the politicians coming once again on to the scene, and, as it were, obliterating the soldiers. I do not believe you will find anywhere in the country, and certainly not in this House, men who are prepared to introduce politics into our discussions at this moment if they can help it. Surely my hon. and learned Friend must know that this House has given proof enough, individually and collectively, of its willingness to sacrifice in order that the State may live to make it perfectly clear that nothing would induce them to bring in controversial subjects if they could keep them out! In the first place, as has been said already several times this evening, you cannot keep them out. They are there. You have got to have a register, and, whether you like it or not, you must put on to that register a vast number of people whom you cannot get on unless you introduce a new qualification, and the moment, you introduce a new qualification you open the door to every kind of proposal. Remember what that means. It means exactly what the late Prime Minister indicated in a speech which I thought my hon. and learned Friend quoted most inadequately. My right hon. Friend was talking of the time before the Conference, when you had not got any agreed Resolutions. Discuss your questions of women suffrage, discuss your questions of a new franchise, discuss your questions of the present franchise, have nothing behind you in the shape of agreed Resolutions, and what would be the Bill that would ultimately emerge from this House? It would take weeks to decide, and when it emerged do you think that it would be a more moderate proposal than that found in Mr. Speaker's recommendations? No, I am sure that anybody who thinks that makes the greatest mistake in the world.
  I speak here as an old Conservative, and I think most of my Unionist friends will admit that during my life I have been a fighting politician. I am going to fight for a good cause to-day. I have been told by some of my hon. Friends that I am betraying a cause to which I have been devoted all my life by the course I am taking to-day. I understand some of them to say, "We would rather see you fight a series of rearguard actions for twenty years than give in now. I am not a soldier, and I do not know much about
  520
  military tactics, but I have always understood that rearguard actions are only fought for two reasons: One to cover an Army retiring in face of superior forces, and the other to cover a retirement which is to enable your Army to take up a better position from which it will be able to fight with better efficiency. I leave it to my hon. Friends who want to fight these rearguard actions to decide whether they are retiring in face of superior forces, but, as one of the oldest of their members, I am sorry to say, counting years of Parliamentary service, I venture to say to them that if they fight a rearguard action to-day, or during the time that these proposals are before the House, in order to take up a better position they will find that they have miscalculated, that their position will be one in which they will be not only exposed to frontal attacks but also to flanking attacks, and that their last condition will be infinitely worse than their present condition. Therefore, speaking frankly as an honest and, I believe, sincere Conservative, I say that if I looked on this, as I have never done, purely as a party man I should say, "I have an opportunity to-day which is never likely to recur." It may be said that if it is a good thing for us it is a bad thing for those who are opposed to the Unionist party, but those with whom I have been associated are surrendering things to which some of them attach great importance.
  What are the reasons why I beg this House to make up its mind to abandon this meticulous criticism and vigorous fighting and to join together to effect a settlement? As we get something and give up something, so every party who joins in this compromise is getting something and giving up something. It is to my mind a real compromise. As a rule, the compromise we expect is one where we get what is called the best end of the stick. That is the kind of compromise which most people like, but I believe in this case it is a fair compromise. It gives to and takes from all, and I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit by the House of Commons, as I am satisfied that it will be by the country. I think my hon. and learned Friend is wrong when he says that the country will criticise us for dealing with this question. The country is fully alive to the prospect that lies before us. The country sometimes is inclined, I think not quite justly, to blame political parties and Governments for the unprepared con-

  521
  dition in which we were found when this War began. The country is waking up—I am not sure that it has not already awoke—to the fact that the sword will hardly have been sheathed before we shall be engaged in another and as bitter a conflict in some ways with the country with which we are now at war. In the future we shall have to face them in competition of the most bitter character, and we shall need to be ready. (Do we mean to learn nothing from the experience of this War? If we mean to be ready, are we going to refuse that electoral reform which is an essential precedent to any action? What about our Dominions overseas? What are they doing and what are they asking us to-day? They are looking anxiously to the old land. They know that some part of our Constitution here is old, and as they think, worn out. They are asking us this: "Are you going to put yourself on the same solid foundation on which we rest? Are you going to clear your decks so that the moment this War is over you can face and settle those great Imperial problems," to which the Prime Minister has referred?
  We have been, thank God, immune in this War from that desecration of our soil from which other lands have suffered. Do not let us take undue advantage of that great blessing. Storms are raging throughout the world. Great events have happened. If we are wise, we shall retain all the blessings that we have got, and we shall, I believe, get many new ones. But if we are going to face and settle these great problems, Imperial and domestic, it will only be possible if we make this House, so far as it is possible, really representative of the people of this country. Let them feel that they have a grievance, let them feel that you have refused a reform of a moderate character when that reform was possible, and you will have a discontented House of Commons, and, what is worse, a highly discontented people, who will refuse to recognise your right to act in their name or decide these great issues for them. It is for that reason, above all others, that I pray the House not to listen to the advice which has been given to it in the powerful and eloquent speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and that I beg those who are acting with him to think twice and thrice before they commit themselves to this policy of destruction. I implore them to join with the Government in a policy of construction and progress—not of rearguard actions, but of forward actions.
  522
  We shall have an enemy to meet. Let us meet that enemy in the field, and let us make ourselves better able to meet him by taking this great opportunity to do, as friends together, this great common service for the country, rather than prepare for ourselves a renewal of those bitter controversies over which we have wasted so much time in the past, and which do nothing but breed bad blood and weaken this House and lessen its power for good. It is because I believe it will strengthen the House and the country, and because I believe you will do a great service to the Empire, and therefore to the world, that I implore the House of Commons to put aside controversy and criticism and to pass the Bill, which in due course will be introduced as rapidly as possible.
  Colonel CHALONER: I regret that for the first time I am not able to follow my fight hon. Friend, and I must go still further, and say that I feel bound in self-defence to protest against his suggestion that our criticism is belated because we did not criticise at the time. We did not know what there was to criticise until the Conference met and had reported. There was no report, and until there was a report there was nothing to criticise. We were quite prepared that the Conference should sit and report, and we were prepared to consider its report, but, speaking for myself, if I had had any idea that so highly and contentious a matter as women's suffrage would be introduced I should have opposed it at the time as well as opposing it now. It was stated by the late Prime Minister, and a good deal of weight has been added to that statement since, that the Report of the Conference would be unanimous. Was it unanimous? I read the Report, and at least three members, and I believe there was a fourth in agreement with them, had to retire, because they objected either to the way in which the Conference was being carried on or to the way in which they were allowed to state their case. I do not know what the reasons were, but the fact remains that three members did retire, and a fourth member, holding a high position, was in agreement with them. I think that discounts to a certain extent the technical statement that the Report was unanimous. According to the Report itself, the recommendation regarding womens suffrage was not carried unanimously. It is stated that it

  523
  was only carried by a majority, and I should think probably only a bare majority. It mystifies me, therefore, why they should bring in a contentious question like this, and in my opinion it is a most deplorable thing to have done.
  8.0 p.m.
  Several of those who have addressed the House up to now have been beating the air. The Prime Minister, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Pollock), and several others attacked a point which we had never put at all seriously, namely, that the thing should be shelved. It was suggested by my hon. and learned Friend that if you could not keep out contentious matters it should be shelved, but he and I and those who agree with us, say that you can keep out the contentious matters. On several occasions Bills have been introduced in this House on the understanding that no Amendment would be accepted, at any rate at certain stages, and if they had confined themselves to non-contentious questions the Government would have been justified in bringing in a Bill and saying that no Amendment would be accepted, and the whole House would have supported them. I do not see why they should not do it. Why should we not have a Franchise Bill? I do not care whether you give the franchise to the sailors, soldiers, and seamen so long as you adhere to the present principle of male suffrage only and do not go beyond it. What is to prevent the Government bringing in a Bill of that character? What is to prevent them bringing in a Bill on non-contentious lines, and, if necessary, forcing it through? If it is understood that the Government will not accept Amendments on contentious questions, who is going to oppose it? I do not think any party would agree to have it go out to the country that they had endeavoured to prevent the Bill becoming law because they wanted to introduce contentious subjects. We want to avoid those subjects. We want to keep them out. This is not the time for introducing them in a House which is self-elected. The House of Commons has extended its life by its own vote, a very questionable proceeding. It has no mandate for these things that are being proposed. There has never been an appeal to the people on these questions. What right, then, have we to carry legislation on questions on which we have never consulted even the existing electorate, to say nothing of the
  524
  electorate which we would like to see substituted for it? In view of the fact that the War is on, we want to concentrate all our efforts in order to bring it to a successful conclusion. But how can that be done if you are going to have these highly contentious questions thrashed out on the floor of the House in times such as these? I venture to hope that the Government will reconsider their intention, and not include in their proposal any of these highly contentious matters. Let us have-Redistribution by all means; let us have a shorter qualification by all means. I think everybody will be agreed on those points. We shall also all be agreed on-giving the franchise to the sailors and soldiers and others who are doing war work—

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1917.

2. Census of Production Act, 1917.

3. Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1917.

4. Ecclesiastical Services (Omission on Account of War) Act, 1917.

5. Grand Juries (Suspension) Act, 1917.

6. Ministry of National Service Act, 1917.

7.Coal Mines Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1917.

FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Colonel CHALONER(resuming): I have pointed out that while we believe it is-possible to introduce and pass a Bill from which is eliminated all the contentious questions—and which, therefore, could have united support—it is impossible to support these proposals as long as they include such contentious matters as women's suffrage and questions of that kind. I ask myself why I should change the opinions I held a year ago—opinions-founded on conviction—and I fail to find any answer to that. It has been suggested

525
that war work justifies these proposals. I do not see what war work done by women—and no one admits more willingly than I do the magnificent work that has been done—I do not see what that has to do with the question whether or not they should have votes. What were the ideas of the Prime Minister and the ex-Prime Minister before this War began as to what women would do in time of war? Did they think they would sit down with folded hands and do nothing, and are they surprised to find that the women have done their duty as part of the people of this country? They have done their duty, as men have done their duty, but I do not see that that has anything to do with the question of obtaining the vote. My wife and four daughters are at work. Some of my daughters are making shells in munition factories. I should have been ashamed of them if they were not. I do not say that there is anything wonderful in it. If they had not done it I should have been ashamed of them, but if they claimed the vote because they had done it, I should be still more ashamed of them.
We have to consider what this would mean. Is it for the good of the country that women should be included in the franchise? My opinion is that it is not. I speak as one who pledged himself in the first Parliament to which I was elected, that of 1895, to vote for a Woman Suffrage Bill which was introduced at that time, and I did vote for it, because I had given the pledge, possibly without going into the question as I should have done. I did not then realise its far-reaching importance. Since then I have realised that it would be the most disastrous and revolutionary measure that could be conceived, let alone introduced into the House of Commons. You had in this country at the beginning of the War 1,400,000 more women than men. Roughly, you may say that as a result of the War 500,000 men will be killed before it is over. I am told that after the South African War 340,000 men emigrated. They were men who had been in agriculture or factories and who were not going back to that work after the wild life of warfare. If out of the minute Army we had in South Africa, as compared with the Army we have to-day, over 300,000 men emigrated, what number will emigrate at the end of this War? You may put it at another 500,000. That means that at the end of this War there will be about 2,300,000 more women than men in this country. Nobody, not even the Prime Minister, will dare to suggest that if you
526
limit the age at which women may vote to thirty-five, you can eventually, at any rate logically, refuse women the vote on the same terms as men. If you limit it for the moment it will only be for a short time—a month, a year or five years. Then the same arguments will apply, the same unions will come into being and agitate until they get the vote extended in the same way that it is extended to men and you get adult suffrage. That will be the greatest revolution which has ever happened in any country of the world. Hon. Members speak about some of our Colonies and some other small countries which have given the vote to women. That is quite a different thing, because the women there are in a hopeless minority. No nation has ever been ruled by a majority of women. That is the state to which this country would be reduced. We all admire women, but, after all, I like to see them on a pedestal, and not on a footing of equality. If you bring them down off the pedestal and put them on an equality with men you will kill the best spirit of chivalry which exists to-day and put the Government of the country into the hands of women who are not fitted for it by nature and temperament. It would be the most destructive and dangerous thing ever done by this House of Commons. For these reasons I for one support the Amendment and hope that the Government will be guided into the path of wisdom and will reject the contentious parts of this proposal and bring the remainder into operation as quickly as may be.
Mr. CLYNES: I rise to put briefly what has been decided by the great organisations representing labour in its political sense in this country. The speech to which we have just listened, while it reminded one that the prophet is not honoured in his own country, was not less lavish in its prophecy than was the case in years gone by. We have heard of the awful consequences that would follow the giving of the vote to the women of this country. We can cast our minds back to similar forecasts which formed the body of speeches made in this House and in the country on every occasion when it was proposed to extend the franchise to anybody except the privileged persons who happened to possess the vote at that time. The fact is that in a very considerable number of cities and boroughs to-day women are the deciding element in elections, or could be if they desired to unite as a sex and cast their vote on one par-

527
ticular line because they are women. There are hundreds of thousands of women on the municipal register, yet town and county council government has not in any way suffered on that account. It is a delusion, for which men should be ashamed, for them to conclude that if we give votes to these millions of women it is certain that they will all act and vote alike as women and that there would be no difference of opinion on the great and varied questions with which they would have to concern themselves. History, experience, and the general working of politics and political parties show that women are no more likely to be agreed upon such questions than men. If, with the vote, women would be absolutely unanimous as a sex, one might well ask, "How is it that without a vote they are not so united?" Women are divided now in politics, in labour organisations, in Liberal and Conservative organisations—indeed, I believe it is to be found that some twenty-seven or twenty-eight separate organisations for women already exist with the particular purpose of getting the vote. The very number of those different organisations is a proof of the inherent quality of difference in the case of women, as in the case of men.
Organised labour has a very definite point of view7 on this question, and has maintained it for years. It is that women should enjoy the same rights of citizenship as men. Their functions only differ from ours. It cannot be said that they are of less service than men are in the eye of the State, and war experiences have proved to us that the great reserve force of women's labour has had to be called in in order to replace the men who necessarily have been taken for the Army, and in the performance of their work they have done not only great credit to themselves but immense service to their country. Indeed it is doubtful if the soldiers now in Flanders, France, and elsewhere could carry on the War—could carry out their orders—if it were not for the hundreds of thousands of women who, even at midnight to-night, will be working in the scores or hundreds of munition factories throughout the country. Their service there is only different in kind, and not necessarily of less value or of less necessity than that of men.
But I would claim that even if they had not rendered this great service to the country in war-time their rights are still
528
as strong and their grounds of claim as good as that of men. They are answerable to the law. We commonly say that people who have to obey the law and observe the general conditions imposed upon units in the community should have some voice and share in the making of these laws and how it is that we have been able for so long to leave to women the right to vote in local elections and withhold it when we come to the larger business of Parliament passes comprehension. But the question has been the subject of heated controversy now for many years past. Public opinion to a very great extent has ranged itself behind the claim of the women. Their service during the War has been the occasion of quite notable conversions to the women's claim. There is not now very much of that opposition in the country which existed prior to the War, and I regard this as a most opportune moment for extending to the women the franchise rights which cannot possibly be long delayed. As to the exact point at which we should begin and how far votes are to extend as a beginning, that will be hereafter for the House to decide and we on these benches welcome the intimation from the Prime Minister that legislation is to follow what we expect will be a quite convincing demonstration in the Lobbies to-night in favour of this long delayed measure of justice to women. It is not on grounds of service that the women should have equality of treatment before the law and should possess any power or privilege which men possess for the making and the shaping of the destinies of their country. This I regard as a quite opportune moment for giving effect to this ever-growing national movement.
The argument is used that while this War is on no controversial question should be introduced or discussed. Had that doctrine applied ever since the War began we could not have gone on with the War at all. Many scores of highly controversial questions have had to be introduced and have been settled by legislation, some of them on a basis of compromise. Indeed, the War period has been used, and I think rightly used, in many quarters in order to try to compose and conclude differences which we found it difficult to discuss or settle during times of peace. For instance, I the recurring quarrels between employers and employed in this country are a matter for grave regret and a source of great national loss, and suggest to us often the desirability of trying whatever can be done

529
to make it impossible that these quarrels should occur. War-time is pointed out as being supremely the moment when workmen and employers should come together and try to settle this question, so that after the War they can jointly work in the national interest and for the common good. There is no more controversial question that I can think of than the question of the differences between employer and employed. That is a much more controversial question and it divides men more severely than even does the division between man and man or woman and woman on any franchise question. I could mention a dozen different important topics which we are asked during war-time to come together and try to settle, and the reason is really the same reason one might apply to the claim for the women or for any of the changes suggested in the Speaker's Report. It is that the War is producing every month its own crop of problems which cannot be settled during war-time. We can only prepare to settle these questions, and there are scores of committees engaged on that work of preparation and getting ready to settle and solve the difficulties which war-time has created.
The other reason is that after the War, in additions to these questions which the War has produced, it is unlikely that the country will be in the frame of mind for a long time to deal with anything except the products of the War, and now, while Parliament has time, and while the War is being waged, is the time when those of us who have differed keenly upon these questions should, on lines of give and take, upon the broad basis of the compromise suggested in this Report, bring to an end a controversy which will continue to be waged until it is settled. In face of the fact, which common sense dictates, that some settlement is inevitable, the concession of citizenship to women is a matter which cannot long be delayed, and I suggest that this is the best and not the worst time to face facts and try to come to a conclusion. Facing the matter from that standpoint, organised labour convened a great Conference only just over a week ago, attended by more than 400 delegates and representing, generally speaking, the organised workmen and women of the country. At that Conference there was a large body of opinion still determined to press upon Parliament for the full measure of our claim—the establishment of adult suffrage, and many other
530
franchise and registration reforms which we have long demanded. But, after mature consideration, the Conference unanimously resolved to approve legislation, if introduced early and passed into law, on the general lines of the Speaker's Conference Report, thereby forfeiting our demand for the time being for complete adult suffrage and for those other reforms to which I have alluded. Broadly, the reason is that a period of compromise is, after all, possible to us in this country, that while War is being waged in other lands we here, in what might be termed, in a certain sense, a state of peace, can use that condition to give and take, and to settle on lines of compromise those highly controversial questions. Men must not think that this is solely their topic, for, whether you admit the right or not, women will persist actively to clamour for their rights until those claims are met. On the lines, then, of the Conference Report, we are not only prepared to see but we eagerly welcome legislation which will make a handsome beginning in the case of women and which would in the case of men remove many injustices and anomalies that now exist in regard to electoral conditions.
I would only refer to one point, and that is the conclusion of the Conference in sweeping aside all the other conditions and qualifications by which men have been hampered in their claims to vote in years gone by. One had to be an occupier or a tenant or a freeman or a lodger. All these different distinctions in one way or another set up the right to a vote. The right that a man has for a vote is that he is a man, and the right that a woman has for a vote is that she is a woman. The conditions of citizenship should be made more equal as between the sexes. We have decided to accept this great change in principle and in conditions—the change that a person merely residing at a particular place is a qualification for a vote, instead of all these other complicated and unfair conditions that have Formerly prevailed. The reduction in the term of residence is also viewed with the greatest favour by organised labour, because conditions of work, especially those conditions which the War has enforced, have occasioned the removal of hundreds of thousands of men from one part of the country to another. In the case of anyone who is driven in search of work, or because he has secured work, or because of the

531
general economic and social conditions, to move from town to town and city to city, it is extremely unfair that that condition of industrial life should deprive any man of his right of citizenship.
Into many of the other details and recommendations I will not go, but I would like to say that the House at such a time as this ought to seek out its points of agreement more than its points of difference. That is something which is very often overlooked. The War, and what has accrued from it, has certainly lessened in number and reduced in intensity the points of difference that prevailed before the War in this and other Assemblies. Those of use who had the privilege to sit in this House before the War are bound to recognise that the temper and the form of individual mind that dominated us, even on occasions when one would expect or at least desire to see the greatest harmony and agreement, has changed. The War certainly has tended to compose a great many of our differences and to impose upon us the sense of a common cause for the common good, and as women have taken so large a part in war work their right has been established by service, and as millions of men who never had the vote have had to shoulder their rifles and take their chance of death, you can depend upon it that neither men nor women will permit this House any longer to delay the scheme of justice to which they are entitled.
Mr. CURRIE: Deplorable and unwise as I think was the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool (Colonel Chaloner), I think on the whole it is a good thing it was delivered. It did something to clear the air. It showed that with whatever degree of moderation certain speakers have addressed the House, there is in certain quarters a disposition to take up an attitude of complete immobility with which I, for one, have no sympathy whatever. The hon. and gallant Member asked why should he change his opinions. However much he may have studied the question since he came into this House, I think it would be better on the whole if he did not change his opinion. The more important question, for me at all events, is why I should change my opinion. After all, there are opinions in all quarters of the House, as there are in all quarters of the country, on this question, and I see no reason why, if parties
532
on one side of this question—and I think the majority—are asked to consider changes, there is any presumption that the change should be all on one side. None whatever. I do not seek to repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder), who spoke so finely on behalf of his Unionist friends in Scotland, but I would say that so far as I know the opinion in Scotland he made a fair and reliable statement on which the House can depend. My conviction is that the general feeling in Scotland, not merely amongst Unionists, but amongst all classes and all shades of opinion, is that questions so great and so grave will shortly be pressing upon us for consideration that we do not wish—there is no general wish—to spend more time in discussing mere questions of machinery or to take up the attitude that we think that the tests which were applied to voting qualifications thirty, fifty, eighty, or a hundred years ago are the tests which in reason should be applied now. I think the right angle of observation from which to approach the question of voting fitness is this: that any man—I may add any woman, for I have always thought so—who is leading a reasonably settled industrial life, and who has not disqualified himself or herself by default of some kind; and in the case of a man I would say, who is willing and able to take his share in the obligation of defence, is prima facie entitled to a vote, and qualified for a vote. The property qualifications, as I understand them, were applied fifty years or a generation ago, because they offered us the most easily applied test of the same fitness which we wish to apply now. I do not like them very much, and I think it would be better for ourselves, and would save us a great deal of trouble in the process, if we adopted other qualifications. I know that in a good many quarters there would be regret if university Members were no longer to appear amongst us. But admirable service as many of those gentlemen have rendered, and convinced as I am that a man of education is entitled to, and probably always will, have rather more influence in the community than a man who has not those qualifications, I am not prepared to say that there is only one way in which his full weight can be given to him in the community. There are many other ways.

533
I think some of those who have in the past attached a good deal of importance to the right of plural votes, treble votes, and quadruple votes, should reconsider their position. In the first place, I think it is only fair to remind them that this House, rightly or wrongly, has made up its mind upon that point. I am not prepared to say that it acted very fairly in the way it did so, but there is the fact, and I am not prepared to spend much more of my time in discussing whether a man is entitled to four votes, or three votes, or two votes. I do not think there is enough substance in the whole thing to justify spending any more time upon it. I do not care about it very much. I do not very much care whether university representation is continued or not, and I do not think that the question of proportional representation is of itself of sufficient importance that this whole scheme of electoral reform will break down because proportional representation drops out of it. I was quite prepared to agree to the adoption of a limited and reasonable experiment in regard to proportional representation, but if it drops out of this scheme I do note very much mind. On one rather important point the Secretary of State for the Colonies I think misunderstood what the hon. Member for Camlachie said, certainly what he must have meant to say, and I think reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will bear out my view. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, referring to certain qualifications which appear in the words of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend and myself and others, was rather inclined to think that the reference to Ireland and the reference to the reform of the House of Lords were meant to suggest that, if these matters could not be properly and satisfactorily dealt with at least simultaneously with the general question, that our Amendment was aimed at securing, or, at all events, contemplating a delay in dealing with the other matters. That is not so at all. It is quite true that my friends and myself think that if we could obtain a settlement of certain difficulties surrounding the Irish aspect of the question we would rather have it, and in the same way if we could secure the promised reform of the House of Lords we would be very glad to do so, particularly with reference to the last question, because we feel that if we had the balance wheel of the Constitution in better work-
534
ing order than it is now we should be safer. We do not feel that we are in a very dangerous position, but certainly we should feel it safer to face whatever share of risks these very considerable changes may carry with them.
That is the sense in which these additions to our Amendment were made, and they were made in no other sense. If we cannot have these matters dealt with we are content not to have them dealt with, but we do think that having secured such general agreement as has been secured, it would be a thousand pities to lose the fruits of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I think that it is a great reproach to the country, both England and Scotland, that after two generations of public education, there should still be such a measure of doubt as to whether our citizens are fit to exercise the franchise or not. If that doubt remains at the end of another generation, or even ten or fifteen years, I would then regard it as indeed a very serious reflection on those with whom power has lain for the last four or five generations. We heard a good deal this afternoon about compromise. A genial humorist once described compromise as an arrangement by which all parties concerned got what they did not want. It is obvious from the speech made on behalf of the, I think, rather discredited remnant of a certain section of those who really hold the view that it is unsafe to grant votes to women, that at least they have realised that their share in this compromise is something which they do not like. They honestly say so. But when I admit the honesty of their contention I have really said all that I can say in its favour, because I listened with genuine dislike and a feeling of great indignation to the speech which was made by the protagonist of that particular cause this evening. I cannot say that I was altogether surprised, because I received a written statement not many days ago which bore his name, and which no doubt states his views at greater length. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not in the House, but I cannot help it. In that communication I was told that it would be on my part a flagrant departure from political honesty if I were a party to this constitutional revolution.
Who is to be the judge of my political honesty? In the first place, I suppose my Constituents. My Constituents have always known my views, and I know

535
theirs. They are not unanimous. They know exactly where they are with me and I know where I am with them. Why, therefore, the question of political honesty? After all, if I take one view of the matter, my hon. Friend takes another. There is really no presumption that I am dishonest and that he is honest. I may be quite wrong. He may be quite right. But I entirely challenge the right of any man to lecture me in this way as to ordinary political honesty. He went the length of suggesting, and I think of saying, that the constituencies had never been consulted. There may here and there be constituencies whose Members have not consulted them. All I can say is that I believe that at all events nine out of ten Members in this House have a reasonably correct idea of where they are with their Constituents upon this point, and I regard it as a piece of unspeakable impertinence for any of my fellow Members to send me a letter telling me that if I take a particular view of this matter I shall be guilty of a flagrant departure from political honesty.
There was more in this precious communication than that admonition. I confess that I was amazed beyond measure to read the statement, over the signature of any man in this House or in public life to the effect that "wages and not the vote is the appointed payment for the services of women." I think that that is an unmanly and an unmannerly gibe, and cowardly beyond any power of expression in words at my command. The hon. Member said that he was anxious to make a handsome acknowledgment of the services of women, and yet he tells us that wages and not the vote is their appointed payment. I do not share, I never have shared, what has always appeared to me to be the somewhat exaggerated expectations which I think most women entertain of the reform and the advantages that will accompany the securing of the vote. I think that they overrate these matters. I have always thought so. I think that many of the arguments that have done much service in the campaign on both sides are touched with a good deal of unsoundness. I always get back to the fundamental point that if women have a claim to the vote it has simply been on account of their womanhood. If they are the same as men, I could understand the argument that if men have the vote that is enough. If you cannot say that, if they
536
are different from men, then you cannot use the argument that the possession of the vote by men covers the case of women. The Amendment is a compromise. I think that what we have heard from the late Prime Minister this afternoon and from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as a matter of practical politics, very nearly ends this argument.
So far as I know, nine out of ten of those who do not like giving votes to women are prepared to follow the Secretary of State for the Colonies and say that they are not very sure about it, and to let the matter end—that if it is a mistake they are not to blame. But by those who do not like this we are told that we are to be faced with a bitter continuation of the struggle. The more speeches that are made in the country of the kind we have listened to this afternoon, in my view, the shorter this struggle will be. I would like to hear one every day for a month in my Constituency. I do not think much of the political consistency, or the principle either of a man who says that he is opposed on principle to giving the vote to women, and then goes on to say that if there were a referendum he would give it. I do not think much of a principle of that kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke appealed to us not to divide the House or to divide the nation. On the other hand, I make the same appeal to him as he makes to me. There would be no division of opinion if those who feel so strongly did not stir up division. I am as much entitled to appeal to the hon. Member not to cause a division as he is to appeal to me. Although I feel very strongly upon the subject, if it were a choice of standing still, and doing nothing, and spending twenty years fighting a rearguard action, then I would say at once grant adult suffrage immediately, for I would then feel very much safer. My hon. Friend and those who think with him seem to think that they have a monopoly of devotion to any good cause. He thinks one way and I think another, but that is not evidence that I possess a smaller share of devotion than he does. I call arguments of that character special pleading, and not of a very good type. I listened to one speaker after another, hoping to hear contributed some arguments on the merit of the proposal, and I confess that my impression of the speeches was rather disappointing. I do not think that the subject requires any special pleading of that kind, which really will not bear very close

537
examination when it is read to-morrow. Having listened to all the speeches hostile to the settlement suggested, to me they appear to have missed the point, and I think there will not be found in them a single argument against the merits of the proposal. You will hear such arguments as that the time is inopportune and that this proposal or the other is not liked. I have listened to every one of the speeches hostile to the compromise, and not one of them has given reasonable statements against the proposals on their merits, and it appears to me that the arguments which have been advanced are much more germane to questions relating to opportunity.
Sir F. BANBURY: That will come on the Bill, and not now.
Mr. CURR1E: We will see when the Bill comes, but it seems to me right that those who dislike these proposals should be prepared to argue them on their merits a great deal more than they have done. I think they have made out an uncommonly poor case, and I have not the least hesitation in saying that the feeling in Scotland is practically unanimous. We wish to be done with expenditure of time on mere questions of machinery, questions of a little privilege here or there. We want to be ready to lay our hands to the plough, and to apply our minds to the large questions which undoubtedly will come before us.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I desire to join hon. Members in their expression of appreciation of the value of the services rendered by Mr. Speaker in having presided over this Conference, and also in having succeeded in obtaining an almost unanimous decision from the members of that Conference on the subject submitted to them for consideration. It certainly could not have been an easy task. The problems he had to consider were very difficult, and they were of a very contentious character. The members who composed the Conference were selected from different parties, and from different groups of the State. Nevertheless, he has succeeded in presenting to us a series of recommendations which we understand, with few exceptions, were almost unanimously adopted by the Conference. I would like at starting to say that, notwithstanding—
Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to my hon. Friend, for I think I ought to say
538
so, that, at the time when those conclusions, or many of them, were, as the late-Prime Minister said, carried unanimously, three members left the Conference because they did not agree with what was taking place.
9.0 p.m.
Sir P. MAGNUS: I said almost unanimous, and I was aware that three of the Members left the Conference because they disagreed with the conclusions. Notwithstanding that the recommendations in the Conference were almost unanimously adopted, I do not feel, and I do not say, that the Members of this House are necessarily under any obligation to agree with the findings of the Conference. We all have a right to express our opinions, and to be bound by our own convictions, and the fact that a committee or conference recommends us to adopt a certain number of conclusions at which they have arrived as a compromise does not seem to me to be any sufficient reason why we should necessarily agree with all those recommendations. The position in which we are placed, I must say, is a very difficult one, particularly after the speech, the extremely eloquent speech, of the Prime Minister, who almost represented that the proposal of the Conference was to be regarded as a Government proposal. I am quite certain that the great majority of the House will not desire to vote directly against any proposal which tomes from the Prime Minister as a Government proposal. But apart from that there are, I must own, very strong reasons for the postponement of this proposal. It is a very strange thing that only very recently, within the last few months, we have been told that during the War, and under present circumstances, it is most undesirable to introduce into this House any strongly contentious matter which would divide different parties in the State. To-night, both on the part of the late Prime Minister and of others who have spoken, the very opposite proposal has been placed before us. We are reminded that we are in a state of war, and that, therefore, this is the most opportune time to introduce the most contentious matters into Parliament. Consequently, we have brought before us in this Report not a single matter which has divided opinion for many years, but a whole host of questions which cannot be said to be otherwise than of a most contentious character. I am not prepared to say which of those opinions is correct. Whether the fact that

539
the War is going on is a sufficient reason for adopting without much discussion matters of a most contentious character, or whether during the War all contentious proposals should be set aside.
I am quite willing to admit that many of the suggestions contained in the Report are very valuable as containing new principles of electoral reform, which have been before us on other occasions, but which we have never been urged so strongly to adopt as in the speeches that have been made by the Prime Minister and by the ex-Prime Minister jointly. I am willing to admit that some of the proposals in the Report would be likely to be acceptable without much discussion in this House and in the country, and I believe that we should be prepared to give to those proposals an almost unanimous assent. I think, taking all the circumstances into consideration, we are disposed to agree to a very large extension of the present franchise. We are also of opinion that our soldiers and sailors and those who have fought for us ought to be allowed to vote, but that a new franchise law which would enable them under existing conditions to have the franchise extended to them would open very widely the gate to the franchise involving proposals to which we might or might not be able to assent. I think we are all agreed that the conditions of registration ought to be simplified very much in the manner suggested in the Speaker's Report, and, further, that the expenses of elections ought, if possible, to be decreased. The expenses attendant on an election for a university constituency are not large, but the expenses attendant on elections for other constituencies are often abnormally large, and I am sure the whole House would agree that it is desirable under present conditions that those expenses should be reduced. Then, again, we, the Unionist Members of the House, have often said that any proposals for an extension of the franchise ought to be attended with measures for the redistribution of seats. Therefore we cannot say that we are opposed to any general proposition for the redistribution of seats. Redistribution of seats is one of those proposals to which the Unionist Members of the House have always assented, because when accompanied by a large extension of the franchise it seemed to be one of the means, of giving equal value to votes. It will be seen, therefore, that
540
the Report of the Speaker's Conference contains a number of proposals to which I think general agreement might be given It is to me a matter of regret that the members of the Conference went further than those suggestions which were likely to carry general agreement.
There was another proposal of very great importance introduced into this Report, and that was the question of proportional representation, a proposal which governed, I should say, a very large number of the other proposals connected with registration. The question of proportional representation runs through the whole of the Speaker's Report. In order that proportional representation may have a fair field, it was thought desirable to create large constituencies of two, three, or four Members. I do not think that any measure could have been introduced into a Report of this kind, which was to obtain general agreement, which is of a more contentious character than that of proportional representation, with the various devices for giving minorities representation in this House. I must own that it is with considerable satisfaction I heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon that he did not think in any Bill that might be introduced into the House, embodying the proposals of the Conference, the question of proportional representation would necessarily find a place. That, I think, was one of the most satisfactory conclusions which were made.
Sir F. BANBURY: It can be put in.
Sir P. MAGNUS: It can be put in, of course. It did not say it will not be put in, but I understood that it is not likely to be put in any measure introduced by the Government. Proportional representation is a radical reform. The other matters to which I have referred as those on which general agreement might be expressed only involve principles which already exist in our franchise law and require some extension. But the question of proportional representation is absolutely new to our franchise law, and is a radical reform, which in my opinion would alter entirely the constitution of this House, and is by far too revolutionary to be introduced at the present time. There is another very important matter on which I understand opinion was divided in the Conference, and that is the question of giving votes to women. As

541
to that question I should say I have always been opposed to the extension of the franchise to women. But I must own, and one regrets to have to own any change of opinion, that I do feel very much in sympathy with the statement made by the late Prime Minister. I do feel that in consequence of this War we must look at things from a different angle, and see things in different proportion, and the question of the admission of women to the franchise is one of those questions. I must admit that I had no idea that women would have been able to make themselves so useful in the prosecution of the War as they have shown they have been, and I cannot possibly avoid coming to the conclusion that I have no right to say after the War in which they have participated, and through which they have incurred such painful losses, that they should have no voice in the future policy of this country.
One of the strongest objections I have to the prompt introduction of reform on proposals based on the Speaker's Conference, is that there is a question of a very controversial character, which, it seems to me, has a prior right to be considered by this House, and that is the question of an Irish settlement. Personally, I look upon the Irish question, I must own, a little differently from what I did prior to the War, and I am most desirous of seeing a settlement of the whole question arrived at shortly and promptly. I think it would be a very dreadful thing for this country if we were to alter entirely our system of franchise, if we were to extend the franchise very largely and to admit women, and if at the same time we were to make no alteration in the conditions under which the Irish Members at present hold their seats. The Irish Members themselves very often say that they do not have the advantage of governing their own country, but for many years, in consequence of the undue representation of Ireland in this House, they have really governed England, and through England the Empire. I sincerely hope that prior to the consideration by this House of the very contentious matters that are involved in the proposals of the Speaker's Report, the Government will take the necessary steps, and will do all they possibly can do to arrive at a definite settlement of the Irish question which will be satisfactory to the Ulstermen and to the Nationalists.
542
I have spoken of the various matters which are of a contentious character, and which I regret were introduced into the Speaker's Report. There is one other matter, of small importance, I own, but in which I personally, of course, am deeply interested, and that is the question of the university franchise. I must own that I am very grateful to the Conference and to the Speaker for the recognition of the importance of the principle of the university franchise, and for their proposal for increasing university representation, but at the same time that proposal was accompanied by considerations which, so far as my own university is concerned, would have taken away its chief merit. I cannot for one moment understand how any Members cognisant with university education in this country could for one moment have suggested that it was a desirable or even a possible arrangement that the University of London, with a history of over eighty years, a university which has enjoyed representation in this House for a period of fifty years, should have been grouped in future in its representation with eight new universities, none of which have hitherto enjoyed representation, and one of which is not situated in this country—I mean the University of Wales. The Members of that Conference must certainly have been very uninformed as to the essential characteristics and the aims and purposes of the University of London, for they differ in many respects from those of any other university in the United Kingdom. They differ from the aims and objects of Oxford and Cambridge, and they differ essentially, and must always differ essentially, from those of any local university. I do not propose at this time, before we even know that any Bill is going to be introduced, to urge reasons against that proposal, but I may say that the university does protest against it. The Standing Committee of Convocation have sent in letters protesting against it, and if such a proposal were part of a Bill the graduates of the university, who are scattered throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, would, I am certain, urge upon their Members to do all they possibly could to prevent such a proposal being carried into effect. In these circumstances, I think you will agree that it is a contentious proposal which ought to be omitted from any Bill.

543
The House may like to know what I propose to do with regard to the Amendment which has been moved, and here I must own that I find myself in considerable difficulty. The very fact that the Prime Minister has decided that the principle of proportional representation is not likely to be embodied in any Bill makes me feel rather differently towards the whole proposal than I did some few days ago. At the same time, I do feel that it would be a good thing if this question could be postponed so that no contentious matters should be introduced into the House during the War and I am strongly of opinion that it ought to be postponed until after the Irish question is settled. I may say this, that if the Government, after carefully considering the question, do decide to introduce a Bill to give effect to these proposals, I must warn them that they cannot expect for the Bill a happy or easy passage through the House, seeing that every Member will consider it his right to express his convictions with regard to those proposals which are of a contentious character, and that there may be lengthy discussions and Divisions upon some of those proposals. At the same time, I feel that the responsibility of introducing the Bill, subject to the warning which I have ventured to offer, must lie with the Government, and under those circumstances I am not disposed to vote against the Motion.
Mr. MORTON: I shall not speak for more than a few minutes. There is no time to-night properly to discuss the question of female suffrage, but I may say this, that as far as I can find out opinion outside, if not inside, this House is largely changing in favour of giving women a vote as soon as possible, and no doubt that is largely owing to the excellent work which they have done for us and for the country during the War, and I think we should all be willing to acknowledge their great services, especially to the wounded. The Motion, of course, covers the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, but I do not take it that we are bound to everything in that Report if we do vote with the late Prime Minister, because we have had no opportunity so far, or very little, of bringing this matter before our Constituents in order to hear what they might have to say in the matter. Anything that we may therefore say in regard to matters in the
544
Report must not bind us as to the details in future when we come to consider the Bill. If the proposals in the Bill are carried out, they will materially alter the position of my Constituents, and I want, therefore, to be very careful, not having had the opportunity of consulting them upon the matter, to see that I do not bind them in anything that I am going to do.
Electoral reform is a subject we have had before us for many years, but we have never done much in that direction. Everyone has admitted that our system of registration is the most absurd that ever existed. We give with one hand and take away with the other. There are a number of things in connection with registration which we all admit ought long ago to have been reformed. Consequently, most of us are thankful to Mr. Speaker and his Conference for having in a practical way shown us how to consider most of these questions. I also agree with a good deal of what has been said in regard to legislation during the War. We have allowed things to go through during the War with an anxious desire to help the Government. as much as possible, no matter which Government it might be, but there is no doubt we have agreed to a good many things to which we would not have agreed under ordinary circumstances. Therefore it must be borne in mind that what you call compromise during war-time ought not to give anyone the opportunity of rushing through the House bad legislation. That is not to be thought of. It is our duty, I think, and I have endeavoured to follow it out with regard to party-politics, to give any Government of the King our active, united support in successfully prosecuting the War to an end as soon as possible. That is my idea of our duty at the present time. I do not, therefore, think that any electoral matters; should get in the way and make for dis-unity in any shape or form. I hope that we shall at the proper time, whenever it comes, make the necessary reforms with regard to the franchise and other matters.
I want to make it thoroughly understood in regard to registration that I have not yet made up my mind. My Constituents have not had the opportunity of discussing these proposals. We have been told by our leaders that we have now got a political truce and that we ought not to introduce party political matters during the War. That is an honourable understanding which most of us have endeavoured to

545
carry out. That leads me to say that questions of this sort, if put before a constituency, might tend to break the political truce. Moreover, constituents, at any rate, mine in Sutherlandshire, would probably tell anyone that they wanted the land question settled and that they were willing to give you any franchise that would settle the land question. Consequently, I have not had the opportunity of putting before them these proposals or even of getting copies enough of the Report to do so. I want to take care that they are not injured in any way by anything I may do or say. Consequently, I claim the right later to have the opportunity to know the mind of my Constituents. I hope, therefore, that we may some day be agreed as to these matters, but I am not certain that we ever shall. In normal times you will find that you get a much more satisfactory conclusion when matters are debated, not only in this House, but outside amongst our constituents. I do not want in any way to bar mine At the present time we are supporting the Government—and doing it, I hope, properly—to successfully prosecute the War to a victorious end. We are trying to do that in the best way we can, and I shall stick to it as long as I can. We have passed so much legislation that otherwise we do not like at all that almost every scrap of liberty has gone. If, however, it ends in the successful finish of this violent and cruel war we shall all be satisfied. We shall all be satisfied that we have given up our rights and the rights of representation for the good of the country.
Major E. WOOD: I hope that the hon. Member and those who think with him will not think that those of us who are unable to support the Amendment which he supports—
Mr. MORTON: I did not say that I supported the Amendment.
Major WOOD: Then I apologise to the hon. Member.
Mr. MORTON: I hope I did not in any way make a mistake, but what I said was that I was going to support the Resolution of the late Prime Minister on the understanding that we were not bound to every detail or to redistribution; but the Amendment I have nothing to do with.
Major Wood: I apologise, and I am extremely pleased to find that the posi-
546
tion of the hon. Member corresponds substantially with that of my own. I hope that those who do support the Amendment will not feel that those who sit on this side fail to appreciate the strength of the arguments they have put forward. As I understand it, the object of this Debate has been to elucidate two points The first is whether this House wants a scheme of electoral reform at all, and, if so, whether it wants it now or at some later date. On that point it appears to me the Debate has proved two things. The first is that this is the only conceivable, logical scheme if you mean to touch the matter at all. The Prime Minister proved that conclusively—if it required proof! The second thing is that the trend of the speeches which have been delivered in this Debate have to my mind furnished proof that this is the only possible basis upon which all the differing opinions in this House can find agreement if that be so, the only question that we have to ask ourselves is whether we wish to carry this scheme now or postpone it to some later date, as my hon. and learned Friend would have us do? I, however, cannot take that view, and that for these reasons. Nobody feels more strongly than I do that the supreme effort and task before us is the War. But I am not able to take his view that the Army in France would feel that if this House tackles this task they will be playing the Army false. My experience of the Army in France would lead me to believe that it only demands one thing—that this House should support loyally and avoid interference with those who are charged with the conduct of operations. The work of the Government, as I see it, in war-time is rather to administrate than legislate. I am not saying for a moment that this House is not busy with necessary legislation, but what I do say, without any fear of being contradicted, is that it will be far busier in the post-war period than it is now, when its work ought to be confined to supporting, as loyally as it can, a vigorous Administration
I would direct the attention of hon. Members who do not agree with me to this: he Prime Minister outlined some of the tasks that will await this House after the War. As I see it, besides all the problems of reconstruction that it will have to face, it will also have to do what I consider imperative, and that is to reassert its control over the Executive. You cannot do it in time of war, when the control of the Administration over the Execu-

547
tive is bound to lie dormant, but we want to reassert it as soon as we can, especially in the realm of finance. The third thing is that this House ought to regain the leadership of the nation, which, in my opinion, it is in danger of losing. Therefore, I would go so far as to say that at this moment a bold scheme of reform is the foundation stone of your post-war policy. The House of Commons can only command, as the Prime Minister said, the necessary confidence to do all these things after the War if it is prepared at this moment to place itself fearlessly at the head of all the new forces that are afoot in the country. If you postpone this scheme, what will happen? In the first place, all chances of a great scheme are gone. From that it follows that party feeling will supervene. We shall again have this question that has been—I do not say it has not got other merits—one of the most directly party political questions for years. It has been put off and off mainly on party interests, and your new House of Commons when you get it will lack the force to grapple with all the work that lies before it. Let us be quite clear about this. It is not surely likely that, if you put it off till after the War, this House will be able to deal with it between the conclusion of the War and an election. If it does not, you will have a new House of Commons elected, as we have been told, on some sort of register, and unless that House in its unrepresentative condition is to tackle all those things, you will be faced with another election, with more waste of time and delay in getting to work with legislation of which this country has need. I know a compromise pleases no one. There are a lot of things in this scheme I do not like, but do let us take in this matter a longer view. Let us look forward to the possibility of new co-operation between men of parties in this House, which once you let party feeling intervene will become impossible, and if you get that co-operation there is no limit, to my mind, to what may lie within the bounds of possibility. Postponement spells failure, and the indefinite postponement of reform spells delay, and inevitably increased difficulty for all the wider causes that, in my view, at this moment really are based upon, and hinge upon, a bold measure of reform.
Sir H. CRAIK: I have listened with the deepest sympathy and with the greatest admiration to many of the speeches made on behalf of the Resolution of the late
548
Prime Minister. I feel, as every Member feels, the force of much that has been urged by the present Prime Minister. I feel that if we could reach a compromise upon this point I would be ready to do it. I realise the good spirit that animates them and the strong reasons there are for us to follow their lead. At the same time, I cannot but conscientiously express the feelings of deep doubt as to the wisdom of the course proposed. Just let me look at one or two of the points. The present Prime Minister urged as strongly as possible that to touch the question of the Second Chamber would be merely fiddling with the question, and that it was impossible at the present time. Immediately after him there arose the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder), who said the Motion of which he had given notice embodied as did his speech the view that the reconsideration of the whole question of the Second Chamber was an essential hypothesis of his support of this Motion-Is not that a very serious point? We were urged by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) to cast aside any meticulous points, and, above all, not to look at the matter as it affected ourselves individually. Honestly I can say no man in the House is more anxious to look at this from an entirely impartial point of view, and I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for London University raised the particular question as to the seat for London University. If you consider it on the whole better for the nation that the university seats should go, let them go by all means. I think there are objections to that course. But I am not going to defend them, or enter into that question at all, and I do not think that is the point of view from which we ought to discuss this proposal.
Sir P. MAGNUS: I only referred to that question as showing the proposal introduced contentious matter.
Sir H. CRAIK: Well, I wish the hon. Member had not referred to it at all. I will say that I look with the greatest respect upon the source of these proposals in the Speaker's Conference. I look with respect on the weight of authority that has supported those proposals in this House, and I feel moved, as I have already said, by the speeches delivered. I am not concerned to dispute the particular proposals. I am quite prepared to say that these proposals may serve admirably hereafter as a basis for a compromise, and I am quite

549
ready to consider them, when the time comes, as a compromise, and, so far as I can, to bend my own political opinions in support of anything that can be a satisfactory compromise. I only say of it at this moment that it is inopportune, and when I am asked to take a compromise when so offered I often think that it is a sort of bait held out to us to get us to acquiesce because of threats of what we may get hereafter. I want the best, and am not going to acquiesce in any bribe that may be half-best. I am afraid that compromise is a poor way of settling great national questions, and, however we may compromise, remember that an immense weight of opinion in this country may not be behind us in any such bargain.
Just observe that the proposals of the Speaker's Conference, however weighty and important, were not unanimous and were not complete, and they failed to reach an agreement upon two most difficult questions—one Woman Suffrage and the other the question of Ireland. On that subject I would welcome any conciliation. But with regard to women there is one argument that weighs very heavily with me, and it has not been referred to once in this Debate, and it is that you should not give the suffrage to any class when you are not sure that the majority of those to whom you are giving it are not absolutely opposed to it. I am of the opinion that the majority of women would be opposed to giving the suffrage, because they think their work is better done in other ways, and I do not think the majority against woman suffrage is in any way confined to those who have not done work for the War. I think the majority of them are ready to say, "We doubt whether it is wise to accept the vote." Even if we accepted the proposals without dispute, do you think the country will silently accept a compromise on a vast scheme like this, involving the whole political constitution of the country? Can you compromise that question because a committee gives certain opinions and you agree from political expediency to accept those opinions? Is there not something behind you stronger and more difficult? If there were great changes necessary in this country, if we were curbed under a military or bureaucratic autocracy or an aristocratic or Imperial autocracy, it might be necessary to do what our great Ally in Russia has done—out those chains by revolution. But
550
does anyone think at this moment that this country has its political instincts curbed or its liberties checked? Is there anything more than merely a slight quickening of the movement that is required? Do we think that this country's democratic interests are being set aside? [An HON. MEMBER; "Yes!"] Do we think the great feeling of the country or the mind of the country is not fully expressed in this national Government at this moment, which is largely composed of the Labour party? Does anybody raise the argument that at this moment the country is checked under a tyranny from which it must set itself free before it can do anything. On the contrary, our country, under the stress of war, at this moment has all its social and economic conditions in a state of fusion. We cannot see what they will be after the War, but it would be anticipating the problem to try and settle matters at this moment. We know that after the War things will be changed, and nothing will be as before. Do you think that by a patched-up compromise before peace is attained you can arrive by a compromise at an arrangement which will be best for the country? Is it not best to wait until you have peace and until you have seen what is the outcome of the War, what elements you have to shape, and how these will be best organised? I am told that one argument against our plea for delay and for not plunging into disputes which will check our energy in war and turn attention from the great problem of the War is that you cannot have a register without doing this. Is it the case that you cannot pass a simple Registration Bill giving votes to the sailors and soldiers, but that you can pass a larger Bill, embracing the whole franchise and electoral arrangements of this country? Are we to be told we are jeopardising this smaller Registration Bill because we are trying to prevent this House from rushing upon very much larger questions involved in Mr. Speaker's Conference?
Do let those who oppose us give us credit for honest feeling. We are as anxious as anybody to try a compromise on these questions, and not resume domestic quarrels, but at a moment like this, when the fate of the nation is in hazard, we think it is not only a crime but criminal folly to plunge this House and

551
the country and every constituency into an angry controversy which will turn their attention from the affairs of the War. You say you can do it by compromise, but do you forget that you are going to abolish some sixty constituencies and largely to change a vast number of others. Do you think these constituencies will not be restless, that they will not interfere and stir up controversy all over the country. I say that you should try to pass a simple Registration Bill giving the vote to soldiers and sailors and merchant sailors and munition workers who are now by accident ousted from their political rights. Do that as far as you can, but do not jeopardise the peace of the country by plunging us into these enormous controversies which, whether you will or not, will inevitably raise disputes in every part of the country.
Mr. SHORTT: As one who in the ordinary course of things would be greatly dissatisfied with the recommendations of this Conference, I should like to say why I support the Resolution which has been moved by the late Prime Minister, and why I am entirely opposed to the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend opposite. We are told that the influence of the War should dominate everything. Of course, that is perfectly true, but I would point out that were it not for the War this Conference would never have been held. But for the War many of us, myself for one, would never have accepted the recommendations of the Conference. But we have a war, and we know therefore that we must accept in these times things which we should not be prepared to accept in normal times. We are told that if we bring in a measure to embody these Resolutions we shall split the country apparently from end to end and that we shall earn the reproaches of those who are fighting in the trenches, because we are merely politicians thinking of our party politics and not of the War. It is perfectly true that the men in the trenches may be watching us, and may form their opinion, and there are certain people who are politicians first and in favour of fighting the War afterwards. If they do come to that conclusion, it will not be those supporting the Resolution who will be accused of being politicians, but it will be those who are supporting the Amendment. Just consider what is the position. Here you
552
have questions which admittedly are questions of great controversy in normal times. You, Sir, in your letter to the Prime Minister, described them in terms upon which I cannot improve, showing how very controversial they were.
10.0 p.m.
There was set up, without a word of complaint in this House and without anybody putting any limitations upon the suggestion, a Conference consisting of men respected and trusted by all parties and all groups of parties, men described by my hon. and learned Friend himself (Mr, Salter) as well chosen representatives and good samples. They have come to an agreement. In normal times they might have sat months and months without coming to an agreement, but under the influence of the War and under the influence of the stress of circumstances in which we live they have come to an agreement. What do you think the country will say, what do you think the men in the trenches will say, if some of those who are dissatisfied with the recommendations say, "We will not support them; in spite of the agreement of the Conference, we will put dissent on the floor of the House of Commons and oppose them"? Personally, I would have been glad to see if those with whom I think had got much more out of these recommendations. In 1912 we, as a party, had a Franchise Bill before the House, and even that did not go so far as I should have liked, but there there would have been an opportunity to move Amendments and to support Amendments carrying the Bill even further. To-day circumstances are changed, and I feel—I may be wrong, but this is the way I look at it—that I and those who think with me are giving up more than those who would have opposed our Bill in 1912. There was hardly of them who would have suggested keeping the status quo ante of our electoral position. Every person who has spoken today has admitted that some reforms are necessary, and that something must be done. Everybody I have heard speak has admitted that something must be done at once, and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend himself shows that something has got to be done at once. Why should we pass over recommendations upon which trusted and chosen representatives have agreed, and instead of these recommendations accept a suggestion which has been tried and has failed and which would

553
fail again? When this War is over we shall have many things which will require our most earnest attention, and in the work of reconstruction and in the work of restoring the conditions in which we hope we may live for many years, there will come before this House, and before the country measures and proposals of a highly controversial character. We cannot suppose that we can go through that work of reconstruction and that we can remedy the ravages of this War without having many matters of keen controversy between us. Let us at least remove as many as we can before that time comes. Here is an opportunity of removing from our midst one of the most controversial questions, and a question which must be settled before we can come to any of the other great questions which we shall have to face. As a Radical, as one who is strongly in favour of the widest extension of our franchise, as one who is in favour of adult suffrage—I say that the poorer and humbler the individual the more necessary it is that he should have the vote—I would sweep away everything which directly or indirectly would amount to a disqualification; but in spite of that I am ready to accept the recommendations of this Conference. When I say that I mean, if a Bill were brought in embodying these recommendations, and an Amendment were moved of which I entirely approved and which suggests matters which I long to see introduced, then I should feel in honour bound to vote against it. I do ask my hon. and learned Friend and those who support him not to stand in the way of a settlement of a question which has got to be settled before we can tackle those great projects which we must tackle in order to remedy the ravages of this War.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Prime Minister asked us whether we did not consider that the majority of the House was in favour of some such proposal as was outlined in the Report of the Conference, and whether we thought that he should follow the opinion of the majority or of the minority. The laugh which supervened when he made that remark showed that a large number of the Members of the House thought he meant that he was going to follow the opinion of what he conceived to be the majority. I think the right hon. Gentleman forgot a pledge which was made by the Government, of
554
which he was a member, on 3rd February, 1915, when the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, said:
"All our efforts and our energies as a people are concentrated upon the War, and we are all in absolute agreement that it behoves every man among us, here or elsewhere … to subordinate every other interest to the one over-mastering purpose. It would not only be idle, but I think it would be offensive to the good sense of the nation to proceed at such a time with controversial legislation or with the more or less academic discussion of possible social and political reforms. The Government, by this Motion, are asking private Members to give up their usual opportunities, but in return private Members are entitled to demand from the Government that so long as this Order is in force they will introduce no legislation of a party or a contentious character, and that they will indeed confine, as we propose to confine, their legislative proposals, unless in some exceptional case in regard to which there is general agreement, to such measures as may be found necessary to facilitate, financially and otherwise, the successful prosecution of the War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd February. 1916. cols. 40–7, Vol. LXIX.]
There is no mention whether the majority or the minority were in favour of any particular measure—the passage was perfectly clear. It was expressed in language which I wish I could command, and it left it beyond any doubt that the Government of which the Prime Minister was then a member was pledged not to introduce any legislation of a controversial character during the War. Let us consider for a moment what is the position of this House. It is a moribund body. It ought to have come to an end a year and four months ago. Its life has been prolonged-—not to introduce social legislation, not to introduce reforms in the franchise, but to carry on the War, and, therefore, I say it is entirely beyond its province when its life has been prolonged for that purpose to seek to use an advantage it has been given for one purpose only to introduce legislation which, in ordinary times, would undoubtedly be controversial.
The hon. Member who last spoke made great play with the statement that these proposals of Mr. Speaker's Conference were unanimous. It is true that, technically, they were unanimous, but it must not be forgotten that four members of the Conference—four of the original members of the Conference—left it in the middle of December. One of them was the Lord Chancellor, who had been chosen by some members of the Conference as their leader. The other members who left were Lord Salisbury, the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Colonel Craig), and myself, and we yrote a letter to Mr. Speaker, in which we gave our reasons for leaving the Conference. As the proceedings of the

555
Conference were confidential, I cannot go into those reasons. But at any rate it is clear that all the original members of the Conference did not agree to the proposal now before the House. I have no objection to our letter to Mr. Speaker being published, and neither has Lord Salisbury, and I see no reason why I should not state that we left the Conference because we did not agree with what was going on.
Let me point out one result which I do not think has been mentioned by any of the speakers in this Debate. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the proposals. This is not the time for that. My objection to the Motion is that the time is inopportune. But I would like to say this: There is a proposal to introduce woman suffrage. Have Members of the House considered what that proposal means? The proposal in the Report is that women who are married and whose husbands have the qualification or women who are unmarried and have the residential qualification are, if they are thirty or thirty-five years of age, to have a vote. I would like to ask the House whether they really consider that, any such proposal can be maintained seriously when brought before this House. Personally, rightly or wrongly. I am and always have been against woman suffrage I do not believe it would be wise to give a vote to women. But if you admit that women are qualified for a vote and if you do away with the sex disqualification, how on earth can you say that vote shall only be given to women who are thirty or thirty-five years of age? The thing is impossible. Once admit that a woman is entitled to have a vote, then she is entitled to have it on the same terms as men.
What does that mean? The present electorate—I am not quite certain if my figures are absolutely accurate—consists of between seven and eight million men. Supposing the proposals of this Conference are carried, you will add somewhere about three million men and nine million women. Your electorate will consist of some twenty millions as against eight millions now. These figures may be wrong, perhaps to the extent of half a million. But nowadays when in dealing with finance we forget even a hundred millions it cannot matter if in dealing with twenty million voters there is a difference of half a million. I want the House to consider and to bear in mind that if a Bill
556
of this sort is introduced this question will come up, and although I admit I have always been against woman suffrage—and I should vote against it again yet if I am beaten and if it then becomes a question whether a woman of thirty-five shall have a vote or a woman of twenty-one, in all logic I shall have to vote for giving it to the woman of twenty-one. I shall vote against the extension of the franchise, but if the extension is agreed upon, then I suggest it should be carried out in a logical and reasonable way.
My other objection to the proposals are that Ireland is not included. I do not think I am divulging any secret when I say I did not like the idea that Irish Members should sit and vote for certain things being done in England when those things are not to be applied to Ireland. It seems to me absolutely illogical. If a thing is good for England, it is good for Ireland. If it is not good for either England or Ireland, then Irish Members ought not to come down and vote that it shall be applied to England when they do not choose to have it for themselves. I understand that the Leader of the House is about to wind-up the Debate. I thought I would rise to explain my position. I did not want to give a silent vote. I hope a large number of Members will support my hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby. I do not think it will be necessary to trouble the House with a second Division. It will be quite enough to take a Division on the Amendment, and I trust that it will receive the support of many hon. Members.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Probably I may understand better than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the motives and feelings which underlie the speech to which we have just listened, for to some extent no doubt—I do not quite know to what extent—I share not only the views but the prejudices of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury). [An HON. MEMBER: "To a very small extent!"] In reality no question of this kind, where anything in the nature of a compromise is involved, can come forward without party interests rising to one's mind. Let those who do not belong to the party of which I am a member picture to themselves what would have been said three years ago if anyone had ventured to prophesy that a Bill would be introduced giving practically manhood suffrage and a very large measure of female suffrage and that it

557
would be introduced by a Government in which the Unionist party was largely represented! If you start with that assumption, you will understand how strong is the natural feeling of dislike on the part of my hon. Friends to many of the proposals in this Conference. But I think every one—and this Debate has shown it—has realised that whatever other changes have been made in the War, an immense change has been produced in our feelings on the subject. So far as I am personally concerned, I have always held the view and have often expressed it—this is not the result of the contamination of the Friends with whom I now work; it is original sin—I have always held the view that a Conservative party which was not a national party might as well go out of business, that we must be able to appeal to the nation, and I myself have never felt that questions of a little less or more about the way you manipulate the franchise would make any great difference to any party in the State. If that was true before the War, it is still more true now. We are going to have a new world when this War is over, and this, at least, is certain, that no party need attempt to exist which cannot hope to win the support of the men—they are the bulk of the nation—who have saved for us the liberties of the Empire. I have seen and I have studied calculations which show how many seats would be lost to our party by this arrangement. I do not in the least believe in any such calculations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted the experience of Mr. Disraeli. I have had given to me a speech he made when he was carrying through his Franchise Bill. He said:
"He had a contempt for those prophecies."
Then he went on to say:
"If we are to consider the interests of party, I am perfectly convinced that however wise we may think ourselves in these conclusions, we shall find that the experience of a few years will baffle all the calculations we make."
If that is true in ordinary times, how much more true is it in the immense convulsion which is taking place now in our time? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed to one feature of this discussion which greatly interests the House. He warned us of the problems which we should have to face immediately the War was over. I do not need to elaborate them. Everyone realises them. I myself believe that, difficult as is the task which is undertaken by any Government carrying on this War, the task of the Govern-
558
ment which has to deal with the problems that will arise when the War is over will be infinitely more difficult than the task in which we are engaged to-day. Think what it means. There are immense possibilities for this country after the War is over. The War has shown what the possibilities of production are, and, in spite of the immense expense—I am thinking now of money and not the expense of a different kind which can never be replaced—and the load of debt which we are piling up, I believe that if there can be a better understanding between the classes in this country by which all classes will recognise that an increase of production is for the benefit of all, we can recover quickly from all the devastation of this War. My right hon. Friend pointed out, too, the pleasing picture which was presented by speakers in regard to this Resolution. Every contentious subject is to be postponed. We are to begin them all the moment the War is over. What a prospect that is for dealing with the reconstruction problem ! And in this connection I should like to say that, in my judgment, one serious disadvantage of not adopting the course which is recommended by the Resolution is that Conferences of this kind would be condemned for the future. People would say here was a Conference in which representative men of all parties took part; they arrived at definite conclusions; they Had as their Chairman you, Mr. Speaker, who are known outside, though hardly known to us, as a representative of the Conservative party; and they would say, "If such a Conference as this comes to nothing, we may give up all hopes of settling any problem by means of such an arrangement for the future."
All that influences me, but I am bound to say for myself that if that were all I should not have agreed to the course which, as my right hon. Friend has announced, the Government has arranged to adopt. What may happen after the War may well be vital for the future of this country, but at this moment we are fighting for our lives and we have not won the fight. I should be no party, whatever the advantages in the future, to initiating or taking part in any avoidable controversy in the position in which we are now being placed. I, therefore, agree entirely with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Salter) that we should have no controversy. I appreciate the cheer with which that statement was

559
received in the House, and if my hon. and learned Friend had shown us any method by which we can avoid controversy, I should at once have adopted his proposal. But there is no such method. By general agreement we recognise that unless constitutional and Parliamentary government is to come to an end altogether there must be some methods of appealing to those outside who send us here. Everyone seems to be agreed that the present register is hopeless for that purpose. I am not quite so sure. I think that the feeling in this country is so widespread that whatever the form of the electorate, the verdict of the country would pretty well represent the feeling of the people as a whole. In my opinion, there are two alternatives: one is the course which the Conference suggests, and the other is to leave our register alone until the War is over, and, if there must be an election, which we all hope to avoid, let it be on that register. I think that is a counsel of despair, and I think so for this reason, that Parliament has passed an Act which only enables a Parliament elected on this register to exist for two years, and if an election takes place during the War the new Parliament will be unable to deal with the register, and we are thus faced with a vicious circle which makes it imperative, if it is possible, to obtain some register which will really represent the feeling of the people of this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) thinks that it would be quite easy to do this. He suggested that we shall have something which he calls a register to avoid the danger of raising the franchise problem. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe), who seconded it, put this quite clearly, that if there is to be controversy, let us have the old register and nothing more. That is a possible course, but I do not think it is a course which many hon. Members would be willing to adopt. My hon. and learned friend took a different view. He said, we have a register, and we will call it a Register Bill, and we will give votes to soldiers, mine-sweepers, and to merchant and other seamen. That is only a name. The moment you give the vote on account of service that is a Franchise Bill, and the fact that you call it a Register Bill does not make the position a bit easier. Suppose the Government of the day tried to bring in a simple register. What would happen? In judg-
560
ing this question I wish the House would do what I have done myself. I have tried to look at the alternative possible courses. Suppose the Government brought in a Register Bill pure and simple, which was not an extension of the franchise, immediately some hon. Member puts down an Amendment to extend it to soldiers and sailors, and so on, and the House would carry that, as a matter of fact, if it were put down. There are not many members of the Government, and certainly I would not be one, who would be prepared to vote against it. That is franchise. Some other hon. Member puts down an Amendment to extend it to munition workers and to others engaged in essential trades. There is a difference between the men who are risking their lives and those who are engaged in any other way in National Service; that is quite true, but if that were debated on the floor of the House, and if it were shown, as it is a fact, that when recruiting was voluntary these classes sent men to the front in as large proportions as any other class, and that therefore we may assume that the bulk of them were ready to go, nobody could oppose an Amendment that the franchise should be given to them also. Mow I come to the third point. I suppose that it is women's suffrage, so far as I can judge from speeches which has raised the greatest amount of opposition. What is the position? The last Franchise Bill, which the late Government of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) tried to pass, was really rejected almost unanimously by this House, not so much on account of its demerits, although I heard a great deal about them, but because it was introduced in a form which did not enable the House of Commons to make any additions to the franchise. That would not be tolerated again. Immediately a Motion is introduced to give the vote to women—I am not looking at this from the standpoint of what would happen—I am perfectly convinced that in this House, at least, no Bill of any kind which extended the suffrage to men could pass this House of Commons which in some shape or other did not give the franchise to women. That is my belief. Unlike some of those who have spoken, unlike my right hon. Friend, I have always been in favour of female suffrage, but. I have not made any sacrifices for the cause. So much so that the other day I received a letter from a lady

561
saying that she was so much impressed by the speech I had made against woman suffrage that she wondered if I could go to her town and make another. Well, of course, I never did make a, speech against woman suffrage, but I did hold the view that there were other things I did care for more, and I was not going to make that attempt and divide our party on a question which at the time I did not think of so much importance as some others. Well, I confess that the War has altered my view on that subject. I do feel more strongly about it, and I myself would think it wrong and would do my best to prevent any extension of the suffrage to men which did not also extend it to women. Many reasons were given by my right hon. Friend who spoke of what women had done, of their courage, of the fact that it could no longer be said that they are useless in war-time. Party feeling of all kinds is very deep. I have even found it so during the last three years, and it is deep among those who are fighting for woman suffrage. But since the War began they have refrained from the kind of agitation which alienated people from their cause. They have adopted a principle which I think is fair. They have said, "So long as there is no extension of the franchise to men for new qualifications we will say nothing, but the moment there is an extension of the kind we will fight for ours." I think that that is very fair, and I think that they are entitled to receive consideration for their attitude. There really is the problem, as I see it, in a nutshell. You cannot avoid this controversy. I wish you could. You have got to have it any way. My hon. Friend's Amendment was an extension of the franchise really almost as great as that represented by—
Sir F. LOWE: Might I interrupt for one moment? I think the idea was that soldiers and sailors and other people absent on War service should not be disfranchised, but that none of them should be enfranchised who would not be otherwise entitled to it.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already pointed out that that was the attitude of my hon. Friends, but it was not the speech of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Salter). The speech, as I have already explained, was an extension of the franchise almost as complete as that represented by the Conference, and it was
562
more democratic. He suggested a three months' qualification. That was the only difference except the exclusion of women. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a remark which was criticised by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. He said that if the Government had to choose-between getting the support of a majority or a minority—I do not know that he said it, but he made it plain that he would prefer the majority. Is not this a fact, that if you realise that there is going to be a controversy, then the question is—is; the controversy likely to be less if you take a measure introduced either by the Government or by somebody else which every Member of the House is free to deal with as he pleases, or if you have behind you whatever guarantee of general agreement is likely to be formed in the fact that we base ourselves on that Conference and attempt to carry through a Bill on those lines? I think that there is little doubt from the point of view of controversy that we will get less by the methods which we have suggested.
Sir F. BANBURY: You would get still less if you did not introduce it.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Then my right hon. Friend does not want legislation until the War is over. I think in that he is in a minority of one. There is only one other subject with which I wish to deal in connection with my right hon. Friend's speech. He quoted the speech of the late Prime Minister, that at this time it would be criminal for the Government to engage in costly and contentious legislation. What exactly can be meant by a statement of that kind? Surely, it does not mean that everybody is in agreement, including my right hon. Friend. But it does mean that there must be a general agreement on a measure of this kind, or it cannot go through. My right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister said so in his speech. In that case the House must feel that a measure of this kind lends itself to obstruction and delay of every possible kind, and unless there is in a general measure of agreement in this House as a whole, not one party but all parties, unless they feel that something of this kind has become necessary and are prepared to help, it cannot be done. That is the position. I do not think that the House has a right to accuse any of us of wishing to bring in controversy. For nearly three years now we have been passing through the anxieties—and worse—of

563
this War. From the day on which it broke out I realised, and other people took the same view, that we were in a position in which all other things must go by the board, that party feeling must be sacrificed wherever necessary, that opposing interests must be forgotten, and that we must devote ourselves to the War and nothing but the War. It has not been easy for us, it has not been easy for us in the House of Commons. I was leader of the Unionist party for four years, and I did not think it was easy, but it was child's play compared with the attempt, in carrying on the Government, to prevent party feeling from breaking out on either side. The House knows how it springs out every now and then. Let me remind you of the Plural Voting Bill, and the difficulties we had about that. It is not pleasant for anybody to be brought face to face with vital problems on which our existence as a nation depends, when one comes down to the House of Commons, and when it sometimes seemed as if it had been forgotten that a war was going on. I am not complaining of the House of Commons. Members are here to do the work expected of them, and, in the interval of our occupations, they must lead some kind of life, but I do ask Members of the House to realise that there is no Member of this or preceding Governments who for the last three years would not rather have been engaged in some work directly connected with the War than in dealing with political questions. I ask the House of Commons to look at this problem with which we are faced to-night from that point of view. We are not causing political controversy, and the action which we are taking is the least likely of any to engage party or bitter conflict. What the Government intend to do, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and what we decided, was to come to the House and recommend that it should adopt the Speaker's Conference We came to no decision beyond that. I think the tone of the Debate to-day has shown that the House, as a whole, does desire that an attempt should be made to carry this Conference into effect. That being so, the Government intend to introduce a Bill to give effect to it. As I have already said, that will be perfectly hopeless unless all the Members of the House act in the spirit of my hon. Friend who spoke last but one (Mr.
564
Shortt), and make up their minds what they want—not a Bill exactly as they would like, but a Bill which in the main carries out the terms which were arranged by the Speaker's Conference. That is our proposal. I do not suppose there is any hope of my appealing to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I know—his speech showed it—that he and a great many of my Friends feel very strongly on this question, but I think it must be evident to them that the feeling of the House, including our own party, is against them, and, that being so, is it worth while-having a Division, when it cannot affect the general result that the House, as a, whole, is in favour of the course which has been proposed by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I feel called on as a member of the Conference, and in the name of my hon. Friends, to state what our position is. We are whole-heartedly in favour of the Motion of my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister, and we shall go into the Lobby in favour of that Motion. I will only with a sentence or two deal with a reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) and in previous speeches. He asked why Ireland was left out of this. My right hon. Friend surely knows it is not left out. All the franchise proposals of this Report apply to Ireland equally with England. The only thing that is left out in regard to Ireland is the question of redistribution. By unanimity the Conference left out all allusions to the question of redistribution in Ireland for two very sound reasons. In the first place, you could not change the representation of Ireland without repealing the Act of Union, and the repeal of a great Parliamentary instrument like that was not the work of the Conference. The second reason was that the Home Rule Act is now a Statute of the Realm and that by reducing the Members for Ireland to forty-two settles the question of redistribution even on lines that ought to be acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City. There is one other observation of his to which I should also like to make allusion. He objected very strongly to the Irish Members taking part in this Conference. As I have pointed out to him, this Conference dealt with very important questions in Ireland—with more questions, candidly, than I should like it to have

565
touched. I would have liked them to have left the question of women's suffrage to an Irish Parliament instead of to this country, because our point of view might not be the same. I will make an offer to the right hon. Gentleman. If he, the next time a Coercion Bill is proposed for Ireland and not extending to England, and all the other Members will leave the House and leave it to the Irish Members, I am quite willing to leave this question to them.
Mr. BILLING: It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House for long, but I should like to support the Prime Minister in the statement he made to the House this evening. [Interruption.] I am the only Member of this House who has come here as an independent representative of the people, and I can thoroughly
appreciate what the Prime Minister said when he told the House that he had absolutely and finally done with the party conduct of affairs of this nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I should like to say that I am in complete and absolute sympathy with every word that has been spoken from the Government Bench to-day. I would also like to say that if to-day or at any future date I consider it my duty to exercise my privilege to address this House I shall do so—[Interruption]—and the duration of my speech will be mostly governed by silence and not by hooliganism.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 341; Noes 62.

Division No. 18.]

AYES.

[10.49 p.m.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Butcher, John George

Fitzgibbon, John

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

Buxton, Noel

Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Forster, Henry William

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Cator, John

Foster, Philip Staveley

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Cave, Rt. Hon, Sir George

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

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

George, Rt. Hen. D. Lloyd

Alden, Percy

Chancellor, Henry George

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Churchill, Rt. Hen. Winston S.

Gilbert, J. D.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Ginnell, Laurence

Anderson, W. C.

Clough, William

Glanville, H. J.

Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

Clyde, J. Avon

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Arnold, Sydney

Clynes, John R.

Goldstone, Frank

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Astor, Hon. Waldorf

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Greig, Colonel James William

Baird, John Lawrence

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Baldwin, Stanley

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Hackett, John

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Cosgrave, James

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Crumley, Patrick

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Semerset)

Currie, George W.

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Barnett, Captain R. W.

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

Haslam, Lewis

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Hazleton, Richard

Barton, William

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

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Bathurst, Capt, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Devlin, Joseph

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby N.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Dillon, John

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Donelan, Captain A.

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Bentham, G. J.

Donovan, John Thomas

Henry, Sir Charles

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Doris, William

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

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Billing, N. Pemberton

Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

Higham, John Sharp

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duffy, William J.

Hills, John Waller

Black, Sir Arthur W.

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Hinds, John

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Bliss, Joseph

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Hogge, James Myles

Boland, John Pius

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hohler, G. F.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Esmonde, John (Tipperary, N.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Falconer, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Fell, Arthur

Hudson, Walter

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Bridgeman, William Clive

Ffrench, Peter

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Brunner, John F. L.

Field, William

lllingworth, Albert H.

Bryce, John Annan

Finney, Samuel

Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

Bull, Sir William James

Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, Rt. Hen. W. Hayes

John, Edward Thomas

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

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

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Shaw, Hon. A.

Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Neeaham, Christopher T.

Sheehy, David

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

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Jowett, Frederick William

Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

Shortt, Edward

Joyce, Michael

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Joynson-Hicks, William

Nolan, Joseph

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

Keating, Matthew

Norman, Sir Henry

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Norton Griffiths, Sir J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Kelly, Edward

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Snowden, Philip

Kenyon, Barnet

Nugent, Sir W. R. (Westmeath, S.)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Kilbride, Denis

Nuttall, Harry

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Kiley, James Daniel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A.

King, Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Starkey, John Ralph

Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

O'Dowd, John

Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

O'Grady, James

Swift, Rigby

Lardner, James C. R.

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

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Larmor, Sir J.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Outhwaite, R. L.

Thomas, J. H.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

Partington, Oswald

Toulmin, Sir George

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Lleyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Perkins, Walter Frank

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Peto, Basil Edward

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Lundon, Thomas

Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

M'Curdy, C. A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Pratt, J. W.

Watson, Hon. W.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Watson, John B. (Stockton)

McGhee, Richard

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

Watt, Henry A.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Primrose, Hon. Nell James

Weston, J. W.

M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Pringle, William M. R.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Macmaster, Donald

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

Reddy, Michael

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

Macpherson, James Ian

Rendall, Athelstan

Williamson, Sir Archibald

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Richardson, Albion (Pockham)

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

Maden, Sir John Henry

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Manfield, Harry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, Lt. Ct. Sir M. (Beth'l Green, S. W.)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks., Ripon)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Robinson, Sidney

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

Meagher, Michael

Rech, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Yeo, Alfred William

Meehan, Patrick (Queen's Co., Leix)

Rowlands, James

Young, Edward H. (Norwich)

Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

Rowntree, Arnold

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Millar, James Duncan

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Mend, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

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

Wiles and Mr. Pollock.

Morgan, George Hay

Samuels, Arthur W.

NOES.

Coats', Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Grant, James Augustus

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bird, Alfred

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Blair, Reginald

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Haddock, George Bahr

Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

Boyton, James

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

Broughton, Urban Hanlan

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

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Horne, Edgar

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

Cautley, H. S.

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir G.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Remnant, James F.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

Rutherford, Sir J. (Lanes., Darwen)

568

569

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Stewart, Gershom

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

Sykes, Col. A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Salter and Sir Francis Lowe

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House records its thanks to Mr. Speaker for his services in presiding over the Electoral Reform Conference, and is of opinion that legislation should promptly be introduced on the lines of the Resolutions reported from the Conference."
Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the House will allow me to express my sincere thanks for its hind appreciation of my services. At the same time I should like to take this opportunity of according to my colleagues
570
my sincere thanks for their cordial co-operation during) the discussions at the Conference.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  DAY OF NATIONAL PRAYER
  DAY OF NATIONAL PRAYER
  SOMERSET HOUSE (FEMALE TELLERS).
  SOMERSET HOUSE (FEMALE TELLERS).
  RAILWAY TRANSIT (OWNERS' RISK).
  RAILWAY TRANSIT (OWNERS' RISK).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PICKLED HERRINGS (STORNOWAY).
  PICKLED HERRINGS (STORNOWAY).
  PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
  PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  FEEDING BIRDS.
  FEEDING BIRDS.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  ALCOHOL (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  ALCOHOL (MANUFACTURING MATERIALS).
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (TRAWLER).
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (TRAWLER).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  PLOUGHMEN.
  PLOUGHMEN.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  STOCKTON-ON-TEES RECRUITTING OFFICE.
  STOCKTON-ON-TEES RECRUITTING OFFICE.
  TYPHOID FEVER (DREYER TEST).
  TYPHOID FEVER (DREYER TEST).
  1/9th MANCHESTER TERRITORIALS (LEAVE).
  1/9th MANCHESTER TERRITORIALS (LEAVE).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WAGES).
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WAGES).
MUNITIONS.
  SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
  SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
  CENSORSHIP (CORRESPONDENCE).
  CENSORSHIP (CORRESPONDENCE).
  CINEMA LICENCES.
  CINEMA LICENCES.
  RAILWAY CHARGES (FRUIT AND VEGETABLE.
  RAILWAY CHARGES (FRUIT AND VEGETABLE.
  SPIRITS IN BOND.
  SPIRITS IN BOND.
  WAGES ADVANCES.
  WAGES ADVANCES.
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT.)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT.)
  FISHING INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND).
  National Insurance Audit Department.
  National Insurance Audit Department.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Burtonport Railway.
  Burtonport Railway.
  School Teachers (Ireland).
  School Teachers (Ireland).
  Clonebraney Estate (County Meath).
  Clonebraney Estate (County Meath).
  Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  Ship Inspector (North Wall).
  Ship Inspector (North Wall).
  Horse Breeding (Ireland).
  Horse Breeding (Ireland).
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
  Boards of Guardians (Accounts).
  Boards of Guardians (Accounts).
  Venereal Disease.
  Venereal Disease.