Sitting of 15 November 1917

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

MALAY STATES.
Copies presented of Reports for 1916 on the Unfederated Malay States under British Protection [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report for 1916 on the State of Brunei [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 941 (Cyprus, Report for 1916-17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by 'the Couneils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
City of Cardiff;
City of Leeds
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GREECE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been ascertained with any degree of surety that King Alexander of Greece has no means of communicating with the German Kaiser by wireless telegrahpy, exchange of confidential messages, Royal or other highly placed spies; and, if so, whether it is intended to continue to him the same facilities in this respect as those enjoyed by his father?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Such matters are the concern of the Royal Hellenic Government presided over by M. Venizelos, in whom the Allied Governments have full confidence.
    Mr. LYNCH: So that I take it that you are quite content with the warming-pan?
    Mr. WATT: Does the Foreign Office think it wise to trust this monarch, seeing that his father and mother were guilty of duplicity—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that reflections upon neutral or Allied monarchs can be allowed.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether at any time during the reign of King Constantine in Greece Lord Hardinge communicated to the French Government the suggestion that for dynastic reasons it was necessary that the throne of the King should not be imperilled, and that the course of operations should have regard to that consideration?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether all the communications of the British representatives at Athens during the reign of King Constantine will be published, or, alternatively, submitted to this House in Secret Session?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I can give no such undertaking.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise the question to-night.

    POPE'S PEACE NOTE.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the approaching Conference of the Allies on prosecuting the War will consider the advisability of a reply to the Pope's Peace Note?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it desirable to make any forecast of the course which the deliberations of the Conference may take.
    Mr. KING: Is this matter being considered, or does the Government think that a mere acknowledgment of the Pope's Note is sufficient?
    Lord R. CECIL: I trust the House will have sufficient confidence in His Majesty s Government to believe that they are considering all matters vital to the conduct of the War.

    GERMANY (INDEMNITIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether any estimate has been formed of the indemnities which Germany has already levied on France, Belgium, and Russia by levies, fines, and organised systems of looting in the conquered territories?
    Lord R. CECIL: I can only surmise that estimates have probably been formed by the Governments of the countries directly concerned, but such estimates, if made, have not been communicated to His Majesty's Government.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not be very useful to have an estimate for propaganda purposes?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for the suggestion. I shall certainly consider it.

    FRANCE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the Debate in the French Chamber of Deputies on 31st July, 1917, M. Ribot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed the Chamber that the Czar of Russia had promised M. Briand, when Prime Minister, that he would, in addition to supporting the French claim to Alsace-Lorraine, leave France free to make, if need be, an autonomous state out of German territories on the left bank of the Rhine; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I may remind the hon. Member that Monsieur Ribot stated on that occasion that he repudiated on the part of the French Government a policy of conquest.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the Noble Lord recollect that when this arrangement was referred to by myself in the Debate on Foreign policy last week the Foreign Secretary stated that it was an absolute mare's nest; in view of the answer of the Noble Lord does he adhere to the statement of the Foreign Secretary?
    Lord R. CECIL: I had not the pleasure or hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend, but I read it the next morning: I adhere to everything he said.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether any negotiations with France had been opened. up regarding Alsace and Lorraine before the War; and, if not, when the British Government agreed to support the French Government in making the restitution of Alsace and Lorraine an essential item in our war aims?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, it was a well understood war-aim from the moment we entered the War.

    PORTUGAL.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the disquietude still existing in Portugal as a result of the Labour party's proposal to internationalise Central Africa; and whether, with a view to allaying such disquietude, he will make a clear statement that His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for such a proposal?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the state of feeling in Portugal on this question, and am glad to have this opportunity of saying that His Majesty's. Government neither have, nor could have, any responsibility for proposals designed to deprive Portugal of any of her Colonies. Great Britain has promised to defend and protect the Portuguese Colonies against all enemies.

    MALTA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering that in the Report on Malta for 1916–17 (No. 935) there is no mention of the War, or of the part Malta has taken in the prosecution of the War, or in the provision of men and material for either combatant or non-combatant service, he will have the omission rectified in the ensuing Report?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I will suggest to Lord Methuen that, so far as publication is desirable, mention of the part taken by. Malta in the War might be included in the next Report.
    Colonel YATE: Thank you.

    LEEDS TRAINING COLLEGE.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that it is over twelve months since the Report of the Inquiry into the Leeds Training College was received; whether he can now announce that the Leeds education authority has agreed to a scheme of reorganisation of the college; and, failing any agreement between the authority and the Board of Education on this reorganisation, whether he will publish the Report of the recent Inquiry into the affairs of the college?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): A revised scheme for the management of the college has been agreed between the Board and the local education authority. I will lay a copy of the Memorandum on the Table.
    Mr. KING: Does the scheme provide for the representation of authorities and interests other than the Leeds local authority—is a wide representation given to the governing body?
    Mr. FISHER: I think so.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (IRELAND), 1908.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say if any elections, municipal or otherwise, will be held in Ireland under the provisions of the Local Government Act (Ireland) of 1908 during the coming year, 1918, as, owing to the postponement of those elections during this year, there is a doubt in the minds of many people as to whether those elections will be held or not during next year; and if he will make it clear as to what course the Government intend to pursue in this matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Provision for the further postponement for a year of local elections is made in Clause 2 (1) of the Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Bill which was introduced on Monday.
    Mr. JOYCE: So that the officials in Ireland will know that there will be no elections during the next year?
    Mr. DUKE: That is the proposal in the Bill.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DORISasked upon what grounds the Local Government Board on appeal have twice disallowed an old age pension unanimously granted by the local pension sub-committee to cormac Muldoon, of Ballyglass, county Mayo (No. 1559 in pension officer's register)?
    Mr. DUKE: This claim was disallowed on the ground that the claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit for the receipt of a pension. He was the owner of a farm of 16 acres of good land, which he assigned to an unmarried son, reserving board and lodging admittedly in order to qualify for a pension.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the pensions granted to asylum workers in Ireland is small and inadequate to support them at present owing to the increased cost of living; is he aware that the board of governors of the Maryborough Asylum are prepared to consider the question of granting a war bonus to their pensioners provided the Treasury will give a Grant in Aid and that no surcharge will be made by the inspectors of lunacy; and whether he will give an undertaking to this effect?
    Mr. DUKE: Pensions are granted to asylum workers in Ireland in pursuance of the provisions of the Act 9, Edwd. VII., cap. 48, and in some cases of the Act 53 and 54 Vic., cap. 31. Owing to the low rate of pay at which the local authorities are able to staff the asylums the pensions are, as a rule, small, and the asylum workers, in common with the rest of the community, are suffering from the increased cost of living due to the War. I understand that no representation has been made by the committee of management of the Maryborough Asylum as regards granting a war bonus to pensioners, and, so far as I am aware, there is no. statutory provision under which the Treasury could give a Grant in aid of such a bonus. The accounts of the District Asylums are audited by the Local Government Board auditors, in whom is vested the power of surcharging illegal payments. They exercise quasi-judicial functions, and I have no authority to direct them as to their decisions.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      FLOODS (IRELAND).
      Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary if he can see his way to introduce a short Bill to amend the Lough Erne Act, providing for the prevention of the annual flooding of thousands of acres of land, the consequent saving of crops, and increase in food supplies?
      Mr. DUKE: I am advised that this is a matter for a private Bill.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring in a Bill, to which there is no opposition, to safeguard those crops?
      Mr. DUKE: I am advised that this is a matter for a private Bill, but I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Thank you very much.
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to the continuous rains of the past three months and partly owing to the stoppage of the drainage work commenced some time ago on the Owenmore River, in the county Sligo, hundreds of acres of valuable oat, potatoes, and hay crops have been destroyed by the flooding of that river; and, if so, will he say whether the work of drainage on the Owenmore will be resumed, so as to prevent a recurrence of these disasters during the coming year?
      Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his previous question on the 21st June, to which I have nothing to add.

      TILLAGE (IRELAND).
      Mr. HACKETTasked the VicePresident of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many acres of land Mr. W. P. Hanly, J.P., holds in each of the following townlands—namely, Annefield, Annesgrove, Cloneyross, The Hough (Clonaulty), and Lanespark, Thurles, county Tipperary; if Mr. Hanly complied with the Tillage Order in the past year; and, if not, what steps the Department intend to take regarding the default and to enforce the Order in respect of these lands during the coming year?
      Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture do not consider it would be in the public interest to furnish details in individual cases unless the necessity for the
      552
      enforcement of tillage has actually arisen. All proper steps will be taken by the Department to secure compliance with the requirements of the compulsory tillage provisions of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in cases of default.

    ARIGNA COAL AND MINERAL FIELDS.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that he received about six months ago a deputation consisting of Members of Parliament from the West of Ireland and others interested in the development of the coal and mineral fields of Arigna, and that he stated to that deputation that the project was receiving the careful consideration of his Department and of the Board of Trade, he will state now whether the Government have taken or intend to take any, and, if so, what, action to facilitate in developing the coal-field in question; and if he will inform the House whether the Government intend, for the purpose of helping this project, to construct or give facilities for constructing a line of railway from Arigna to Colooney?
    Mr. DUKE: I am in communication with various persons interested as to a possible means of improving the transit facilities for Arigna coal.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In view of the fact that this proposal has been under the consideration of his Department and of the Board of Trade for over a year, is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to make a more definite statement?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot make any more definite statement than I have made. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have seen that consideration has been given to this matter.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether the Government intend to do anything to develop the Arigna coal-fields?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot consent to be cross-examined on the answer I have given.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Then what the right hon. Gentleman has said means nothing.
    Mr. SCANLANasked whether the Government have adopted, or intend to adopt, any, and, if so, what, measures to

    553
    assist in the development of coal-fields in Ireland as a war measure to lessen the demands on tonnage space and to cheapen the price of coal to the poorer people in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been asked to reply. The Government have undertaken the construction of one short railway for the service of an Irish colliery as a war measure, and I have at the moment proposals under examination with regard to others.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Are we to understand that one small line of railway for one colliery has exhausted the whole of the Government effort for Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must read my answer, and he will have no difficulty in understanding what I mean.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I think I understand the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. KEATING: Can we have some hope expressed that other railways will be developed during the War?
    Mr. SCANLANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an expert from the Coal Controller's Department made an inspection of the coal and mineral fields at Arigna about a year ago on behalf of that Department; whether the expert has reported; and whether the Government have taken or propose to take any, and, if so, what, action to promote the working of the coal and minerals in the Arigna area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): A mining engineer, appointed by the Controller of Coal Mines, investigated and reported upon the Arigna mineral-field. That Report, together with observations of the Controller of Coal Mines, has been forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for his consideration.

    SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases that came before the Sheriff-Principal of the shires of Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk was eleven and that the salary paid to such Sheriff was £750; and whether there is any intention of the Government bringing in legislation to consolidate Sheriffdoms in Scotland in order to economise in war time?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde):My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, to the latter part in the negative. Such legislation as is suggested by the hon. and learned Member would not be calculated to produce the effect intended by him.
    Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman describe persistent exposure of evils which are protected by the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office as a "vendetta"?
    Mr. CLYDE: If the hon. Gentleman asks me, I should describe his conduct in this matter as eminently well-described by that term.

    CRINAN CANAL.
    Sir JOHN AINSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Report of the Commissioners for the Crinan Canal for the year ending 30th April, 1917, and which was confirmed at the last meeting of the Commissioners, attention is called to the fact that numerous representations have reached the Commissioners as to the inadequacy of the existing canal and the need for the construction of an improved and modernised canal in substitution for it, and that attention is also called to the fact that the Commissioners have in previous Reports repeatedly called attention to the present condition of the canal, and that extensive repairs will have to be effected in the near future if the canal is to be maintained, even in its present condition, and that there is a constant and increasing risk of a breakdown which will involve the closing of the canal; and whether he will now take steps and consult with the Reconstruction Committee as to what action shall be taken to avoid this. danger and to put the canal in such a condition as to enable it to deal with modern requirements?
    Mr. CLYDE: My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. His attention has been called to the Report in question. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Secretary for Scotland's Department is not in any direct sense responsible for the canal, and he is not one of the statutory Canal Commissioners. He has already, however, drawn the attention of the Treasury to the

    555
    terms of the Report, and in any further dealings with the matter he will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Perhaps, as I am myself officially one of the Canal Commissioners, I ought to add, and may be permitted to add, that, with the contingencies—which, I fancy, have moved the hon. Gentleman to put this question—in mind, the Commissioners have arranged to obtain for the duration of the War a loan of some £7,500 for both the Caledonian and Crinan Canals, in order to provide against the possibility of such breakdown as the hon. Member has in mind.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the danger of the total collapse of the canal is imminent, and, under the circumstances, will not the Secretary for Scotland, and other parties interested, take an opportunity of seeing what can be done to remedy the condition of things at the earliest moment?
    Mr. CLYDE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the condition of the canal has been fully under the review of the Commissioners, and that the matters to which he refers are being paid careful attention to.

    CARLOS DE LA ESCOSURAS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an interned alien, Carlos de la Escosuras, has escaped from Reading Gaol and taken refuge at the Spanish Embassy; whether this man is still there; and what action he proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This man escaped from Reading Prison, has taken refuge at the Spanish Embassy, and is still there. The question of the action to be taken in the matter is under consideration by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. KING: Has he not been there for ten days? Is it not time a decision was made?

    TAXI-CABS (LONDON).
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the inconvenience to the public caused by 2,500 cabs not plying for hire; whether,
    556
    when he made his recent decision to allow an increase in the initial fare, he had reason to believe that the result would be a strike of taxi-cab drivers; and what steps he is prepared to take to terminate the trouble, in the interests of the public, as soon as possible?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware that the taxicab drivers refuse to hire cabs except on the terms of obtaining free petrol, which some of the owners decline to give, and that in consequence a number of taxi-cabs are not in use, but the number of such cabs is far below 2,500. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As to the third part, I have no authority to intervene in this dispute, unless requested by both parties to do so. I may add that I understand that in the case of those taxi-cabs which are plying for hire the new arrangement is working smoothly, and no complaint has been received either from the drivers or from the public.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the cabs which are plying for hire are cabs which are owned by the drivers themselves?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not all of them, I think.

    ELECTORAL REFORM (ALTERNATIVE VOTE).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Home Secretary whether the draft Regulations recently issued in reference to the alternative vote are subject to modification; and, if so, whether he will take expert advice upon a scheme which gives to each candidate the full value of his second preference votes instead of the bottom one only as in the Regulations?
    Sir G. CAVE: The draft Regulations are subject to modification, but the opinion of the experts whom I have consulted is not favourable to the alternative scheme referred to in the question.

    PEACE PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the Government are taking any steps to deal with the propaganda in favour of a premature peace which is being carried on by means of leaflets and other publications?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; the powers now vested in the Government for this

    557
    purpose have been freely used. Many thousands of these leaflets have been seized and destroyed, and in some of these cases the Attorney-General has sanctioned a prosecution. But most of the leaflets do not come to the notice of the authorities until after they have been partly distributed, and there is often a difficulty in ascertaining the authorship. Further, the penalty imposed by Statute upon the printing of these leaflets without disclosing the printer's name is inadequate in time of war, and some of them are distributed without the imprint required by law. In these circumstances the Government consider that additional powers are required. It is proposed, therefore, to make a new Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Acts, requiring every leaflet relating to the present War or to the conclusion of peace to bear the names and addresses of the author and printer, and to be submitted to the Press Bureau for approval. This Regulation will be submitted for approval forthwith.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government have now come to the conclusion that it is an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act to advocate Free Trade in this country, and whether they raided the offices of the International Free Trade League, which confines its activities entirely—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the opposition to peace comes chiefly from profiteers who are making money out of the War, and from their jackals?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the very pernicious action taken by hon. Gentlemen here calling themselves Pacifists with regard to peace, and will he deal severely with them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask why the Government cannot deal with these pamphlets by fair and open argument instead of hiding behind the police?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am dealing with pamphlets which infringe the law and must be dealt with under the law.
    General CROFT: Is it not a fact that precisely this same propaganda with leaf-
    558
    lets took place in Russia and Italy with the same appalling results, and will he take every effort to prevent it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for the Foreign Office.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: What will be the penalty for breach of the new Regulations?
    Sir G. CAVE: The penalty imposed by the Defence of the Realm Act is a heavy fine or imprisonment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to the Regulations a penalty for distributing the leaflets that have not the necessary imprint upon them?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is included.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Prime Minister stated in this House that the advocacy of peace by negotiation was not an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, and have the present. Government changed that policy?
    Sir G. CAVE: That may be, but this Regulation deals with leaflets that infringe the Regulations.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction of Stephen Alfred Chandler at Exeter for distributing a pamphlet issued by the Union of Democratic Control, the object of which was described by the mayor as being to shock the morale of the British people, to induce fighting men to stop fighting, to induce people to decline to serve, to break the nerve of the British people, and let the Germans win; and whether he will take steps to stop the printing and publication of such pamphlets at the source by dissolving the union in question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that Chandler was convicted of distributing a pamphlet which was printed and published by Arnold Lupton, and in respect of which Lupton had been fined £200. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not appear to arise in connection with this pamphlet.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: In view of the fact that in the first instance Mr. Lupton, who printed and published this pamphlet, only got a fine, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it rather hard that a man who before the pamphlet was found to be illegal distributed it should get two

    559
    months' hard labour when the man who wrote and published the pamphlet only got a fine?
    Sir G. CAVE: This man distributed the pamphlet after Lupton was proceeded against.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: No; it was before.
    Sir G. CAVE: I understood it was after.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If the right hon. Gentleman receives information to show that he only distributed the pamphlet before the case even came on in Court and destroyed the pamphlet the moment he knew that there was any question about it, will he reconsider the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am always willing to receive representations as to a sentence, but, of course, I cannot give any promise.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the pamphlet was issued by the Union of Democratic Control, would it come under the new Regulation the right hon. Gentleman is proposing?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly; all such pamphlets will come under the Regulation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have not all the disastrous results in this question come about through the speech of the Prime Minister in Paris?
    Colonel YATE: If I catch a man stuffing these pamphlets in my letter-box, can I have him arrested?
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will himself take him into custody.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the serious statement made by the Home Secretary at Question Time to-day, that the Government propose to seek further powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Government in interfering with political propaganda and the steps they have announced to-day for the suppression of the advocacy of peace and the discussion of political policy."
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to
    560
    rise in their places, and, less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the business of the day.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many paid officials are employed by the Committee of Employment of Conscientious Objectors; and what are their functions and their respective salaries?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on Monday last to a question by the hon. Member for Whitehaven. In addition to the office staff mentioned in that reply, the officers employed at the Committee's work centres at Princetown, Wakefield, and Knutsford number 57, 17, and 12 respectively, and the total salaries paid to them amount to £8,167, £2,319, and £1,257 per annum respectively. The great majority of these are prison officers, and their functions are to instruct, supervise, and control the men employed at the centres.
    As regards the men employed at numerous places outside work centres, these are supervised and controlled by their employers, who act without remuneration as the Committee's agents for this purpose. In three cases, however, the Committee pay remuneration to their local agents at the rate of 1s. per week for each man employed up to a maximum of 50s, per week.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand it costs the State something like £13,000 to manage these so-called conscientious objectors?
    Mr. BRACE: It costs the amount that I have quoted.
    Mr. KING: A great deal more than that!
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the total amount of money that has been expended, chargeable to State funds, in respect to the employment of conscientious objectors?
    Mr. BRACE: I can only state the gross amount of the payments made, not the net cost to the State after allowing for repayments due, and for the value of work done

    561
    at the work centres. The gross amount of the payments from August, 1916, to the 31st of October, 1917, is —92,306 17s. 11d.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will state the present condition of health of Paul L. Gillan, a Sinn Fein conscientious objector, who was returned to prison some months ago from the Dartmoor Settlement; whether this man has refused work in prison; and, if so, what punishments have been inflicted upon him and are being inflicted upon him?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have asked for a Report about the man referred to, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    MEDICAL STUDENTS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of medical men and to the danger that the supply of medical men after the conclusion of peace may, for some years, be wholly insufficient; and whether, in view of this state of things, he will see that no bonâfide medical student entered before 1st November, 1917, is called up for military or any other service?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The outlook with regard to the supply of medical men, and the question of military service as it affects medical students, has been under my careful review. The general policy I have adopted is to aim at maintaining a minimum output of 1,000 newly-qualified medical men per annum. This year no improvement can be made. In 1918 and 1919 the output will be below the desired minimum, though, I hope, approaching it. Arrangements have already been made that students serving in the Army who have completed two years of medical studies, and who had begun their studies prior to 1st August, 1914, may claim to be returned to their studies. The hon. Member's suggestions will be carefully considered in connection with the general review.

  DEATH OF THOMAS ASHE
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he has read the verdict of the jury in the case of Thomas Ashe; whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice of depriving a prisoner of
  562
  everything of comfort in his cell as a. punishment for infraction of discipline; whether he will give instructions that. dietary punishments should be stopped as mean and dangerous to health; and whether he will decline to authorise in future the practice of forcible or artificial feeding?
  Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first, part of the question is in the affirmative: to the other three parts in the negative. Forcible feeding is never used except in the last resort as a medical measure to, preserve the life of a prisoner who is. attempting to commit suicide by refusing, food.
  Major CHAPPLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between forcible feeding which requires force and artificial feeding which requires no force at all?
  Sir G. CAVE: It was artificial feeding.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case referred to, forcible feeding did not succeed in keeping, the prisoner alive?
  Sir G. CAVE: Of course I am aware of it.
  Major CHAPPLE: Is there any evidence that the feeding in this case was resisted?
  Sir G. CAVE: I know that there were special facts in this case, but that does not, relieve us from the necessity of saving life where we can.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that to, save life you destroy it?

  "BOLOISM."
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is inquiring into the allegations made by certain newspapers that Bolo spent money in this country to influence opinion; whether any of these newspapers have supplied him with the facts upon which they based their allegations; whether he has, inquired into them, and with what result; (2) whether he has observed that in France the examination of those alleged to have held corrupt and treasonable transactions with Bolo are confined to writers in and proprietors of jingo newspapers, financiers, and company promoters of a certain established reputation, and society ladies; and whether, in making his

  563
  inquiries here into Boloism, he will search in the ruts in which Bolo operated in France?
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Bolo, on behalf of the Pan-Germans, financed, to the extent of £16,000, a French newspaper devoted to promoting the demand for the annexation of the Soar Valley; and, in view of the fact that certain British journals have been supporting this propaganda, will he cause inquiries to be made in this connection when investigating the alleged activities of Bolo in this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: These questions refer to matters which are under investigation by the police, and it is obvious that if, at the present stage, I were to describe the course of their inquiries, I should only be assisting the enemy.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue inquiries in regard to the Jingo Press, seeing that Bolo financed the Jingo Press in France, and will he make inquiries in this direction here?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have given my answer to the three questions.

  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce his intentions as to the Petroleum (Production) Bill; and whether, to meet the emergency and avoid opposition, he will proceed with the Bill, dropping the proposal to create royalties?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say whether income derived by landowners under the proposed Petroleum Bill will be subject to Income Tax, Super Tax, and Excess Profits Duty; whether the Bill is to be proceeded with; and, if not, in what way and on what terms petroleum believed to exist in this country is to be made available for the Navy and for industrial purposes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it would be better to postpone any statement on these matters until the Bill comes on for discussion.

  BRITISH CAPTURES.

    CONQUERED TERRITORY.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked what is the approximate total square mileage of territory conquered, or re-conquered, by British Armies since 1st July, 1916?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The total square mileage of territory conquered or reconquered by British Armies in all theatres since 1st July, 1916, is about 128,000 square miles. This figure is necessarily only approximate, as in some theatres of war no hard-and-fast line can be drawn between territory in enemy and British occupation on a given date.

    PRISONERS, GUNS AND BOOTY.
    General CROFTasked what are the totals of prisoners, guns, and booty captured from the Turkish Empire since 1st July, 1916?
    Mr. FORSTER: The totals of prisoners and guns captured from the Turks by our Armies since 1st July, 1916, are as follows:

    Prisoners

    30,197

    Guns

    186

    These figures represent the number reported up to the present, but the returns from the Palestine front are still incomplete. I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT the other information asked for in the question as far as we have it.
    As regards booty, details have not yet been received from Palestine.
    The booty reported as captured in Mesopotamia includes:
    52 machine-guns.
    32 trench mortars.
    His Majesty's ship "Firefly" (recaptured).
    4 steamers.
    2 tugs.
    10 barges.
    2 steam launches.
    30 pontoons.
    21 engines.
    240 trucks.
    Several miles of railway track.
    Some aeroplanes and aeroplane engines.
    Large quantities of ammunition and rifles.
    In addition to large quantities of miscellaneous engineering material, clothing, equipment, and transport animals.
    General CROFT: Do those figures include 1,500 prisoners announced to-day?
    Mr. FORSTER: I could not say.
    General CROFTasked what are the total numbers of prisoners and guns captured by the British armies on the Western Front since 1st July, 1916; and what are the total number of prisoners and guns captured by British arms on all fronts since the commencement of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total number of prisoners captured on the Western Front since 1st July, 1916, is 101,534. The total number of guns captured in the same period is 519. Since the commencement of the War the British armies have captured on all fronts about 166,000 prisoners and over 800 guns.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate that answer to the Prime Minister in time for his speech on Monday?

  IRISH CONVENTION.
  Major NEWMANasked whether Members of the Irish convention are under any obligation, implied or otherwise, to silence as to the proceedings or as to the form of government for Ireland which they may eventually recommend to this House for discussion; whether both for Press and for the ordinary individual a Regulation has been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act making it unlawful to publish any report or statement, or to describe or to refer to any proceedings of the convention assembled at the invitation of the Government; and, if so, will he say who is responsible for the licence accorded to certain English newspapers who are in favour of what is known as dominion self-government for Ireland to interview members of the Convention, discuss the probable outcome of the deliberations, and apportion in advance blame for a failure to arrive at a satisfactory finding?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen the publications complained of. The Regulation which was issued under the Defence of the Realm Act prohibiting the publication of reports of proceedings of the Convention has been, I think, generally ,observed.
  Major NEWMAN: Are these reports submitted to a censor before publication? Does the Irish Censor see them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I fancy that they are dealt with in the same way as other reports of this kind. They are not submitted to a censor, but if the Regulations are infringed notice will be taken.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are these papers receiving immunity because they happen to support the Government?

  HEREDITARY TITLES.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will bring in a Bill for the abolition of hereditary titles of all descriptions and for the restriction of legislative functions to representatives elected by the constituencies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LYNCH: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given up all democratic objectives?

  HORSE RACING.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he will prohibit horse racing in the United Kingdom, as contrary to the sentiment of the country in this crisis of its destinies?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Strong representations were made last year that a certain amount of horse racing was very desirable, in the interests of the horsebreeding industry, and in consequence objection has not been taken to a limited number of race meetings, provided it is possible for them to take place without interference with essential needs.
  Mr. LAMBERT: How many race meetings have been authorised or allowed by the Government?
  Mr. WARDLE: I could not say without notice.
  Sir J. D. REES: Would it be contrary to the sentiment of the country to maintain not the least of its important industries even at the present time?
  Mr. WARDLE: There are other more essential industries.
  General CROFT: Will the hon. Member give an undertaking that no legitimate

  567
  sports and recreations of the people unless they interfere with the War will be stopped?

  PRINCE PLESS.
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether Prince Pless, an alien enemy fighting on the German side, holds mortgages in this country on the estates of the late Colonel Cornwallis West, or whether he has acquired some part of these estates; and, if so, if the interests of Prince Pless have been taken over by the Public Trustee?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information that the Prince of Pless holds mortgages in this country on the estate of the late Colonel Cornwallis West, but inquiry has been made in regard to certain property which was alleged to belong to Prince or Princess Pless, and the information furnished by Colonel Cornwallis West to the Public Trustee was that the property in question was his own, and did not belong to the Prince or Princess. I am, however, causing further inquiry to be made in the matter

  LORD MAYOR'S BANQUET.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Petrol Controller to the Board of Trade or the new Petroleum Executive was responsible for the permission for guests of the Lord Mayor of London on the 9th November to use petrol; and why the official notice communicated to the Press on the 9th October requesting everybody to economise to the last drop was thus ignored?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Lord Mayor's banquet may, perhaps, be regarded as a somewhat special occasion, and the Petrol Controller, on a representation from the Corporation, and at the request of the City Police, decided not to object to the use of petrol for the conveyance of persons attending the banquet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of private motorists have voluntarily, in the national interest, given up their cars altogether; and will he see that no further extension of this kind is granted?
  Mr. WARDLE: I know a good many private motorists who have not given up their cars, as well as those who have done so.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not an answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of those who have is enormously greater than the number of those who have not; and will he see that nothing of this kind is allowed to occur again?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that the in. formation in my possession is exactly the opposite; but I will make representations.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman has no information. on the subject?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that so many changes have taken place in the aspect of the War since the last Imperial Conference, he will consider the advisability of summoning a Conference to take place during the next three months?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think this suggestion is practicable. My hon. and gallant Friend understands how difficult it is for the Prime Ministers of the Dominions to leave their own work, but the Government fully realises the importance of keeping in the closest touch with them, and will be guided by their wishes as to time of holding the next Conference.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
  Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce any definite policy with regard to the adoption of reprisals against air attacks upon our unfortified towns, seeing that several air raids have been carried out with impunity upon London and the Eastern Coast since his announcement of the adoption of a policy of reprisals?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to, the previous statements on this subject.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon.. Gentleman say why no reprisals have been undertaken on German towns, bridges, or forests as a direct answer to the two last, raids on London?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the newspaper reports, he will find that there has been air operations on German towns, but much depends upon the weather, and I think there is a danger that our airmen may undertake these operations at a time when they ought not to do so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no airmen are withdrawn from more necessary work in order to carry out these raids?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said many times that the Air Service is used as our advisers consider best.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the number of cases of damage by raids to houses in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft which have not been settled; and if he will make inquiry into the case of No. 1, Marine Parade, Gorleston, where the ceilings were brought down four months ago and the damages were assessed at £60, and the amount has not been paid and the damages cannot be repaired because the Government surveyor will not agree to its being done, and loss and hardship is being caused by the unreasonable delay?
  Mr. WARDLE: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to various claims from Great Yarmouth in respect of damage by concussion, and these are being considered. Inquiry is being made as to the special case which is referred to in the question.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will agree to disputes as to the amount of damages payable under the aircraft insurance scheme to be settled by an arbitrator to sit locally or by an action in the County Court instead of by a petition of right in the High Court; and if he will consider if one of these courses could be taken, at any rate, when the amount insured does not exceed £100?
  Mr. WARDLE: Except at Great Yarmouth and neighbourhood, disputes between the insured and the assessors have been of rare occurrence, and have been settled in almost every case, after an opinion has been obtained from a second assessor, without further trouble. In the cases which the hon. Member has in mind the President of the Board of Trade would be prepared, in view of their special nature, to agree to these particular
  570
  cases, if not otherwise settled, being referred to an assessor appointed by, and on behalf of, the Government, with the concurrence of the insured, on the understanding that the insured accept the assessor's opinion as final.
  Mr. FELLThe assessor is to act as arbitrator?
  Mr. WARDLE: Yes, and his decision will be final.

  GENERAL SMUTS.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister what Vote bears the expenses of General Smuts as member of the War Cabinet, and his staff?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: General Smuts is paid no salary as a member of the War Cabinet. One staff officer is paid from Army funds. The only expenses of General Smuts and his staff paid for from Imperial funds are hotel expenses, which are defrayed by the Government Hospitality Fund.

  PROFITS ON SALES (TAXATION).
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the instructions issued to Inland Revenue officials for their guidance in discriminating between sales of timber, whisky, and other stocks represented as of the nature or ordinary trading, and therefore coming under review for purposes of Income Tax, Super-tax, and Excess Profits Duty, and those represented as of the nature of capital and therefore enjoying more or less complete immunity from taxation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No general instructions have been found necessary. Any case involving the point suggested by my hon. Friend is dealt with by the application of the Statutory principles to its particular facts.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a list, omitting names if this be thought desirable, of transactions involving sums of £10,000 and upwards in which the Government has bought blocks of timber standing or felled; and whether strict inquiry is made in every case and declarations taken from the parties selling as to whether the profits on such transactions represent taxable gains or not?
  Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It would not, I think, be in the public interest to give particulars of the transactions referred to. The Timber Control Department makes its purchases upon a commercial basis, and does not undertake any inquiries as to the liability of the sellers in taxation.
  Mr. CURRIE: Is no inquiry whatever made with reference to the question raised in the last part of this question?
  Mr. WARDLE: Not by me.
  Mr. CURRIE: Or by anybody else?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not able to reply to that question.

  CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to appoint a Parliamentary or other Committee to examine into and report upon sundry schemes proposed for a capital levy, or conscription of wealth, in the event of the War being prolonged; and, if so, whether it will be an unconditional instruction to the Committee that money subscribed to National War Loans for the upholding of British credit and the defeating of Britain's enemies shall in no case be treated less favourably than money not so utilized?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is necessary to appoint a Committee on this matter. It is certainly not the intention of the present Government to discriminate, nor can I conceive that any future Government would discriminate, against securities representing wealth which has been contributed to aid the country in time of need and in favour of wealth which has not been so used.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to make any statement as to the prospects of the Education Bill, or to give any assurance that will satisfy the growing anxiety in the country that the Bill may be unduly delayed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this subject. The Government fully realise
  572
  the importance of this measure, and it is their intention, subject to the exigencies of the War, to carry it through Parliament as quickly as possible.

  EXCESS PROFITS TAX (REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a number of speculators in real estate consisting of farm lands who for the last few years have realised profits by making private purchases from owners and afterwards offering the properties for public sale by auction and presenting the tenants with the alternatives of either giving enhanced prices for their farms or being turned out of their holdings; if the speculators in question are liable to pay Excess Profits Tax; and, if not, whether he will take steps to make them liable to pay on their excess profits as early as possible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the transactions to which the hon. Member refers amount to the carrying on of a business, the profits thence arising would be within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty; and should the hon. Member care to draw my attention to any particular cases which he has mind I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at an early date, he will lay a White Paper showing the course which the Government propose to take with respect to each of the recommendations contained in the first report of the Select Committee on. National Expenditure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet able, to make any statement on this subject. and if the Committee intend shortly to issue a further Report, I would prefer to await its issue and to deal with the recommendations of both Reports as a whole. As I stated in Debate on the 30th October, an opportunity for discussion of the findings of the Committee will be found.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee is. not likely to issue another Report, at all

  573
  events for some few weeks, that further Reports may be issued from time to time, that the Committee attach great importance to the recommendations of the first Report, and that they are anxious to have the views of the Government upon those recommendations at an early date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If I could have had the opportunity I would have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend before answering the question. We are quite ready to take the course which he suggests, but up to the present I have not received replies from the Departments to which the Report has been communicated.

  CANADA (LORD NORTHCLIFFE'S VISIT).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the activities of Lord Northcliffe in Canada have led M. Bourassa, the Nationalist leader, to describe him as a brigand, he will state on what grounds the practice of nonintervention in the affairs of a self-governing Dominion have been departed from?
  Mr. MACMASTER: Before the hon. Member puts this question, may I ask whether there is the slightest basis in fact for the suggestion that Lord Northcliffe interfered in any way with the fullest rights and privileges of self-government in Canada; and, further, whether the. Leader of the House proposes to assume responsibility for the epithets that may be used in the Canadian general election?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I should like to say—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had better have the answer first.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer also deals with the supplementary question. I do not know what the hon. Member means by intervention. Lord Northcliffe visited Canada on the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister, and I know that his visit was most useful and that it was appreciated by the Dominion Government.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does not the fact that the activities in Canada of Lord
  574
  Northcliffe lead the Leader of the French Canadian party to describe him as a brigand, as reported in the "Daily Mail" itself, show that his activities have been interfering with the internal affairs of a. self-governing Dominion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I do not think it proves that. I have not seen the statement referred to, and I do not think that any thorough observer would be justified in drawing such an inference.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the description of Lord Northcliffe as a brigand given by M. Bourassa?
  General CROFT: Is it not the fact that M. Bourassa is not the Leader of the French Canadians and does not represent Canadian sentiment any more than the hon. Member?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that he supported the present Government during the last election?

  SHIPBUILDING (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  .General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that numerous orders have been placed by neutral countries with British shipbuilders for construction after the War; whether these orders are placed at such advantageous terms that British shipping firms cannot be expected to successfully compete; and whether, in view of the danger that the replacement of British shipping may be seriously hampered, he will say what steps the Government intend to take to preserve the British slips for British ships?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): I am afraid that I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave to similar questions on 31st October and 5th November. Broadly, the present position is amply safeguarded and the post-bellum position is being most carefully considered by the Government. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the replies referred to.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the case of Private W. Martin, No. 5478, 3rd Monmouthshire Regiment, whose mother lives at 26, Waterloo Street, off Liverpool Street, Salford, whether Mrs. Martin put in her application for dependant's allowance so long ago as October, 1916, and, though her son has regularly paid his allotment, the mother has not yet received 1d. of Government allowance; whether several applications have been made to the pension officer at Palatine Buildings, Manchester, both by Mrs. Martin and by responsible people on her behalf, but these applications are ignored and nothing is done; and whether he will at once take steps to see that whoever is responsibde for this delay in the pension office at Palatine Buildings is at once suitably dealt with?
  Mr. FORSTER: This appears to be a very complicated case, and my inquiries are not yet complete.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pension officer in Manchester admits that he received the claim in March last?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I know there has been a great deal of very regrettable delay. I am not sure whether the responsibility for the whole of it rests with the Pay Office or with the Pension Office. That is what I am trying to find out.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the delay on the part of the pension officers in assessing the amount of dependants' allowances; whether irritation is being caused throughout the country by these delays; and whether he will at once have inspectors sent round to the pension authorities to see that wherever gross and unnecessary delay is proved that the pension officer responsible be reprimanded or dismissed?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am aware that from a variety of causes delay occurs in many of these cases, to the dissatisfaction of claimants, but I must demur to the suggestion that there is serious general delay on the part of pension officers throughout the country, the facts being
  576
  that on the 30th Septmber last—the latest date for which figures are available—the total number of claims in their hands was appreciably less than the number received during that month. The pension officers have done very good work in circumstances of great difficulty in connection with these claims. Cases of proved gross and unnecessary delay are very rare and are dealt with by the Board of Customs and Excise in the ordinary course of discipline.
  Mr. BARLOW: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that delays of six, eight, and ten months are very grave and unnecessary?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should say that they are certainly grave, but before I answer the latter part of the hon. Member's question I should like to have particulars.

  STANDARD SHIPS.
  General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether it is the intention of the Government to build standardised liners; and, if so, whether he will give an undertaking that no such policy will be pursued until the evidence is undoubted that standard tramp vessels have been a success?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The policy of the Government is to build standard vessels of several types. The types at present approved include a vessel of higher speed than the ordinary tramp.

  ENEMY SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give each week the number of lives lost by submarine sinkings?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It would be quite impracticable to give each week accurate figures of the number of lives lost in vessels sunk by submarines, as in the great majority of cases this information is not obtainable until a considerable time after the publication of the weekly statement. My right hon. Friend will, however, consult the President of the Board of Trade as to the possibility of publishing figures periodically in arrear.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will favourably consider the advisability of at once offering a prize of, say, £100,000, to the inventor who discovers a sure and certain means of detecting, locating, and following the movements of a. submerged submarine before she comes within striking distance with her torpedoes?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have constantly under consideration methods of stimulating inventiveness in all directions, and this suggestion will also be borne in mind.
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how very successful in the time of Napoleon was the offer of £20,000 made by the French Government for discovering a way of producing sugar other than from sugar-cane, and might not a similar offer prove successful in this ease?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to say that, if I ever knew it, I have quite forgotten it. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the disparity between the prices which had to be paid for the lands required for the formation of Immingham Dock and the valuations for rating of these lands at the time of purchase; and whether, in the event of lands being acquired for the proposed national shipbuilding yards, he will cause detailed records to be made and kept of the prices paid for the lands and of the valuations of them for rating purposes at the time of purchase?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has not been concerned with the land acquired for the formation of Immingham Dock. The docks belong to the Great Central Railway Company. What we have done is to occupy some of the company's property, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Some little distance, however, from Immingham we have acquired land, part by agreement and part under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. With regard to the second part of 'the question, detailed records will be made and kept in the Department of the
  578
  Director of Lands of the War Office of all land acquired in connection with national shipyards.
  Mr. KEATING: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it a practice to see that any demand for a national workshop for any national purpose is subject to the Defence of the Realm Act, because of the large prices charged by landowners for their land?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We take possession under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. If we purchase any land it would be under the Land Act.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of stocks for new construction which are being added to the existing shipbuilding yards, and the number of stocks which the new National yards will contain?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The construction of an additional thirty-three slips to existing shipyards has already been sanctioned, and further extensions are under consideration.
  It is estimated that an addition of front fifty to sixty slips will be made to existing private shipyards in all; and it is intended that the number of slips of the new National Shipyards will be from thirty to thirty-six.
  Mr. TERRELL: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the policy of the Government as to whether it is intended to continue to work the new national shipyards as a national enterprise after the War or whether it is proposed that they should be disposed of as soon as the present emergency is over?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am glad my hon. Friend has asked this question, as it enables me to define more closely, and to correct in some respects, the reply I gave yesterday to a similar question which he then put as supplementary to a question en the Paper. The necessity which led up to the construction of National Shipyards is essentially bound up in the urgent requirements for merchant shipping consequent on the present War, and until this emergency is over the Government is unable to give any definite assurance as to the policy to be pursued in connection with these yards after the conclusion of hostilities.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With reference to this answer and the answer to the previous

  579
  question, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in referring to National Shipyards, he includes marine engineering works?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think not, but I should require notice of that question. I was dealing with the proposed shipyards.
  Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state, exclusive of the cost of land and compensation still under consideration, the estimated cost of any of the new national shipyards, and where it is proposed to erect them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have previously stated, the estimates for the cost of the national shipyards are still under consideration, and will be passed to the Treasury as and when completed. As regards the situation of the yards, sites for three of them have definitely been chosen at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury; and it is proposed to obtain the additional number of slips required by extending these yards, if it is found possible. The construction of the first three yards mentioned is now in full progress.
  Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the estimated dates when the four new national shipyards will respectively be ready to undertake construction work, and the estimated date when the first ship will be ready for launching?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The construction of the new national shipyards is not sufficiently far advanced to give an accurate estimate of their date of completion, but it is intended that slips will be available in the first yard for the laying down of keels in from three to four months, and that the first vessel will be launched in October or November, 1918.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    HONG KONG.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the subordinate sterling-paid staff of the Admiralty employed in His Majesty's dockyard, Hong Kong, comprising foremen, inspectors, clerks, storehousemen, etc., are placed in an unfair position by reason of the rise in the exhange value of
    580
    the dollar; that in pre-war days the exchange value was is. 9d., giving approximately $11 for each £L of salary; whether the exchange value is now 3s. 1¼d. and still advancing, giving little over $6 for each. £1 of salary, approaching a 50 per cent. loss; and that some of the Admiralty employes in the yard are paid entirely in dollar rates, so much pay, so much colonial allowance, so much house allowance, each being a definite fixed sum in dollars; and will he consider the advisability of converting salaries or wages into dollars at a fixed and reasonable rate of exchange, say is. 9¾d. per dollar, the average of the Service rate of exchange prior to the War, and so place all Government employées on: the same footing?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Proposals for the payment of the salaries, in whole or in part, of dockyard staff and of naval officers and ratings at a fixed rate of exchange are now receiving consideration at the Treasury. These Admiralty proposals, however, involve a general reconsideration of the method of payment of Army officers and others in the Far East. A decision will be obtained at the earliest possible moment.

    SKILLED WORKERS (WAGES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the 12½ per cent. increase granted to skilled workers applies to skilled workers in the employment of the Admiralty; and what steps lie proposes to take in this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The award, as my hon. Friend is aware, was originally announced by the Ministry of Munitions for skilled time workers, engineers, and moulders on time work. Though it was not thus made applicable to the men in the Royal dockyards and naval establishments, we immediately proceeded, as we always have done in a similar case, to consider whether in equity it ought not to be made applicable to our men. There then arose a number of questions regarding the scope of the original award by the Ministry of Munitions. This has made it impossible for us to give the decision which would, I have no doubt, otherwise have been given. But on behalf of the Board, I am authorised to say that, whatever award is ultimately decided upon to outside classes of workmen will be made applicable to similar classes of workmen in the Royal dockyard

    581
    similarly situated, and such award will come into force as and from the date of its application outside. I hope the questions arising out of the application of the award by the Ministry of Munitions will promptly be settled. The moment they are we shall take up the application of the matter to our own employés.

  WAR SAVINGS (ALBERT HALL MEETING).
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many invitations were issued to delegates or others for the war savings meeting at the Albert Hall on 22nd October; whether those invited were informed at the time that their out-of-pocket and travelling expenses would be paid; and where the invitations were sent from?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Invitations were issued to the full extent of the reserved seating accommodation of the hall, namely, 5,500 seats, irrespective of the gallery, which was unreserved. Of these invitations 3,000 were sent to voluntary officials of 1,500 war savings committees, who were informed at the time that their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses would be paid. The invitations were issued from the office of the National War Savings Committee.
  I may add that in the opinion of all those who are responsible for the war savings organisation, it was very desirable that these voluntary workers should be given the opportunity of attending the meeting and other conferences on the work of the association, and that unless out-of-pocket expenses were paid it would have been impossible for many of those to attend who are rendering the most valuable service. I am sorry to say that the questions of the hon. Member have created strong feeling of disappointment in the minds of these persons, who have interpreted them as an unjustified reflection on their self-sacrifice and disinterestedness.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is it not a fact that an enormous amount of purely disinterested end, voluntary work has been done by these gentlemen to the great good of the State?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely why I answered the question. We have been receiving from small contributors
  582
  alone something like £2,000,000 a week, and that money could not possibly be raised—it would cost too much—but for this voluntary assistance.

  COAL ,SUPPLY.

    PRICES AND DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will send down at once a Commissioner in order that the control and distribution of orders for coal may be more equitable, and thus prevent social conditions arising which may be difficult to control?
    Mr. WARDLE: Arrangements already exist for obtaining information as to the amount of time lost at the different collieries, and this information is now being utilised for the purpose of securing the allocation of orders to collieries urgently in need of trade. The Controller of Coal Mines is arranging for the matter to be investigated in the district on his behalf.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the delay in the delivery of coal wagons back from the collieries is causing great inconvenience to small consumers, especially in some munition areas; and will he see what action can be taken to give greater facilities for transport?
    Mr. WARDLE: The railway companies are fully alive to the importance of quick transits to coal wagons to and from collieries. Investigations have shown that delays are principally due to the excess number of traders' wagons received at collieries, resulting in congestion in colliery and railway sidings and necessitating restrictions being enforced by railway companies on returning empty traders wagons. The whole question is being considered with a view to finding a remedy.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information to give the House regarding the serious strike at Cowes (Isle of Wight), involving 6,000 men, mostly engaged on important Admiralty work and threatening the steam and railway communication between the island and mainland and other Government work, and if the strike is entirely due to the inability or delay of the Coal

    583
    [Captain D. Hail.]
    Controller and Shipping Controller to regulate the excessive retail price of coal in the island amounting to over £3 per ton?
    Mr. WARDLE: This matter has been brought to my notice by the Controller of Coal Mines. The problem is almost entirely one of sea freight, and the Minister of Shipping has been asked to deal with the question of freights. The Controller of Coal Mines has endeavoured to secure that more coal shall be rail borne to ports adjacent to the Isle of Wight, but, due to the absence of facilities at these ports for shipping coal, it has not been possible to achieve this.
    Captain HALL: Did not the Board of Trade hold an inquiry over six months ago and is this the best remedy they can now offer to help the islanders in this trouble?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think the remedy which has been suggested will be adequate provided the Minister of Shipping can arrange with regard to freights so that a reduction in price can be achieved.
    Captain HALL: Has not the Shipping Controller control of German interned vessels, and is he not charging most excessive rates to the wholesale coal-dealers for the use of those vessels?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a matter the hon. and gallant Gentleman must put to the Shipping Controller.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Is it not a fact that the price of coal in the island has gone up since the Coal Controller was appointed something like 10s. to 14s. a ton, although the rise in the actual amount received by colliery owners is only half-a-crown, and will the hon. Gentleman ask whether the Coal Controller could not give his attention to these various deficiencies of coal and not try to manage the whole coal business of the country from an office in London, which results in a large surplus of coal being distributed where it is not wanted?
    Captain HALL: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory reply I have received I shall raise this question on the Adjournment of the House.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view
    584
    of the mass of valuable information acquired by the Board of Trade and their Advisory Committee in the course of administering the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, and the winding-up of enemy companies and firms under the .Act, he will appoint a small Committee to collate and classify this information, with a view to developing British industries in this country and preventing the penetration and capture of such industries by Germans in the future?
    Mr. WARDLE: Steps are being taken to collate the information as to methods adopted by enemy companies and firms derived from the administration of the Trading with the Enemy Acts. I hope to have the benefit of the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division in the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the result of those investigations be made public?
    Mr. WARDLE:I cannot answer that question.

    MOTOR SPIRIT RESTRICTION ORDER.
    Sir MAURICELEVY asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that confusion has arisen in the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Motor Spirit Restriction Order (No. 2), 1917; and whether he will state what is the correct interpretation of the words, "the necessary household affairs," in paragraph 3 (a) (2)?
    Mr. WARDLE: I doubt if it be possible or expedient to frame a comprehensive definition of the words "necessary household affairs. "The words must be taken in their plain, ordinary meaning; but, in the present grave position with regard to petrol supplies, I hope that I may rely on the public to give the narrowest possible interpretation to the exemption.

    SILVER WAR BADGE (MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any alteration has been made in the conditions on which the silver war badge may be awarded to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine to meet the cases of men who are incapacitated otherwise than by actual wounds received?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am glad to be able to announce that His Majesty has been pleased to sanction the amendment of the conditions governing the award of the silver war badge to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, so as to provide for its grant to officers and seamen who have suffered from illness or shock or strain, due to war conditions, or some disease resulting from employment on a ship on Government service in an unhealthy climate.

    Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether in view of the discontent among the national school teachers of Ireland owing to the barriers of promotion caused by the standard averages, more especially in the higher grades, and of the fact that the ablest teachers in Ireland are kept down by these averages, over which they have absolutely no control, he will now take steps to allay this discontent and unrest by recommending the abolition or, failing this, a substantial reduction of the averages?
    Mr. DUKE: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 23rd October.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the business for Friday and next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow we shall take the Air Bill, and, if time permits, the Extension of Life of Parliament Bill and the Pensions Bill. I propose to move the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule tomorrow, not with the idea that it will be necessary to sit late, but that we may with certainty get the Air Bill through the Report stage.
  On Monday, the first Order will be the discussion on the War Council, and, if there be time, we shall take other business, including that which is left over from to-morrow.
  On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we shall take the Representation of the People Bill.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On what Motion will the Debate take place on Monday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the National Insurance Bill to be postponed again over next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is postponed. We shall not take it on either of these four days. I do not know yet about Friday.
  Mr. CURRIE: Has it come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that a meeting of solvent insurance societies is being held in London on Thursday of next week in order to consider this Bill, and could he say that the Second Reading will not be taken until they have been able to hold their meeting and discuss the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that. I was not aware of what my hon. Friend says, but we cannot keep on postponing it indefinitely.
  Resolved, "That this House do sit tomorrow (Friday)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order read for Consideration, as amended.
Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to move the recommittal of this Bill, in order that the House may have an opportunity of con-
614
sidering the Instructions given to the Commissioners in regard to seats in Ireland, and generally the whole question of Irish redistribution.
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move to recommit the whole Bill?
Sir. F. BANBURY: The Government have given notice that they intend to insert in the Schedule a Clause providing for the redistribution of seats in Ireland. They have already appointed a Commission, who are proceeding with the redistribution of seats in Ireland. In these circumstances, as the Motion will be made on the Report stage, is it not in order to move that the Bill should be recommitted in order that the proposals of the Government may be made in Committee, where they can be properly considered, rather than on Report, where the House will not have the same opportunity of considering them as they would have if they were made in Committee?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given no notice of anything of that sort. He has moved to recommit the whole Bill. If his Amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to be gone through Clause by Clause. He has made no provision for dealing with the matter in question.
Sir F. BANBURY: If this Bill is recommitted it would be possible to put in such a Clause as I suggest, and to deal with that Clause.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member should have moved to recommit the Bill in respect of some particular thing. He has given notice of a general recommittal of the Bill, but he is now trying to show that it is necessary to recommit the Bill in order to deal with a particular matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: I want it to be recommitted in respect of Irish redistribution. There is no Clause in the Bill dealing with Irish redistribution, and I think it would be possible to recommit the Bill in order to insert a Clause of that description.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member should have moved in the ordinary way to recommit the Bill in order to insert a Clause dealing with something in particular. He has not done that, but has moved for a general recommittal.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is a little difficult., I do not know whether the Home

615
Secretary heard the observations I have made. Perhaps he will consent to the Bill being recommitted, and when it is recommitted we can deal with the question which I desire to raise.
Mr. SPEAKER: That will not have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman desires. We shall then begin at the beginning of the Bill and go through it all. The right hon. Gentleman desires to insert a Clause with respect to redistribution in Ireland, but he has given no notice of that.
Sir F. BANBURY: Am I right in saying that it is too late to remedy the Motion in that direction now? If it is possible to amend it I will amend it in that way in respect to Irish redistribution.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no proposal before us or Clause dealing with Irish redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman should have prepared some scheme which he wishes to be inserted in the Bill. The first New Clause on the Paper (The Disqualification of Certain Persons who Refuse Military Service) should come as an Amendment to Clause 8. The same applies to the second New Clause (Disqualification of Persons who have been Interned). The next Clause (Persons Legally Employed in All Elections not Disqualified as Voters) should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. The next one (Interval Between Nomination and Poll) is dealt with already in Clause 18, and if any alteration is to be made, it should be moved as an Amendment to that Clause. The next New Clause (Franchises (Companies and Other Bodies) should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. The same applies to the next New Clause (Saving the Existing Livery Franchise in City of London).
Sir G. TOUCHE: In regard to the livery vote, the Chairman of Committees permitted that to be moved as a new Clause. I do not quite understand why it cannot be moved in that way now if it was permitted in Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: My opinion is that it should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. Clause 1 is the main franchising Clause which sets up the provisions as to the enfranchising of men, and these men may get the franchise if they are added when we come to Clause 1.
Bill, as amended, considered

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Right to the Use of Elementary Schools.)
  A candidate at a Parliamentary election shall be entitled, for the purpose of holding a public meeting in furtherance of his candidature, to the use at reasonable times between the receipt of the writ for the election and the day of the poll, of a suitable room in any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant situated within the constituency for which he is a candidate.
  Provided that this enactment shall not authorise the use of any room used as part of a private dwelling-house nor authorise any interference with the school hours of an elementary day or evening school nor, in the case of a room used for the administration of justice or police, with the hours during which it is used for these purposes.
  A charge may be made to cover any actual and necessary expenses incurred by the local education authority, or by the managers of the school, in respect of the preparation of the room for the purposes of the meeting, and for warming, lighting, and cleaning the room.
  If by reason of the use of any room under this Act any damage is done to the school-house, or to the furniture, fittings, or apparatus, the damage shall be defrayed by the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the meeting is convened.—[Mr. P. A. Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  A careful study of this new Clause will show that it is not a very ambitious one, but it contains a very sound principle. It will simplify the duties of managers of schools. Managers of schools always have to be asked for the use of the school building, and they are put in a difficult position in deciding what is a reasonable charge for the use of the building. They have the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of their subscribers, and in the case, at any rate, of voluntary schools, of the people who have contributed to the cost of the building.
  4.0 P.M.
  When a charge is made there is a tendency, to criticise the amount as excessive. An election should not be used as an opportunity of increasing the revenue of the school, but managers should be entitled to charge actual out-of-pocket expenses, and

  617
  any expenses caused by the alteration of the buildings for the purposes of a public meeting. There is no question that a school is the right place for meetings to be held. Licensed premises have always been specifically excluded from use as places for public meetings. Therefore, in country villages, at any rate, schools are the only places where meetings can be held. It is besides a sound principle to establish that part of the purposes of school buildings is to provide a place for holding meetings at election time. In the old days when a very large sum was allowed to candidates for election expenses the charge for school buildings was not a serious matter, but now when the amount is very much reduced, it does become important in large constituencies, where the population is scattered, that candidates should not mulcted in large amounts for the use of halls for meetings. In some constituencies where there are sixty or seventy villages which have to be visited, and this expenditure for places of meeting and the cost of advertising the meeting and of organisation have to be paid, it is very important if the amount now allocated for elections is not to be exceeded, that candidates should not be liable to find large sums for lease of buildings. The new Clause contains ample provision to meet all necessary cost incurred by the owners of the buildings.
  Major McMICKING: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I trust that the Government will accept this Clause. It is a most useful addition to the Bill under which election expenses have been so drastically reduced. In counties the figure is probably about half the figure that it was before, while at the same time the electorate on the average will be doubled. So, necessarily, in every direction economies will have to be effected in election expenses. To some extent that has been done by allowing the candidates one free postage, but it is also a fair thing to say that schools, which are mainly supported out of public funds, whether taxes or rates, should be in this country at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates for the necessary purpose of public meetings without any payment except out-of-pocket expenses. All contingencies are carefully provided for under this Clause which follows a Section of the Local Government Act of 1894, which enables these schools to be used for the
  618
  purpose of parish council and district council election meetings, and similar purposes.
  Major NEWMAN: If the Government accept this Clause they will be putting those who manage these schools in an invidious position. Every candidate will want to have the use of these schools because he will get it free of cost. At the present moment there is great competition for the use of public elementary schools. We all want to get them. There is only a certain number of these schools, and they are very hard to get when wanted, especially if the contest is in a county constituency. Therefore we badged the people who exercise authority over these schools. It is up to these elementary school managers to allocate these schools to particular candidates. That puts these people who have to make these decisions in a very delicate position. I know myself that in a certain number of schools those who are running the schools were against me in politics, and I found it hard to get the schools, whereas my opponent found it very easy. That is going to happen more in the future. We are going to have more candidates. They are going to be humbler candidates, men with less money to spend. In every division there will be at least four candidates for the seat. Of those probably two, or perhaps all of them, will be men looking to save every penny they can on the limit of election expenses under this Act. All this will increase the difficulties, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, and could not discover any argument against this Clause. Precaution was taken in drafting to meet all the objections which the hon. Member tried to raise, and if he gives a little more careful study to the Clause he will see that every question which he has raised has been met. We are not asking that managers should have to throw open their schools all the time to would-be candidates. The Clause limits it to the time after the writ is received. In existing circumstances, with the large reduction which has been placed on the amount of money that candidates may spend, these schools should be at the disposal of the candidates. The hon. Member says that managers would be in some difficulty in selecting the candidates to whom they

  619
  would give the schools. I take it that managers would grant the applications of those who applied first and arrange the dates as soon as the application was made. Under this Clause, if it shown that they are being used for some definite purpose in connection with their legitimate objects, then candidates cannot have them, but anyone who has had the difficulty of fighting a large county division with sparsely populated districts knows how serious this question is. Another point. We are not asking that the caretakers of the school should be called upon to do an amount of work—cleaning up, and all that—for nothing. We say let a fair remuneration be paid to the caretakers for the labour which they will be called upon to do if the school houses are opened. All we want is that remuneration should be fair and legitimate, and not—as I do not believe many managers would do, though some might—that there should be an extortionate charge made so that the candidate may be debarred from the use of the school. Precaution is also taken in this Clause to deal with the question of damage to the school, so that the candidate for whom the meeting is held would be responsible for damage, and would have to pay for it. This is a thing which is wanted by all parties in the House, and it is just one of those Clauses which may have been overlooked in drafting the Bill. I trust sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope that the Government will accept this Clause. As it is drafted the Clause may require some slight addition, because as it stands only one candidate may have the use of the room. It ought to be all candidates. Some arrangement will have to be made to see that all candidates have an equal chance. I am sorry that the promoters of the Clause did not put that in. I believe that the whole country is in favour of the principle of the Clause. Those of us who happen to be in one part of the country with one class of school may suffer, while those who are in another part with another class of school may have an advantage, but, taking all over the country, it is a proper proposal. I do not ask for any privilege for one part or the other, but it is a convenience to 'the public. Public money keeps up
  620
  these buildings, and the public have a right to the use of the schools when they want them for this purpose.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): There is undoubtedly, I think, a strong feeling in favour of this proposal. There are many parishes in large rural areas where there is no reasonable place of meeting but the school house. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, as the guardian of these schools, and I find that he shares that feeling. The schools receive public money, and there should be no objection to putting them at the disposal of the public for this purpose, provided, of course, that they are available for all. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there may be some difficulties about this Clause. There may be the case of a man with no possible chance of obtaining substantial support and who may never be nominated, or put the other side to the trouble and expense of a contest. Yet this Clause would give him the right to use the schools. But there is, as the House knows, a similar Section in the. Local Government Act of 1894, authorising candidates to use schools for the purpose of parish or district council elections, and I am told that in actual working no difficulty his been found in giving effect to that provision. Therefore, it seems to me that the advantages outweigh the obvious disadvantages.
  As the Clause is drafted, I do not think that this right is confined to one candidate. No doubt it may be somewhat invidious for managers to say which candidate shall have the use of the school on any particular evening, but it would be reasonable to hope that they will feel that they have a public duty to perform, and that they will act fairly by the candidates. I am disposed to think that somebody, such as the Board of Education, ought to have the power to decide in these cases if there is any dispute. It could be done very rapidly. In the Act of 1894 there is a similar Clause in that direction. I must reserve the right for the Government to propose, if they think fit, in another place, that a provision of that kind should be added to the Clause. I think that a slight Amendment is required to the Clause in order to throw on those using the schools the obligation of repairing and cleaning them, not only for the meeting, but for use as schools when the meetings are over.

  621
  That is not yet provided for by the Clause, and therefore if the House gives it a Second Reading, I shall move to insert after the word "room" ["room for the purposes"], the words "before the meeting," and after the word "meeting," the words "and after the meeting for school purposes."
  Mr.GEORGE LAMBERT: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very conciliatory speech he has made in accepting the principle of the Clause. I will not say a word in favour of it, because it has been accepted, and I do not want to delay the Committee. May I make a suggestion as one who has fought a good many elections in a very scattered constituency? Will it be possible for the Board of Education to be consulted in all these matters respecting applications for the use of schools? One knows that in the constituencies, when you apply to the managers of schools for permission to use the schools, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it is granted, but, in some instances, there might be some obscurantist who would withhold consent. I do not think it would be possible for the managers to consult the Board of Education, because naturally in these matters rapidity is everything. I trust my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I join in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of this Amendment. One' thing I would like to make clear, and that is that school rooms shall not be available on the polling day. In a great many parts of Scotland the school is the polling station, so that it ought not to be used on that day for any meeting.
  Sir G. CAVE: No one would hold a meeting on a polling day.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: If the Board of Education has to deal with this question, I hope that they will consider it long before the election. There might be doubt as to the suitability of one room as against another, or there might be two rooms in one building, and an application for each of them, in which case it might not be advisable to have both meetings held at the same time. The central authority might be a long way from the locality, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some local body, the local education authority, the
  622
  county council education authority, rather than the Board of Education, might be trusted to do justice.
  Sir STUART COATS: As to these political meetings, to be held in schoolrooms, I think the cost should not be deducted from the Parliamentary expenses, and I would ask whether it is not possible to include town halls in the proposal?
  Mr. NIELD: I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered the last provision in this new Clause with a view to some sort of deposit being made as a guarantee against damage that may be done. It is all very well to say that local government election meetings are held in the county council schools, or urban district or rural district schools, but in these contests there is never the same amount of heat that arises in Parliamentary elections, where politics are in issue. We are bound, I submit, to provide against contingencies. I have a very vivid recollection of addressing a meeting in mid-Devon, where brick-bats, very formidable brick-bats, were rained upon the roof of the building during the whole time of the meeting. It will be easily understood that the roof was not watertight after that meeting concluded. Therefore, it is rather a serious matter, and there is ground for the suggestion that some sort of guarantee should be given against damage that may be done. If the Board of Education will undertake to make good any damage in the event of the managers of the school being unable to recover, then at once my objection is gone; but the managers out of a grant, perhaps, of some £50 a year, in many parts of the country, are continually struggling to keep the schools going, the grants not being sufficient, and it does seem a serious obligation to put upon them, to leave them without the security which would be afforded by a guarantee against damage that might result.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In Scotland we have never had the slightest inconvenience, and no candidate at all has gone without the use of the schools. The use of them is very freely given to both sides. The hon. Member opposite raised the question about guarantees to the managers against damage to the school, and I should like to reinforce a very pertinent question put by my hon. Friend to the

  623
  Home Secretary, whether, in the case of a riotous meeting, which results in damage to the school, the damage, is to be part of the election expenses. The damage is not entirely the fault of me candidate, yet that damage might result in very serious and important expenses, and the question is whether the cost is to be part of the election expenses.
  Mr. LOUGH: I join with my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lambert) in thanking the Home Secretary for the way in which he has accepted this Amendment, but I want to protest against any reference being made to the Board of Education. It is obvious that the local education authority, who own and provide these schools, should be referred to, and the suggestion that it should be the Board of Education is impracticable.
  Sir G. CAVE: We will consider all these points.
  Mr. NIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on the question of a guarantee?
  Sir G. CAVE: That matter can also be dealt with.
  Question, " That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: After the word "room " [" room for the purposes "], insert the words " before the meeting."
  After the word "meeting," insert the words "and after the meeting for school purposes."—[Sir G. Cave]
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move to leave out the words, "If by reason of the use of any room under this Act any damage is done to the school house or to the furniture, fittings or apparatus, the damage shall be defrayed by the person by wham, or on whose behalf, the meeting is convened."
  I should like to ask the Home Secretary what will be the position, supposing unlawful damage is done by a person who objects to the candidate, causes a riot, and does damage to the school. If the candidate, under these words, is to be bound to make that damage good, it seems to me there ought to be some provision which would remove from him the necessity to pay for the consequences of the unlawful acts of other people.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think, as between the managers of the school and the candidate,
  624
  the candidate ought to be responsible for the damage, by whomsoever it is done. Of course, if there are riotious proceedings and the school is damaged, it may be that the cost can be recovered in another way, and the candidate might have nothing to pay; but, if the school is injured, I think the candidate certainly ought to be responsible.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is not the obvious remedy to insure against this possibility of damage? The rate would be exceedingly small, whereas if the candidate were liable for the damage it might lead to very serious consequences, notably in the case of Labour candidates. Election riots are not unknown; it is possible that damage may be done to schools where meetings are held, and that damage might be a very considerable addition to the candidate's expenses. The Home Secretary rather suggested that the district or county in which the riot took place might be proceeded against, but the difficulty would be to find who was responsible. I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that insurance might be effected against such damage.
  Mr. GULLAND: Is it necessary to discuss this? Is not the school in exactly the same position as any hall, and whatever the law is with regard to the ordinary hall would apply to the school.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, " Provided that the cost of making good such damage shall not form part of the candidate's election expenses."
  Mr. PERKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that we can put the words in at this point. It should be dealt with in another part of the Bill.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Qualification for Membership of Local Authority.)
  A person shall be qualified to be elected a member of any local government

  625
  authority who is the owner of a freehold or leasehold property within the area of that authority.—[Mr. Gilbert.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this proposal is in order to preserve a qualification which a good many people have now and which renders them eligible to serve on local government authorities in London. By the Bill as it stands now that qualification will be done away with. For election to the county council it is necessary that a person shall be on the register of voters, and for a borough council it is necessary that the person shall be on the register of voters, or be resident in the particular borough council area. Under the existing law a person who held a freehold or leasehold of the value of £10 was qualified to go upon the local government register. We have a number of people in London on both sides of politics who perhaps are members of limited companies, but who are not qualified for the local government franchise. A good many of those people are interested in various phases of local government, and are anxious to take part in the various local government areas. In many cases they live outside. This particular franchise is allowed at present, and I hope we may have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and that they will allow the same conditions as exist now to exist under the new Bill in order that many people whom it is desirable should take an interest in local government may be qualified as now if they so desire.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second. I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider this proposal. The difficulty arises under the Local Government Act of 1888, where a qualification was given to ownership of land. By owning land you obtained the right to be an elector. That right has been taken away both from Parliamentary and local government elections, and therefore there follows disqualification for membership of the local body. I am sure that no one wishes to curtail the number of men who can serve on local authorities. I know from my own experience that it would have that effect if something like this proposal were not carried. I remember very well when I was a member of
  626
  the London County Council I changed my abode from one part of London to the other, and I thereby lost my electoral rights for a time. The only way by which I could qualify to be a candidate at the next election was by purchasing a small property in London, which I hold, and by virtue of which ownership I was enabled to continue my membership of the London County Council. If it had not been for that I should have been unable to stand for election. I know that similar cases. have occurred. I can see no objection to allowing ownership of land to create a qualification for membership of the local authority.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher):At the present time owners are entitled to be registered and also entitled to be elected members of the local bodies. While the Speaker's Conference was of opinion that the ownership vote should no longer be continued, the Conference had not, I am sure, any idea in its mind to disqualify an owner from being in a position to stand as a candidate for one of those local bodies. The indirect effect of the action of the Speaker's Conference translated into this Bill is that an owner, if he is a nonresident, will no longer be qualified to sit on any of these important local bodies. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken pointed out that it is desirable rather to enlarge than to diminish the area from which we draw our choice of members of public bodies. The right hon. Gentleman himself was very nearly excluded from membership of that body of which he afterwards became so distinguished a member, and from which he draws so much of that learning which is so helpful to this Bill. I have known on more than one occasion admirably qualified persons who had no proper qualification by which they could enter an arena in which they were ultimately to become distinguished. I think the Whole House will be of opinion that this is an Amendment which we ought to accept thereby restoring to owners the old rights of allowing them to be candidates at the election.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next proposed new Clause (Interval between Nomination and Poll), in the name of the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), should come as

  627
  an Amendment to Clause 18. The proposed New Clause (Provision for Polling Stations in Large and Sparsely Inhabited Constituencies), in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. J. M. Henderson), should come as an Amendment to Clause 32. The proposed New Clause (Saving the Existing Livery Franchise in the City of London), in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), is a subject which I have already disposed of. The proposed New Clause (Votes for all Men or Women who have Served Abroad during the War), in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Major Hunt), should come as an Amendment to Clauses 1 and 4.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Parliamentary Franchises (Men).)
  (1) A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for .a constituency (other than a university constituency) if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and—

  (a) has the requisite residence qualification; or

  (b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

  (2) A man, in order to have the requisite residence qualification or business premises qualification for a constituency—

  (a) must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency; and

  (b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county:

  Provided that—

  (a) a man, though he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the
  628
  qualifying period and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside;

  (b) the residence in a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Section by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole; and

  (c) for the purpose of this Sub-section the administrative county of London shall be treated as a Parliamentary borough.

  (3) The expression "business premises" in this Section, means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade, of the person to be registered.
  Where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, and the aggregate yearly value of the premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds:
  Provided that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being such joint occupiers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bon âd fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "constituency," insert the words "as the case may be."
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "premises" ["business premises"], insert the words "as the case may be."—[Sir G.Cave.]
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), to leave out the words " a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county," and to insert instead thereof the words " a constituency contiguous thereto."
  The Clause, as it is at present, appears to me to be rather wider than was intended. You find cases in which people who travel comparatively short distances

  629
  do not retain their qualifications, while others who travel long distances do retain them. I think it was not intended by the Speaker's Conference that the latitude should be so wide as to enable the voter to carry his qualification from any one part of the country to another. As the Clause stands I have got here some interesting cases of succession. For instance, you can remove from Northampton to nine other constituencies and preserve your qualification, while in Cornwall you can only move into one and do so. From the west part of Lancashire and Cheshire you can go as fas ar 100 miles and yet retain your vote. On the other hand, if a man removed from Manchester to Bedfordshire, he would lose his vote. There are many other cases of that kind, and I do not think that is the intention. Either this Clause does not go far enough or goes much farther than was ever intended. If it was to enable the voter to carry his qualification from any constituency to another in the United Kingdom, I could understand it. But when these anomalies can arise it is obvious that either the point has not been completely covered or that it has been covered to a far greater extent than was intended.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This is an Amendment which I venture to suggest is really a very great improvement on the words in the Bill. As the hon. Baronet has pointed out as matters stand now it would be possible for a man to move 100 miles without losing his succession, and yet another man might move only a very few miles and lose his qualification. I do not think that that anomaly was intended at the Conference. I believe that what was intended was that the voter who moved to another place more or less in the same part of the country should not lose his qualification. The Clause does not exactly carry out that idea, but goes much further in a direction which would cause great injustice and anomalies. If the Amendment is accepted it will have the effect of greatly improving the Bill, and carrying out the intentions of the Conference.
  Mr. GULLAND: I hope that the Home Secretary will not agree to this Amendment. With a good deal of the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder I agree, and as to the suggestion that a man should have the right to carry his qualification from any constituency to any other, I think if the Home Secretary will accept such an Amendment he will probably find a large
  630
  measure of acceptance from the whole House—at least, judging by the speeches of the two hon. Members. We on this side will be delighted if he will put in such a provision. But the effect of the Amendment is not that at all. It is a restricting Amendment, and I think that on the Report stage we should not further restrict what we have agreed to. What was agreed to was a compromise between the larger and the smaller, and to go back and restrict the proposal to a smaller sphere from which a man can carry his qualification would be a great mistake. In Scotland, in church membership, where a member is disjoined from one church, he gets what we call "lines," which he takes to another church, and that is held good in the other church. One feels that when one has a qualification he ought to be able to take it to any part of the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to this Amendment which would simply restrict us further.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I dare say the House will remember that in Committee we had a considerable fight on this question of successive occupation. All along it has been a very debate able matter with those who take an interest in these questions. Mr. Speaker's Conference came to a compromise on the question and their proposal was introduced into the Bill. There was a good deal of support for the view which has just been expressed by my hon. Friend that it would be better that successive occupation should exist from any constituency to another constituency so that a man might live three months in one constituency and three months in another and still be qualified. But other hon. Members like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) did not desire any successive occupation at all; they wanted in fact to abolish it. The Committee very wisely, as I think, came to the conclusion that after all it was better to follow the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and accordingly I accepted the Bill as then framed. I take the same point again to-day. It is better to adhere to the compromise, and I hope on this Report stage the House will agree to follow the example set by the Committee. I, therefore, do not propose to accept this Amendment which, to a very considerable extent, would curtail the benefits conferred by Mr. Speaker's Conference with regard to successive occupation.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end of paragraph (b), to add the words, "or separated from that borough or county by water not exceeding at the nearest point six miles in breadth."
  This matter was discussed shortly on the Committee stage and was held over to Report stage. The point I wish to bring before the House is this: we have just agreed that a man should take his qualification to a contiguous county or borough. Now there are in many parts of the country constituencies that are separated by arms of the sea and there is no provision in the Bill that a man can take his qualification with him in such cases. I have looked carefully over the map of the United Kingdom and I find that there are in England and Wales sixteen cases and in Scotland eighteen cases where this occurs. Perhaps if I give constituencies on the shores of the Firth of Forth it will more clearly explain my meaning. The Amendment if it were carried would enable a man without losing his vote to go from these constituencies to other constituencies, namely, from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy, from Leith to Kirkcaldy, from Midlothian to Kirkcaldy, from Edinburgh to Fife, from Leith to Fife, from Midlothian to Fife, from Linlithgowshire to Fife and from Linlithgowshire to the Dumfermline Burghs. In every one of these cases there is a very large change of population continually going on from one side of the Forth to the other. In Fife you have a very large number of miners; so also you have a large number in Midlothian, and these men are constantly changing their places of work. As a matter of fact the inhabitants cross from one side to the other by the Forth Bridge every day. There is a large population and a considerable community of interests between the shores of the Firth of Forth, and therefore it seems to me it would be quite improper that the mere fact of water intervening should prevent these constituencies from being considered to be contiguous. I suggest therefore that where water intervenes the distance which should be laid down should be one of 6 miles, and I find that that would cover practically all the cases that exist round the shores of the United Kingdom. In Scotland in addi-
  632
  tion to the case of the Firth of Forth, there is the case of Caithness and the Orkneys, there are numerous cases on the Clyde, and there are cases on the Tay.
  In England you have cases on the Mersey, on the Bristol Channel, on the Humber, on the Thames, the Tees and the Tyne. I find measuring these distances on the map that 6 miles would cover them all, but any distance less than 6 miles would not do so. I understand that in certain Acts of Parliament, dealing with territorial waters, 3 miles from low water—that is to say 3 nautical miles—is the territorial limit. Therefore, I think it would be only fair that 3 miles on each side of these respective estuaries should be considered a reasonable distance to operate in these cases. I hope I have made the matter clear. Of course the Home Secretary may have some other way of carrying this out, but I do suggest that it ought to be distinctly stated in the Bill that these should be the limits. There may be cases—it is quite likely—where, for instance, the boundaries of boroughs or counties run to mid-channel so that the boroughs or counties are actually contiguous. I do not know that there is a sufficient definition in any existing Act of Parliament to cover this, but I am quite sure that unless some provision of this kind is put into the Bill there will be greater hardships experienced when the register comes to be made up and when in the case of an election a man goes into a polling booth and learns for the first time that he is not on the register because he happens to have crossed the estuary. Under the Bill a man may go from Cape Wrath to Kingussie, a distance of 200 miles, and still be qualified, but if he goes from Kirkcaldy to Leith he loses his qualification. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of my Amendment.
  Colonel GREIG: I support the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. This is a matter which affects my own Constituency; it affects Greenock and Dumbartonshire and Greenock and Argyleshire, and many similar places where people are continually crossing over for the purposes of their employment. Unless this Amendment were adopted, men through changes of employment in these places would lose their qualification.
  Captain DOUGLAS HALL: I rise to support the Amendment, which is particularly applicable to the case of the Isle of Wight. There are dockyards both on the mainland and on the Island. People are continually going from one to the other, and it would be very hard indeed for them to lose their vote because they happen to change their residence, although they still are doing exactly the same kind of work.
  Sir G. CAVE: This is a rather difficult question. There are places in England which it would be somewhat absurd to call contiguous, but which would be covered by this Amendment. For instance, there are places in South Wales, Monmouthshire, and Cardiff, which surely it would be absurd to call contiguous to Somersetshire. They are, in fact, far from being contiguous. It is the old question whether water unites or divides. There is this further difficulty about the Amendment. It is true that, as my right hon. Friend said, in some places the boundary of a county may run down into the sea some distance from the shore, and where that happens on both sides you may find that there is more than six miles of water from shore to shore, and yet they will be called contiguous constituencies. I would much rather take somewhat less than six miles as the limit. I would not strongly object to three, and that would, I think, practically cover most of the cases where there is actual propinquity.
  Captain HALL: Would that cover the case of the Isle of Wight?
  Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend must know that better than I do. But it is very difficult to judge this matter by reference to particular cases. I would rather not accept the Amendment now, but if it is thought we ought to define it, I would rather compromise on three miles.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word " six," and to insert instead thereof the words " three nautical."
  I regret that I could not be in my place when my own Amendment on the Paper was reached, but I was engaged on public business elsewhere. I suggest it would be much better and more convenient to measure these distances by nautical miles, and if the Government are willing to accept the principle of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), then in my opinion the limits should be
  634
  three nautical miles rather than six miles. Hence I move this Amendment of the Amendment.
  Sir A. BLACK: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  5.0 P. M.
  Mr. GULLAND: It is quite right, no doubt, that in England three nautical miles would cover all the cases which really matter, but in Scotland I am sorry to say it would not. I really would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring to his mind, as I am sure he can easily do, the difference between the map of England and the map of Scotland. The map of Scotland is indented by many of these estuaries. I see the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has just come in, and I would appeal to him, because this affects him more than anybody else I see in the House. The three miles that the Home Secretary now offers would be no help at all to my right hon. Friend, because Kirkcaldy Burghs are more than three nautical miles across the Firth of Forth, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a large population which goes between the constituencies on the south of the Firth of Forth and those on the north. He also knows very well that six miles across the Firth of Forth would enable the electors coming from Edinburgh, Leith, and Midlothian to take their votes with them, but that three miles would be of no use whatever. That would happen also in the case of Caithness and Orkney, and I think it would be rather a pity to isolate Orkney and Shetland from the adjacent islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The three miles would also not cover some of the cases on the Clyde. It would cover the cases of the Tay, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, which areas, I may say, the Government are now utilising greatly for war work. There is a large number of munition workers, shipbuilders, and people of that sort, transferring regularly from one to the other, and I would appeal to the Home Secretary to recognise all the difference it would make. If people do not transfer from one side of the Bristol Channel to the other it will not affect them, and no harm is done; but I should be very sorry that any of my right hon. Friend's constituents should be deprived of this privilege.
  Sir C. SEELY: I think it would be rather hard that a man should be deprived of his vote for moving from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. I cannot speak with certainty, as I do not know the Portsmouth boundary, but I think it is more than three miles from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not want to be too hard in this matter, and I will accept the six miles.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel GRETTON: There is one matter which will clearly require further consideration. We have to decide sooner or later from what point these boundaries are to extend; whether we are going to take high- or low-wafer mark, or some other mark below the water. It will be a most difficult question to decide, and only rise for the purpose of drawing the Government's attention to the difficulty which will arise in order that it may be considered, and, if necessary, put right in another place.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the first paragraph (b), to insert the words, " A man representing, as hereafter provided, a company, association, trade union, building society, friendly society, or any other body of persons incorporated by charter or registered under any Statute, having the requisite qualifications shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary and local government elector, and references to a ' person' in this Act shall include a company or other body so registered. The board of directors, committee of management, or other governing body of any such company or other body may nominate a person being a member of such board, committee, or other governing body, or an officer of such company or other body, to exercise on behalf of such company or other body the franchises conferred by this Section, and such person shall be registered accordingly. Provided that such company or other body shall, not later than the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July in each year, have furnished to the registration officer in writing under the
  636
  hand of the secretary or other authorised officer of such company or other body the name of such person."
  I have this Amendment in manuscript dealing with what was down as a New Clause under the heading of (Franchises. (Companies and other Bodies)). You asked me, Mr. Speaker, to move it as an Amendment to Clause 1, and I propose to move it as a new Sub-section after the word " county " [" to that borough or county "]; and in a slightly altered form. It is an important Amendment because it deals with a large number of people who if it is not accepted will be disqualified. Rightly or wrongly, the habit has grown during the last few years, and is continually growing, of people in businesses of every description and all over the country—in England, Wales, Scotland, and, I think, also in Ireland—instead of conducting their businesses under their own name, or under the name of Jones and Sons, or Jones Brothers and Company—registering themselves as a limited liability company. The effect of that is that they lose their vote. I should say in nearly every case, certainly in the large majority of cases, these particular people are large ratepayers and large taxpayers, and they should not, I think, be disqualified from exercising the right to vote because they have taken advantage of an Act passed by this House, and approved of by this House, authorising them for the. purpose of their business to form themselves into limited liability companies. The effect of this Bill, and the chief desire of this Bill, was, as I understand, not in any way to disqualify for or to restrict the franchise, but to take every opportunity of extending the franchise as far as. possible. It cannot be denied, I think,. that the people whose case I am pleading are in every way fitted to become voters of this country, and the acquisition of these people would be a source of strength. to the electorate.
  I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment. I may point out to him that if he looks at pages 2,077 and 2,078 of the Amendment Paper he will see. my Amendment practically set out in words, and it is, of course, very much easier to follow if he can see it in writing than if he only hears it read. He will see that it gets. over some of the objections that used to be raised to giving the vote to companies. It used to be asked, and I think with a

  637
  good deal of reason, how, if you gave a vote to a company, you were to decide who was to exercise that vote? Was it to be given to the shareholders, to the directors, or to the secretary? I think my Amendment will provide the machinery for that purpose, and I venture to say that it is an extremely modest Amendment, because it confines the number of persons who may vote for any given company to one. It does not say that a company because it has a very large amount of capital and a very large number of shareholders, many officers, servants, and directors, shall be represented by a large number of people. It merely says, and the intention of it is, that any company shall be considered as one person, and that if a company fulfils the necessary qualification to entitle a person to become an elector that company shall have the right of nominating one person and only one person, and that that person shall have the power to vote as an elector. I hope the Home Secretary will very carefully consider the remarks I have made, and which I have confined in as short a space as possible, and that he will accept the Amendment. If he thinks that there are certain drafting Amendments I shall, of course, be quite willing to accept any which he thinks advisable, always providing that the principle of the Amendment is preserved.
  Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand the arguments which have been put forward by the right hon. Baronet who has moved this Amendment. The point is, of course, an old one, and we had a discussion upon it in Committee upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). I have to repeat what I then said. We should by this Amendment create a new franchise which is not embodied in the Bill, and was not recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and I think we should have great difficulty in accepting that at this late stage of the Bill, especially after we have come to a decision upon it in Committee. Apart from that, however, there are certain objections to this Amendment. One effect would be that under the Amendment a company with a number of branches all over the country would be entitled to nominate a representative for each of those branches. so that you would give to a man who turned himself into a limited company the great advantage of being able to be represented in a whole number of constituencies all over the
  638
  country. There may be advantages in that result, but I am sure it will not be entirely satisfactory.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That would be got over by inserting such words as, " It shall only be qualified in respect of the head office."
  Sir G CAVE: I must deal with the Amendment as it stands. Another effect of the Amendment would be to bring politics into the boards of limited companies, and one can imagine the general. meeting of a limited company called to decide whether the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) should be added to the board or whether it should be the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (Mr. Lough)
  Mr. HOLT: I am afraid, after what the Home Secretary has said, I cannot support this Amendment, but the speech of the right hon. Baronet, I think, has shown the absurdity of this business vote. The effect of the franchise given by this Bill is not to give two votes to the most important businesses carrying on in a certain town, but a second vote, under the pretence noted, to doubtless very worthy people, that is, stationers, hairdressers, and the like, who carry on business in the business part of each part of the town. Why they should have two votes and other men only one, I am afraid I cannot understand.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words " have been " [" though he may have been residing "], and to insert instead thereof the word " be."
  I have two Amendments following this one dealing with the same point. The discussion we had on the Committee stage, and the compromise arrived at, met one of the difficulties, and left the Clause as it now stands. The situation has been complicated, not by the compromise offered, but because of an addition to the Clause. No doubt it was put in as a precaution, and is a very great precaution, against any jerrymandering or swindling about a person's qualification, but it is going to make considerable difference to the registration. I can imagine the party agents, whom we are trying to keep out so far as we can in these matters, regarding it as part of their duty formally to object to every new name on the register, in order to make it perfectly certain that

  639
  they shall make good their objection to the man whose qualification in regard to residence they have found not sufficient. That is not the sort of thing that we want to have done. It is most undesirable that objections should be multiplied. Although it is a little difficult to understand—for the whole thing is a little complicated, and I confess I am not very clear about it myself—residence for thirty days in a constituency before the end of the qualifying period should be unnecessary in, the case of a bonâa fide occupier of a house. My suggestions, I think, would bring about a satisfactory solution of a rather difficult registration difficulty. You might lose a little protection that is given at present, but you would set against that, if this and the two following proposals can be accepted, the fact that you get rid of the other difficulties that I have pointed out.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. GULLAND: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Baronet opposite has said in favour of his Amendment. I think, however, the point against it really is—and I think it is really a considerable point as I understand it—that he gives the privilege to the owner, or, at any rate, to the service franchise voter, but he denies it to the lodger. That is really the whole crux of the Amendment. He says that this is the privilege to be given to the men who is an owner, or a tenant, or a Service franchise man, but the hon. Gentleman makes no mention of the lodger. Therefore by this Amendment he penalises the lodger. I do not think that that was the intention of the Speaker's Conference, or of this House in Committee. We came to the conclusion that if a man was entitled to be on the register he could be on the register, whether an owner, or tenant, or lodger. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will not at this point make a distinction between the lodger and other classes of voters. These very restrictions were put in, if my memory serves me rightly, to safeguard the lodger vote; so that the lodger cannot come on unless he fulfils all these difficult qualifications. It does not seem to me to be fair at this time of day to take from the lodger the privilege given to others. In regard to what the hon. Baronet said about registration there are great diffi-
  640
  culties in regard to that in this Bill. But I do not think that the one he mentioned is by any means one of the greatest. I do not foresee the difficulty he brings up about the party agents. The party agents are not going to object wholesale to everybody. They are not going to get people off the register. They are going to give every facility to the people to get on the register. That is the whole idea of this Bill. As I understand it, the Amendment is a restriction, and 1 hope the House will not agree to it.
  Colonel GR ETTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it seems to me, has misunderstood, or mistakes, the purpose of this Amendment. The Bill as it stands makes it necessary for a qualification that there should be a residence in the constituency of thirty days within the qualifying period, with the proviso that the qualification shall not have lapsed. That entails that a man, or woman, should possess practically a seven months' qualification and not a six months' qualification. What this Amendment proposes to do is not to do away altogether with that qualification of residence of thirty days after the date on which registration takes place in January or July; it is a relaxation of the restrictions in the Bill. It is no use putting in the Bill something which will not be carried out, and which will prove cumbersome. The hon. Baronet has pointed out that an all-round general objection will have to be made to all these new names coming upon the register. That is a very objectionable method of procedure which entails a vast amount of work and causes a great deal of irritation I do not think that wholesale notices of objection of that kind ought to be served in order to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament. As regards the other proviso, the residence of thirty days before the 15th of January or the 15th of July, it is proposed to dispence with that particular qualification in the case of those permanently settled by ownership, tenancy, or by service in the constituency. There is no necessity to impose this restriction. My hon. Friend opposite proposes, and I think the House will agree, that there should be some check upon what may be called "swallow" or "fagot" voting. There should be a bonâd fide residence of thirty days in the constituency in order that the voter may qualify for his vote as a lodger. The lodger's possessions consist of what he has on his back, a pair of boots, and so

  641
  forth. He has not a permanent dwelling in any constituency. He is bound to dwell somewhere, but he may alter that dwelling at a week's notice, simply because that, for some reason or another, his occupation or the exigencies of his life cause him to move out of the constituency. It is also a fact that there are many persons of the criminal or semi-criminal classes who will be upon the register, and we do not want to make it easy for these persons to obtain their qualification. In this respect the Clause is of value.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment unless he is very well satisfied that it will be an improvement to the Bill. I dare say the House will remember that this provision was put in after a very lengthy and complicated discussion on the whole system of successive occupation. A person may come into a new division one day before the registration at the present moment, and nevertheless can qualify under the law of successive occupation. It was pointed out in Committee that that might be all very well under the old law where most persons would be held to have a more or less permanent possession in their tenancy or in their occupation, but that it would open the door rather widely to the new type of voter, namely, the voter who is now to qualify by residence. In view of that consideration, a certain compromise was arrived at, and I think it was upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Durham that this particular proposal was put in. There were Amendments, the House will remember, to do away altogether with the possibility of a man coming in at the last moment, however bonâd fide. I think an Amendment was down in the name of the hon. Baronet who spoke just now, that nobody should be entitled to claim successive occupation in any case unless he had been there a month before the date of registration. That, of course, would have hit very hardly indeed the bonâd fide people who come to reside in the new constituency without any intention of doing anything improper with the franchise. Therefore, the suggestion was put forward that, in the case of every person who came into the new constituency within thirty days before the registration day, his permanency in occupation should be tested by the fact that he had stayed there another thirty days after
  642
  that date. That was the reason which operated with the Committee when we were discussing this proposal.
  If we accept the hon. Baronet's proposition, a person who comes into a constituency as an ordinary resident will have to show, as I understand, that he has some definite right as a tenant of some place. and therefore my hon. Friend opposite is perfectly right when he says that we are giving this privilege of moving from one place to another and keeping the vote to those people who can show they have taken a house or the tenancy of a house. I quite admit the difficulty of it, and if the Home Secretary, no doubt having given careful attention to this, is advised that the proposal of the hon. Baronet is a better one than that in the Bill, I should be willing to bow to it, but I should rather deplore it, because I think you would find you would disfranchise a very considerable number of the working classes who would have come in within the last month before the date of registration, and although they had come in with the most bonâd fide intention of remaining there for the rest of the year, or for many years, they would be disqualified because it was shown that they were not, strictly speaking, tenants of the particular building in which they had come to reside. Therefore, my own inclination would be to urge the Home Secretary to adhere to the present system, although I quite admit it is not perfect.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Member who has just sat down said that there may be certain hard cases if this Amendment is carried. There must be hard cases where you have to provide for an evil, and in this particular case the evil which the Committee provided for was especially in large towns—an evil which might have very considerable results where unscrupulous party agents, or unscrupulous candidates, thought it might be possible to remove a certain number of electors from one constituency to another at the very last moment, and so unfairly influence the election. I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend desires to disfranchise lodgers as lodgers, but, unfortunately, the class of people who would come in and who would commit what, I think, everybody in the House is desirous of preventing, would be the people who would take a room. It would be very difficult for anyone to come in suddenly at the last moment and occupy a house. What would take place would be that a large number

  643
  of people would come in and take a room, and in that sense they would be lodgers. But it was not the intention of my hon. Friend to disqualify lodgers because they were lodgers, but merely to provide a safeguard against an evil which, I think, everyone in the House, including the right hon. Gentleman, considers is an evil which ought to be provided for.
  Sir G. CAVE: This question of the swallow voter, as it is called, has given the House a good deal of trouble. I confess I have never been quite satisfied with what we did in Committee, not only because of the circumstances in which the changes were made, but because I do not think we found the best possible solution of the difficulty. It is quite true that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out that under this proviso as it stands it is necessary for everybody to be objected to by party agents, and you would no doubt open the door to the very thing which all of us would desire to do away with if we possibly could. If my memory serves me, I said we would leave this matter open for the Report stage with a view to it being fully considered at that stage. That being so, I am a little disappointed at the form of this Amendment. I venture to think that the Amendments taken together do not provide a better solution than, or even so good a solution as, that which we have in the Bill. You still leave it open to a man to come to a constituency the last day but one, and to take a lodging there for a week, at the end of which he gets his vote. That is the very thing we want to prevent. It was the very thing the whole discussion turned upon. Therefore, with all respect to my hon. Friends, I think they have not yet found the right solution. I confess I am disappointed at not seeing on the Notice Paper an Amendment dealing directly with the point. If it had been proposed, say, to lengthen the period of one day to fourteen days or something of that kind, I would have asked the House carefully to consider that proposal. I put fourteen days for this reason: Take the spring register. The qualifying period runs up to 15th January. There are many persons who bonâd fide change their quarters at Christmas, and if you require thirty days' residence you would exclude those people who came in just before Christmas. If you make it fourteen days you would include those people and would not disfranchise the man who came in at Christmas, although a man
  644
  who came in after the 1st January would not be qualified for the vote. Possibly the point may be raised again in another place. I do not know, but, so far as to-day is concerned, I could not accept this Amendment, because I think it would destroy, although it does not intend it, the whole effect of the proviso. What I have said does not apply to the second Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be very glad to withdraw this Amendment. I only wish to confirm what my right hon. Friend opposite said about the intention of this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg leave to move, in proviso (a), to leave out the words "on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that."
  This would, at all events, obviate the necessity of objection being constantly raised against any new voter.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think the House might accept this Amendment. It does not alter the franchise at all, but obviates the necessity of having an objection in every case.
  Colonel SANDERS: Will the Home Secretary consider what the procedure would then be? How is the registration officer to know when he puts the man on that he is going to reside thirty days afterwards or not? Objection must be made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in proviso (b), to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
  The object of this Amendment is to allow a man to let his furnished house for a period of four months without thereby losing his residential qualification. That is really only preserving the existing law. The Bill proposes to reduce that period from four months to three months. I venture to think there is no reason for that reduction; on the contrary, I submit there is every reason for keeping the four months. To reduce the period of letting from four months to three months as the period for preserving the voter's qualification would be really a very serious hardship upon many people who are in the habit of letting their furnished houses during the summer months. For instance, many people live at seaside resorts, and they go somewhere else for four months,

  645
  and let their houses furnished for that period. It is a serious hardship to them if, by so doing, they lose their qualification as voters.
  I think it is within the knowledge of all of us that four months is an exceedingly common time for which to let a person's house. If I may quote an opinion which I think may have some weight with my right hon. Friend, it is that of the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon), who is now serving with the Forces, who said that there was a great deal of force in this proposal, and he was very much inclined to support it. I agree that there is no object to be gained by making this a disfranchising Bill. Our object is to have this House elected by as many voters as possible, so that it will be as nearly as possible a fair representation of the opinion of the nation. On those grounds I ask the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: On the Committee stage the hon. Member for York succeeded in getting this paragraph put into the Bill to the effect that a man would not lose his electoral qualification if he were to let his house for three months during the six months period necessary for qualification. Four months was originally the period fixed in the Act, but the qualifying period at that time was twelve months, and not six months, as is now proposed. My right hon. Friend accepted the Amendment for three months in relation to six months' qualification, which was even more favourable than four months in relation to twelve months. Therefore, that was a considerable concession to owners of houses who wished to let for a portion of the qualifying period during which they were supposed to reside there. Really, there is nothing much in the point. I quite agree that we do not want this Bill to be a disfranchising or a disqualifying Bill, and we want as many people as possible to have a legitimate qualification. I would like to have got the opinion of the House as to whether three or four months would be preferable, but no strong feeling has been expressed on the point, and if the House would prefer four to three months the Government see no objection to it, although it is exactly one of those matters upon which the Government desires to have the opinion of the House. As at
  646
  present advised the Bill must stand as it is unless there is some further indication that it is the desire of the House that this Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with my hon. Friend, but I think the general desire is to enfranchise as many as possible and disfranchise as few as possible. No doubt there are a considerable number of people who let their houses for perhaps four months in the year, and they must have some residential qualification. On the whole, I think we ought to be generous to this class, and the House will probably agree to accept the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. FISHER: As my right hon. Friends who have spoken voice the opinion of a large section of the House, the Government will accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question in regard to whether the New Clause (Persons Legally Employed in all Elections not Disqualified as Voters) comes in as a proviso at the end of this Clause? The Clause really says persons shall not be disqualified from voting, and not from being registered. I suggest that this proviso should come at a subsequent place in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; it ought to come in where the Bill deals with disqualifications.
  Sir GEORGE TOUCHE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
  "Provided that such of the freemen of the City of London as are liverymen of the several companies and entitled to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for the City of London shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency.
  Provided also that any liveryman registered under this Section may exercise the franchise indicated by such registration only as an alternative to any business premises qualification to be registered under this Act."
  This question came up on the Committee stage under circumstances which were not favourable for its adequate discussion, and, therefore, I ask the House to grant me its indulgence in raising the question again, especially as I am doing

  647
  so by a Clause which contains certain modifications with a view to meeting the objections which were, raised in the earlier discussion. I do not propose to take up the time of the House with an exhaustive historical survey of the livery vote in the City of London, but perhaps I may briefly indicate its antiquity, as it is on the ground of historic continuity, in a large measure, that I am asking the House to accept this proviso. We have to go back to very early days to trace the origin of the livery vote for Members of Parliament. In the earliest days ward representatives were summoned to the Guildhall for purposes of election. Then the number and importance of the Mysteries or Guilds or Brotherhoods, as they were called, which began to be incorporated in the reign of Edward III., made them the most fitting representatives of the City interests. In or about the year 1375 the right of election of all City dignitaries and officers, including Members of Parliament, was definitely transferred to the City Guilds, or livery companies.
  Some time later the practice of summoning ward representatives was resumed, but in 1467 the masters and wardens of every Mystery of the City, "coming in their livery," were again summoned for election, and the right of the livery to vote has continued down to the present day. This has been especially recognised and confirmed by Act of Parliament, notably by an Act of Geo. I. in 1722, and in the later Reform Acts there were certain modifications with regard to residence. I think the preservation of the livery vote is not inconsistent with democratic reform. The City Guilds have been traditionally in favour of Parliamentary reform. They have been foremost in urging it in times past, and their attitude has not changed now. They recognise clearly that there is an urgent need for settling all these contentious questions about the franchise, in order that after the War the House of Commons may be free to deal with the many difficult problems with which it will be faced. We are all seeking a friendly settlement now, and for that reason we ought to be careful that any settlement come to, whether by majority votes or not, does not involve any unnecessary sacrifices. Full consideration should be given to this question of historic continuity. It is part of the price which those who prefer a mere arithmetical basis should be willing to pay for a large acceptance of their views.
  648
  I submit that the claim for the preservation of historic association is one which ought to be regarded with tenderness in all parts of this House. The House of Commons is the last place to which the City Guilds should appeal in vain, for they have been the champions of Parliament in the past. They have gone to the length of financing Parliament, and when they were strong and Parliament was weak they invariably threw their influence on the side of Parliament. They have always been against any encroachment on the liberties of the people. They petitioned time and again for Parliamentary reform, and they prayed for the creation of sufficient peers in order that the great Reform Act of 1832 might be passed. If any historic claim deserves consideration in this House, I think it is the claim of the City that the centuries-old right of the members of the City Guilds should not be swept roughly away.
  6.0 P.M.
  It is always a pity to break traditions when that is not a necessity of reform. Surely it is wise, while recognising the. need for change and development, to graft the new on the old, and to satisfy the desire for a broader basis, while preserving historic continuity. The ancient ceremonies and institutions of the City of London make it a place apart. They are all linked with the nation's history, and they help to make a fitting setting for the exchange of international courtesies which do so much to cement alliances. They provide a scene of action for national. appeals and international gatherings. Time and again since the War began the Prime Minister and other statesmen, both of this country and from the Overseas Dominions, have used the platform of the old Guildhall for the purpose of sending their messages to the nation. It is recognised in this Bill that the City of London is a unique constituency. It is a wonderful place for those who know its history. It is full of memories of the great past, and it is rendering patriotic service in the present day. It is the clearing house of the world. It is the buttress of the finance of the Allies; it is the home of countless War charities, of which it is a most generous supporter; and I think it can almost be claimed that it is the nerve centre of the War. A unique constituency deserves a unique electorate. It has got one now, and it has never abused that privilege. The vote is held by men who are thoroughly representative of the City's

  649
  interests. Then why should it be swept away, especially at a time when you are adding millions of electors to the electoral roll—a great many of them very inexperienced? Why should you grudge the continuation of a few votes held by people who are essentially representative of the interests of which the City is the centre? These votes are not widely distributed. They are not able to influence elections here and there. They are all centred in one constituency, which is admittedly a constituency of an exceptional character, and those who possess these votes to-day are admittedly fitted to reflect that character. They are to be swept away—not because of any direct attack upon the City: I do not think anyone in the House wishes to do that now—merely because a broad general basis has been adopted. No doubt, as regards the country generally, simplification was most desirable; but no rule of that sort should be applied absolutely blindly, especially in an old country like this. A new country has to proceed on a somewhat crude and arithmetical basis, but an old country should seek to combine ancient tradition and modern reform. The basis selected by the Speaker's Conference has been shown to be one which is quite capable of variation in special cases without destroying its democratic character. That is evident by the retention and extension of the University vote.
  If a vote is to be given anywhere on an educational basis, I think the City of London has a very strong claim. The City Corporation and the City Guilds have been pioneers in the cause of education. The Guilds have done and are doing a great work for education, elementary, secondary and technical. They did it long before the great value of education was generally understood. I do not wish to weary the House with a detailed account of all the educational activities of the City, but I many mention a few. The City Guilds, jointly with the Corporation, have established the City and Guilds of London Institute for the advancement of technical education, and they have endowed it. They have established Gresham College, with which the Mercers' Company is specially identified. The Corporation of London founded that splendid institution the City of London School and also the Freemen's Orphan School. The Mercers' Company, the records of which go back to the time of Henry II., has the Mercers' School at
  650
  Barnard's Inn, Holborn, and it founded St. Paul's School as far back as 1509. The Drapers' Company established Bancroft's School. The Skinners' Company have four schools under its administration: 1, the Tonbridge School, founded in 1553; 2, Skinners' School for Boys at Tunbridge Wells, founded in 1880; 3, Sir Andrew Judd's Commercial School, opened in 1888; and 4, a Day School for Girls at Stamford Hill, opened in 1890. Both in the past and in the present it will be observed that these City Companies are active in the cause of education. The Merchant Taylors' School was instituted in 1561. The Haberdashers' School, known as Aske's School, was founded in 1688. The Clothworkers' Company is the governing body of Mary Datchelar Girls' School at Camberwell. The Brewers' Company, "The Wardens and Commonality of the Mystery or Art of Brewers of the City of London," as it is called, founded Dame Alice Owen's School in 1613. The Leather-sellers' Company has erected a technical college, giving training in all branches of the craft, and has endowed a grammar school at Lewisham. The Coopers' Company's school was continued for nearly 400 years by the masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Coopers' Company.
  I think that abbreviated record ought alone to satisfy the House that on an educational basis the claim of the City for the livery vote deserves special consideration. The destruction of the livery vote would be more than a break with tradition. It would alter the status of the Guilds; it would rob them of a recognised place in the scheme of public affairs, a place which they have possessed for centuries. These ancient Guilds are a national asset. They should take no small part in the reconstruction of our national crafts after the War. They are capable of doing great service. They are anxious to do it, and they are preparing to do it. Surely this is not a time when their status ought to be assailed even in an indirect manner. We are told that the vote is to be taken away as part of a compromise. The livery companies were never consulted on that compromise. It is very small satisfaction to Smith, when his rights are being taken away, to be told that it is being done by virtue of a compromise between Brown and Robinson. A great many of the livery voters do not even know that their rights are being assailed. Many of them are at

  651
  present serving their country at the front. One can imagine what their feelings will be when they come back and find that during their absence one of their most cherished privileges has been taken away.
  Although the Bill contains no compromise at the present time, so far as the livery companies are concerned, the Amendment which I am submitting does contain a compromise which the livery companies are prepared to accept. By a resolution of the great meeting at the Common Hall they authorised me to ask for the retention of the vote, not as it exists to-day, but simply as an alternative to the business occupation vote under the Bill. The total livery vote, eliminating duplicates, is, I believe, about 6,000. Probably two-thirds of these will receive the business occupation vote under the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, the balance will go. The livery companies do not wish it to go, but they would rather let it go and be permitted to retain the historic association than have the Livery vote destroyed altogether. If what I ask for is granted, it cannot affect the general representation of the City in any way. All it will do will be to preserve the historic continuity. It is not open to any of the objections which have been fatal to certain Amendments with which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shown a considerable amount of sympathy. It does not add to the number of the constituencies. It does not even add to the number of electors. All it does is to preserve the historical associations between the electorate and the ancient guilds. Surely we should keep some anomalies to link the present with the past. No question of politics is involved. It has always been the pride of the livery companies that no party politics are known within their halls. The liverymen of London, Liberals and Conservatives alike, ask this House of Commons, which is very jealous of its own traditions, to preserve their historic franchise as a symbol of the long history of the country. May I close my observations with a note from a voice which is always listened to with respect in this House and in the country, and which will carry much greater weight than anything that I can say. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has expressed regret at his inability to be here to-day, but he writes:
  652
  "I regret the proposal to abolish the livery vote and. hope that you will be successful in your efforts to. secure reconsideration of this proposal, for which I can find no adequate reasons. The democratic character of the House of Commons would not be diminished by the retention of a vote so intimately connected with the past history and present life of the City of London."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment moved in such an eloquent speech and in such well-chosen terms by my hon. Friend. I support the Amedment because it will prevent the disfranchisement of a very valuable, though it is true not a large, body of voters. It certainly does not alter the number of Members in the new House of Commons or conflict with any of the principles which we have heard discussed so often in connection with the Speaker's Conference. It simply asks for this vote as an alternative to the business occupation vote which is granted at the present time to the City and elsewhere. I am sorry to say that I am not a liveryman of the City of London, but I am and have been a residential voter of the City for thirty-five years and I am very proud of being a voter for such a great constituency. It is customary to refer—I think the hon. Member did refer—to me and my co-residents as being caretakers and porters and similar people. Be that as it may, speaking on behalf of my co-residents, and we are the only people who will be affected by this Amendment, I can say unhesitatingly that the liverymen as a body know more about the City of London and the great questions that affect the City than the residents of the City of London whose rights are preserved by the present Bill. There is no question of politics in this matter. Is it not important at the present time, if we can, to gain assistance from the liverymen? I look at the question from the point of view of the country rather than from the point of view of the privileges of the City. It seems to me to the advantage of the House and of the country to get the advice and the assistance and the interests of the liverymen of the City of London at the present time.
  There are two matters I have come up against in the City which are likely to come up in this House more in the future than in the past. The first is a matter which has been taken up largely by the municipalities. I mean the provision of playing grounds. You have in the livery companies people experienced in spending

  653
  money on these matters, and their experience will be exceedingly valuable when such matters come before the House in the future. The second point has already been touched upon, and it is the question of education. I am inclined to go a step further than my hon. Friend. He has dealt with the schools and colleges which the City of London has from time to time founded, a great, beneficent, and important work. The liverymen of the City of London have undoubtedly been foremost in assisting education of a more experimental type in recent years. Remember how they came to the assistance of that very useful branch of secondary education, the Polytechnic of London, and the assistance which they gave to the old Polytechnic in Regent Street, by which they enlarged its beneficent work. That has been exceedingly useful. From time to time the City Guilds have found the means for scientific research. It is of great importance that you should have some body which has the money to advance such research, which results in great benefit to the community at large. We are about to consider an Education Bill of great width and complexity. Some hon. Members have talked of the proposals in that Bill as if they were quite new. Many of them are not. Many of them relate to experiments which have been tried by means of money provided by the City Guilds. It is necessary that when that Bill comes on those who represent the interests of the City of London and those who have had experience of such branches of education and have spent money on them should be able to give us their assistance. As a voter in the City of London I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. The sentimental weight which attaches to a vote of this kind is a business asset of great value to this House and the country. I would ask the House not lightly to throw it aside, seeing that it does not depart from anything in the compromise arrived at Mr. Speaker's Conference, especially in the form in which it is now put forward. If the Government decline to accept the Amendment—I hope they will not—and my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. SHERWELL: If Amendments to the Bill at this stage could be accepted on the ground of the eloquence with which they are proposed to the House this particular Amendment might easily find its way to a
  654
  place in the Bill. But I find it difficult to believe that, after what took place on the Committee stage of this Bill, the Government would to-day lightly be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind. We have had a quite legitimate and very full statement of the benevolences and the philanthropic habits of the livery companies, whose members are to be enfranchised under this particular proposal. I am not quite sure how my hon. Friends, who moved and seconded the Amendment are prepared to carry that principle. Is it really to be seriously proposed to this House that we should enfranchise a man simply because he is associated with a company or corporation which very generously and philanthropically disposes in the public interest of funds, not personal to the members of the corporation or the company, over which it happens, by the accident of circumstances, historical and other, to have control? It is well known to every Member of the House that there is a large and, I am happy to believe, a growing number of public-spirited citizens who are every day bestowing large large sums of their own personal property in philanthropic, educational, and other directions. Is the House prepared to say this afternoon, as a matter of principle, that we are going to propose the enfranchisement of the philanthropic spirit? That really is the logical deduction from the arguments brought forward in support of this proposal. After all, the question is not one of the public spirit or the philanthropy of a particular individual or a particular set of individuals. It is a question of principle, namely, the grounds upon which you are to hold a man or a number of men entitled to exercise the vote. On the matter of principle, what becomes of this particular proposal? When analysed it amounts to a proposal to enfranchise a certain number of men—the actual number is quite irrelevant—who, under the principles and proposals of this Bill—and after all the provisions of this Bill embody certain agreed principles—are not entitled to the franchise. It is because I believe that the acceptance of this Amendment would involve a serious departure on a ground of principle, and a serious departure from the agreed principles upon which the whole of this legislation is founded, that I venture very strongly to express the confident hope that the Government will not, on the Report stage, overturn the decision arrived at on the Committee stage.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I very much regret that this matter has been brought up on this occasion. It was very definitely settled in Committee by the resolute demeanour which the President of the Local Government Board then showed. The Mover of the Amendment stated that in Committee it came on under unfortunate circumstances. It is quite true that it was not discussed in Committee very much, but that was because of the attitude of the Government. If there had been any other attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman there would have been a great deal of discussion, because a great deal can be said on both sides in this matter. The City of London has not been badly dealt with under this Bill. It retains its two Members. It is a City containing a population under 17,000 and an electorate which might be something between 20,000 and 30,000. In ordinary normal circumstances it would have been disenfranchised altogether. Yet the recommendation came up with unanimity from the Conference to continue the special electoral privilege of the City. I have great admiration for the City, and, personally, was quite willing to let it stand out in that particularly prominent position —indeed, a predominant position over all other cities in the country. But that recommendation was accomplished with conditions, one of which was that the livery vote should come to an end. The Resolution of the Conference is very clear on this point and goes to the bottom of the whole case. After recommending the two classes of electoral qualification, residence, and the occupation of business premises, the Resolution says:
  "The franchise based upon the foregoing qualifications shall be substituted for all the existing franchises, provided that the representation of the universities shall be maintained."
  Those of us who were in favour of that were willing to give the duplicate vote for the occupation of business premises, so that the business community should have rather more say in the affairs of the country than that to which their numbers would entitle them. We were willing to give the vote to the universities so that the educational community of this country should have rather more say in the affairs of the country than that to which their numbers entitle them. But we did not, we could not, and we will not, go further than that.
  Mr. DENNISS: Did you discuss the question of the livery vote?
  Mr. DICKINSON: Am I at liberty to discuss that question? My hon. Friend may be pretty well certain that if this proposal had been accepted by the Conference we should not have come to a unanimous decision on the question or the City of London. It is part and parcel of the system recommended by the Conference and the system adopted by the Government in tins Bill. The City of London does not stand alone in this respect at all. There are a great number of people in the country all of whom have been disfranchised by this Bill, and in whose support nobody has raised any voice. There are over 6,000 freemen and liverymen in the City of London, but there are over 21,000 freemen in various cities in the Kingdom. In some cities the freemen form a considerable portion of the electorate. In Norwich there are 800, in Nottingham 500, in York 1,400, and in Coventry over 2,000. My hon. Friend has to make a very special case in support of his proposal that the liverymen and freemen of the City of London should retain their rights as freemen whereas the freemen in other cities are to lose them. Why should these particular most worthy gentlemen have this separate privilege? I have nothing to say against the liverymen. The livery companies have had their moments of great repute and their moments of great disrepute. During the last twenty or thirty years they have done a great public work. But the individual members of these companies have no particular claim to any special electoral rights over anybody else. How do they become members? By servitude in certain cases; by purchase, I believe, in many cases, and by birth. They all have their ordinary vote under this Bill wherever they reside, or have an occupation of business premises. I see no reason why these individual gentlemen, excellent though they may be, should have this particular privilege.
  Moreover, it is a curious thing that when you look into the Amendment you cannot see what reason there can be for giving them the vote in this particular form. If I understand the Amendment, it provides that a liveryman in the City of London is to have his name on the register of electors in the City of London, but is not to vote in the City of London unless he has a £10 business premises qualification either there or somewhere else. As far as I understand the Amend-

  657
  ment, it means that every liveryman in the City of London shall be placed on the register of electors for the City of London, and, if he has a business occupation qualification in Epsom, he shall be allowed to vote in the City of London; but that if he has no business qualification in Epsom, or anywhere else, he is not to be allowd to vote anywhere at all. I do not see what advantage that is going to bring to anybody. It is going to give these particular individuals the right to choose whether they will vote where they have their proper qualification or in the City of London, but it does not give one of them the right to vote in respect of his qualification as a liveryman. It is a new proposal altogether. Every graduate of a university is given the university vote, and if he has a residential vote somewhere else he can exercise his second vote; but that is not going to be the position as I understand it under this Amendment. I hope this proposal will not be pressed. It was made the subject of a unanimous recommendation of the Conference and it was decided in Committee. If it is introduced on the Report stage it seems to me to be opening the door to a vast amount of difficulty, especially with regard to freemen in the other cities of the country.
  Captain BARNETT: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what happened on the Committee stage of the Bill. I was present during those proceedings which impressed him as being so comprehensive. There were only eight Members present, including my hon. Friend (Mr. Touche) who made a very eloquent speech to empty benches. I followed him with a few halting sentences, and the matter was over in fifteen or twenty minutes, with no discussion whatever. To suggest that it was dealt with in any proper way or that the ancient rights, liberties and franchises of the City of London, which have existed for four or five hundred years, should be swept away in a desultory conversation of that kind is an insult to the intelligence of the House. We have been told that a great many freemen in the country are being disfranchised. That is true. That is the argument of compromise. I fail to see how there is any compromise in depriving someone else of his vote in Liverpool or Manchester and telling me I ought to be satisfied to be deprived of my vote. I am a very humble member of the Livery of the Worshipful Company of Turners. My purpose in
  658
  mentioning that is not one of ostentation, but to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Touche), who pointed out the great educative work which is being done by the City companies. For years past the Worshipful Company of Turners has been teaching turning. It has been presenting lathes all over the country to the industrial schools. We have felt in our pockets to some extent, for one Worshipful Master after another has appealed to us to subscribe for lathes to be given to the industrial schools and reformatories throughout the country. We have also held exhibitions of turning. What has been the result of that? The art of turning, never more important than in this War, when munitions are so largely dependent on the skilful use of the lathe, is better known throughout England at present than it has ever been, and those men who were trained in the industrial schools and reformatories in the country to the use of these lathes have been doing yeoman work for the Ministry of Munitions. That is only one small illustration of the great and beneficient work of education which has been done by the City companies. It is not necessary to repeat the catalogue of the great schools which they have founded. Their fame has gone out into the land. When it comes to the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) telling us that we are asked to enfranchise the philanthropic spirit, we are asked to enfranchise nothing of the kind. We are not asking to enfranchise people, because they give £20,000 to education or £5,000 to hospitals. We are asking the Government most strongly not to enfranchise City companies, but to leave them the old franchise which they have had for hundreds of years, a franchise which our Prime Minister, in my own hearing, swore six months ago to defend. We are asking for the maintenance of ancient rights which, we have been told, have never been abused. There is no reason why anyone should be disfranchised by this great measure. I yield to no one in my admiration of it, but I think it would be a great pity if it is remembered hereafter as a Bill which preserved the full right of voting to the conscientious objector and robbed the City of London of its ancient livery vote.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the Mover of this Amendment will not press it. It was with a considerable amount of misgiving, and of reluctance as well, that we did not oppose the recommendation of the

  659
  Speaker's Conference that the City of London should retain two members. It has two members, but it is not satisfied, and I believe if, in another stage of the Bill, they got the liverymen included in the franchise they would not be satisfied, but would come forward with some further Amendment to give a dual vote to more people residing in the City of London and outside it. There are quite a number of towns and cities in the United Kingdom which would make the same claim. We recognise that the Bill is a democratic measure. We do not want to retain any of these old-fashioned claims to be on the register if we can possibly help it. I hope the Government will refuse to accept the Clause as moved. If it is inclined to accept it, we—I am speaking on behalf of the Labour party—shall have to consider whether we will move an Amendment to the Schedule with regard to the City of London retaining two members. It is going too far to ask the House of Commons to accept an Amendment of this kind. I fully recognise that sentiment plays a great part in the affairs of this country, but for goodness sake do not let us allow it to become sloppy sentiment, and I am afraid it is inclined to do that now.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I cannot share the regret of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) that the House is given an opportunity of considering this question—an opportunity which it has never had up to this moment, because when the question came on in Committee there was no discussion and no expression of opinion at all—and it is a perfectly sound constitutional view that when you have not an opportunity of raising a question in Committee you are bound, if you believe in your case, to raise it on Report. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech which appeared to me to disclose the existence of the extremest type of the Conference mind, which is wholly unimaginative. It proceeds upon a proposed verbal construction of the Conference, and having established, or sometimes invented, principles on which that Conference is supposed to have acted, you could always reject, according to them, any proposition to amend the Bill. You could say, "I was against the principle of the Conference," like the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell), or you can say, "It is against the verbal text of the Conference," as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) said. From either
  660
  of those two points of view, of course, the argument is answerable. But if that is the real point of view from which to approach the Bill, why are we here at all? Why did we not vote for the Bill en bloc and say there is an, end of it? It has been admitted by everyone whose opinion is worth having that we are entitled to a certain extent to revise some of the textual provisions of the Bill in order to make them better and to make the franchise a better representation of the people in some cases than it is at present. I support this franchise—first, because it embodies a great historic tradition, and, secondly, and perhaps even more, because it has proved to be a most valuable franchise in itself. It has existed for 500 years. That in itself, according to some views, is no reason why it should be continued. It might even be urged as a reason for abolishing it. I am not sure that there are not murmurs which would indicate that that is the view of some hon. Members opposite. But in the case of a franchise which has existed for five hundred years it, at any rate, affords an opportunity of testing its value, and the test of five hundred years proves that this franchise has been well exercised. The history of the City of London in its Parliamentary and municipal aspects is, to a great extent, the history of civil freedom in this country. Who are the men who have sent these representatives to Parliament? Largely, though not entirely of later years, these very liverymen whom you now propose to disfranchise. That is one reason why you should continue it. Let me suggest another. These liverymen have large and substantial interests in the City of London and are representative of almost every branch of the finance, the industry, and the enterprise of the City, and their voices have a right to be heard when the City of London is called upon to express, through its representatives, its opinion upon great national questions.
  Let me suggest one other reason. In the City of London, and elsewhere no doubt, but in London especially, is the seat of great numbers of great commercial enterprises—joint stock companies, and the like. These joint stock companies, however vast their enterprise and however beneficent their operations, have no vote attached to them. Some of us think it is wrong. I do. But we are not proposing to alter that at this moment. What is important to bear in mind is that many of these liverymen are directors or occupy promi-

  661
  nent positions in these companies, and if you preserve the livery vote you give to these great associations which have done so much for the industrial position of this country a direct chance of their voice being heard when it comes to an election. That is a ground which in itself gives some reason for supporting this vote. But if there is no reason—and I cannot discover any—for disfranchising these liverymen, why should you disfranchise them? One of my hon. Friends made a very good point when he said it was a question of disfranchisement in answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who talked about it as an enfranchisement. When it comes to a question of disfranchisement, surely you ought to produce some adequate reason for it? Can there be or has there been any reason brought forward for that measure of disfranchisement, except that it would impinge against the dead uniformity, the far too great dead level of uniformity which, as I think, takes far too little account of historic traditions and distinctions which ought to be preserved and ought to be respected by this House when it comes to a measure of this kind. Under that dead level of uniformity many seats and franchises have disappeared, and now it is proposed to use that abuse of principle, if I may call it so, by saying that in no circumstances must you extend the franchise laid down in this Bill, however valuable the franchise to be abolished may have been and however historic or beneficent it may have been. I ask the Government to take account of these things and to concede something—it is not a very great concession—to historic traditions and to a great past, and in that way, without impinging upon any legitimate underlying principle of the Bill, or any basis upon which it has been recommended by the Conference, to improve the Bill and to preserve the enfranchisement of a body of voters who have deserved well of this country in the past.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, like the Mover of this Amendment and other hon. Members who have spoken in its support, has made a very attractive speech in favour of what I venture to term a very unattractive proposal. He and others have drawn upon our gratitude for the philanthropy and public spirit which has been shown, particularly in recent years by the City guilds, and they seek to turn that gratitude into votes. One of the great
  662
  virtues of the recommendations of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes. for a simplification of the franchise. It sweeps away for the most part fancy franchises, and, among others, this very anomalous privilege of the franchise enjoyed by the liverymen of the City of London. As the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) has pointed out, if you restore the franchise to the liverymen of the City of London how can you refuse to do the same for other liverymen in other parts of the country? There is an Amendment on the Paper to-day proposing that the liverymen of Oxford should have their franchise maintained. If the present Amendment is passed, what answer can we give to my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford - why we cannot accept his Amendment?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are there any liverymen outside the City of London? There are freemen, but are there any liverymen?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The distinction is a somewhat fine one. They are persons who have exceptional franchises by virtue of holding certain posts in connection with the Corporation, or, in the case of London, in, connection with the guilds, and I think that the freemen of the city of Oxford would have great cause for complaint if this House, having accepted this Amendment, were to reject the next one. Similarly there are cases, as my right hon, Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has said, all over the country. There are 15,000 voters outside London who hitherto have had this. privilege. The hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have done it on what is termed historical continuity. Every anomaly can be defended on the ground of historic continuity. If we were to accept that as a basis for legislation we should still have an electorate such as. it was 100 years ago. The speeches which have been made to-day in support of this Amendment are really echoes of the speeches made in 1831 and in 1816, and I am afraid they must be dealt with in the same ruthless and stern spirit with which our predecessors treated similar ad miseri cordiam appeals to gratitude and goodwill when previous Reform Bills were before the House. When we refused only the other day to allow the eloquent plea of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butcher), on behalf of the ancient city of York, which was supported on very strong historic claims, and when we are proposing

  663
  to disfranchise ancient cities like Canterbury and Winchester, once the capital of England. we must steel our hearts and not allow this privilege to continue.
  The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said truly that the City Guilds in the past had been great benefactors to education. Is it really a reason because the Brewers' Company, which the hon. Member quoted, founded a school in 1617 that the liverymen of the Brewers' Company should have a special vote for Parliament in the year 1917? We do not even give a special franchise to the pious founders of the present day. A man may found an important school in any part of the country, but no one would think of giving him a vote for that reason. Why, then, should we give a vote to people who are but representatives in apostolic succession to men who centuries ago built schools which rendered useful service to the educational system of the country? If these liverymen are residents in the City of London now, they will have a vote by that residence, or, if they have a business in the City of London, they will have votes for their business premises. The only persons whom the hon. Member wishes to enfranchise are people who have neither residence nor business in the City of London, but who by purchase, or inheritance, or in some other way, happen to have a share in one of the City Guilds. They may be spectacle makers who know nothing about spectacle making, or cord-wainers who do not know what cord-waining is—I do not know—and yet they are to have a larger measure of political authority in this country than their fellow citizens Another hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Barnett) has been good enough to take a share in presenting lathes to reformatory schools as a member of the Turners' Company. As one interested in reformatory schools, I am most grateful to him for having done that; but that is no reason why he should have an extra vote for Parliament, admirable though his work for the reformatory schools has been. Having regard to these facts, I trust the House will adhere to the attitude which they took up in Committee. If this privilege is conferred it must necessarily open up the question of plural voting, to the continuance of which many of us agreed reluctantly on condition that all fancy franchises were done away with, and that
  664
  the plural vote was to be limited to the dual vote. That question will have to be reconsidered, to see how the matter stands, if this Amendment is adopted. For these reasons I hope the House will adhere to the decision arrived at.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I am extremely disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I was hoping that when he rose to address the House he was going to use the great influence which he exercises over his Friends to say how utterly unreasonable was the resistance to this Amendment. I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have shown more imagination, and that that would have led him to show more sympathy to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said—and I think his words were intended to convey something of a menace—that if this Amendment were accepted it would necessitate reconsideration of the whole question of plural voting. I could understand that threat if this Amendment proposed to extend in any way the plural vote. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the fancy franchise, and I could understand the opposition of hon. Members, if this Amendment proposed in any way to stray further in the direction of plural voting; but it does nothing of the sort. There is nothing in this Amendment which will add to the plural voting which has been already accepted in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that when we defended an Amendment of this sort on the ground of historical continuity, that any anomaly might be defended upon the same grounds. I would not defend a proposal in a Reform Bill on the ground of historical continuity or association if there was any sort of an abuse involved in it. I would not vote to bolster up anything which might be considered from the most advanced standard an abuse or an anomaly on the sole ground that it embodied some historical association. The reason why we wish this livery vote to be retained is, that while it symbolises of historical association, which I should have thought would have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, it does so without in any sense bolstering up an anomaly or an abuse which upon any ground of merit anyone could object to.
  7.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches (Mr. Tyson Wilson) talked about the necessity for adhering to the principle of the Bill. Surely the hon.

  665
  and learned Member for York is right when he says that there is no particular object in establishing and maintaining a dull level of uniformity for itself alone. Uniformity and principle are all very well, and are perfectly right if they have some intelligible object, or if they embody something which is in itself valuable, but there is no intention in this Amendment of invading in any real sense the principle of the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman joins with others in saying that if this Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to resist similar proposals from other cities, that argument is of no weight whatever. There is not a man in this House, whether he represents ancient cities like Oxford, York, Winchester, or Canterbury, but would admit that great as are the historic traditions of those cities, they cannot be brought into comparison with the historic associations of the City of London. I defend this Amendment, and am willing to support it, if necessary, in the Lobby, entirely upon sentimental grounds, and I think it is because the sentiment is so strong, and because there is no other ground for defending it, that it ought to be accepted. When an hon. Member opposite, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, talks about the endowment of schools, Of the disbursement of money not being a good title to the vote, everybody absolutely agrees with that. Possibly it would have been better if these grounds had not been mentioned in the Debate; but I understood my hon. Friend the Proposer of this Amendment, and others who supported it, referred to the past dealings of the livery companies in matters such as education, charity, and so forth, not to show that those things in themselves entitled these men to the vote, but in order to show by the history of the companies the great part they have taken in the public life of the country, the great history which lies behind them, in order to induce the House, if possible, if it pays any attention to these considerations not to break that continuity, and to make what is avowedly an exception in favour of these companies, and to keep alive their ancient and honourable history. It is on those grounds that I defend this Amendment. There are hon. Members here who would like to destroy a franchise of this sort merely because it is ancient. I think that my right hon. Friend behind me seemed to display that attitude, and I
  666
  think that my hon. Friend the Member for York was within his right in speaking of my right hon. Friend as showing a very unimaginative mind in the matter. There are, of course, persons who from time to time, if they have to restore a building, would from the pure joy of the thing take down a piece of Norman stonework and replace it with corrugated iron, and, if the sole object is to keep out the wet, it is quite open to question whether corrugated iron is not the better material of the two. But those who have any regard for the beauty and picturesqueness of antiquity and history will be inclined, when they can do so without injuring the structure, to maintain what is ancient and beautiful. On those grounds, I support the Amendment, and I hope that the House will do the same.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I do not know whether the House is aware of it, but, I think it was in 1883, there was a Royal Commission on the City livery companies, and the revelations of that Commission are still lingering in the minds of those who read them. It was clearly shown that with enormous revenues, amounting to many millions, a very small proportion of the money was properly expended. A hundred thousand pounds a year was expended on refreshments. The members of the livery companies have met and come to a decision on this question. I was wondering as to what they did at that meeting, whether it was before they had the refreshment or not. I would wish this fact to be understood. After the Report of the Royal Commission the City livery companies thought it advisable to a certain extent to reform themselves, and then they voted considerable portions of the moneys which they controlled for the purposes of education, and since that date a very large proportion of their revenue has been set aside for educational purposes, while a considerable portion of their revenue is diverted in another direction. Now we come to the question of the livery vote itself. The voters number 6,000 or 8,000 men who are not connected in any way with the various trade organisations to which they are supposed to belong. They handle the funds. Even if they handle every penny properly, they ought not to have such control, which belongs properly to the whole trade organisations of London—to the whole of London. I speak as a Londoner who feels that his money is being controlled by men who

  667
  have no right to control it. We are told that many of them have no connection whatever with the City of London. If they had any connection it would not be necessary for them to have this Amendment to give them the vote. The Mover of the Amendment said that about one-third of 6,000 would get votes, which at present they do not get, if this Amendment were carried.
  Sir G. TOUCHE: I said that about one-third of them would lose their votes.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I am sorry that I misunderstood that point. Why give votes to these liverymen when they get votes in the ordinary way in the City? Nearly all of them are connected with the City. We have been told of the magnitude of the City of London. We all appreciate the position of the City of London in the financial world and in the Empire, but you have got in the City of London about 30,000 of them who will have a chance of voting in the ordinary way. Why should these liverymen be in any way brought into the question. They are an anachronism. They may have been all right 700 years ago, when they did not know where to get voters or how to get them. They are not wanted now, and they should disappear from our English electoral system. We have quite enough anomalies left in this Bill now. We have plural voting in all its glory. Plural voting is increased in some directions. We certainly .do not want the very worst type of plural voter to be left. I do not see why they should be trusted with votes when they cannot be trusted with public funds.
  Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment is very strongly supported, and there is a very strong feeling behind it. To begin with, it is an Amendment which comes from the City of London, to which all of us desire to do honour, and with which many of us have personal relations which we would not willingly break. I have the very greatest possible respect for the City Guilds. They have done year after year admirable service to education, charity, and other public causes in this country. The Amendment was recommended by the hon. Member for North Islington in a speech to which all who beard it listened with the greatest respect. My hon. Friend made the very best case that could be made for this Amendment, and I know that for a time some Members
  668
  of this House who until then had been disposed to take a different view were shaken in their opinion. There was much force also in the sentimental reasons urged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's in favour of this Amendment, and it would have been a real pleasure to me if, finding in this House a general assent to this proposal, I had been able myself to, agree in this case to an exception from the general scheme of the Bill. But we are not here for pleasure. I do not even hold my office for pleasure. We often have to sweep aside considerations of personal liking, and from time to time during the progress of this Bill I have had to harden my heart to some of my hon. Friends and refuse pleas which on sentimental grounds appealed strongly to me. I had to oppose the claims of the city of York and the claims of the county of London. On this Amendment also I find myself bound by the conditions under which we are working.
  I do not quote the Report of the Conference as binding us in every one of its details, and there are occasions when the recommendations of the Conference have been altered by general assent. But we are dealing here, in this Amendment, with one of the main principles embodied in the Report of the Conference, that in the new franchise system the three franchises which are to remain shall take the place of all other franchises. That has been the Report of the Conference expressed in terms which nobody could mistake, and with which the Amendment now before the House does not comply. If, notwithstanding that fact, we had found anything like a general assent in this House to this proposal, one might have taken a different view, but when we find Members strongly opposed to this proposal, when we find Members of the party opposite opposed to it, when we find the Labour party by their spokesman strongly resisting the Amendment and saying that if it were passed they would have to reopen the question, which I hope is closed, of the double membership of the City of London, then it appears to me that a serious position arises, and I do not think that that would be according to the interests of the City of London itself if we did accept a proposal of this kind. I doubt very much, as I read this Amendment, whether it would have practically any great effect on the list of voters for the City of

  669
  London. I believe that most of those who are in all essentials Londoners, have already under this Bill a vote for the City of London. The great bulk of the liverymen are business men in the City of London. They have got the vote already. It will not matter to them whether they vote as business men or a liveryman. Therefore, I do not think that this Amendment would make any large addition to the voters of the City. Many of those who would be added would not be City men in the full sense of the word. It cuts both ways, but to that extent it shows that we are not really refusing anything of any great substance.
  That brings me to another point. I find very great difficulty in construing this Amendment. I have read it more than once, and frankly I do not know what the proviso means. It says that the liverymen who are entitled to vote in the election of Members for the City of London shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency. Provided that any liveryman registered under this Section may exercise the franchise indicated by such registration only as an alternative to any business premises qualification to be
  registered under this Act. That means, I take it, that every liveryman shall be registered, but that he shall not vote if he has a business qualification; and I really do not know—I am really not quite sure—how you are to enforce the proviso. How are you to tell, when a liveryman comes to vote, whether he has already voted for business premises in some other part of the country? It seems to me that this Amendment has not been fully thought out, and really is unworkable. Even if it were put in workable form, so that we could understand what it means, I do not think it would be possible to give any effect to the proviso. What my hon. Friend really wants is an alternative registration. However, I will not go into that, as it is not part of the Amendment. I hope I have not expressed any hostility to the feeling underlying this Amendment; but, having thought it out very carefully before to-day, and during the Debate, it seems to me that if I were to accept it I would be departing from the view which has guided the Government throughout the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 167.

  Division No. III.]

  AYES.

  [7.18 p.m.

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Norton-Griffiths, Sir J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  O'Malley, William

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Mid.)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Tickler, T. G.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)

  Marriott, J. A. R.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Younger, Sir George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G.

  Fell, Arthur

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Touche and Mr. Rawlinson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Currie, George W.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ainsworth Sir John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Noel

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

  Doris, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Barnston, Capt. Harry

  Cheyne, Sir W. W.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Clyde, James Avon

  Edge, Captain William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Falconer, James

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Finney, Samuel

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, William J. MacGaagh

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

  Fleming, Sir John

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Galbraith Samuel

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

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

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gilbert, .J. D.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Glanville, Harold James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smallwood, Edward

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Snowden, Philip

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Millar, James Duncan

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Fred. E. (Dorset, E.)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West),

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hackett, John

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Grady, James

  Tillett, B.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Haslam, Lewis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parrott, Sir Jomes Edward

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Pease, Rt. Hon.Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  King, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Yeo, Alfred W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighe)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rowlands, James

  Craig and Sir Edwin Cornwall.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  CLAUSE 3.—(Local Government Franchise (Men).)
  A man shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and—

  (a) is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally, as owner or tenant, any land or premises in that area; and

  (b) has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises in that area, or, if that area is not an administrative county or a county borough, in the administrative county or county borough in which the area is wholly or partly situate:

  Provided that—

  (i) for the purposes of this Section the word tenant shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him in an unfurnished state;

  (ii) a man, though he may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is
  672
  shown that he commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them. within thirty days after the commencement of his occupation; and

  (iii) the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Section by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding three months in the whole.

  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "land"["any land or premises"], to insert the words "of the yearly value of not less than five pounds."
  The present value for the land qualification is £10. The Bill as it stands proposes no value whatever. I think that I am correct in saying that this matter was raised in the Committee stage, and the Government was impressed by an argument then used. They felt it necessary to put some value on land, because the land qualification, without some limitation in value, would be an impossible thing. If this Bill stands without a provision of the kind I

  673
  now propose, a square yard of land, the right to set up a stall, the right to set up a hoarding with a foundation, would be a land qualification. That obviously is absurd; it cannot be intended. I could carry this point very much further, but I will not do so. At any rate, it cannot be intended that the land qualification shall not be a real qualification, but that it shall be a substantial piece of land, with premises attached. The matter really goes a good deal further. Unless some value is placed on the land there would be an unlimited inducement to make fagot votes, but nobody wants to do that because the local government voter becomes a Parliamentary elector also. But for a resident in a neighbouring constituency it would be possible to acquire some nominal piece of land just over the border, and thus obtain the local government vote for himself and the Parliamentary vote for his wife. That cannot be right or intended. There is no doubt that the Clause as it stands is very dangerous and is an invitation to make fagot votes. My proposal in no way interferes with residential qualifications. It is manifestly impossible to leave the Bill in the state in which it now stands.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment. In the Committee stage the Government promised to look into this matter, and I hope they will agree to some Amendments to meet our views. It is absurd to have no value at all.
  Mr. FISHER: This matter was raised in the Committee stage, and it was pointed out that if there was no value it would be quite possible to establish a great number of fagot votes by purchasing pieces of land or taking possession or occupation of pieces of land of really nominal value. The Government promised consideration to the question as to whether or not they should attach some value to the land which would give qualification for a vote. They came to the conclusion that they would be bound by the decision of the Speaker's Conference. In paragraph (31) (a) it is recommended by the Conference
  "In substitution for all existing franchises for Local .Government purposes every person who for a period of six months immediately preceding the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July in any year has occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises in a Local Government area in England and Wales shall be entitled to be registered and to vote as a Local Government elector in that area."
  The Conference attached no value to the premises and indicated nothing in the way of any restriction upon the amount of
  674
  land or the nature of the land or premises or the value of the land or premises, but simply said that any person who during the occupying period had occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises in the local government area should be entitled to be put on the local government register. This matter also affects the question of woman suffrage. Although I am very far indeed from saying that this will not give any opportunity to create fagot votes, I am very far from saying that, and there is a real danger of it, when we have to choose what course we will take as to whether we shall be influenced by the fear of the creation of fagot votes or more influenced by the rule of conduct laid down by the Home Secretary that when in doubt we should follow the Speaker's Conference. We have come to the conclusion in this case, as in so many others, that on the whole we had better adhere to the Speaker's Conference recommendation. But the Government are alive, to the importance of checking as far as possible fagot votes, and by an Amendment which will come later on we ensure that no more than two joint occupiers, unless they are bonâ fide partners, shall be entitled. So far we have met the case of the fagot voter, and we should like to meet it a little more if we saw any means of doing so without running counter to the very deliberate opinions of the Speaker's Conference. Having that in our minds, we are bound to ask the House to follow that advice and to adhere to the rule laid down that there shall be no value placed on the land in respect of which you may be able to obtain effective qualification.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It is all very well to talk about the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on this point, but how does the House know whether the Conference had this particular point properly before it? Many things have emerged, some of great importance, in the conduct of this Bill in which we were in a position of complete obscurity as to whether or not they were considered before the Conference came to certain conclusions. This is a case in which the right hon. Gentleman tells the House deliberately and distinctly that here is an opportunity for creating faggot votes and yet that we are not at liberty to deal with the matter and adopt safeguards. That is a perfectly absurd and monstrous position. We ought to be quite entitled to do so. We do not know, and no one apparently

  675
  can tell us, whether this matter was considered fully by the Conference. We have the present qualification of £10, and there are proposals to duplicate this husband and wife qualification. It may be a certain safeguard to limit the joint occupation to two people, but, on the other hand, it may be possible to break up the holding into small pieces. I do think it is a serious thing deliberately to pass a Clause of this kind with the full knowledge of what it may lead to.
  Mr. PETO: In view of what has been said, may I say what my memory is as to what happened at the Conference upstairs on this particular point? So far as my memory goes, the particular point whether it was essential to put in some small annual value was mentioned, but it was not considered in any way a vital point, and I think that it was one of those little details which we purposely left in a somewhat vague condition, or, at any rate, as to which we did not enter into the most minute detail. The words quoted by the President of the Local Government Board clearly indicate that it is left an open point, and the Conference does not say that it should be land of any value or a nominal value, but simply says" any land or premises." Of course, that could be interpreted to be land of the value of 2d. or of a practically negligible value. Certainly, from my recollection of our discussions upstairs, it was never intended that the land should have no value whatever. I cannot see myself why the Government in this matter should be so meticulous in their adherence to and interpretation of the recommendation of the Conference. I should have thought that the question was one absolutely open to the judgment of the House and the consideration of the Government.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do hope that the Government will stick to the position they have taken up. The Conference deliberately adopted residence and occupancy, unqualified, as the basis of the franchise, and they deliberately excluded all other kinds of qualifications. The setting up even of a low value would bear hardly on large numbers of persons who occupy very small plots of land, and probably thousands of allotment holders would be deprived of votes if this limit of £5 were fixed. In that way a great injustice would be inflicted upon them. I quite agree that there is some danger of
  676
  fagot votes. I believe that the danger is very largely exaggerated. But would it not be possible to put in a provision that the claimant should have to prove bonâ fide tenancy to any plot of land? I am not a lawyer, and do not know how these things are done, but that seems to me to be a way to provide against bogus claims.
  Sir W. BEALE: I should agree both with the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) if I thought for a moment that there was any real danger of fagot votes being created by this Clause. I have been advised that owner or occupier means only occupying owner. If it were the fact that a man could have the vote without actually occupying, then there might be the danger of creating fagot votes. If he is to have a vote as owner without being an occupier, I should say there is some danger of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. But my own view is that the vote can only be given to the occupying owner.
  Mr. FISHER: The words used are, "occupying jointly or severally as owner" and the qualification is given to the owner not as owner but as occupying owner. In my previous remarks I said there was some danger of the creation of fagot votes, but it is not a very great danger, and on the whole I think we had better adhere to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
  Colonel YATE: Will a man who owns a plot of land in a cemetery be entitled to vote for that?
  Mr. FISHER: Would he be an occupying tenant?
  Colonel YATE: I am speaking of the case of a man who has purchased a piece of land which he intends to be used as a grave. Will you give him a vote as the owner of that land?
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Colonel YATE: I understand that this Bill does not provide against that, and there is a danger of the creation of fagot votes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the words "the occupier of lodgings within the area of the yearly value, if let unfurnished, of not less than ten pounds."

  677
  This Amendment raises a rather difficult point. The Clause as it stands fixes no value whatever, and my proviso is intended to prevent fagot votes being instituted, especially in the case of the woman's vote. Nothing could be easier than to establish a lodger vote for local government purposes which would carry with it the wife's vote for Parliamentary elections. It is quite clear there ought to be some definite limit laid down in the Bill with regard to the premises to be occupied by the lodger. I think here we have a serious flaw in the Bill, and I, therefore, move this Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  As a general rule, when a man takes furnished lodgings he takes rooms more valuable than if he took unfurnished lodgings. It does seem necessary to protect against the creation of fagot votes by insisting on a yearly value. As to the right of a grave owner to a vote, he has only to sow cabbages on the top of the .grave and call it a garden to entitle himself to a vote, and, therefore, I think the jeers which greeted the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) when he put his question were hardly justified.
  Mr. FISHER: Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the qualifications should be given to the owner or tenant. The lodger of course would be the tenant. The question was debated at considerable length in Committee, and a compromise was arrived at which suggested that the lodger should be strictly confined to one who took unfurnished lodgings, and nothing was said at Mr. Speaker's Conference as to the value of the lodgings. The qualification was to apply to unfurnished lodgings only. The Committee came to the conclusion that the unfurnished lodger should be entitled to the qualification without any value being attached to the unfurnished room. My hon. and gallant Friend now suggests that the room should be of the value of at least £10 a year, and we have to decide whether or not any value should be attached. In Committee it was agreed that mere occupancy of unfurnished lodgings should entitle the lodger to the Local Government franchise. There was nothing in the outcome of Mr. Speaker's Conference which suggested that any limitation of value should be attached, and in view of that fact the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words:
  "For the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant."
  I hope the Government will accept this Amendment for these reasons. A considerable number of people are living in houses the occupancy of which is treated as part of their wages, and to all intents and purposes they are just as much entitled to the Local Government vote as ordinary tenants of houses under a landlord. A considerable number of people are interested in this matter. An Amendment was moved previously this afternoon to give a man who already had a vote another vote. I was opposed to that. But in this instance we have men and women employed as caretakers at clubs and other institutions who, we submit, are fully entitled to the franchise. The party with which I am associated does not see why these people, who are to all intents and purposes, in the position of tenants of dwelling-houses, should be deprived of the local government vote. In connection with this, we have had representations from different parts of the country, and we are convinced that there is a real hardship here. I appeal to the Government to carefully consider the Amendment we have put down. We feel sure they do not want to do an injustice to anyone. If they are qualified to have a franchise they should have it, and the fact that the house is included in the salary, or wages paid to the occupant, places him in the same position as any other tenant. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are schools all over the country where houses are provided for the caretaker. In clubs of all kinds the caretaker lives on the premises and occupies rooms which, if rented, would bring in quite as much as a cottage. We have golf clubs where the caretaker is living on premises which, compared with those occupied by the ordinary working man, are simply palatial. Under this Bill these people will be deprived of the Local Government vote. I ask the Government to give this matter

  679
  most serious consideration. The Amendment would enfranchise a fairly large number of people who, to all intents and purposes, are equally interested with their fellow-citizens in securing good local government, and therefore I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: This question also was raised in Committee, and at the time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not see his way to accept it. But it is sometimes possible on reconsideration to give approval where, in the first place, it seemed impossible to do so. The hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has made out a very good case for giving the franchise to this particular class of person. They are school caretakers, or people who live in golf clubs or other clubs, or on the premises of philanthropic institutions, and their occupancy is considered in their wages. This class has no other chance of ever getting on the register; they have no other residence, they have no occupation outside, and they are not rich people, and therefore, unless the franchise is given to them in this way, they cannot get it at all. Yet they have exactly the same interest in good local government as any of their fellow-workers who have the franchise either as tenants or lodgers. I think, therefore, we all want this. As I have said more than once, this is not a disfranchising but an enfranchising measure to put as many on the register as are qualified—as many solid men, with solid interests, who are interested in the good government of the country and the local administration of the country—as we possibly can. If, therefore, the House is with me, I shall certainly accept the Amendment.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I will not delay the House, but I desire to say that this is extending to England the privilege which obtains in Scotland. I think the hon. Gentleman has been justified in moving his Amendment, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted it.
  Colonel SANDERS: Before this Amendment is accepted I would like to point out that I think it ought to read, "For the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and
  680
  which dwelling-house," etc., etc. I think the word "which" should replace the word "the."
  Mr. FISHER: I think the language of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is perfectly intelligible. I am not going to say it is quite the very best, but I think if the House will leave it to the draftsman and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill they will see that we carry out the intention of my hon. Friend, although I think his words fully cover the case and indicate what is the law we desire to pass.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Ought not the Amendment to come in after the words "Provided that"? The Amendment has been moved to insert the words at the end of paragraph (b). It appears to me that the Amendment would really come in much better after the words "Provided that."
  Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to have your assistance, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then I will put the Amendment in this form: "After the words 'Provided that,' insert 'for the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, in paragraph (i.), after the word "word"["the word tenant"], to insert the words "owner shall not include any person who does not himself occupy the qualifying premises, and the word."
  The object of this amendment is to make paragraph (a) perfectly clear. It is thought by some of us who are interested in local government—particularly in London—that Clause 3 (a), as drafted, may mean that the owner can obtain a municipal vote for the same premises as the tenant. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill, and my object is to make it perfectly clear that the owner does not include the person who does not occupy the qualifying premises.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not think this Amendment is needed in the very least.

  681
  The owner, in order to obtain the local government franchise, must be the occupying owner.
  Mr. GILBERT: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: Paragraph (ii.), leave out the words "on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that."
  Paragraph (ii.), at end, leave out the word"and."—[Mr. Hayes ,Fisher.]
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), who is absent from the House, in paragraph (iii.), to leave out the word "three"["not exceeding three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four," consequential?
  Mr. FISHER: I had hoped that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) would be here to move that Amendment, because this makes the law similar as regards local government to the law we have already passed and made applicable to Parliamentary government. That is to say, that the qualifying period is not broken by the fact that the resident lets his house for four months instead of the three months that we agreed to on the Committee stage. We have already accepted an Amendment to that at an earlier period.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph iii. leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months"], and insert instead thereof the word "four."
  After paragraph iii., insert the words,
  "(iv.) Not more than two persons shall be entitled to be registered as joint occupiers in respect of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ, fide engaged as partners, carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
  Mr. BOLAND: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "(iv.) The service of a notice to quit upon a tenant followed by a demand of possession shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have the effect of determining the tenancy so long as such occupier remains in the actual occupation of the premises."
  682
  The object of this Amendment is to prevent the prejudicial effect of the mere notice to quit, and also to prevent the destruction of votes by a great number of notices being issued in a wholesale way. At present, as I understand, under the law, if a notice to quit is given and a demand for possession is thereupon served upon the tenant, and if then the tenant does not leave but remains in possession, the landlord agreeing to his remaining there, the effect is that the vote has gone. I do not imagine that that is the object of this Bill. It should, on the contrary, really aim at preventing anything in the nature of a general disfranchisement. Nevertheless, a man would lose the vote in this case, because, although he was there the actual tenancy would determine in law, and he would be in the eyes of the law a trespasser. That is a very great hardship, and I submit that if the words I propose are carried it would do away with that hardship.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In that case would not the man still be on the register? Is there any necessity for this Amendment at all?
  Mr. BOLAND: I do not speak with very much knowledge on these registration matters, but my hon. Friend who is associated with me in moving this Amendment (Mr. Muldoon) is very well qualified on registration matters, and he advises that it is very necessary to have these words inserted.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This is an Amendment which will have, I think, very little practical operation, and such practical operation as it might have would be limited, so far as any cases can be foreseen, to Ireland. There are no doubt circumstances in Ireland where this action by a landlord towards a tenant should not have the effect of determining the occupation of the premises, and although it is difficult to see how we are to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as he has in view I am advised that there are no substantial reasons why the mere occurrence of a notice which may have been given with regard to rent in arrears, and a demand not followed by proceedings, should lead to a vote not being given and to the determination of the tenancy. I am not sure that the language proposed is the best for the purpose, and I suggest to the

  683
  hon. Member that he would secure his object if he added to the existing paragraph (iii.) the words
  "or by reason only of a notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house."
  If the hon. Gentleman will move his Amendment in that form, I will not resist it.
  Mr. BOLAND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the voter would be in any way disqualified. If he thinks the substance of my Sub-section is carried out in better form by the words he suggests I shall, of course, bow to his great knowledge in these matters and be very glad to accept them.
  Mr. DUKE: I think the words I have suggested are better adapted to carrying out the object my hon. Friend has in view, and to limiting the class of case dealt with.
  Mr. BOLAND: Then I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and to accept the words of the Chief Secretary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (iii.), after the word "whole"["months in the whole"], insert the words "or by reason only of a notice to quit being served, and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house."—[Mr. Boland.]

  CLAUSE 4.—(Franchises (Women).)
  (1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she—

  (a) has attained the age of thirty years; and

  (b) is not subject to any legal incapacity; and

  (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered.

  (2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty years and would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man.
  (3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man: Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property.
  Major HUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out from the word "elector"["registered as a Parliamentary elector"] to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words, "and to vote for any constituency in which she was born if she is nineteen years of age or over and is serving or has served outside the United Kingdom during this War under the Admiralty or War Office, and this shall be the only qualification necessary in these cases, and this right to vote shall continue for life."
  I move this Amendment because I think that the women who go abroad in this War to serve their country ought to have the vote on the same qualification as men. Everybody who has gone abroad to fight for us, or to help other people to fight for us, ought to have the vote; therefore I have made the age the same for women as the age for men. I have thought all along that this Franchise Bill should really be only a Franchise Bill for those who have served us in the War, and certainly they ought to have the vote for life. I do not know any hon. Member who will second my Amendment, but hon. Members, when they go down to their constituencies and are asked why women who have served their country abroad should not on the same terms as men be allowed to vote, will have a very difficult question to answer.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), after the word "premises"["in respect of the occupation of land or premises"], to insert the words, "of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds, or of a dwelling-house."
  The object of this Amendment is very simple. As the Bill now stands the local government qualification and the Parliamentary vote are not the same for men and women in respect of the occupation franchise. A man must occupy premises of the value of £10, otherwise he does not have the occupation vote. Under the Bill the woman is not in that position at all, and will get the vote whatever the value

  685
  of the premises in which she happens to be. It seems quite an absurdity for that to be so, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied as to the anomaly, and I suppose will remedy it.
  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend seems to think that women ought to be placed on the same footing as men in regard to their qualification, and claim to be on the register. Those who followed the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference will realise that some method had to be agreed on by which only a very limited number of women should be placed upon the register. The Speaker's Conference, in considering the qualification of women, were actually governed by the idea that only that limited number of women would be placed upon the register, at all events, when we were considering the claims of women for the first time. My hon. Friend must remember that men have very easy means of getting upon the register compared with women. Here he picks out one case that shows women in a favoured position, and suggests that unless you attach the same value to the premises, the occupation of which makes their qualification, you will be putting them in a more favourable position than that of men. There may be much truth in that, but while there is truth in it, the Speaker's Conference must have had, and I am informed did have, that very purpose in their minds, and did intend that women should get upon the local government register in respect of premises to which there was no ascertained value. They laid down a very simple guiding rule by which women could obtain the vote in respect of premises to which there was no value attached. If I accepted the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, although under other circumstances it might be reasonable, I should be encroaching very much indeed upon the ground which is now occupied by women, and should be evicting women from ground which they would occupy if the Bill were passed as it passed through Committee of this House. I must take as my guide the Speaker's Conference and the decision of the Committee of the House. Although there may be something illogical in these proceedings, and something—
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Unfair
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend says "unfair;" but he must remember that we are
  686
  allowing men to retain their place upon the register in many cases which are wholly denied to women. The Speaker's Conference has limited the number of women who will obtain a place on the register. In view of that limitation, I do not think that men ought to complain if in one or two instances, in order to obtain some kind of rule by which women should get on the list, we do as the hon. Baronet has said.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not propose to press my Amendment, but I am not in the slightest degree impressed by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has defended the proposal that women shall be put upon the local government register more easily than men on the ground that the Bill so provides. I am not at all sure that it does. If we look at the particular Clause, in the first Sub-section, we read:
  "(1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if she
  (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband to be so registered."
  The qualification to be on the register is to be found in Sub-section (3). We find:
  "(3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man."
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They cannot get on at all unless there is occupation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "or has passed such examinations as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man."
  The object of this is to deal with the position of women at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Bill provides that a woman is to have a university vote if she has obtained a degree, but it is well known that certain universities have refused to confer their degrees upon women, and we get this absurd position, that whereas the House of Commons has decided that women shall have votes under

  687
  certain conditions the governing bodies of certain universities have it in their power to deprive women of their votes. I do not think that is a satisfactory state of affairs, and I do not think it is one to which this House ought to agree. The object of my Amendment, which may not be very well drafted, is to provide that where a woman has had in substance the same university education and has passed the same tests as a man she shall be entitled to the vote, and it shall not be in the power of the university authorities, merely by reason of her sex, to deprive her of that vote. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment I hope they will accept some other Amendment which will effect the object aimed at.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems very strange that because a woman has not received a degree she should be deprived of a vote. Many women pass examinations very brilliantly, and some even distinguish themselves above the men with whom they compete, and yet these brilliant and highly educated women are to be deprived of the vote. It seems an absurd position, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. RENDALL: This Amendment is only in keeping with the spirit of the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the. Amendment, because by so doing he will be complying in the most complete manner possible with the Conference recommendation.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I hope the Government will deal with this Amendment with sympathy. I have always regarded it as a very monstrous injustice that women should go to universities, should pass through precisely the same educational course as men, should pass precisely the same examinations as men, and yet at the end of it all should be deprived of degrees which they would have had if they were of the opposite sex. I do not know on what grounds such an anomaly can possibly be defended, and it is a plain and obvious injustice such as that which gave to the Women's Suffrage movement a good deal of the bitterness that characterised it. Every woman who has completed a university course and passed her examinations, possibly taking a high class, who
  688
  thereafter finds herself not entitled to add to her name the initials B.A. or M.A., or whatever it may be, has a feeling for the rest of her life of rankling injustice. It was bad enough when this deprivation of her degree merely affected her right to vote in university matters, and deprived her of an honorific title, but when the franchise entitles her to a vote, it seems to me this anomaly should be ended once and for all. The Speaker's Conference particularly intended that university women should have the university franchise. Any university can defeat that by saying, "Yes, you women may have passed your examinations and completed your courses, but we shall not admit you as graduates; consequently you shall not have the Parliamentary franchise." I think Parliament ought to take cognisance of that, and see that its intentions are carried into practice.
  Sir W. BEALE: I feel very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, but I see a very great difficulty. You cannot set up a registering authority to decide whether a woman has passed the proper examinations or not, and if you are to make the franchise dependent upon this sort of qualification, the university, after all, has to decide whether the qualification has been obtained or not.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The university itself is the registering authority under the Bill.
  Sir W. BEALE: I quite follow that, but the difficulty, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, is that they will not give the degree. Therefore I would suggest that some such words as these might be adopted: "or has obtained a certificate from some university authority entitled to grant degrees that she has passed such examinations as would entitle her to such degree."
  Mr. FISHER: If the Speaker's Conference had in their minds only certain women who passed certain examinations should be qualified to have the university vote, they were singularly unfortunate in the way in which they expressed their wishes, because they were most definite on the point. We have drafted our Bill on the decisions of the Speaker's Conference, and have endeavoured, under much difficulty in this House, to adhere to the decisions of that Conference. It is very distinctly laid down in the recommendation that votes should be limited to women who have a degree. I have the greatest

  689
  possible sympathy with my right hon. Friend. I think women who attend and go through their regular course of study at Oxford or Cambridge are amongst the flower of the women intellectually, and if those who are trained at more modern universities are considered qualified for the franchise, so far as those universities are liberal enough to give them a degree, at all events those who have passed through the perhaps stiffer course of Oxford or Cambridge, have proved themselves to be quite as—I will not say more —worthy of the vote, as those who have had training at the other universities. But we think it is extremely difficult to go beyond the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which laid down that the degree is to be the qualification and not the amount of attainment or learning tested by examination.
  With regard to this particular Amendment, the words proposed would be very difficult of interpretation, I am informed, and it would be quite possible, if the authorities at Oxford or Cambridge were determined a woman should not have a degree, if they still took the old-fashioned view, so to conduct those examinations that they would be secure in their opposition. The position is not very satisfactory to myself, because I think the House will see from my observations that I am in very hearty sympathy with the desire of the Mover of the Amendment, and I think it would be very unfair, to say the least of it, and very prejudicial to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—for it to continue. When it is found that in the other eight universities which are to be represented in Parliament the qualification for a woman is the taking of a degree, I cannot help thinking that the university with which I was associated and which I love so much, and the great university of Cambridge will reconsider their attitude towards women, and will conclude that after all they are not going to have the women associated with their universities who have displayed such excellence in the course of their studies put into an utterly inferior position as regards the franchise compared with the women who will be the undergraduates of other universities. I think in any case that the force of public opinion would secure the aim which my hon. Friend has in view. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor myself will lose sight of this subject, and there is another place where the matter can be considered.
  690
  If we find that this form of words is not calculated to attain the end so many of us have in view we will consider whether some other form of words can be adopted. Communications can be made with Oxford and Cambridge, and there are Members of this House representing both Oxford and Cambridge who have the means of influencing matters. Before long the whole of this matter must be reconsidered, and. I cannot help thinking that the desire which so many of us have will be attained, I do not say immediately, but in time for the women who take their degree at Oxford and Cambridge to have the vote.
  Mr. ACLAND: I rise to say how very glad I was to hear the speech to which, we have just listened from the President of the Local Government Board, and it sounds as if he meant business. I agree that it is not quite easy now, and probably not possible now, to make this Amendment in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished representative of Oxford, has said that this matter will be brought to the notice of the authorities of Oxford and Cambridge. It would only be perpetuating a very great unfairness and would be little less than a serious anomaly that women should be not given a vote in respect of a university degree in these two universities just the same as in, other universities. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman did not shut the door to the consideration of this matter, and that he has promised that communications will be made in the proper quarter. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better not to press this Amendment forward now, in view of the hopeful direction in which the Government seem to be moving.
  Mr. HOLT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the friendly way in which he has met this proposal. I understood him to say that he would communicate with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge before the Bill is finished with in another place.
  Mr. FISHER: We will consider the whole position in the light of these facts. in another place.
  Mr. HOLT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Major HUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "where she would be entitled to be so registered

  691
  if she were a man: Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property, "and to insert instead thereof the words "in which she was born, if she is nineteen years of age or over and is serving or has served during this War outside the United Kingdom under the Admiralty or War Office, and in these cases this shall be the only qualification necessary for registration and voting and shall continue for life."
  This is an Amendment with much the same object as the last proposal. Under the Bill the Government is going to allow the conscientious objector not only to have the Parliamentary franchise, but also the local franchise, while women who have gone out voluntarily with comparatively small pay are to have no voice in the destinies of their country at all. I would point out that these passive resisters not only refuse to fight themselves, but they have done their best to prevent other people from fighting. If there is any justice left in the House of Commons, I think hon. Members should at least insist on these women having the local government vote. I cannot help thinking that when it becomes known in the country how these women have been treated, and how these conscientious objectors have been able to get a vote and to get into Government employment on high wages, and have stayed at home while these women went out to the War, it will be greatly resented. You could not do without these women at the front. You cannot do without the women who help you in this great War, and yet the women who have helped you voluntarily and done their best, under this Bill are not going to have any say in the government of the country.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property," and to insert instead thereof the words "or where she is the wife of a man entitled to be so registered."
  This Amendment is rather important, and I hope the House will give it full attention. I may explain in a few words why I think it is justifiable to bring it before the House, even though at first sight it seems to conflict with one of the Clauses in the
  692
  Report of the Speaker's Conference. I have taken very little part in the actual discussions on this Bill, but my feeling has been to find what was the Report of the Speaker's Conference and then support it, because I felt unless that was done the Bill would not have a very good chance of passing. When I come to consider any suggested alteration, it seems to me very necessary to examine, first of all, whether it can fairly be considered to represent any essential balance of opinion on the Speaker's Conference. If something that one wants to alter is really an essential part of some other part of the Bill which one does not want to alter as being part of a balanced compromise, then it is not fair to fight, but when one comes to consider whether there should be any large extension of the municipal vote to women at all one finds that the question really was not referred to the Conference. This matter was brought up on the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend who is now on his way to India, and the Home Secretary said he could not accept the Amendment. The House was rather thin, and the subject was new. He said that the whole object of appointing the Conference was, if possible, to come to an arrangement on matters affecting elections to Parliament, and nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise. I should like to submit that no one, even if his feelings in this matter be strong, can fairly claim that the opinion of the Speaker's Conference on something which, in the words of the Home Secretary, was not referred to them, can be regarded as an essential part of their recommendations on something which was referred to them. No one, I think, would claim on their behalf the right to bring in to their recommendations any view which they may have formed outside the matters within their reference. But the House, I think, will be willing to regard this from a somewhat wider outlook.
  The question of women's enfranchisement has passed into a wider sphere. The decision of the House of Commons on the matter was carried by a very large majority. That decision to confer upon women the rights of citizenship, as represented by the power of voting, was very widely welcomed by the nation as a whole, and the compromise that was arrived at in the Speaker's Conference with regard to the Parliamentary vote was thought to be very reasonable. That decision of the House was regarded not only

  693
  by individual women but by the organisations which speak for them as a really big and generous instalment of political power, and as likely to still any controversy on the subject for a very considerable number of years to come. That, I think, is still the general view. Let us try this experiment, even though some of us have our doubts as to its wisdom, in a way that will make it most likely that the women will settle down to the actual duties of citizenship, and least likely that there will be a continuation of agitation and discontent, or anything of that sort. We feel that women are to be trusted in political matters, not only because we are grateful for what they have done in the War, but because we foresee that the immediate years ahead of us are going very likely to be extremely difficult. There is going to be a time of great and rapid growth and development and construction. The next ten years may be far more vital for good or evil in our history than any other ten years that we have seen.
  We feel that married women represent the responsible and stable element in our community, and should have a real share and a real duty in fashioning our fortunes and moulding the lines along which we shall move during those very critical times. If one looks at it from that point of view and realises that subjects such as health, housing, education, employment, the use of land, temperance, control of prices and supplies of commodities, and things of that kind represent an enormous book on which perhaps several chapters will come to be written in the next five or ten years, and that on each of those great subjects the general lines of policy must be directed from the Imperial Parliament at the centre, but that each of them falls to be administered locally, then, if they are really to regard themselves as full citizens, these women ought to have a share not only in the formation of the central guiding lines of policy to be laid down by the Houses of Parliament, but in the administration of the measures that are passed. In moulding the general lines in Parliament we are going to ask the great mass of this stable element in our country, the married women, to have a share, but as the Bill now stands, unless this Amendment is made, they will be excluded from all share in administration and in the carrying out of the will of Parliament as expressed in Acts of Parliament regarding health, housing, education, employment, and so
  694
  on; unless, of course, they have technically an occupation, in which case they will come on the register in respect of their separate occupation. For the Parliamentary vote the married woman is to come on automatically, but for the municipal vote she is not to come on automatically at all. Is it not the fact that in the vast majority of houses in this country the woman is in charge of all those activities which centre in the home, and should not that give her some definite claim to a share through her vote in the administration of those matters which so much concern her. In many cases she is really far more truly the occupier than her husband, who is away all day at his work. Questions of maternity welfare, housing, food, and education come more closely home to her than they do to her husband, and she has all the opportunities of forming a definite opinion and taking a definite interest in the administration of those questions. Indeed, I have never heard any serious argument against married women being given a right to a share in local affairs.
  What are we likely to have during this very difficult time which lies ahead? These big questions and all sorts of others which we cannot foresee will crowd en the attention of Parliament. We shall want to go forward and the local authorities will want to go forward, some faster and some slower. They will want to be left with some latitude for experiment. They will want Acts or parts of Acts made permissive so that they may adopt them if and when they please. That principle of giving permissive powers to local authorities will be very useful and all the more useful the more crowded our time and the more great questions throng upon us, because when an Act is made permissive it is not so necessary to lay down here all the details. If women are excluded from all share in the municipal vote, how will they try to frame our legislation? This great mass of married women would surely say, from their point of view, quite rightly, that they cannot afford to leave anything to the administration of the local authority for in that they have no direct share as voters. They will say that in deciding the general lines of what Parliament is to do they get their Parliamentary vote, but they get no share in the local administration of what Parliament has decided. They will have to insist that the exact lines of what must be done by the local authorities shall be

  695
  laid down in Parliament. They will not be willing that things should be left to the local authorities to do in the way they like and when they like; they will say they must have everything laid down, cut and dried for them, in that body which alone they can influence by their votes. That will have two effects, both of them, I fear, unfortunate. First, that Parliament will tend to be over-burdened with matters which might be left to the authorities; and, secondly, that local authorities will be deprived of some of the initiative which, in matters of health, housing, education and so on, ought and could safely be left to them. That will be the tendency so far as the influence of the married women's vote is concerned, unless we give them the same powers in regard to local as in regard to the central elections.
  9.0 P.M.
  During the last few weeks those who have been watching have seen a very curious and interesting instance of the jealousy which authorities have of anything which they may think to be bureaucratic action by Government Departments. Their action has, I am sorry to say, to some extent held up the Education Bill which the President of the Board of Education has laid before this House. We do not want to have anything the result of which will be that this House and the Executive which depends upon this House will have to lay things down in such a cut and dried and exact way that the local authorities will feel that they are being bound by bureaucratic regulations or bureaucratic officials. It is very import. ant to leave the local authorities to feel that they are responsible for making these, matters of health, housing and education a success. The more we can keep out from our politics any force which will tend to get everything exactly regulated from the centre, because it is the centre they can control, the better it will be from the point of view of encouraging local authorities to do the best work. I have heard two suggestions as to the objections to married women having the municipal vote. First, it is urged that the women are not actually ratepayers. That question ought not to be looked at according to whether it is the husband or the wife who actually pays the rates. In a great many cases the wife has to do it. She is allowed so much money a week or a month and has to pay thereout what is necessary to satisfy the demands of both
  696
  the rent collector and the rate collector when they come round. Therefore one cannot pin an argument on the fact that perhaps in the majority of cases the man actually satisfies the rate collector's demands. Anything which is a general burden on the household is a burden on the woman, in the great majority of cases. even more than a burden on the man. A burden of that kind, such as the satisfaction of the demands of the rate collector, falls just as much on the woman. If the burdens go up, they affect the woman just as much as they do the man. In fact, if she feels that the higher the rates go the less. she will have for herself and her children and for feeding the family, she will surely be-every bit as careful to avoid extravagant expenditure by the ratepayers as her husband would be. Then, of course, it is often stated that the present woman's municipal vote is a rather unprogressive and an unintelligent one. That is very largely true and is almost inevitable, for the reason that at present you do not have any natural association of the women municipal voters. You never have a street in which every house, or anything like every house, is occupied by a woman municipal voter. You may have one in No. 1, another in No. 30 and another in No. 60, but they are few and far between, and there is no natural communication between them and no natural discussion of public affairs. You lack that community of sympathy and interest which will inevitably happen when you give every married woman, automatically, the municipal vote. If this Amendment were carried, four married women out of every five living in an ordinary street would be municipal voters and there would at once be something for them to discuss and work at, and instead of their voting being isolated, ill-informed and, perhaps, unintelligent, you will get that keenness and intelligence which springs from community of interest and work.
  As to the form of the Amendment, although I am moving it in the same form as that in which it was moved by my right hon. Friend on the Committee stage, if the Government thought that the House generally were in favour of accepting it or would leave it to the House to be voted on, I do not think that those who are promoting this change would mind very much what the form should be. Several alternative forms are down on the Paper from which the Government can select. It

  697
  might well be that the form next on the Paper would be the best, which adds to the Amendment I move the words "in respect of premises in which they both reside," so as to make it clear that the woman would only get her automatic vote as a wife in respect of premises in which she resides with her husband, and not in respect of his business premises, with which, of course, she has less to do. We thought it better to put down the possible alternatives and leave it to the Government to indicate which they preferred. On the merits of the matter, once we were certain, as we are, that it is not properly to be considered as bound by the determination of Mr. Speaker's Conference, we are clear that we ought to press the question. In conclusion, let me say this: Let us, in the time that is coming, clear the decks as much as we possibly can from questions of machinery. There is no doubt whatever that this Amendment represents very strong and very active opinion in the country. There is no doubt that, if married women are not admitted to the municipal franchise, they will feel that the gift of Parliament has been rather half-hearted. What they will do will be worse than that; they will set to work at once to agitate and organise for an amending Bill to be passed. We have a chance of putting the thing right now. We do not want amending Bills on this or any other matter which is only a question of machinery. We want to make the machinery of our local and central government as good as we possibly can against the time when peace comes, when all these tremendous social questions will press on the best brains and the best work that every man and every woman can possibly give to them. Any effort at that time given merely in trying to get machinery right will be effort wasted. The machinery ought surely to be put right now. It would be ten thousand pities if any women had to waste any time in trying to get an extra piece of machinery embodied in a Bill and then passed through Parliament into an Act. I have had hundreds of resolutions from all sorts of associations and societies of women who feel strongly on this matter.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean hundreds? I have never had one myself.
  Mr. ACLAND: I have. I do not say that the fact is owing to my position as an ordinary Member of Parliament. I
  698
  have been trying to find out what women thought about it. I really have received hundreds. But I do not claim that that has been the fate of everyone. This is a letter which I received this morning from the Richmond Committee of Organised Women. This is exactly symtomatic of what I have had dozens of:
  "That this committee of organised women representing the following seventeen societies, the Richmond Emergency Committee, the British Women's Temperance Association, the Richmond Board of Guardians, the Women's Liberal Association, the Richmond Women's Suffrage Society, the Girls' Friendly Society, the Women's Co-operative Society, the Infant Health Association, Richmond Central Aid, Mothers' Union Society, Richmond School Teachers, Independent Labour Party, the Mavis Association for the Care of Young Girls, the Salvation Army, the Young Women's Christian Association, the War Savings Association, and the Women Police urges the Government—"
  and so on—
  "to accept this Bill."
  Sir G. CAVE: Which Richmond?
  Mr. ACLAND: Richmond, Surrey. Does the Home Secretary really want all the most excellent representatives of all these most excellent societies to take up one moment of their efforts on a, question of machinery which may be put right now? Would he not prefer that they should get the machinery settled so that they can really tackle in their several ways the work that lies before them? I appeal to the House to look at this matter from a big standpoint, to clear it out of the way, to admit married women to a share in local, as they have in imperial affairs, and thus get the influence of women in our politics applied in the best manner and in a manner in which so many women are looking forward to being able to use it.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his favourable consideration. On the last occasion when it was considered there was considerable discussion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman was not prepared at that stage to pronounce a final opinion It was a thin House and he made it quite clear that the whole matter would be reconsidered on Report. Meantime there have been a very strong and favourable expressions of opinion throughout the country in favour of the Amendment. No doubt the great majority of the associations to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) referred represent women. That is a fact, however, which the House of Commons ought to take

  699
  into account, because in this matter when we are proceeding to enfranchise a large number of women and give them the Parliamentary vote we have indicated our desire that they should express their views and they are entitled to put clearly before us their views on a matter of this importance. But apart from the women's associations, speaking as a Scottish member, there have been a number of representations received from various bodies in Scotland interested in this matter, and there is a very strong feeling that it will be a gross injustice to the married women of the country if they are not allowed to exercise the local government vote, seeing that they are now being given the Parliamentary vote. I am glad that in this matter we have associated with us the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson), who represents the Labour party. Indeed, we have, supporting this Amendment, representatives of all sections of opinion in this House. On the previous occasion the speakers who supported the Amendment represented every section of political opinion, and there were very few who spoke against it. There are really only two substantial objections to this Amendment which are worthy of consideration. The first is that it might involve us in a breach of the compromise arrived at by the Speaker's Conference, and that it might, consequently, endanger the passage of the Bill, if the compromise were not adhered to. As a Scottish Member I feel that I have greater freedom in meeting that point, because the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference made it quite clear that the Conference made no recommendation with regard to the local government franchise in Scotland or Ireland. Therefore, so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, there was undoubtedly no indication whatever given that the local government franchise was to be limited in any way.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They made no recommendation.
  Mr. MILLAR: I think "no recommendation" indicates that the Conference did not come to any decision whatever on the question. That is the meaning I should attach to it. With regard to the previous resolution, which undoubtedly indicates the view expressed by the Conference, that a husband and wife should not both be qualified in respect of the same premises, after all the Conference is
  700
  mainly concerned with the question of Parliamentary representation—the terms of reference make that perfectly clear—and the question of the local government vote was only dealt with incidentally. I submit, therefore, that we are not acting in breach of the Conference proposals if we ask consideration of this Amendment at this stage. It is substantially a question of local government. We are not raising any controversy whatever with regard to the question of the Parliamentary franchise. The compromise is to be strictly adhered to, so far as the women's vote is concerned. With regard to the local government franchise, this Bill undoubtedly extends it in certain of its provisions, so far as women are concerned. The question of the extent to which women are to be added to the register is therefore one, really, which is perfectly open. But the real difficulty in which the House is being placed now lies in the adoption of the local government franchise basis for the purpose of conferring a Parliamentary vote upon women, and the suggestion that the local government vote should be refused to those women who are now being enfranchised. I submit that that is a situation which would lead to, very great misunderstanding and misconstruction outside this House. Parliament has not always acted with very great regard for what was logical, but it has endeavoured to avoid putting itself in any absurd position, which result would certainly follow unless this Amendment is accepted. The second main objection which was put forward and supported in certain quarters of the House was based on the ground that women ought to be treated on a different basis when you were dealing with the local government franchise, and that this ought to be limited to those who had a ratepayer's interest as distinct from the interests of those who have a Parliamentary vote. This point was put by the Home Secretary in somewhat curious terms, because, to quote his words, his view was that in dealing with a Parliamentary election you were dealing with "souls, or people, who have to be placed on the same footing as each other," while, on the other hand, when you were dealing with local government, "questions of actual ratepaying and local interests were of more importance than when you were dealing with larger questions." May I suggest that in dealing with the local electors you are also dealing with souls, and that you are dealing with bodies

  701
  as well, with men and women who are very closely affected in their bodily welfare and comfort by the local conditions which surround them, and I submit respectfully that in such matters married women have a very special claim to consideration.
  We have had complaints made that women have not exercised the municipal vote as they ought to have done. I think there is some foundation for that, but I think that if you put married women on the roll you are only affording a proper opportunity to those who at the present moment have the most important stake—I do not think I am exaggerating in putting it as high as that—in rearing children for the future, and who deserve every consideration in connection with the education and the bringing up of boys and girls to whom we look in the future for help in building up our Empire. I submit, therefore, that the claims of women, and married women particularly, ought to receive special attention. I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) in mentioning all the various questions which are of special interest to women. There never has been a time such as this, when the control of so many matters in the domestic lives of the people has been so much placed in the hands of local authorities. Women, therefore, ought to have their claims in such matters as housing, health, infant welfare, and so forth, specially considered, and when the War is over those claims ought to continue to receive consideration. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. I am quite sure that it would cause very great disappointment and would lead to great annoyance on the part of many women who at this moment have proved their worth to the nation, if the Amendment were refused. On the other hand, its acceptance would result in nothing but good to the country, because we should have the benefit of women's assistance in dealing with the great problems of reconstruction.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: This is a very large subject to be raised in a thin House at this stage of the Bill. No doubt the arguments which have been used by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are worthy of consideration, and they have been extremely well put, but the position is wholly different from that of the Parliamentary franchise. As every-
  702
  one knows, the municipal vote is based on the payment of rates alone, and to the proposal at this late stage of the Bill that one of the unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference should, for some reason or other, be disregarded, has not, I think, been made good by either the Proposer or the Seconder. They must have particularly good reasons for asking that that recommendation should be upset; but the reasons advanced have not been sufficient, in my estimation. Very often this privilege of the local franchise has never been exercised by women. I do not know why all this dust should be raised about the matter now. I hope the Home Secretary will stand by the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. He has done so almost invariably throughout, and I think that every unanimous recommendation which they have made has been accepted. I should be very much astonished if my right hon. Friend sees his way to accept this Amendment. I do not seem to have received any particular remonstrances in regard to this matter. There may have been one or two documents coming to me which I have not noticed amongst the voluminous documents I receive every morning; but I am not conscious of having seen any. I do not know that any individual in Scotland has written to me, so that if the demand exists in Scotland it is not very articulate. It is apparently made known in certain quarters, but not in others. I do think that to make an enormous change of this kind at this stage of the Bill in a thin House during the dinner hour is quite out of the question, and I trust the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Whether this proposal is right or wrong, it cannot be denied that it is an extremely revolutionary one. I do not know how many voters it is going to put on the local roll, but it must mean adding, if this Amendment is carried, a very large number of such voters. We have always understood that the proper qualification for a local government vote is that the person should be a ratepayer. If this Amendment were carried, you would be adding very largely to the number of people who not only do not pay rates, but who in some cases receive something from the rates, and those people might override the people who pay the rates. That may be right or it may be wrong. I am old-fashioned enough to think it is wrong, but whether

  703
  it is right or wrong, this is not the opportunity or the time to introduce an Amendment of that sort. The Speaker's Conference made no recommendation of this kind, and though I do not hold that it is absolutely necessary never in any circumstances to alter the agreement come to by the Speaker's Conference, yet I have supported the Government in their contention that in all main principles the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference should not be altered. In those circumstances I trust that my right hon. Friend will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir J. Younger) must be very short when he stated that he had received no representation on this point. During the Committee stage, when this same question was discussed, he, along with the other Members from Scotland, was approached by a very representative deputation, representing all shades of Labour opinion in Scotland. One of the questions that were pressed upon cur attention at that time was that which we are now discussing. When this Amendment came before the House in Committee it was supported by members of all political parties, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill used the same argument as has been used by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs to-night. He said he did not want to pronounce any final opinion in Committee on this matter,
  'but I certainly feel my responsibility and I do not think that it would be right, being in charge of this Bill, in so thin a House to accept an Amendment of this kind."
  I hope that we are not going to be put off a second time by an answer of that kind. Whether justifiable or not, that statement gave those who supported the Amendment in Committee some hope that it would have serious consideration on the Report stage, and I hope that, before the discussion is finished, we may be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment has sufficient support to justify its acceptance. Now that married women are given the Parliamentary franchise no good reason can be advanced for refusing them the local government vote. The fact that they have been granted the Parliamentary franchise is a complete answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I think
  704
  that he used the expression that this was a revolutionary proposal. It is exactly the same proposal with regard to local government as you have already agreed to with regard to Parliamentary franchise.
  Mr. PETO: Is there any limitation of age in the proposal? Is it not women of any age over twenty-one, and not merely women over thirty?
  Mr. ADAMSON: This Amendment is asking for the same terms. I was pointing out that the proposal to enfranchise them for local government purposes is no more revolutionary than the principle which we have already adopted with regard to the Parliamentary franchise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The fact that you have made one revolution is no reason why you should make another.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The only reply which it is necessary to give to the right hon. Baronet is that this involves no new principle. It is not a second revolution. It is simply applying to local government the same principle as that to which you have already agreed with regard to Parliamentary franchise. No section of our people is better qualified to exercise the local government vote than the married women of the country. They have the experience and knowledge that fit them to exercise this vote to greater advantage, not only to themselves but to the country, than many others who already possess the vote. The Bill, as drafted, imposes great injustice on the working - class married women. After all, it is the married-class working women who, in the main, will be shut out unless this Amendment is accepted. It cannot be said that they have failed to play their part in the great struggle in which this country has been engaged for the past three years. No section of our people has been called upon to make greater sacrifices. I know that possibly from more quarters of the House than one we may be met with the argument, which has been used by the right hon. Baronet, that this will largely increase the number of electors. But we have done that for Parliamentary purposes, and we shall not scruple to do it as far as local government is concerned. It is quite as important that the laws should be well administered as that the laws should be well made. No section of our people is better qualified than married women to take part in local administration. Only yesterday I had the privilege of introducing to the

  705
  right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a very large and representative deputation of women. I think that he will admit that they put their case before him in a very clear and convincing manner. Like many others, I have had many representations made to me in regard to this matter, and if the vote is refused it will be a great disappointment to these women. I hope that they are not going to have that disappointment. I am pleased that the House is beginning to fill, and I hope that before we take a vote we shall have such an expression of opinion as will convince the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come for this to be granted.
  Colonel GRETTON: We have had a most interesting discussion. Apparently the Government are willing to leave this very important matter to the decision of the House, though the absence of recommendations by the Speaker's Conference suggests that no change was intended in this direction. It does not appear to have been observed by any hon. Member who has addressed the House that all these women who are entitled to vote, because they are ratepayers, share in the extension of the franchise which results from the change of qualification which is common to men and women. There is a very large number of women, as well as a very large number of men ratepayers, to be added to the local register for the purpose of voting at local elections by the change in this Bill. This Amendment deals only with married women. Many Members who have addressed the House have wandered vaguely over the whole question, talked at large about women's votes, and treated the subject on the ground that married women should have the local vote equally with the Parliamentary vote. The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by reading a very lengthy communication from a women's organisation which had been communicated to him, and the implication naturally was that these women, who command a very large section of the votes in the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Cave), were going to be hostile to him if he did not meet the demand of the hon. Member opposite. That is obviously the interpretation to be put upon the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made.
  Mr. ACLAND: The only point I made was this: The women's organisation, I may say, are friendly to my right hon. Friend
  706
  the Home Secretary, us is everybody in this House, and I said that I felt sure that everybody would see that these associations and organisations of women do very valuable work in connection with maternity, welfare of children, and things of that kind, and the question with them is that they shall have an opportunity of tackling this social work with which they are so peculiarly qualified to deal.
  Colonel GRETTON: I am very glad to receive that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the organisation of these women, but I pass from that part of the question and come to the point as to what the result, between men and women, is going to be in this matter of the women's vote. It would appear to presuppose that there will be a sub-division of opinion between man and wife, and that the woman will have a particular point of view on municipal matters. The whole basis of the argument advanced in this House and outside is that women are not adequately represented by the votes of men. Hon. Members who support this Amendment obviously do so because they think that in certain directions women are going to be more effective than men, which means that there is going to be a very large division of opinion between husbands and wives on municipal questions; otherwise, husbands and wives would vote together, and thus toe men's votes would be reinforced, and would tend to overwhelm the women who are already assured of the vote by this Bill, as ratepayers, equally with the men, who are ratepayers. That is a dilemma which no one has endeavoured to face. I submit that when this question is closely investigated it will be seen that the only value of the vote will be where there is contention between husband and wife. There can be no other meaning in it. I urge the Home Secretary that he would be well advised to adhere to his Bill, and not to be moved by the clamorous resolutions sent to him by hon. Members to alter the Bill in this very vital and important particular. On this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has, against his own views, in numerous instances, adhered strictly to what he feels is the guiding principle of the Conference.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I support the Amendment, and wish to call attention to one or two points. In the first place all who support this proposal are perfectly willing to take it with the qualification as to age, as in the case of the Parliamentary

  707
  elector, namely, thirty years, so that there need be no difficulty of that kind. I was rather astonished to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) say that he had received no representations on this subject. For my part, I have received a great many, very varied and very representative in their character. I have received, of course, representations from a large number of women's organisations, and also from labour organisations, and the point which struck me from the resolutions from labour organisations was the feeling which they evidenced, throughout the country, that women should have both the municipal and the Parliamentary franchise. I have received representations from men of all parties in the State, and representing many different interests in the community. I myself have had a good deal to do with municipal affairs in my time, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson), that good administration is at least as important as good legislation. For my part, I think one of the defects of Parliament is that it does not quite appreciate in all cases that good administration is often a great deal more important than good legislation, and that administration of an imperfect law often yields better results than bad administration of the most perfect law that Parliament could pass. There is no doubt that subjects pertaining to social legislation are matters in which women are vitally interested. Maternity, the welfare of children, and that great subject which has engaged the attention of the Government lately, the question of public health, and the question of housing, which is going to be one of the problems to be dealt with immediately after the War—all these subjects appeal to women, whose point of view in regard to them differs from that of men, and in regard to which they possess a very different kind of knowledge from that of men. They have intimate knowledge of them and I think it is extremely important that we should have not only the intelligence of women, but the heart of women, interested in these questions, and that they should be rendered capable of expressing those practically in the determining of these great matters.
  What I find in all the representations made to me, not only from the women but from the men, is the great sense of the injustice of the illogical arrangement
  708
  by which the Parliamentary vote is to be given to women who are the wives of electors, and that the municipal vote should be refused to them. It strikes women as illogical and absurd. I think there is a good deal of force in what my right hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment, that it is extremely desirable, when you are for the time being settling the women's franchise, that you should settle it on a logical basis, and not on a basis of compromise which would leave a sense of injustice which is rather acutely felt, and which you could remove by the adoption of such a proposal as that contained in the Amendment. Women will feel that it is unfair and unreasonable that they should be deprived of the municipal franchise, for which they are at least as well qualified as for the Parliamentary franchise, and in which they have a more intimate interest, an interest which they feel very seriously. I do not think that there is any argument in saying that it is brought forward at a late period of the Bill. That is only an off-putting argument which has no validity. This is the last opportunity of dealing with it in this House, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not use that argument now, and I am sure he will not. We were all extremely gratified at the favourable manner in which the Home Secretary received the deputation which waited upon him to urge this matter. I think he is aware that there is a great deal of feeling in the country in favour of this Amendment. I know that that feeling is very strong in Scotland and in England also. I hope that he will be able on this occasion to give us a favourable answer. We are not asking anything which is contrary to a direct resolution of the Conference. We are asking a thing which I do not think it can even be pretended by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) can possibly do any harm, and for a thing which is keenly desired by a great number of women and men also in this country.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I do not think it is necessary really to add any further arguments on one side or the other with regard to this Amendment, and I simply rose to express my earnest hope that the Home Secretary will be in favour of accepting the Amendment. I am one of those who have, of course, received a great number of representations, particularly from all parts of Wales, upon this point. I can assure the Home

  709
  Secretary that the feeling in Wales is very strong in favour of the Amendment. If I may say so, I think we ought to go behind those representations to our own knowledge of the facts of the case, and the judgment which I formed on this question, being long ago in favour of woman suffrage and in favour of giving the suffrage to married women in Parliamentary affairs, is that I can see no reason why it should not be given to married women in municipal affairs as well. I agree with every speaker who has emphasised the fact that in reality this municipal vote from the woman's standpoint is quite as important, if not more so, than the Parliamentary franchise. As the Home Secretary will, I am sure, like to know what is the general feeling not only of those who happen to be in the House but in the country generally on the Amendment, I can assure him, speaking for Wales, of which I have a close knowledge, that Wales, at all events, will heartily welcome the acceptance of this Amendment.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I find myself in a somewhat different position from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken on this particular Amendment. I confess, speaking as one who has a most ardent and earnest desire to enlist the co-operation of all the women in the conduct of public affairs in this country, the matter does not present itself, to my mind, as quite so simple a matter as it appeared to present itself to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. After all, this particular Bill, in connection with which this Amendment is moved, is primarily and pre-eminently a Bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise. It seems to me in order to make out at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill a strong and unanswerable case for an innovation of this kind it is necessary to prove that there is a parity or a close resemblance in principle between the grounds upon which the Parliamentary franchise has hitherto been granted and the grounds upon which the local government franchise has been granted. Whether we may agree on the facts or not, it is the case that historically and in practice the local government franchise has been granted on quite other grounds than those on which the Parliamentary franchise has been advocated and granted in times past. My right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood), in his speech just now, indicated what of
  710
  course was a very important fact, namely, that the advocates of this particular Amendment recognise the anomaly under which, if this Amendment were passed, certain ages of women would be qualified to exercise the vote in local government elections who were not qualified to exercise the vote in Parliamentary elections. He intimated that the promoters of this Amendment would be quite willing to accept a modification and to restrict the age of this franchise to thirty. I cannot help thinking that it is somewhat inconvenient in connection with an important innovation of this kind that this matter was not fully considered before the Amendment itself was proposed. I am bound to say I should feel myself extremely reluctant to grant the local government franchise to a number of women when similar women of a similar age qualification were not entitled to exercise the Parliamentary vote.
  I most fully and entirely sympathise with those who urge that in many of the problems of local government women have a very especial interest and concern; but, after all, may I point out that when it comes to the question of local legislation and local arrangements concerning such matters as housing, sanitation and the rest, the real work is to be done by those who represent the various classes in the community. It does so happen at the present time that, irrespective of this Amendment, it is open to women to be elected on local governing bodies. It is immensely more important that women should be qualified to act as members of local governing bodies than that women should be qualified to vote for the election of those particular bodies. I am bound to say, so far as I am concerned, the substance of that objection is entirely met by the fact that under present arrangements women are qualified to be elected as members of our local governing bodies. I am not altogether convinced by the argument of my right hon. Friend wjho has just spoken that there is no validity in the argument that a Motion of this kind should not be raised on the Report stage. I respectfully venture to express my own feeling that it is a practice to be deprecated that a very great innovation of this kind should be raised on this stage.
  Mr. WOOD: It was merely put off at the request of the Home Secretary because the House happened to be a thin House at the moment when it was under discussion in Committee.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I quite agree, but I am bound to regard with some disquietude the tendency to repeat discussions on important questions, very often involving revolutions in the procedure and method of government, on the Report stage. On the whole, while I should most cordially support any Amendment, if such an Amendment were proposed, to put women local government electors on precisely the same footing as Parliamentary electors, I feel great reluctance to support an Amendment which would, as the Home Secretary very justly pointed out to an important deputation, qualify as local government electors a large body of women on grounds which are not recognised in the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. McKinnon Wood) said it would be universally held to be illogical to refuse the municipal franchise to women while granting the Parliamentary franchise to them. I venture to say that that is an entire misconception of the position. The proposals at the Conference did not propose to refuse the local government franchise to women. Women who are ratepayers are left as they are at present as voters in the matter of the collection and expenditure of the rates. That is a totally different question from the Parliamentary franchise with regard to national affairs. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that women outside regard this refusal—although it is no refusal at all—as unreasonable and unfair. The main argument of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) was that if we had granted so large an amount of enfranchisement to women in respect of the Parliamentary vote, it was hardly common sense to deny them this small extension in the matter of the local government vote, and he could not see any ground on which the extension could be refused. It would be as well perhaps to point out what is the real difference between the two franchises. In speaking to the deputation yesterday, the Home Secretary said he had strong evidence that it was difficult to reconcile the proposal for giving the Parliamentary vote to married women while denying the municipal vote to the same class. As I understood the Debates upstairs in Mr. Speaker's Conference on this question, the two things were kept entirely separate for two reasons. The first was that we
  712
  were not immediately concerned with the local government vote, but with the Parliamentary franchise. In dealing with any change in the local government franchise we were influenced by the fact that in local government affairs the main consideration about which electors voted was the collection and expenditure of the rates, and therefore there was a broad distinction between the basis of the franchise—the right to vote in the two cases. I ask the House to consider what would be the effect of this Amendment if passed. It would enfranchise the wife of every local government elector, and that means that if women take a different view from men on certain matters, there would be a woman candidate run on a programme which might involve a vast expenditure of the rates, and the election might be carried mainly by women electors, the wives of ratepayers, who, in the vast majority of cases, might object to these large and expensive schemes. That is what would really happen, and I think a more unjust and unfair proposal could hardly be made than that you should give a preponderating vote to the people who do not pay the rates, so that they may run their own candidate in support of a programme involving expenditure to an excessive amount. I want to refer to just one other matter in this connection, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. McKinnon Wood) suggested that there was no specific recommendation from Mr. Speaker's Conference on this subject. But I find that in 31 (b) it is provided that the husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. A question debated before dinner was whether there should be any value qualification for the ownership of land, and on that point the recommendations of the Conference obviously left it open, but here we have a specific recommendation dealing with a specific point, that the husband and wife shall not be qualified in respect of the same premises. If hon. Members vote for this Amendment I hope they will not do it under any delusion that they are not voting in direct opposition to a specific recommendation on a subject thoroughly debated and considered by the Conference.
  Captain J. B. WATSON: I desire to support the Amendment in a few words. My first reason is that, like other hon. and right hon. Members, I have received

  713
  very strong direct recommendations from my Constituency asking me to take that course. Another reason is that for ten years I have been a member of a municipal corporation, and in casting my mind back over those ten years the thing which impresses me more than anything else is that this House and the Legislature has increasingly sent to local bodies many valuable and serious matters to be dealt with, and of all the matters so sent perhaps the most important, particularly at this juncture of our national history, is the question of infant preservation and child welfare. In that subject I have personally taken great interest. I have sat as Chairman of a Child Welfare Committee, and on that committee, which consists of about fifteen members, four or five are married women. Looking back over those ten years, I say that there has been no subject before us upon which the married women would not have been competent to vote, and upon which their vote would not have been very valuable. If it were only for this one subject of infant preservation I think that that in itself is sufficient to justify us in asking this House to grant a municipal vote to married women. For these reasons, stated quite briefly, I sincerely trust that this House will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support this Amendment on its merits. I am entirely in favour of the suggestion, because it seems to me that in matters which municipal authorities have to deal with, married women are most affected, and it is pre-eminently desirable that their voices should be heard upon them. I should like to point out one thing which has hardly been emphasised sufficiently, and that is that the proposal bears no party or political significance. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Labour party spoke very strongly and forcibly to-night on behalf of his whole party, and if reference be made to the Agenda Paper it will be seen that the six names attached to the Amendment are equally divided between the other parties in the House of Commons. The appeal is made consequently from the standpoint of all who are interested in this question. I too have been approached very urgently to support this Amendment on its merits. I look for the co-operation of women in the future far more than we have had it in the past both nationally and locally, and I sincerely trust it may be possible to secure
  714
  that co-operation by means of this Amendment. I honestly say that I have only one difficulty myself in coming to a final decision. I want to see this Bill carried into law, and I am not prepared to do anything whatever in the slightest degree to endanger it. Much, therefore, as I support the Amendment, my anxiety is to know whether there is any danger in that direction, and consequently I appeal directly to the Home Secretary, who has charge of the matter, in due course to express his opinion. I should like to be permitted to say on Report what I ventured to say in Committee, that no man could possibly have striven more justly and more courteously to carry out the wishes of the Speaker's Conference. We all recognise that from beginnig to end he has brought his mind to bear to understand, both in the letter and in the spirit, what the Conference proposed. He has striven his best to carry that out, and I believe he will try to do so now. He knows the feeling in the country, because it has already been presented to him. He knows the feeling in this House from all sections. There is a very earnest desire, which I sincerely trust may be responded to, that these married women may be allowed to have the municipal vote. I earnestly trust, therefore, that the Home Secretary, facing this matter with the responsibility on his shoulders, to carry out the wishes of the Speaker's Conference and not to depart from them, will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne), who made a generous reference to my services on this Bill, has made an appeal to me to say what view the Government take on this particular question. This is an Amendment of very great importance. The proposal is that the wife of a local government elector shall have a vote, not by virtue of her own ownership or occupation, but by virtue of her being the wife of her husband who is himself an elector. The effect of the Amendment will be to add a very large number—I suppose not less than five millions—to the register of local government electors. I say five millions, for whereas there are already, I suppose, a million women who are electors for local government purposes—and of course they have to be deducted from the addition to the vote—on the other hand, this Amendment gives the vote not only to women of thirty, but to women of twenty-

  715
  one who are wives of electors. It is, therefore, a very important Amendment indeed. I am certainly not going to bring forward the consideration which I advanced in Committee, that we are debating the matter in a thin House. This is not a thin House, and, even if it were, I think, as everybody then yielded to my argument that we should postpone this matter for definite decision on the Report stage, it is desirable for the House to consider and decide the matter to-day. Let us look at it carefully. I have never concealed my opinion that there is a, strong argument in favour of the Amendment, and that the argument that the wife shall vote for the election of a Member of Parliament, but that she shall not vote in a local government election, is a very difficult one to sustain. Even those who have for years opposed the giving of the franchise to women have, many of them, been in favour of giving women the municipal franchise. Many of us are, no doubt, impressed with the argument that it is desirable to make a clean job of it, and not to leave something behind for future consideration.
  I confess that these arguments weigh with me personally very strongly indeed; but, on the other hand, there is a view which Members have put forward, and which they have been entitled to put forward. They say, and say with truth, that this is primarily a Parliamentary reform Bill, and that it is not primarily a local government election reform Bill. On that view the question arises as to whether we should deal with this question in this Bill or whether it had better be dealt with on a future occasion. I am put, as I often have been, in this position on this Amendment. I must remember, and if I may say so the House must remember, that this is a compromise measure. We cannot have on this Bill all that we want. Time after time—I am sure I am within the recollection of the House—I have appealed to my Friends—if I may so distinguish them as the party with which I have always acted, for I think we have all acted together on this Bill—by saying, "You may be right, but, after all, this is a, compromise, and you must give in; you must abide by the compromise, and waive your own personal opinions." On this point—there can be no mistake about it—the terms of the compromise are quite clear. I do not
  716
  understand why my hon. Friend opposite expressed any doubt on the point. The Conference Report say this:
  "For the purpose of this Resolution neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification—"
  that is dealing with the local government register—
  "provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises."
  The words are introduced from the existing Statute; they were put into the Report; they are put into the Bill; and I cannot understand the argument that the Conference has not reported on this point, or that we should not in adopting this measure be running counter to the advice given to us by the Conference. I do not want to make a fetish of the Conference, but, after all, a compromise is a compromise, and when we get certain things we want and have to give up certain things we should also like, we must abide by the terms of the arrangement. I appeal to the House to remember that consideration. I know the views which hon. Gentlemen hold; I know with many of them how strong they are. Whether I share them or not is not for me to say on this occasion. My function time after time has been to call upon the House not in one direction or the other to press their personal views so as to break through the agreement, an agreement which I think will be of great benefit to the nation as a whole.
  Let me add some minor considerations. You have not, as to men, assimilated the Parliamentary and municipal franchises. Under this Bill—there is no Amendment in this respect, nor is one even suggested—they will widely differ, and, therefore, there is nothing so anomalous in the fact that as to women also you should leave a difference, although, I admit, a greater difference. Secondly, this Amendment, whatever the intention of the mover, does give the local franchise to women of twenty-one and not to women of thirty. There is no word in the Amendment that would have a different effect, and you are proposing to put on the local register a very substantially larger number of women than this Bill will add to the Parliamentary register. The House has always been good enough to listen to my views, although they are not bound to follow them; and I think that, having regard to the position in which we are, hon. Members ought to put their personal views and opinions

  717
  aside, while reserving their right to propose this important change in some future Bill. I think I am bound to say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment or depart from the position which they have strenuously maintained, that the compromise must be observed.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman places me in a position of very great difficulty. On the merits of the proposal I am entirely at one with the Amendment. None of the arguments against it appear to me to be valid, and the one point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made—that this would extend the municipal vote to women below the age of thirty, whilst the Parliamentary vote is only granted to women above that age—could and would be met by my right hon. Friend adding to his Amendment words to this effect, "and has attained the age of thirty years." The argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, that it is more important for women to serve on local bodies than to be electors to local bodies, is, I think, sound; but how can they get elected upon if they are not electors too? We find there are a most inadequate number of women upon local authorities, and the main reason is that the electorate consist almost entirely of men. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, that we shall have women voting for large increases of expenditure, is, I think, a very unlikely innovation. Undoubtedly, being by far the more economical sex of the two, their influence would be used in local elections in cutting down expenditure to what is legitimate and reasonable.
  An appeal has been made to the Speaker's Conference by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He says that the Conference has made a specific recommendation, in terms the interpretation of which cannot be doubtful, that the man and woman shall not be electors for a local government body for the same premises. It is true that the question of the local franchise was not referred to the Speaker's Conference, as he himself pointed out to the deputation that waited upon him. Still, the fact remains that the Speaker's Conference did make a number of recommendations relating to the local franchise in connection with women's suffrage and in other respects and that these arrangements were part of the compromise come to within the Conference. It is quite true what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said
  718
  that on many occasions—to-day was one of them—he has been obliged to ask the House to reject proposals moved by political friends of his, and with which he himself personally sympathised, because they were in conflict with the recommendations of the Conference. There have been many such occasions when he appeals to us to act in the same manner and to put aside our own personal desires in keeping the letter of the recommendations of the Conference, I confess, as I say, it is exceedingly difficult for me to ask my friends not to respond to that appeal—very difficult! However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pursue this worthy cause to the end, and that when he comes to the question of proxy votes, which were not recommended by the Speaker's Conference, he will still adopt the same attitude, and when it is a question of dealing with the creations of large numbers of additional plural voters, which is not in accordance with the scheme of the Conference, that he will still adopt the same view. If I can understand from him that he will throughout the remainder of the Bill strictly adhere to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and not go outside them, unless there is a general body of consent in the House, then, I am sure, we shall, many of us, at all events consider it our duty to respond now to his appeal. I will press these points upon him. Are we to understand that we are to proceed strictly on the lines of the Speaker's Conference, and if some of us put aside our own predilections now, can we rely on the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to put aside their predilections when we come to other points on which opinion is divided, and when there is no general assent for departing from the recommendations of the Conference? I put that point specifically to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I hope it is not too late even now to make an appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. He has said, and it may be he is right in saying, that this Amendment as it stands on the Paper cannot be accepted, but surely he could accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White), and which gives the municipal vote to the woman, who is entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector. That would meet the views of the hon.

  719
  Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and others. The speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman is, to my mind, the gravest menace to our Parliamentary liberties, because he says, "I will support you in this matter, in which I do not believe, and I will assist you in getting the House to vote against their convictions on this occasion, provided you force the House on other occasions against their wishes." Surely that is a very disastrous precedent to introduce into our Parliamentary practice. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman, on reconsideration, will see that it was not a very wise mode of urging his point upon the Home Secretary, and I hope the Home Secretary will see the danger of falling into that trap, because later on, when he is going, as I understand, to leave the question of voting by proxy open to the House, he will be met by the right hon. Gentleman, who will say, "You would not leave this question of the women's vote to the House; therefore, you would not be acting rightly in leaving the question of the proxy vote to the House." I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, now that his eyes have been opened to the trap into which it is sought to lead him, to reconsider his decision.
  May I just put very shortly two points which appeal to me? The first point is that this House has, practically unanimously, decided that married women are to have the Parliamentary vote. I confess that to the plain, common-sense man, either inside or outside this House, it is impossible to justify the attitude of the man who says a married woman is entitled to have the Parliamentary vote, and to vote on all great questions affecting this country, and yet she is not to vote in municipal affairs. I try to put myself in the position of the plainest and most ordinary man possible—it is quite easy—to see if there is any justification for that attitude, and I cannot find any. That is not all. You have this strange position. The married woman who is living with her husband—as all proper married women are, and as all well-meaning husbands desire, and as always happens except in exceptional cases—would be deprived of this vote; but let her go and live away from her husband, from whatever cause, and obtain the residential vote, then she is entitled to vote in municipal affairs, while her worthy sister is deprived of this vote. That
  720
  is an anomaly which it is very hard to justify. Let me put one other proposition. Is there any class of the community who are and ought to be more interested in the kind of matters that come up for discussion on local authorities than the married women? Sanitation, education, the care of children, housing—one of the most urgent and pressing questions of the day which cannot be postponed—all of them come before the local authority and they are matters upon which the married women most of all are entitled to vote. How can you go to the married woman and say, "You can have a vote on matters affecting the Army and Navy and matters affecting the welfare of the country, but you cannot vote on matters which affect the welfare and happiness of yourselves and your children?" That is an impossible position, and I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not use one word of argument, and could not against the merits of this proposal. I have not heard a single argument against it, but in his desire to do justice to all parties he asks us to adhere to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. Surely that Conference is not going to enforce upon us a proposal in regard to which our intelligence revolts and almost every hon. Member who has addressed the House has spoken in favour of this Amendment. To refuse this proposal would be an abuse of the term "compromise." A compromise settles broad questions of principle, and with Mr. Speaker's assistance we have done this in a manner which will see the Bill through; but if the compromise is distorted in order to force an unwilling House to do something contrary to its convictions and to all argument, then we shall be turning that compromise into a farce. Surely in a matter which so vitally and deeply affects the prosperity and welfare of working men my right hon. Friend might give some further consideration to the matter, and act in a way which will commend itself to the general feeling of the House.
  Colonel GREIG: No doubt the attitude which the Home Secretary has taken up has been founded upon the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, in which it is said that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. May I call attention to the fact that, as regards Scotland and Ireland, the Speaker's Conference leaves this matter absolutely at large. Is it true

  721
  to say that if you give the married woman the franchise for local government she will be qualified in respect of the same premises as her husband As a matter of fact, she is qualified not in respect of her occupation of those premises, but because she is a married woman. That is the status she occupies, and therefore it is not in contradiction to the suggestion of the Speaker's Conference, which was only directed to the fact that for local government as a local government qualification she should be qualified and put upon the register as being in occupation of those premises. She is put on as the wife of her husband, who is a local government elector. Her status is in respect of her being a married woman. I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well permit the House to vote at large on this Amendment.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has begged the House to remove an anomaly which, he says, will exist if this Amendment is not carried. It would be very easy indeed to find a number of anomalies which will still remain in spite of the good work which is being done by this Bill. One anomaly comes into my mind at once. I understand the claim is made for a married woman to have a vote for local government purposes by reason of her status. Supposing a married woman is the owner or tenant of the premises in respect of which the vote arises, she will be entitled under Clause 4, Sub-section (3), to the vote because she would have been entitled to be registered if she had been a man. Is it proposed that the husband is also to get a vote in respect of those premises by reason of his status? If not, you are creating a very curious anomaly. If a married woman is to have a vote by reason of her status, surely, in the interests of the domestic bliss which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just pictured to us so pleasantly, the man ought not to be left out. Surely we ought to remove the anomaly and give the vote also to the man by reason of his status. I want to point that out, because this Bill no doubt leaves a great number of anomalies. I do not believe that we are going to remove all the anomalies by passing this Amendment, and we are really going far beyond what was contemplated by the Conference. It would be very unfortunate if under these circumstances we adopted a different franchise, which really cannot be justified on the basis of equality between the sexes.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) scarcely did justice to the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel). If on account of the compromise a certain section of Members are to be muzzled in matters on which they have a strong opinion, then in other matters on which they have a strong adverse opinion, other sections should also be muzzled. The Home Secretary has not made any response to that suggestion. Some of us feel very strongly upon this point; and we would rather like to know whether he is quite definite in stating that the matter is not to be left open to the House. If he puts the muzzle on, I suppose we shall have to take it definitely that the muzzle will be left on in regard to all these matters which are settled by the compromise. The recognition of the wife's vote through the husband's qualification in regard to the Parliamentary franchise is of supreme importance to the nation, and I hold that it is quite as important, if not more so, locally. With regard to the argument that this is primarily a Parliamentary franchise Bill, of course the question was raised entirely because of the position of the Parliamentary franchise, but we are dealing to a certain extent with the local franchise, and the probability is that we are dealing with it for some years to come. Owing to what has happened, the position with regard to woman suffrage has ripened very much, and it becomes more and more anomalous that women should be capable of electing a Member of Parliament and incapable of voting at local government elections, while other women can sit upon local bodies I shall be very sorry if we are bound to let pass this opportunity of securing an act of justice to the family which might very well be taken by the House in view of the questions which will have to come before the local councils in the near future.
  Colonel SANDERS: I hope that the implication which was made by the hon. Member who has just sat down will not go unchallenged, the implication being that when the Conference was appealed to it was always at the expense of his party. That is very far from being the truth. On one occasion after another the Home Secretary has given up points, in regard to which I do not say I know, but I am very strongly of opinion that he was in agreement, in order simply to stick to the terms

  723
  of the compromise. I take, perhaps, the strongest case of all, that of the conscientious objector. Does anyone suppose that, if it had not been for the attitude of the Home Secretary on that occasion, the claims of the conscientious objector to the vote would not have been thrown out in Committee? I wish to protest in the strongest possible way against the implication made by the hon. Gentleman, and also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), that appeals to make the compromise effective have gone against the party to which they belong. Absolutely the reverse is the case.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: May I be allowed to repudiate having made any implication of the kind?
  Colonel SANDERS: I accept the hon. Member's repudiation. On the merits of the question, I want to put it on a little broader ground than the decision of the Conference. In Committee there was what I might call a strenuous Debate on the whole question of woman suffrage. On that occasion the opponents of woman suffrage urged over and over again, "You say now that you are only going to this extent; that you are only going so far and no further. We do not believe you. We believe that, if this is once granted, you will only make it a jumping-off place to get still further concessions for the cause of woman suffrage." Surely it is up to those who on that occasion voted in favour of woman suffrage—I am one; I always voted for it, long before it became the popular cause it is now—to show that they are ready to abide by the exact terms of woman suffrage as it was then decided upon. Nothing has been more remarkable than the fact that when this very great change in our franchise law—the admission of woman to the suffrage—has come up on the Report stage, not a word has been said against the general principle. Its opponents in this House, and they are many, have not lifted their voices against woman suffrage at all. That being so, after having accepted the principle, it is almost a breach of faith that we should go back upon the compromise then decided upon. As to the actual merits of this proposal, I would only say that the importance of the whole thing is enormously exaggerated. As it stands, the husband can get on the register for the occupation of any premises,
  724
  however small their value may be. If he wants to give his wife a vote he has only to see that some small portion of these premises, on which there is no limit of value, is put in her name. It gives him a little extra trouble, perhaps, but that is the whole extent of the grievance, if grievance it can be called. The Bill is so framed that if a man wants to get his wife on, all he has to do is to create a fagot vote. Surely that is not worth making a fuss about. It cannot really be called a substantial grievance at all. I think the Home Secretary was perfectly right in adhering to the arrangement arrived at in Committee.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The last speaker rather suggested that as the opponents of woman suffrage do not raise their voices upon this occasion we should be gratifying them if we did not try to carry this Amendment. Many of the strongest opponents of woman suffrage are to be found among supporters of the franchise for local government. I need only point to the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold Ward), which is on the Order Paper as one of the supporters of this Resolution, to show that some of the strongest opponents of women suffrage have always argued that they should have the fullest equality with men in matters of local government. One of the stock arguments upon the question which has always been understood by the opponents of women suffrage, is that women should serve their apprenticeship in voting in local government matters and thereby attain to the exercise of the greater privilege and the greater power of the Parliamentary vote. I think it will be admitted by all that if we give the franchise to married women of the age of thirty—I take it there is no doubt the two franchises will be assimilated in the matter of age—we place ourselves in a position of absurdity if we say women are to vote upon the Army and Navy and foreign affairs, and all the matters of Imperial interest which have to be decided by this Assembly, and decline to extend to them at, the same time the power to vote in all matters concerning local affairs. I hope the House will not land itself in that absurd position.
  Captain O'NEILL: It seems to me it would have been better if the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) had not been raised. I am entirely of the opinion that you cannot

  725
  argue against the merits of this question. It seems to me unanswerable that if you are going to give women the power to vote on Imperial questions—Army, Navy, foreign policy, and all matters which are decided by the Members of this House—logically you must give them the vote for the smaller local government affairs. But I was very much impressed by what the Home Secretary said, and I fully realise that this is a matter of immense importance which possibly it is not desirable to deal with at this already late stage of the Bill in a House which, although not thin, is not prepared thoroughly and adequately to consider. I hope those hon. Members who accept the lead on this matter of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) do not wish it to go forth to the world that the only people who are in favour of giving votes to women in local government matters are the members of their party. That is not so at all. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has spoken in the same strain, and I myself on the merits am clearly in favour of it. On the other hand, I hope that those hon. Members who look to the right hon. Gentleman as their leader in this matter do not wish it to go forth to the world that it is they and they alone who oppose voting for soldiers by proxy. I think it was most unfortunate that these bargains were bandied across the House in this way, "If you will give, up proxy voting we will give up this." I think it is most undesirable that a matter of that sort should have been introduced into this discussion. I feel convinced that there are many Members of the party to which I belong who are in favour of the principle adumbrated by this Amendment, and I believe, in fact I am certain, that there are many members of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs who are quite willing to see the soldiers get their vote by proxy.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: It is just because I do not in any way claim that the supporters on this question come from one side that I strongly urge the House at any cost to press this Amendment. I have been in this House for about ten years, and I have heard many Debates upon women's suffrage, but I hardly remember an occasion upon which all the opponents practically were not agreed that if you confine your attempt in the enfranchisement of women to municipal affairs they would make no opposition. We have our chance. What happens? We
  726
  are told by the hon. Member who spoke last that it is a most unsuitable moment to deal with this. Women have been told that for years. At every attempt at giving them the franchise it has always been a most unsuitable moment to deal with it. The Home Secretary said he would consider the matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage. He has considered it, and to-night you have a fairly full House, and you have the supporters of woman suffrage in the past and also its opponents, represented by one who has been a leader and has spoken again and again against woman suffrage, all agreed that we ought to extend the municipal franchise to women. You have the further fact that after the War we are going to embark upon the most tremendous task this country has ever undertaken in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of this country; and at that moment, when I should have thought that women more than any other time, quite regardless of the service they have rendered in this War, would have had a claim for the extension of the franchise, giving them every possible advantage that municipal power can give, we are solemnly told that the time is not ripe. Why? I understand that the reason given—I was not in the House—is that we are bound by the Speaker's Conference; we are bound by the fact that there was a compromise in the Speaker's Conference, and that we ought to stand by it. How far is that going to be pressed? The Clause to which I attach as much importance as any in this Bill is Clause 17, the first Sub-section which deals with the question of the alternative vote. I think the Speaker's Conference dealt with that, but when it came to be debated here it was left to the free vote of the House. I have not been able to understand why.
  Sir G. CAVE: That was not one of the unanimous Resolutions.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I was under the impression that it was one of the Resolutions which we were told would have the support of the Government. I would like to know exactly where we are, and how far we are bound. The Speaker's Conference seemed to deliberately refrain from dealing with the question of the municipal vote for women. They did so for this reason, I imagine. It had never been a burning question. The House was

  727
  so overwhelmingly in favour of it that it never arose in a controversial spirit at all. How long are you going to leave it in that half-hearted manner? If you do not pass it now it will perhaps be another ten years before the women get put upon the register. We are a great deal too timid in the way in which we handle the question of women suffrage. In the rest of the British Empire there is no such limit of thirty years of age. In America, where they have given the vote to women, they have not limited it. The whole way in which we handle this question is quite unworthy of this House and of the crisis in which we stand. At last we have a chance of doing justice to women in regard to this municipal vote. I hope that the House will take the matter into its own hands no matter what is decided by the Government, and will at least do justice to the women in a matter on which we have all said again and again there is no opposition, and that we will not continue this absurd timidity which prevents us putting our franchise upon a democratic basis.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot see his way to leave the House to decide this matter. My reason is merely that the House had to decide on the larger subject of women suffrage, the Government were good enough to leave every individual Member free to express his opinion in his own way, without putting on the Government Whips. Now, when we are dealing with what must be a matter of minor importance, I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is fully consonant with the precedent which he himself has set to allow the House to decide this matter without the intervention of the Government Whips. I need hardly say for my own part that I would be reluctant to vote against the Government if this is made an official question. But I feel quite sure that there is no intention of making this, which was not one of the terms of reference to the Conference—
  HON. MEMBERS: Yes it was.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, on the contrary, I have the exact words used by the Home Secretary, who, I think, has always been very fair in interpreting these matters:
  "The whole object of appointing the Conference was if possible to come to an arrangement on matters affecting elections to Parliament, and nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise."
  728
  In these circumstances there is a fair case for asking the Government not to put on the Whips.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I support the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to the Home Secretary. If he is not prepared to accede to the appeal I would suggest that he leave the matter over until the next day set apart for the discussion of this Bill, with the object of consulting in the meantime the Leader of the House and the Government on the point. If he is not prepared to do that I would propose to him that he should adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, and consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment, adding words at the end which raise the age to thirty years. If he would accept that Amendment to the Amendment I am quite certain it will satisfy a very large number of the working married women of the country. As far as the working married women whom I have come across are concerned they are more strongly, perhaps, in favour of the local government than the Parliamentary vote, and I cannot understand why you give the bigger concession and keep back the minor one. It is so ridiculous that I hope the Government will accept the suggestion which has been made or otherwise postpone the discussion until the next day set apart for the discussion of the Bill.
  Colonel Sir C. SEELY: As a strong opponent of women's suffrage, I appeal to the Home Secretary, at all events, to leave this question to the House. There is really no reason why we should give the Parliamentary vote and not the local government vote. The opinion of the Speaker's Conference has been quoted, and the recommendations of that body have been generally accepted in the country. I speak for my own Constituency, and I think I speak for the constituencies of many other Members when I state that we have, had no complaints and no letters relating to any subject connected with this Bill, except on this, in regard to which there has been a constant stream of communications asking us to give the women the local government vote on the same terms as the Parliamentary vote. I really think there is a misunderstanding of the whole opinion of the country on this point. As to the Conference, I do not suppose they paid much consideration to this subject, but, at all events, that ought not to stand in the way

  729
  of the real opinion of the House, and what is, I am quite certain, the great volume of opinion in the country.
  Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I would point out that there is a very great distinction between the Parliamentary vote and the municipal vote. The former has for long been divorced from any real stake in the country, while the municipal vote is given to those who pay rent. The married man who pays rent, by this Amendment, would have two votes, because he would have the vote of his wife, who does not pay rent. There is a distinction between the Parliamentary and municipal vote.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to carry this matter over until Tuesday. It is too much to expect a decision at once. Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to carry the question over until Tuesday, and think it over in the meantime?
  Mr. BARLOW: I join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think it is very desirable that we should have a distinction as between the Parliamentary and the local government vote. I hope the point will be taken into further consideration.
  Mr. C. REES: There is a general idea or hope that the Home Secretary will take this into his very earnest consideration. The suggestion has been brought forward rather quickly, and at a late hour, and there has not been time to give it consideration. I would, therefore, suggest that the matter be adjourned until Tuesday next, so that there may be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. There is a strong and a reasonable probability that when we again take up the subject we shall be able to show that not only women should have the Parliamentary vote at thirty years of age, but that they should also have the local government vote on the same terms. There is a strong feeling in the House and in the country that the municipal franchise should be granted on the same basis as the Parliamentary franchise.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  GREECE.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. LYNCH: Two nights ago I raised a question of great public importance and the Government adopted the device of counting me out, a practice to the disadvantage of the Government, not only in this House, but in the opinion of the country, showing its weakness in being unable to face fair argument. If they intend to carry out the same practice to-night I will return to the question again and again until I have made it clear not only to this House, but to the country at large, and throughout all the Dominions so that the Government will not gain by this miserable proceeding. I now proceed to the main argument. I propose to take the House over twelve months of modern Grecian history. On the 21st of January, 1916, a compact was entered into between the German Emperor on the one hand and King Constantine on the other, an elaborate agreement between the two monarchs for mutual support with terms carefully drawn up which signified that on the one hand King Constantine would not on any occasion employ the arms of Greece against Germany, but would do all that he could to defeat the military operations of the Allies as far as Greek soil was concerned—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present—
  Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise this question until this cowardly Government is brought to the bar of public opinion.
  House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

WAR.
  FOOD SUPPLIES.
    MEAT.
    MEAT.
    POTATO FLOUR.
    POTATO FLOUR.
    DRIED FRUIT.
    DRIED FRUIT.
    FOOD HOARDING.
    FOOD HOARDING.
    GARBAGE FOE, PIGS.
    GARBAGE FOE, PIGS.
    MAJOR PRICE.
    MAJOR PRICE.
    FLAX SEED (IRELAND).
    FLAX SEED (IRELAND).
    SIR W. BYRNE.
    SIR W. BYRNE.
    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (CHARTS).
    HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (CHARTS).
    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (STOREHOLDERS).
    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (STOREHOLDERS).
    ARMY MEAT AGREEMENT.
    ARMY MEAT AGREEMENT.
    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
    WOOL.
    WOOL.
    SHELL-SHOCK.
    SHELL-SHOCK.
    CHISELDON CAMP.
    CHISELDON CAMP.
    WAR SERVICE DECORATIONS.
    WAR SERVICE DECORATIONS.
    TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
    TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (SENIORITY).
    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (SENIORITY).
    LAND TAKEN BY WAR OFFICE (COMPENSATION).
    LAND TAKEN BY WAR OFFICE (COMPENSATION).
    SOUTH COAST CAMPS.
    SOUTH COAST CAMPS.
    SOLDIERS' BLANKETS.
    SOLDIERS' BLANKETS.
    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
    3RD BATTALION ESSEX REGIMENT.
    3RD BATTALION ESSEX REGIMENT.
  MILITARY SERVICE.
    UNDER-AGE SOLDIERS.
    UNDER-AGE SOLDIERS.
    LABOUR COMPANY, ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    LABOUR COMPANY, ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    CLASS W RESERVISTS.
    CLASS W RESERVISTS.
    MUNITION WORKER.
    MUNITION WORKER.
    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE (MR. INKPIN).
    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE (MR. INKPIN).
  MUNITIONS.
    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFFS).
    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (STAFFS).
    INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL.
    INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL.
    IMMATURE WHISKY.
    IMMATURE WHISKY.
    WAR INVENTIONS.
    WAR INVENTIONS.
    MUNITION WORKERS (HOUSING).
    MUNITION WORKERS (HOUSING).
    AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS.
    AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    INDIA (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    INDIA (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    ENEMY AIR RAIDS (WARNING).
    ENEMY AIR RAIDS (WARNING).
    INFANT MORTALITY.
    INFANT MORTALITY.
    INCREASE OF RENT, ETC., ACT.
    INCREASE OF RENT, ETC., ACT.
    COAL SUPPLY (SCOTLAND).
    COAL SUPPLY (SCOTLAND).
    SPIRITS (SHIPPING).
    SPIRITS (SHIPPING).
    DISABLED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    DISABLED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    LIVE CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    LIVE CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    TRACTOR PLOUGHS (MR. RANDALL).
    TRACTOR PLOUGHS (MR. RANDALL).
    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
    REPATRIATION OF BRITISH PRISONERS.
    REPATRIATION OF BRITISH PRISONERS.
    MALT EXPORTED.
    MALT EXPORTED.
    Civil Service (Pension Conditions).
    Civil Service (Pension Conditions).
    Prison Warders (Ireland).
    Prison Warders (Ireland).
    Crown Prosecution Withdrawn (J. Harmon).
    Crown Prosecution Withdrawn (J. Harmon).
    Municipal Elections (Ireland).
    Municipal Elections (Ireland).
    Government Officials (Ireland).
    Government Officials (Ireland).
    National School Teachers (Ireland)
    National School Teachers (Ireland)
    Rhodesia (Native Reserves).
    Rhodesia (Native Reserves).
    "Labour Gazette" (Industrial Details).
    "Labour Gazette" (Industrial Details).

THE INTER-ALLIED WAR COUNCIL.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords. I beg to put to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to make a statement on the appointment, which we have seen is announced for the immediate future, of a Supreme Council of War among the Allies; and whether, since a debate will take place on Monday next in another place, the noble. Earl will be prepared to answer a Question on Monday—your Lordships' House, of course, meeting on that day for the purpose—if I place one on the Paper. I may say that I think it will probably be the wish of your Lordships that some discussion should take place on this question simultaneously with that which will be undertaken on that day in another place.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, who, with his usual courtesy, gave me notice of the Question which he proposed to put. Whilst I am not one whit behind the noble Marquess or any other member of your Lordships' House in the desire on all occasions to secure equal opportunity for this House in listening to statements or announcements of policy by His Majesty's Government, I had not, until I received the Question of the noble Marquess, contemplated making a statement upon the matter on Monday myself. And for this reason. The institution of this Supreme War Council, as it is called, was first announced in another place by the Leader of that House, in reply not merely to one question but also to several supplementary questions on Monday last. This statement was supplemented by the Prime Minister yesterday. He read out to the House the full terms of the Agreement that had been concluded between the principal Allied Powers in this respect, and he added a few explanatory observations of his own. Therefore in that sense I have no announcement of Government policy to make, because the policy itself is now
1016
public property. And I was glad to see in the newspapers this morning that the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place had, on the whole, been very well received, and had removed a good many of the doubts and apprehensions that had been felt.
There then remains the question, which is quite a different one, whether your Lordships' House would desire, and if so when, to have a discussion upon the matter. Of course, if the Leader of the Opposition expresses a desire that that discussion should take place on Monday, I am in his hands. But I should have thought myself that the better course would have been to have awaited the discussion that is going to take place in the ordinary course of business in the House of Commons on Monday, and then, if any questions were sought to be asked in elucidation of what is stated in the other House or any criticism made upon what is there said, that either the noble Marquess or some other noble Lord should put down a Question or a Motion on the Paper, and I should be prepared at any time to meet it. I leave the decision between these two alternatives in the hands of the noble Marquess and his friends.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I, even more than the noble Earl opposite, am entirely in the hands of the House on this matter, and it is undoubtedly for the House to say whether it would be content with the alternative position which my noble friend has just stated—namely, that we, should await the full debate which I understand will take place in the House of Commons on Monday, on the Motion to adjourn the House—the debate will undoubtedly, as I understand, be of great importance—and then make such comments as the House may desire to make upon it. It will be, of course, desirable to know what noble Lords who are able to speak with authority say on this point; but I confess I am still of opinion that it would be more consonant with the usual custom of this House and with the courtesy which is habitually shown to it that the two debates should take place on the same day. But as I say, I am, more than the noble Earl, in the hands of the House in that matter, and it is one for the House to decide. I hope, therefore, that some other noble Lords will express an opinion on the subject. I have expressed mine, which is quite clear.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, this question is so important with regard to the conduct of the war, and there are so many doubts not only in the minds of the public but in both Services as to whether strategy and tactics will not come under political control, that I should like to support my noble friend Lord Crewe, and ask for a debate on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is no doubt that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has pursued the usual course on this occasion. When there is a debate of great importance upon a new departure of Government policy taking place in the House of Commons, it is usual to have a parallel debate in your Lordships' House. It is thought that that is due to the position of this House. But I quite agree with one observation which fell from the Leader of the House—namely, that in some respects a later debate might be more fruitful. There is a good deal to be said for that course. It is a fact that by the Orders of the House we are supposed not to refer to the debates which occur in another place, but that is one of those rules which, I will not say are broken, but are not very strictly enforced, and there is no doubt that it might be possible to take the course which the Leader of the House has suggested. I do not know that I speak with any authority, but so far as my own personal opinion is concerned, I think it would be probably more useful to have a later debate, although it is more in accordance with precedent to have one at the same time.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether any other member of your Lordships' House desires to say anything on this subject. I have listened to the statements which have been made, and I confess it seems to me that there is a good deal to be said, from the point of view of practical convenience, in favour of the course suggested by the noble Earl who leads the House. We shall have, I think, a more fruitful and instructive discussion if we have had an opportunity to consider what passes in another place on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am completely out of order in speaking again, but the House will, perhaps, excuse me if I rise once more to say that after the opinion expressed by the noble Marquess
1018
on this Bench and the noble Marquess opposite I am not prepared to press for Monday as the day on which this discussion should take place, and I presume that it would suit His Majesty's Government if it takes place at some later date in the week or possibly in the following week. I confess that I am not entirely convinced by the argument of convenience, although I see in a sense the practical force of it. But I do not think it is a desirable custom that debates should be held in this House which will mainly be founded upon the debates which have taken place in the other House, and in which speeches will be made, as I have no doubt, either agreeing with the actual terms of, or making replies to, speeches which are made at the other end of the Lobby. I think that is an unfortunate departure. But I am not prepared to press my point against what is evidently the sense of the majority of the House.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lords who have favoured me and the House with their advice on the matter, and to the noble Marquess for deferring to what he regards as a valuable expression of opinion on the part of important members of your Lordships' House. I shall be ready to take the subject either in reply to a Question or on a Motion at any time, however early that may be convenient to your Lordships.

SHIPS SUNK WITHOUT TRACE.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Notice on the Paper—
To draw attention to the increase in the number of ships missing without trace, and the disclosure of German plans to cause ships to be destroyed without trace; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider the necessity of putting such a limitation on all mails as may preclude their being used for such purposes; and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I ask permission to postpone this Motion until to-day week, as my noble friend Viscount Chaplin has a more important Motion on the Paper for this afternoon.

THE SITUATION IN IRELAND.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN rose to cull attention to the gravity of the situation in Ireland, and to ask what steps the Government are taking in pursuance of the statement made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. October 23, in another place: and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope it is needless for me to say that in rising to put this Question to the Leader of the House. I have no desire whatever to embarrass the Government. On the contrary, nothing could be further from my wishes and intentions than to do anything of that kind at a moment like the present. On the other hand, however, I am compelled to add that the gravity of the situation in Ireland appears to some of those who sit around me to be so great and of such a character, and to be so steadily increasing for the worse from day to day, that we feel we should fail in our duty to England, Scotland, and to Ireland itself, and above all to the Convention which is sitting in that country at the present moment, if we were to remain altogether silent upon this question.
I am well aware that some people think it undesirable that there should be any discussion of this kind during the war, and that nothing whatever should be done to hinder or imperil in any way the success of the Convention. That is a sentiment which I share to the fullest possible extent; so much so, indeed, that it has been with the very object of aiding and not imperilling the success of the Convention that I have thought it my duty to place this Question on the Paper. Surely it must stand to reason that with a Convention appointed, consisting of the most representative men who can be found in Ireland, to consider and gravely and quietly devise a scheme for the future Government of Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, it cannot be right to permit the continuance of an active, energetic, and a wholly seditious campaign in Ireland with the object of preaching treason and disloyalty of every kind and sort to the people of that country, and holding out to them the policy of separation from England and the establishment of an independent republic in Ireland. It does seem to me that it is a very extraordinary position for any Government to take up first, to appoint an important Convention of this kind, and then to allow, and continue to allow, a campaign of this sort,
1020
which is becoming worse and worse every day, and is undoubtedly progressing throughout the greater part of Ireland, unless all the information which we receive on this subject through the Press is entirely misleading. That is exactly what the Government is doing and has been doing, so far as we know, for a very considerable time.
What I cannot really understand—it is very difficult for any one to understand it—is the attitude of the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself. He seems to think that his main and practically his only duty is to care for the Convention and its success. That is very proper in its way. I entirely acknowledge the immense importance of that body and of its success, and sympathise with the Chief Secretary in that respect, but I cannot share his view of what is his duty at the present time. On the contrary, I have always held, and shall continue to hold until I am otherwise informed, that the first duty of every Government in the world that is worthy of its name is to maintain law and order in the country which it is assumed to govern. Who can say that law and order are being maintained in Ireland now? In that duty, it is quite clear to me and must be to everybody that there has been a most lamentable failure, which cannot fail to be otherwise than highly prejudicial to the success of the Convention; and I fancy that if you were to inquire from the members of the Convention itself you would find that there are probably a good many of them who hold that opinion.
What is the position with which the Convention is confronted? What is the case against the Sinn Fein policy and party? You will find the answer to the first of these two questions in the speeches of Mr. de Valera, the leader of the Sinn Fein party himself. These speeches have been described as plain, deliberate, and cold-blooded incitements to rebellion, and have been made at meetings, one after the other all over the country, in studied terms. I have looked at the reports of some of the speeches for myself, and I think that is a very accurate description of them. What do they point to, and what is it that they recommend? They have been quoted in the Press and in Parliament over and over again, and, among other people, by the Prime Minister and by the Chief Secretary himself, and it would be waste of time if I were to quote those extracts in your Lord

1021
ships' House, but I will endeavour very briefly to describe what is their purport. They point to three things in particular. One is the complete separation of Ireland from England, another is secession, and the third is the sovereign independence of that country. That is the policy of the Sinn Fein party as laid down by the leader of that party himself, who at present is allowed to go unmolested about the country preaching these seditions doctrines whenever and wherever it pleases him to do so.
And what does he recommend in order to obtain the objects of his desires? First of all the regular and constant drilling of as many men as can possibly be obtained in Ireland, so that they can be made into useful soldiers to be used whenever they should be required for the purpose of meeting the English Government in opposition to their rule. The arming of these men is also recommended by the leader of the Sinn Fein party, who goes into the matter of arming in very considerable detail, showing how carefully he has considered all that is necessary for his campaign. They are to be armed with rifles if they can be obtained, but, if they cannot, with shot guns and buck shot. He goes on to explain that buck shot and shot guns at close range are very much more useful than rifles, and I can say from my own experience in big game shooting that sometimes you will find that shot guns loaded either with bullets or with slugs will do more execution at short range than a bullet from a rifle, unless it be an explosive bullet, and I suppose that explosive bullets are forbidden even in the army of Mr. de Valera. That is not all. He enlarges, lastly, upon the advantages of what he calls the old national weapon—namely, pikes, which are 10 feet long—and he points out to the soldiers he is drilling that these pikes will beat bayonets at any time because of the length of the handle attached to them.
All this is permitted to go on side by side with the Convention which has been and is now sitting to try and devise a peaceable government for Ireland. When I think of this, it seems to me to be nothing more nor less than a mockery of the Convention to ask its members to undertake the public duty which they are asked to perform, and at the same time to allow all this to go on around them in all parts of the country. It does not give even "a dog's chance," if I may so call it, either for the framing of a proper scheme
1022
of government or for the acceptance of that scheme, if ever the Convention succeed in framing one, by the people of Ireland who are the people to be considered, and who have been taught all this monstrous disloyalty during the whole of this time. I think the Government ought to take this into consideration if only out of regard for the Convention.
I hope I shall not be breaking any of the rules of the House by quoting what the Prime Minister himself has said. I may say in justification of what I am going to do that not very long ago, in the House of Commons, I thought that the practice which had always held good in my early days of not being permitted to refer to statements in the other House was being carried much too far, and I appealed to the present Speaker on a point of order on that question, but he decided against me: and if it be permitted there, I suppose I may be allowed here, if only perhaps indirectly, to refer to what has been said on this subject in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stated very distinctly that all this kind of thing must be stopped, and stopped at once, and he added
" After very carefully going into it with the Chief Secretary, I came to the conclusion that when he decides that speeches take the form of direct incitement of the kind that brought about the last rebellion, he would not be doing his duty to his Sovereign, to his country, or to Ireland, if he permitted it to continue."
That is a complete justification, I think, if any justification be needed, for raising the question to-night, and for asking the Question which I have put upon the Paper. What is more, he also stated that the same thing applies to "all those organisations which are preparations for rebellion." And how many of them are there in Ireland at the present time? Why, it is absolutely honeycombed with organisations preparing for rebellion. They are in almost every corner of the country, except Ulster.
That is the case which I have to submit to the Government, and I am naturally anxious to know what measures are being taken in order to meet it, all the more so because I am painfully aware of something else which has not been done to stop the mischief; not only that, but of something which has been done unless the Press reports that I receive are entirely erroneous—that cannot be calculated to do otherwise than greatly to aggravate and increase

1023
the mischief which is going on at present. I refer to the meeting which Mr. de Valera was announced to address at Waterford last Sunday. It was proclaimed and forbidden by the Government, I understand. Is that so?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will deal with the whole question in my reply.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. It is stated that a train load of troops came into the town the night before, and a strong detachment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, armed with Titles, presumably to uphold the proclamation. The meeting, it is said, was held notwithstanding not at Waterford, but two or three miles outside the town. An address by Mr. de Valera was given, 200 or 300 Volunteers being drawn up in what is called a double line—I suppose for the protection of the meeting—but none of them in uniform. Now, what I should like to ask is this, Was that meeting held with the knowledge and assent of the Government, or was it not? And if not, why was it permitted? Are not such proceedings well calculated to bring the Irish Executive into contempt and to encourage the deliberate breaking of the law? Lastly, who is responsible for it, and what measures have the Government taken or are they taking in this particular matter?
There is another case which occurred in Court in Dublin. I think last Friday or last Friday week, which affords a singularly striking illustration of what is going on in Ireland to-day. Warrants were issued against thirty-seven young men for illegal drilling close to Dublin. Only twenty were arrested. With the permission of the House I will quote an extract from the Press—
" The men entered the dock marching in step, and were cheered by a large audience in the galleries, which were at once cleared by direction of the magistrate, Mr. Swift. The men in the dock refused to remove their hats till they were ordered to do so by one of their own men. They absolutely repudiated the jurisdiction of the Court altogether, and declined even to defend themselves. The magistrate said he thought, to put it mildly, that they were misguided. If their idea was to bring about an Irish Republic, they should do it by constitutional means. Their drilling could only have one object, which was to rise at some time in arms against the King. If they were possessed of military ardour, there was plenty of opportunity for it if they joined His Majesty's Forces."
1024
This was received with "shouts of laughter." And then the magistrate passed sentence upon them, and what was the sentence? There was only a fine of £10 and two months' hard labour. One of the prisoners said they would do no labour of any sort or kind. And what was the result of all this? Subsequently, acting upon the assumption that the men were otherwise of good character; the magistrate omitted the penalty of hard labour. Now what should we think of that state of things if it was possible in a Court of Justice in England? And if it is unimaginable here, I should very much like to know why it is that a state of things like that which I have described can happen and can be permitted in Ireland. Again I say, I can imagine nothing more calculated to accentuate and make a great deal worse the state of things which we see in that country to-day.
This is indeed a strange proceeding that I have recounted as having happened in the Court at Dublin. But you may depend upon it that it is only one incident of many others of a precisely similar kind. I do entreat the Government to take these questions into their most serious consideration and deal with them before it is too late. You have this dead weight of revolution hanging round your necks at the present time, and perhaps nearer to you than you think. Beware, I pray you, that at some time or other it does not drown you altogether, if you continue to neglect it as you have done up to the present time. Now, that is the case which I wish to submit to the Government, and I have only one or two words more to say.
I came into Parliament in the year 1868. Ireland and the Irish question were then the question of the hour as regards all domestic policy Ireland and the Irish question are still the question of the hour in the year of grace in which it is my privilege to address you now. It was in 1869 that, so to speak, I won my Parliamentary spurs on an Irish question in an Irish debate in the Rouse of Commons—namely the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. From that date until the present time I have followed every phase of the Irish question with close, and I may even say diligent, care; including, in that year of 1869, a visit of, I believe, many months, during which time I remained in Ireland with the express object of studying and, if possible, of mastering

1025
the whole of the Irish question and all that it meant. I will tell your Lordships the conclusion to which I came long ago, and which I have held ever since upon the subject. You must take it as my opinion bat only for what it is worth. Yet this opinion of mine is entirely confirmed by what has gone on all the time from that day to this. Nothing in the world can Ire more fatal to good government in Ireland than the slightest sign of weakness on the part of the Irish Government. The Irish are a race of singularly quick and bright intelligence. They detect any sign of weakness in a moment, and from that moment there is an end to all law and order and to anything like respect for the Government at all. We are suffering from those things again to-day; and of the present Irish Government-although I say it with profound regret, not only on personal but on public grounds if I tell the truth they have "out-Birrelled "even Mr. Birrell himself in the course which they have pursued.
The late Lord Salisbury said years ago that the only policy for Ireland was a policy of resolute government for twenty years. I will cite Mr. Birrell as my witness to prove the truth of that. Mr. Birrell succeeded to the Government of Ireland within two years of the, passing away of Lord Salisbury's second Government. That Government had been in power, with the exception of a very short period, for something like twenty years. After Mr. Birrell had been in Ireland long enough to ascertain the position from all sources of information—from the reports of the Constabulary, from the reports of the magistrates, and from the statements made by Judges in all parts of Ireland what was his verdict when he came back to London? It was that Ireland was "more tranquil and prosperous than it had ever been for the last 600 years." After that, who can say that there is any choice, for those who wish to have a peaceable Ireland, between the policy that is being pursued to-day and the policy of resolute straightforward government which was recommended by the late Lord Salisbury?
I have given your Lordships my experience with regard to Ireland during fifty years of public life. It is the experience of one who has done his very best to make a careful, and, I hope, an intelligent study of the Irish question at all possible times. Of those fifty years, forty-seven
1026
were spent in the other House of Parliament, where we had numerous debates, and many opportunities of judging the situation. In nearly all of those debates I took a part more or less; and it is because of the kindliness and attention which I always received in that House in those days that I still entertain the warm and kindly feeling which I always felt for it when I was there. I beg to move.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, it has not been my practice to intervene frequently in Irish debates. The post that I occupy usually imposes on its occupant a certain reticence. But we have advanced so far from the old Party controversies, both in England and in Ireland, and the situation over there is at once so critical and so hopeful—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hopeful!
LORD WIMBORNE: That I think it would be useful if I said something upon this occasion. In fact, the dual position which I occupy, as representative of the Sovereign and as a Minister of the Crown, ensures at once an intimate acquaintance with, and also a certain detachment from, current events which ought to enable me to give that sort of fair survey of the situation which I think is desired, and to which this House is entitled.
My noble friend Lord Chaplin, with all his accustomed courtesy and moderation in debate, has made, nevertheless, a serious indictment of the Government of Ireland. I understood him to charge that Government with inconsistency, weakness, lack of grip. With that I must presently deal; but, incidentally, my noble friend gave what seemed to me to be a rather gloomy account of the condition of Ireland both present and prospective. I can honestly say that living there, I do not recognise the portrait, and I do not share his anticipations. Far be it from me to deny that there are anxious, indeed sinister, possibilities lurking in the Irish situation. That is always the case. But I do not think that on that account we must lose our sense of perspective and jump to conclusions of a disappointing or alarmist character.
I do not complain of my noble friend's speech. I am not surprised at it, because, viewing the situation from his angle of vision, there certainly is in the perplexing and complicated situation in Ireland quite

1027
enough material which lends itself to very easy distortion. I may say that if the wildest rumours are current sometimes in Dublin, there is some excuse for their being believed in London. I believe that one of the tragedies of the position is that the two countries are so much terra incognita to each other. Certain it is that there is a great deal which is perplexing and disappointing in the attitude of Nationalist Ireland to this country, which attitude is accounted for by the fact that over there our intentions are frequently misunderstood and our motives are open to suspicion and mistrust.
I find it convenient, in a complicated question of this kind, to separate the past from the future. We shall avoid an almost inevitable confusion if we draw a line to-day, and see how we stand now before we speculate upon what may be awaiting us. How do we stand at the present time with regard to what I imagine will be admitted to be the main issue—security? In view of the inflammable material that exists in Ireland, and the surcharged memory of past events, the gravest danger we have to apprehend in that country is the introduction of arms, or even a hostile landing. When I returned to Ireland last August the first thing I did was to institute a thorough investigation into the mechanisms by which security on that head might be expected. The matter was thoroughly overhauled by all the authorities concerned—the Horse Guards and the Irish Command, the Admiralty, the Naval Ease at Queenstown, the Police, the Coastguards, and the Customs officials. The arrangements were carried out by able Staff officers and other competent officials. They were pronounced to be water-tight and efficient by those who were capable of forming an opinion: nor has anything taken place since to make me doubt the substantial efficiency of the system or the vigilance of those who administer it. That. I suggest, is the first point to bear in mind.
Coming now to the internal situation, what is the position? In spite of what Lord Chaplin may fear. I say Ireland is not out of Hand. Externally, the country is very prosperous. There have been some instances of rowdyism in one or two towns, but, generally speaking. Ireland is orderly. There is no menace to life or property. Nobody goes in fear of his life. The King's Writ runs, and the country is practically crimeless in the ordinary sense of the word.
1028
Now, my Lords, I have an illustration of the external prosperity of Ireland which I think will recommend itself to the noble Viscount as much as anything. Of the 1,000,000 additional acres brought under the plough in the United Kingdom this year, Ireland is responsible for over 700,000 acres, and only yesterday I received a Return showing the result of that additional cultivation. It is interesting to see that the output of wheat, which is not a very large crop in Ireland, has gone up 98 per cent. Oats this year are 1,300,000 tons, and have gone up by 42 per cent. Potatoes are over 1,000,000 tons, and have gone up 31 per cent. on the average. That is evidence of prosperity which I am sure the noble Viscount will welcome.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I have never disputed that. I am quite well aware of the prosperity of Ireland.
LORD WIMBORNE: I am glad to know that it is not news to the noble Viscount. Outwardly I say that Ireland is industrious and calm. Inwardly, however, there is unrest and disillusion on the one hand and uneasiness on the other; but also there is, common to both parties, hope. Evidence of the tension in the public mind is to be seen in the paroxysms of fear and fury which convulsed Ireland in the death of Ashe. Nobody can deplore the death of Ashe more than I do, but the disproportionate significance attached to that event and also to the public funeral by which it was succeeded is symptomatic of the abnormal irritability which exists. No sane man in Ireland can believe that the Executive or the prison authorities desired his death. I had myself proposed that better conditions should be extended to prisoners whose offences sprung from political motives; and in that respect I cannot agree with what Lord Chaplin said with regard to the recent Dublin drillings. However, I proposed it. That amelioration of their condition was under the consideration of the Executive when the prisoners, as I dare say your Lordships will remember, passed from passive to active defiance, and in the sequel Ashe succumbed to heart failure, possibly, but by no means certainly, accelerated by forcible fee ling. That is a very regrettable fact: but, after all, it must be remembered that hunger-striking is attended with risks even to the strongest constitution, and those who practise it employ that very

1029
fact the danger to their life—as an instrument for extracting the concessions they demand.
I have said that there was hope in Ireland as well as unrest. Any one who knows the deep and earnest interest in the fate of the Convention which is felt throughout all Ireland, by all parties in Ireland, will go so far. I think, as to say that it constitutes an almost passionate hope that good will come out of their deliberations. In these circumstances the governing factor in the Irish situation is, as Lord Chaplin recognises, the Convention. I should like to say, in passing, that the members of that Convent ion have put not only Ireland but the whole Empire under a deep obligation to them for the way in which they have interpreted their duty. One and all, I believe, have approached their difficult and arduous task in. I spirit of complete detachment from past predilections and personal traditions, and have laboured to find a solution which they could collectively recommend to their fellow-countrymen as affording the basis for a permanent and durable concordat. It is no secret of State that the labours of the members of the Convention have already been rewarded by substantial progress. If agreement is not immediately reached, at least we may hope to be possessed of a detailed statement of the differences which remain between them; and I am sanguine enough to believe that they will appear to be less formidable than any optimist would have predicted before the Convention name together.
Therefore the attitude of the Executive is determined by the existence and prospects of the Convention. For its sake, as we remember, the policy of amnesty was adopted—the amnesty of the rebel leaders. That was done to enable the Convention to come into existence, It was intended to be, and was regarded as, an earnest of the sincerity of the polity of the Imperial Government. I think myself that it was justified. It was sanctioned by Parliament, and in my view it was justified by events. That amnesty policy was accorded with full knowledge of the fact that it was incidentally going to add to the difficulties of the Executive. The attitude of some of these extremists always has been irreconcilable. We knew that we had no gratitude to expect from them, no cessation of their activities, and that their release might be expected to cause alarm and give
1030
offence to many of His Majesty's loyal subjects; but having deliberately, and as I feel justifiably, taken that step it would be folly in the extreme at the first blush of danger for the Government to be stampeded into inconsistent and spectacular activity, either at, the provocation of one section or owing to the misgivings of the other, Such an act would be to my mind one of the gravest recantation.
I can illustrate this by recent events. The Government were circumstantially informed that there would be a rising in Ireland last Sunday week. The information was derived from quarters and came from sources which it was impossible to ignore. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, with my full support and concurrence, steadfastly refused to take the advice deliberately tendered to him as to what was his duty in the matter. What happened? Far from there being a rising or even an armed demonstration, or any demonstration at all, not a dog barked. Nothing happened. Had the preventative action been taken which I gather would have been the view of any noble friend Lord Chaplin, whatever other results might have accrued, one thing is certain. The Convention would have been killed. I admit that the Government ran some risks. That was inevitable. But events proved that their insight into the situation had not been at fault. Therefore, my Lords, the policy of the Irish Executive, as I see it, must be not to seek trouble, but if trouble comes to be ready to meet it.
I do not deny for a minute that public opinion on this subject is very naturally influenced by the recollection of the melancholy rebellion of last year. If it occurred then, it is said, what confidence can be enjoyed that it will not occur again, especially in view of the fact that the Sinn Fein element, which was then small, is now admittedly large? What right, you ask, have you to run risks, even for the sake of the Convention that I understand to be the noble Viscount's point—which may lead to such disastrous and damaging results? My Lords, there are two cardinal difference between the position to-day and the position which existed in Ireland in the spring of last, year. In the first place, the Government has now what it did not then possess, and that is an adequate military establishment for the maintenance of law and order I remember that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was good enough last year in

1031
this House to signify his assent to some observations I then made upon the indefensible lack of proper support that existed previous to the rebellion. Nobody could be more acutely conscious than I am of the necessity of maintaining an adequate military establishment in Ireland, able to deal with all reasonable eventualities, having regard always, of course, to the general situation of the war. I can assure your Lordships, for what my judgment is worth, that we are incurring no undue peril in Ireland at the present moment, and, further, that should the situation be altered for the worse owing to anything that may happen in Ireland, or to other causes. I should be the very first to inform my noble friend the Leader of the House of the fact, and, if necessary, to take the step of informing this House itself. Nobody could be more sensitive on this point than I am. That is the first difference between to-day and the spring of 1916.
But there is another difference which, if anything, is more important still. The right of armed assembly on the part of Volunteer forces which was then connived at by common consent owing to causes the responsibility for which I will not go into, is connived at no longer. Never again, after what happened, can the Government of Ireland tolerate a recrudescence of that licence which was the principal cause probably of the late rebellion. Whatever view may be taken of the desirability or the futility of suppressing speeches the noble Viscount takes one thing; I do not know that I quite agree with him, although I understand his irritation at reading speeches such as he quoted—whatever view we take about speeches, one thing is certain, we cannot and will not tolerate drilling. Political opinions, I think, however remote from reality and however extreme they may be, are one thing; but political opinions, even if they are moderate and sane opinions, backed by physical force, are quite another, and quite inconsistent with the first rights of a civilised community.
Now, my Lords, let us come to the question of drilling. There is drilling in Ireland, a good deal of drilling, but do not let us make too much of it. Let us see it in its proper perspective. It is a great worry to us, but up to the present it has not assumed dangerous dimensions. In
1032
many eases it is of a very trivial and sporadic character, almost negligible. Sometimes it is conducted by youths, by Boy Scouts and so forth; but still our policy is to indicate that we do not mean to tolerate a recrudescence of the past state of affairs. We do not tolerate drilling, and we take such steps for its suppression as we are able, and as I think in the long run will prove effective.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It takes place.
LORD WIMBORNE: I admit that it takes place, but we are taking steps to put it down. There are prosecutions every day for illegal drilling. The Courts-Martial are perpetually dealing with these cases. We are now taking steps to regularise and co-ordinate the action of the Court-Martial. We do not intend to allow drilling, and we are taking steps where they are possible and adequate to stop it. Anyhow, I tell the House this—as I say, keep the thing in perspective- drilling has not at the present time assumed any military significance, and I do not doubt that it will be possible to deprive it of the power of ever assuming anything of the kind. With regard to those people who indulge in drilling, I am not without appreciation for the spirit of patriotism, a narrow kind of patriotism if you like, by which they are animated, but I do not believe that the Sinn Feiners are pro-German.
LORD BERESFORD: Oh! Oh!
LORD WIMBORNE: The noble Lord will allow me to state my view. I do not believe they are pro-German, however much they may affect—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: They say so. They have said so.
LORD WIMBORNE: The noble Viscount does not live in Ireland as much as I do, and I am entitled to my opinion.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I can read their speeches. I do not in the least wish to misrepresent the noble Lord, but he will see that the Prime Minister himself quoted a speech in which they said they were ready to combine with the Germans or any other foe.
LORD WIMBORNE: Will the noble Viscount allow me to finish my sentence? I say that, however much the extreme section may affect, and indeed be willing to accept, if they can get it. German assistance to will what they consider to be their rights and liberties, they are not in my opinion, in the sense in which the phrase is used, pro-German. They have no sympathy with the German qua German. With regard to their avowed object, which is the dream of an independent Irish Republic, that must always remain a dream. If it could attain to any prospect of realisation, apart from all other considerations, all Imperial considerations—and this I venture to recommend to the attention of some of its promoters—I say that if their idea could materialise any prospect of realisation, it would immediately and inevitably produce a state of civil war in Ireland. Not along that path can be reached the only basis upon which a new Ireland and brighter prospects can be founded. It would be a gloomy outlook if indeed the Sinn Fein party were all irrevocably committed to their spoken intransigent attitude.
Good judges believe, and there are several grounds for their opinion, that most if not all Sinn Feiners would hesitate to reject the practical and peaceful recommendations of the Convention, if they are forthcoming, in the interests of remote and illusory expectations. It is said, I understand, "So far so good. We understand the present attitude; it is a compromise, and if the Convention provides an acceptable basis for settlement all will be well, and you will be justified. If on the other hand it fails, what, then?" That is the point I understand the noble Viscount made—namely, that on the assumption of the success of the Convention we are pledging the prospects of tranquility in the event of failure. I reply that the Convention has not failed, and cannot fail utterly. At the very least it has brought Irishmen together, and at the very worst we shall obtain from it a "definition of differences." That is an immense step. I do not despair, in the event of a present failure, of the possibility of renewed efforts. Our resources in that direction should not be regarded as exhausted. It is too early, I hold, to talk of alternatives. There are people, I know, who are already anticipating that necessity. They say, "Supposing you cannot get on, supposing the avenues of advance are closed, how will you stand?" I admit
1034
that the prospect is not a very pleasant one to contemplate, and I believe the fact itself will have its due weight with those who are responsible for the present negotiations. I do not suppose that anybody, in view of our moral as well as our material commitments, can contemplate a recourse to naked coercion without dismay.
There is a school of thought that believes that the remedy for the ills which it foresees in Ireland is conscription. Ireland has contributed 120,000 troops to His Majesty's Forces. It is far below her numerical contingent even allowing, as we must, that. Ireland is mainly a rural population. Unhappily, the relations between the two countries have not in the past been such as to enable us to expect the same readiness to make sacrifices for the common Imperial cause as we obtain so willingly at home. It is undoubtedly a deplorable source of weakness, but I doubt whether the proposal would be any solution of the domestic problem on would, on balance, materially increase the forces of the Crown. It amounts to this, so far as two-thirds of the country is concerned, that you would be raising the issue and encountering the problem of a nation of conscientious objectors. What an Irish Parliament may do is another matter. I know, at any rate, that a settlement of the Irish question would be the signal for a renewal on the part of the Irish Nationalists of that recruiting campaign which less than two years ago was not discouraging, and which would be conducted under far more hopeful auspices.
I feel sure that with regard to Ireland there is no simple and universal panacea for the ills which the pessimists contemplate. It is just as unreasonable to suppose that conscription is going to solve all the difficulties in Ireland as it is to believe there is a short cut to victory in the war. Our policy must always be to maintain the principle of the Convention, whether that body is in operative existence, or whether it has fallen into temporary abeyance. If the wound fails to heal at first, we must not despair of ultimate cure. It is a good deal to expect that, people who for centuries have held deep and strong convictions with regard to domestic questions should be suddenly brought to view them from another point of view. I do not think, therefore, we ought to despair that the great trials through which we are all passing will bring about a more amenable attitude.

1035
I gratefully acknowledge the support that public men and the Press have rendered to Ireland in the difficult times we are going through. To that general attitude there is, I regret to say, some regrettable exceptions. There are certain schools of thought who do not lose an opportunity of attacking the Government and denouncing it for weakness and pusillanimity. The unfortunate thing about it is that it inflames the extreme sections of both camps. It provides material for the one and creates distrust with the other. Sometimes I think these criticisms arise a little from ignorance. Into the tangled and complicated scheme of things which goes to make up the Irish situation it is very incautious for an imperfectly equipped critic to plunge. It does not always do good service to the State. The Irish Government have a double duty to perform. They have their duty to Ireland, and that is to pursue the policy of the appeasement and reconciliation of the two races which inhabit its shores. They have their duty to the Empire, and that is to protect it from untoward or hampering perils which may come from that quarter and which would impede the successful prosecution of the great task upon which we are engaged. Both these duties are being faith fully performed, I believe, by the Irish Executive, from the Chief Secretary down to the humblest member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I claim that a large measure of success has attended their efforts, and I predict that, with the confidence and support of this House and the country, happy and durable achievements are far from being beyond the bounds of reasonable probability in the future.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as a practice I have abstained from addressing your Lordships on purely Party political questions, but the Irish question at this moment cannot in any way be considered a purely Party political one. The very safety of the Empire and the happiness of Ireland have to do with this question, and I am rather distressed that the noble Lord who has just spoken and who is the head of His Majesty's Government in Ireland does not seem to realise, although he may realise it, what a different matter this is from that eternal Irish question which ever since I came to years of intelligence I have had brought before me in one way or another, as also have your Lordships. The difference is this, that never before have the Irish people as a mass or as an
1036
organised body claimed complete separation from Great Britain and the Empire. That is a most important difference. It is a difference which may lead, if not recognised, to the real dismemberment, not of the British Isles, as mentioned by Mr. Gladstone, but to the dismemberment of the British Empire.
The noble Lord who has just spoken appears to me to be looking at this question from the Party politician point of view, and not from the point of view of an Imperialist statesman. Why do I say that? I say it in the first place because, if he had looked at it from the Imperialist statesman point of view, he would not have laid so much stress upon the economic prosperity of Ireland at the present moment. No one questions that the Irish farmer is richer than he ever was in his life, and the Irish farmer is a majority in the country. The really serious thing is that the young Irish farmer has been led away to think that separation would he a good thing for Ireland, and unfortunately he has never had it pointed out to him that complete separation between England and Ireland is an impossibility, and that therefore he is asking what cannot be granted.
For better, for worse. Ireland and England, physically and in almost every other way, have been united and must remain united. There is no divorce, these is no possibility of separation. I say that because, even if His Majesty's Government should yield to such a suicidal policy as to accept the demand of the Sinn Feiners and give separation to Ireland, the Empire would intervene. Do you imagine that after all the sacrifices, all the blood that has been shed, all the money that has been expended by our brethren overseas, they would allow Ireland to place herself, as would inevitably occur, under the protection of Germany, and be a danger close to the centre of the Empire, especially after what we know science has done in weakening for a moment and to a certain extent our sea supremacy. There lies the danger. They are asking for what is an impossibility, and that means that either we must pretend to give them what we should have to take away from them afterwards and make matters worse—namely, separation or we should have to put down our foot firmly and say." No, we cannot; it is impossible. We will give you such Home Rule as is given to our Colonies, but it must be a Home Rule or a self-government which

1037
is in union with the other portions of the British Empire, which acknowledges one Flag and the supremacy of one Sovereign."
I listened with some disappointment to the noble Lord when he said that drilling, except in small instances, was not permitted in Ireland. I was in Dublin when for hours men marched through the streets of the city, certain portions of them armed ostensibly for firing purposes, on the occasion of the funeral of Mr. Ashe. It was said there were 80,000 men. I doubt whether there were so many, but that was the number reported.
LORD WIMBORNE: Did the noble Earl say 80,000?
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am not responsible for the numbers. I have read that there were 80,000. At any rate the Press published 80,000, though I do not believe there were so many. But if there were 50,000 it was enough.
LORD WIMBORNE: The number I heard was 15,000.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I have myself passed through three, certainly through two, rebellions in Ireland in my life, and I could not congratulate the noble Lord upon saying that he did not listen to his military advisers when they recommended Home action. What the action was he did not state, but it was some action recommended when his military advisers thought a fortnight or two ago that there was going to be a rebellion. That is exactly what Mr. Birrell did. He refused to listen to his military advisers, and the rebellion took place. Fortunately the rebellion did not lake place upon this occasion, but the next time perhaps it may. I do not think that that was a very powerful argument in support of the action of the Government.
No one can feel more intensely than I do the difficulties that His Majesty's Government have to contend with, and there is no question whatever that it is of the utmost importance at this moment that nothing should be done to prevent the Convention from carrying on their labours in a peaceful and quiet way. I think, therefore, that we must all feel that the Government are placed in an exceedingly difficult position; and until the Convention have expressed their opinion and told the Government what they recommend, there is practically, and there must continue to be
1038
practically, no Government in Ireland. Now that is a very sad position, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will take every possible precaution to prevent the peace from being broken, because there are large numbers in Ireland who are only too anxious that something of the sort should occur. I will only add that I trust that His Majesty's Government will recognise that this is perhaps one of the most important moments in the history of my beloved country and in the history of our Empire, and that, unless they make up their minds that whatever is settled by the Convention shall be the law of Ireland, trouble will inevitably ensue.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, a very interesting contribution to this debate was made just, now by the Lord Lieutenant, who comes here to address us with an authority to which no one else can pretend in regard to the condition of Ireland. He cautioned us at the beginning of his speech against being too ready to accept gloomy accounts which might reach us of the condition of that country. But, as he went on. I confess that I thought some of his remarks fell very far short of being reassuring. I caught a reference to the existence of a "sinister possibility"; and another reference to the "inflammable material" which abounds in the country. But the noble Lord bids us not regard these things with overmuch suspicion. I should, however, like to ask the House whether, if we are suspicious, there is not a considerable amount of foundation in fact for the suspicions that we entertain. The Lord Lieutenant told us that the country was not out of hand. He told us that Ireland was orderly. What sort of order has he in his mind? I recall a passage in a speech delivered only a few days ago by the Chief Secretary, who told his hearers that in Ireland the Sinn Feiners were permitted to march and counter-march and to hold field days to their hearts' content. I am not sure that a country can be described—
LORD WIMBORNE: Who said that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Mr. Duke, the Chief Secretary, in the House of Commons. That hardly suggests the idea of a country that can be properly described as an orderly country. The facts are always difficult to ascertain. Newspaper reports are very meagre, but that is a piece of evidence contributed by a witness whose evidence cannot be disputed.

1039
Upon what is it that our suspicions are founded? What we suspect is that the policy followed in dealing with these occurrences has not always been quite a consistent policy, and to my mind nothing is so unfair to the people of Ireland themselves as that there should be any inconsistency in the policy under which such events are dealt with. Surely it is the duty of the Irish Administration to do what the Prime Minister described the other day as "saving these poor people "—the poor people being the excitable and ill-informed peasantry of Ireland saving them from being persuaded to take part in a movement which can only lead them and their country to disaster, saving them from a kind of wave of indiscipline which is at this moment passing over Ireland with, I am afraid, most deplorable results.
I should like to give your Lordships an instance of the kind of indiscipline which is permeating Ireland at this moment. There is in one of the larger Irish cities in the South a college at which teachers are trained. It is a large college and is supported by grants from His Majesty's Government. I take this from an account circumstantially published in the newspapers. The other day the whole of the students, 200 in number, having some grievance connected, I believe, with their dietary or something of that kind, marched out and went on strike. They were at once taken charge of by the local Volunteers, who gave them quarters in their drill hall, fed them, and looked after them. These young men are the men whom we are bringing up as school teachers in Ireland, and if there is one thing that is more notorious than another and the fact is borne witness to in the reports of the Hardinge Commission—it is the fact that the school teachers in many parts of Ireland Lave done an infinite amount of mischief by the propagation of seditious doctrine. None of this inarching and counter-marching and manœuvring would be allowed in this country.
LORD WIMBORNE: They are not allowed in Ireland.
TIM MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But they take place.
LORD WIMBORNE: And the are the subject of prosecution.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Chief Secretary himself has said that they have been allowed to drill and to march and counter march and hold field days to their hearts' content. [LORD WIMBORNE dissented.] The noble Lord shakes his head, but there are the ipsissima rerba of the Chief Secretary. I say that that large measure of indulgence, which would never have been extended to any English county, has been extended for some time past to Ireland; and people ask themselves, and I think ask themselves naturally, Why is it that there should be this discrimination in favour of Ireland? Is there any part of the United Kingdom in which there is less excuse for proceedings of this kind? The country is prosperous. The Lord Lieutenant, himself bore emphatic witness to the fact—wonderfully prosperous. No grievance is alleged. Ear from there being any discrimination against Ireland, Ireland has been singled out for a special measure of indulgence by being allowed immunity from compulsory service; and you have 200,000 young men who, if they lived in this country, would have to enter the Army or accept some national service, manoeuvring about the country and adding to our national embarrassments.
What, to my mind, makes all this so serious is that we cannot possibly be under any illusion as to the trend of these events. We have had an object-lesson, which none of us can ever forget, in the rebellion of Easter, 1916. That can never pass out of our memory. It is easy to talk, as some people talk, of the "habitual exuberance of the Irishman," and so forth; but we have in the rebellion of Easter 1916, an example of the kind of results to which that exuberance leads if it is allowed to remain too long unchecked. I do not know whether your Lordships are familiar with the Report of Lord Hardinge's Inquiry into the events which led to the rebellion of last year. I am not going to quote from it at length, but open it almost at a venture and you find sentences like this—
" In periods of peace it may be desirable in an orderly community to disregard some seditious utterings as more vapourings; but when a country is engaged in a serious struggle, sedition alters its aspect and becomes treason, dangerous to the community, and should be promptly suppressed."
I could give your Lordships half a dozen extracts from the same document in the same sense. What I venture to impress upon His Majesty's Government is that we

1041
cannot allow a repetition of the events of Easter, 1916. Those happenings left the ugliest blot upon the history of this country that has disfigured it for many a long year: and it is probably only His Majesty's Government who know how near we have been to a repetition of that great disaster.
I note that the justification offered for the large measure of tolerance which was extended to these Irish agitators is supported by the statement that it was necessary to use such indulgence in order that the chances of the Convention now sitting in Dublin might not be shipwrecked. I have always favoured the policy of the Convention, and in all sincerity I wish it success. But if I am asked whether I believe that the policy which has been followed in Ireland during the last few months is likely to have been conducive to the success of the Convention, I own that I gravely doubt it. Let us not forget that these Sinn Feiner refused all participation in the Convention, and that it is their declared object to defeat it. I cannot conceive that, in those circumstances, it should be thought that the chances of the Convention could be improved by allowing a comparatively free hand to these disorderly activities. I believe, on the contrary, that if things had happened as they very nearly did happen, and as they might have happened, a wave of excitement and indignation would have arisen which would once and for all have shipwrecked all prospects of the success of the Convention. At any rate, I should be very sorry to admit the plea which is sometimes made that, because the Convention is sitting, therefore law and order can in any sense be allowed to remain in abeyance in Ireland.
I certainly am to some extent, reassured by what has been said both by the Prime Minister and by the Lord Lieutenant. I gather from both of those statements that His Majesty's Government have now determined to deal much more resolutely and decisively with these disorders whenever they assert themselves; and I am bound to say that I draw a contrast between the language used by the Prime Minister and the language used by the Chief Secretary. If I might epitomise the language used by those two public men, I should say that, throughout the Chief Secretary's observations, the predominant thought was—save the Convention. I think the prevailing note struck by the Prime Minister was, on the contrary—save
1042
law and order; and, to my mind, that is by far the more important of the two. I was glad to note that the Lord Lieutenant informed us that the Irish Administration had made up their minds not to allow any more drilling.
LORD WIMBORNE: It never has been allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It has never been authorised, but it has taken place. I will not go back to the old argument, but we know perfectly well that the policy of the Irish Government for a long time was to turn their "blind eye to the telescope," and to allow these things to take place with impunity. I am glad to see these indications of increasing courage and decision. I am sure that His Majesty's Government will be well advised if they do deal a little more courageously with these incidents. There are two great risks which, it seems to me, they run if they do not deal resolutely with them. The first risk is the one which I suggested a moment ago namely, a repetition of the disaster of Easter, 1916. I believe that to be a real risk. But there is another risk, of a different kind, which to me seems obvious. I really believe that, if proceedings of the nature which we are discussing are allowed to go on taking place in Ireland, there will be a rather dangerous outbreak of indignation in this country. People cannot understand it. To the mass of our people it seems quite intolerable that while this country is in the throes of a great war the Sinn Feiners should be allowed to proclaim their sympathy (as they do upon public platforms) with the foes of this country, to march about carrying banners, making disloyal speeches, singing disloyal songs. I think, too, that our people will consider it intolerable that I do not know what the number is something like 50,000 of our troops should be contained in Ireland for the purpose of watching the proceedings of these rebels at, a moment when we want every man we can get for service in other theatres of war. To me, I must own, it also seems intolerable that His Majesty's Government should be distracted by these anxieties. I think it an outrage that my noble friend who leads the House should have to come down here and make speeches to us about Irish disorders at a moment when he has so many other claims upon his time. And most of all does it seem to me intolerable that these credulous and excitable

1043
Irish peasants should be exposed to the kind of propaganda which encounters them at every moment. I want to avoid both those risks: and it is with real satisfaction that I think I detect in the statements that have been made on the part of His Majesty's Government a deliberate decision to deal effectually with this menace, and to take whatever measures are necessary in order to counter it.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I think we have been fortunate this evening in that we have had the Lord Lieutenant present to state the views of the Government of Ireland, and also, at the same time, to explain the situation there, and to give us his opinions as to the state of Ireland at the present time. I listened to his speech with great attention, and during the whole of it my mind seemed to be carried back to happier years, when we were living in the piping times of peace and the only dangers which we used generally to go through were periodic troubles in Ireland—land, or some other troubles and we used to have very interesting and occasionally extremely amusing, and sometimes heated, debates in another place, of which I then had the honour to be a Member, and upon which occasions Members used to give their views as to how the Irish nation should be governed.
It is very interesting to hear that Ireland is extraordinarily prosperous. It is very interesting to know that at the present moment there is hope, and not so pleasing to hear that there is also unrest in Ireland. I am rather afraid that the hope is all shadow and the unrest grave reality; because later on in his speech the noble Lord informed us that last Sunday week it was generally expected that there was going to be a general insurrection in the country. If we were living in the piping times of peace I feel certain we should be able to carry on this debate, and many noble Lords who are far more able than I am to do so would give us their opinions as to how Ireland should be governed, and would be able to make us better acquainted with the Irish situation. But, unfortunately, interesting as that subject is, I feel that the one thing that the noble Lord entirely seemed to pass over is the fact that at the present moment we are engaged in a most terrible war and are struggling for our existence. Therefore the few words which I intend to address to your Lordships this
1044
evening will not be so much on the position in Ireland, but, if I may, I, wish to tell the Government what I believe to be the feeling in England.
After all, we in England, Scotland, and Wales have made great sacrifices in this war, and the whole population of Great Britain, be they rich or poor, high or low, will probably be called upon to make even far greater sacrifices yet, for unfortunately the end appears to be as far off as ever, and no man at the present moment can tell with any degree of certainty what the result of the war may be. Therefore I do not think we are wrong in stating that the paramount thing in this House is not to consider what the opinions of 100, or 1,000, or 10,000, or 100,000, aye, or even 1,000,000 people in Ireland may be. They are as nothing. The thing we have to consider is what is the opinion of at least 40,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom, who are called upon to make sacrifices in this war, and who are not rich and prosperous, but who are patriotically and quietly striving to do their best to further the interests of their country. Those are the men whom the Government have to consider. They have not to consider whether doing this or that would inflame public opinion in Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant has told us, in the first instance, that he considers the Irish Government at the present moment are in a good position to deal with any rising in the country, because they have what they consider to be a proper force. That is very pleasant to hear. I am delighted to learn that the Government have placed a sufficient force, or what they consider to be a sufficient force, in Ireland, to protect loyal people and to secure that there shall be no successful rebellion. But why is this force there? Would it not be much better employed elsewhere? I think the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, hinted at a figure of 50,000 troops in Ireland. I have no knowledge of the number of troops there, but there is no doubt that a very large number of troops are shut up in Ireland at the present moment. Why? In order to terrify people from rebelling, and also to be quite sure that the Germans will not be able to make a successful landing there and be joined by these men who have openly stated that they are in favour of the German cause.
At the present time I think we may divide the population of the world into

1045
three classes. There are the A lies and their friends, there are neutrals, and there are our enemies; and I think the question which we should like to put to the Government is this. In which of those categories do they class Mr. de Valera and his followers? Are they our friends and allies? Are they neutrals, are they benevolent neutrals? Or are they enemies? If they are the latter, I have no hesitation in saying that, whatever dangers of rising or insurrection there may be in Ireland, it is the duty of the Government to shut up men who are our enemies and prevent them going about trying to do us harm. After there has been a Zeppelin raid in London the Press and a lot of ill-informed persons write to say that it is all because there are some German waiters still not interned, and they must be shut up because they signal to the Zeppelins. I myself believe that there are a great many people interned in this country who are far less a source of danger to the safety of the country and the security of the British Empire than many of those men who are now left to go about in Ireland preaching sedition, and trying to train men so that should England meet with disaster they would be able, with the assistance of Germany, to rise and do injury to this country. That is a consideration which should have most weight with the Government, and I think it is really in that spirit that my noble friend Lord Chaplin has asked this Question: because, interesting as it may be to us to discuss all sorts of problematical Governments of Ireland, and the manners and customs of the Irish people, I believe that what the 40,000,000 people who live in Great Britain want to know is whether the Government has taken the best steps in Ireland to preserve the safety of the United Kingdom and promote the success of the war.
There has been a great deal of talk about the Convention, and a great many people thought that if the Convention was able to agree to a policy we should be able to pass a measure into law giving effect to their recommendations and instantly Ireland would quiet down. Of course, many noble Lords are better able than I am to speak on that question, but I can only say that one of the things which filled me with grave apprehension was the speech of the Prime Minister, in which he stated that if the Convention came to practical unanimity he would take immediate steps to give legislative effect to their recommendation. I
1046
think that is a most dangerous promise After all, the people of England in the past have made a great many sacrifices for Ireland, have been a good deal bothered with Ireland, and have had to find a good deal of money for Ireland, and have got very little return or thanks from Ireland for all the concessions made in the past. In these days people have to look a little to themselves. In order to get a peaceful atmosphere and a quiet life for the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, is England to be called upon to make further concession to Ireland in face of the declared policy of the Irish people that they would never be satisfied with less than Irish independence and an independent Irish Republic? All these things in times of peace can perhaps be discussed in a quiet atmosphere and without heat or disturbance, and one always hopes that a successful conclusion may be arrived at: but I may remind your Lordships' House that Parliament has tried for a good many years to arrive at a successful conclusion and has miserably failed. So again I say I am afraid that the hope expressed is a very fleeting shadow.
I think this war has brought home to the people of England as it was never brought home to them before the absolute impossibility of England ever allowing Ireland to be an independent Republic. Strategically it is absolutely impossible for England, for her own safety, ever to allow all independent Government in Ireland. The leaders of this party, who appear unmolested and go about preaching sedition and encouraging risings, have openly declared this to be their policy. Well, I think a very grave responsibility lies on His Majesty's Government. It is absolutely essential in order to quiet opinion in England that the Government, which is taking the mild course of trying to prohibit drilling—this appears to take up the chief energies of the Government and is, I think, rather unconvincing—should definitely state that it is in the interests of the security of the 40,000,000 people who live in Great Britain that these men who openly preach sedition and encourage men to drill and who are stating that they favour our enemy, should not be allowed to go free. In times of peace, of course, the moment you imprison or prosecute any man who is engaged on any work that can be called political in its nature, a great deal of animosity is aroused, and there is always a certain amount of sympathy for these

1047
people. Enormous pressure is always exerted upon the Government of the day to remit their sentences, to treat them more humanely, to let them out, and pardon their offences. Perhaps that is only natural. But I do not think I am wrong in saying that opinion in England is hardening on this matter. If at the present moment you were to imprison these men, even if there was an insurrection in Ireland and you had to use force to put it down, you would find here in England that there would be no sympathy with rebels, but rather you would get the support of the vast majority of the people, who feel that, while we are in the gravest danger from foes without, the Government of the day is doing absolutely nothing to check the activities of the foes within.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wimborne, in his able and interesting speech, spoke about the angle of vision from which political matters may be regarded, and undoubtedly it has become a popular catch-word in recent times to say that a problem appears in a very definite perspective according to the angle of vision from which it is seen. We had an illustration of this yesterday, when the conscientious objector was depicted from one point of view as a foolish, wrong-headed, and unpatriotic person, and from another as a hardly-used martyr suffering for the sake of conscience; and I am not certain that this debate has not given another illustration of the same phenomenon this evening. The character of the majority of the speeches to which we have listened has certainly been to depict Ireland as seething with sedition and almost on the verge of open rebellion. On the other hand, we have listened to the Lord Lieutenant; and from his speech and from speeches delivered outside this House we gather an impression of an Ireland suffering from a violent attack, if you like, of an endemic disease, the roots of which are embedded in her character and in her history.
You have the same contrast as regards the attitude and responsibility of the Government. As I have sat here this evening hearing the criticism that has been passed on His Majesty's Government, I cannot help recalling that only three weeks ago in another place the members of that House were invited to deplore the conduct of the present Irish Executive
1048
as harsh, provocative, and futile. We cross the Lobby, we come to this House, and we find the same policy, carried out by the same men, described, as I have heard it this evening, as weak, vacillating, and incompetent. Between these two rival portraits of the same object it is a little difficult to arrive at the truth. I will endeavour, in the observations that I address to you, to do so to the best of my ability. And when I remember that the opposite verdict was rejected in the House of Commons by a majority of over 200 to 78, although I cannot hope for a similar result in this House, yet I trust that I shall be able to modify to some extent the impressions that have been left by some of the speeches to which we have listened.
This debate arises out of a Question put by my noble friend Lord Chaplin, and he seems to have found some contrast between the present position of affairs and the declarations, very emphatic declarations, which were made in a speech by the Prime Minister in the debate to which I have referred. May I say, in passing, that I do not think my noble, friend Lord Lansdowne was quite justified in discovering a contrast between the speeches of the Chief Secretary and of the Prime Minister. Certainly there was no such intentional difference, because the speeches were delivered after a meeting in which the, whole course of the debate had been examined and laid down in advance. While it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to explain the main principles and the acts of the Administration, it naturally fell to the Prime Minister to issue the grave warning with which he ended the debate.
Now, my Lords, what was the nature of that warning? The Prime Minister quoted—and they were referred to by Lord Chaplin to-night—many of the utterances of Mr. de Valera. I need not repeat those speeches, which are well known—I mean the speeches about calling upon the people in Ireland to train, to get hold of arms, to study the mechanism of the rifle, to manufacture pikes, and so on. The noble Viscount said—and I am inclined to think that he was actually quoting the Prime Minister that these utterances were "a deliberate and cold-blooded incitement to rebellion." No language could be used too strong to condemn them. We are all agreed upon that. Then the Prime Minister went on to say that such things could not be allowed to continue. He said that the

1049
Government must take action, not provocative action but firm action; and I beg your Lordships to bear in mind that distinction throughout this debate. He said three things. In the first place, that direct incitement to rebellion must not be permitted; secondly, that organisation for rebellion in respect of drilling, marching, processions, and the like must be stopped; and thirdly—referring to the point upon which so much stress was laid by my noble friend Lord Ancaster just now—he said that Ireland should know once and for all that nothing in the nature of separation, secession, sovereign independence (the wild programme which is preached by some of these foolish men) would this country, either now or at any time in the future, allow. That is, I think, a brief and correct summary of the speech of the Prime Minister.
The question I have to answer is, Has that speech been effective? Is there any difference between the situation now and what it was then? I am here to argue to your Lordships that the warning has had its effect, and that a change has come over the scene in Ireland. Such speeches as those to which I have referred, made by Mr. de Valera, are not, being made at the present moment, and if they were being made action would have to be taken upon them. The Government is continuing to pursue this policy of firmness without provocation, and the organisation for rebellion is being steadily suppressed, I am not a great admirer of statistics, but sometimes they convey in a single sentence what it would take much longer to demonstrate in a speech. I will give your Lordships figures of the proceedings and inquires under the Defence of the Realm Regulations against drilling, the wearing of uniform, and the carrying of arms in the period which has elapsed since the delivery of that speech and the corresponding period before it. The number of prosecutions for illegal drilling from October I to October 23 was 7; and the number from October 23 to November 9, which is the latest date for which I have the figures, was 10 In the interval between October 23 and November 9, 57 arrests have been made, 54 of which were for the offence of illegal drilling, 2 for wearing uniform of a military character, and I for carrying arms. In a number of these cases a district Court-Martial has been ordered. These are the proceedings that have been taken by the General Officer Commanding in Ireland and are exclusive of those taken by
1050
the Police. As regards the latter, there have been numerous prosecutions by the Police, There have been 37 in the last fortnight in Dublin City, and I only refrain from giving the figures as regards the provinces outside Dublin because the Irish Office has not been able to supply them to me.
I have said that there has been a difference in the speeches and you have a right to ask me to substantiate that remark. I quoted just now the kind of language which Mr. de Valera was using before the Prime Minister made his speech, and I take the utterances since. I think I have read every one of them as far as I have been able. It is quite true that Mr. de Valera goes on preaching the doctrine of separation, of an Irish Republic, and so on. We allow him to do so. I remember, before I entered public life, a man in a very prominent position in England preaching the doctrine of a Republic here. Nobody prosecuted him; nobody suggested that he should be put in prison; and in the same way, supposing the Sinn Feiners had taken part, as they were invited to do, in the Irish Convention, does any one mean to say if they had got up and preached separation from England and an independent Republic for Ireland they would have been shut up? They would have been entirely at liberty, following our universal practice and tradition, to express sentiments of that description. You say, What about his other speeches? The violent Clare speeches, to which I have also alluded, have been replaced by speeches containing, it is true, limited and contingent threats, but not very much more. I will give you the worst passages, carefully taken, of what Mr. de Valera has been saying in the interval. I trust that your Lordships will accept my assurance that they are the worst I can find
" If England refused them their freedom, they would have to obtain it by force of arms." "We will never cease fighting against England until we get our needs."" Keep your powder dry "—
A not uncommon metaphor—
" The only means of making an Englishman respect you is through the muzzle of a rifle."" The road to freedom is a narrow and difficult one, and the nation that wants to achieve freedom must be ready to march along that narrow and difficult path." "The time has come for Ireland; it is now or never."
It is open to you to say, and to say with perfect truth, that these are foolish and symptomatic, possibly sinister, utter-

1051
ances, but they are not incitements to public violence; they are not, dangerous to public order or a menace to the stability of the State. Any one of your Lordships who has experience of law will know that it would be an extremely difficult thing to make them the basis of a successful prosecution.
A good many questions have been asked, and some difference of opinion has been expressed, as to what is the political position in Ireland. Doubts have been raised as to the attitude of Sinn Fein, and the noble Earl who spoke last definitely laid it down as his belief that Sinn Fein is an organisation animated throughout by disloyal and dangerous sentiments. I think a mistake is committed by those who speak of Sinn Fein as a single united and powerful organisation, directed by a single purpose and animated by a common motive. I think the very reverse is the case. So far as I can gather—and I have taken immense trouble to arrive at the facts—there are certain points upon which all sections of Sinn Fein are agreed. They are agreed in resisting conscription for Ireland; they are agreed in hostility to the Nationalist Party; and they are agreed as, indeed, a large majority of Irishmen have always been, in making things difficult for the British Government. But, my Lords, that section of the Sinn Fein party which is really extreme, which is prepared for acts of violence, which would like a rebellion, which tries to provoke collisions with the Police and military forces and which is animated by direct hatred of England, is, I believe, not only in a minority, but in a minority that becomes smaller instead of larger from day to day. This minority of the extreme Sinn Feiners is composed, as noble Lords who come from Ireland will bear me out, for the most part of young men, very often lads, who are easily attracted into this dangerous attitude. I do not deny that this section of Sinn Fein is a dangerous factor in the body politic. It is most dangerous: it means mischief, and it has to be carefully watched by the Government. It may be necessary to take strong measures to stamp it out, but do not make the mistake of thinking that it is all the Sinn Fein or the only Sinn Fein. I am informed—and I am quoting both military and civilians who have a real and intimate knowledge of what is going on in Ireland—that distinct from them is what I may call the moderate party of Sinn Fein, who, they tell me, number something like
1052
80 per cent. of the total Sinn Fein party. These are not the militant people. They are not the people who want fighting, but they are the political party, and they are opposed to the use of arms. They agitate for separation, they aim at an independent Irish State, but they are not for rebellion.
Let me give an illustration. At the recent meeting of the Sinn Fein Conference in Dublin the extremists delivered a very strong attack upon Mr. John McNeill for his reluctance to use force, and for his conduct, which they regarded as pusillanimous, on the eve of the rebellion at Easter time last year. They argued that he was unfit to be a leader of the Sinn Fein party. The result was that he got the largest number of votes of any candidate. I take as another illustration one which was perfectly fairly alluded to by my noble friend Lord Wimborne—namely, the absolute fiasco that attended the proceedings in Dublin and in the neighbourhood of Dublin on Sunday, November 1. As we all know, a rising was threatened, or at any rate was believed to be imminent, on that day. All the preparations were alleged to have been made. I may carry the story a little further than did my noble friend. I think it is known that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary was openly encouraged and judging from the speeches that I have heard to-night I think the encouragement would have been endorsed here-to throttle the thing by arresting as many as 150 ringleaders and deporting them from the country. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had issued orders—they were quite proper orders—to disperse armed processions, to disarm armed men, to suppress armed disturbance wherever it took place, and to prohibit the great meeting at Newbridge which was to have been held outside Dublin. At the same time, of course, full and adequate steps were taken by the military to safeguard the situation. What was the result? Absolutely nothing. The whole thing fizzled out. I submit that the Chief Secretary, when he is censured, has a perfect right to point to that incident and say I am sure that he would not say it in any vainglorious mood that that was a feather in his own cap and was a severe blow to the cause of Sinn Fein.
I go a little further, and I wish with your leave, to represent to your Lordships the effect that is being produced by recent events, and by the growing schism which I have described, upon public opinion in

1053
Ireland. The noble Lord who spoke just now said that the only thing we had to consider was the 40,000,000 of people, who inhabit Great Britain. No, my Lords, if you are to have any hold in Ireland at all, that hold springs from the impression you may hope to produce upon public opinion there. What you want to do is to detach public opinion from the mere extremists who are ready to drag the country to its ruin. There is much evidence in Ireland that the words and assumptions of the extreme Sinn Fein party have alienated the sober and mere thoughtful sections of the population. There is a growing and a general disinclination for this dangerous policy of extremes. Along with that—I derive this from the Irish newspapers—there is a great and a growing diminution of sympathy with Ireland in America, and this is creating grave feelings of unrest and disquietude among the extreme party in Ireland itself.
I now come to what in my judgment is the most remarkable, and, I think, the most hopeful, symptom of all, and that is that Sinn Fein is being increasingly and courageously repudiated by the Catholic Church. With a few exceptions to which I need not allude, the Catholic. Church in Ireland is now throwing its weight into the maintenance of order and the due observance of the law. The priests in their pulpits and on their altar steps discountenance revolutionary action. I should like to quote to your Lordships one brief passage from the Irish Catholic, the chief weekly organ of the Catholic Church in Ireland, in support of what I have said. In its issue of November 8 there appeared this
" It is abundantly plain that Mr. de Valera does not want our priests to exercise any moderating influence in the secret councils of his movement…. The Irish Catholic is convinced that the movement is inspired to drag Catholic Ireland at the heels of the unholy Continental revolutionaries."
It concludes with the remark that a great responsibility rests on the prelates, priests, and parents of Catholic Ireland. I am not certain that this is not the most hopeful thing that I have read during the past six months with regard to Ireland; and my study of the speeches of the Sinn Fein people has taught me this, that nothing has been more disconcerting to them than this revulsion of the Catholic Church. You will see in their speeches attempts to get hold of the younger priests, who, they say,
1054
will be more in touch with the times than the older Catholic clergy. There is at the present moment evidence of a distinct fissure between the extreme party in Ireland and those to whom they have always hitherto looked for support—namely, the leaders of the Catholic Church.
There is a further section in Ireland who are being alienated and irritated by the Sinn Fein policy. That is a class for whom the noble Viscount will feel a special sympathy—namely, the farmers of Ireland. The economic policy of Sinn Fein, which I think personally is very narrow and unwise, but which is expressed in many of their utterances, has excited profound suspicion and hostility among the farmers, because it definitely proposes to boycott English markets and keep all home-grown produce in Ireland. The farmers do not like that. The Irish farmer does not like being deprived of the legitimate profits of his industry; and if you follow the newspapers, as I have been endeavouring to do, you will find a storm of disapproval of Sinn Fein springing up in the country newspapers in all parts of that Island. I think, my Lords, that I have given you some evidence that a strong reaction is at the present moment in course of growth in Ireland. If that be so, I submit to you that it would be a great mistake to check or discourage it, and that we should only play into the hands of the extremists if we were rashly to provoke a conflict with those who, however unwise and ill-advised they may be, are nevertheless not a danger at the present time to the Realm.
I now turn to the matter about which so many questions have quite fairly been put to me this evening In these circumstances, what is the policy of the Government, and what ought the policy of the Government to be? Its guiding principles were laid down by the Prime Minister—" firmness but not provocation." How are we carrying that out? I would submit to you that if any one of your Lordships were in the position of the Minister responsible for the carrying out of law and order in Ireland, the test that he would apply in the case of each action or incident would be this Is the action with which I am called upon to deal really injurious to the public safety; is it in any sense a real menace to the State? I take the case of drilling. Drilling is illegal. It has been prohibited. The Government endeavour to put it down. But I ask your Lordships to discriminate

1055
between the cases in which this is practicable and the cases in which it is impracticable. Take the case of a large city, whether it be Dublin, Cork, or Limerick, or any large city in Ireland, where you have a sufficient Police force and where the Police, if in a tight place, can be supported by the military. There firm action is taken. Men marching in fours, drilling in the streets, and so on, are firmly dealt with, and are dispersed. But I do ask any practical man to answer this. Suppose these young fellows—and many of them are mere boys—march out into the country and drill in the waste spaces of Ireland, how can you stop them? How can you stop them unless you have the force? And have you got the force to do this all over the country in places several miles from the populous towns? Again, without in the least wanting to treat the matter in a flippant spirit, I cannot help putting to myself the question, Is this kind of foolish sporadic drilling of a few boys on the hillside, even if it is not interrupted—and we do interrupt it where we can—is it really going to shake the Constitution?
Now take the case of troops. It has not been mentioned to-night, and it has to be mentioned with delicacy, but it must be in our minds. Of course, military support may have to be given, and the decision in such matters rests, as all your Lordships know, according to invariable practice, with the Military Commanding Officer, and a very anxious and critical duty it is that he has to perform. But, my Lords, while the military is there, and while it may fairly be called upon to intervene at a moment of danger, every one knows how serious a step it is to call up the military and to disperse a meeting with the risk of bloodshed. It is the surest way to provoke trouble; it has done so over and over again in this country. Those of us who have been in Parliament for years can remember the explosions which have taken place owing very likely to a perfectly legitimate calling in of the military. The firing of one or two shots, the death of one or two men very likely innocent men produce a commotion which does far more harm than the good you may have secured by the stopping of the individual incidents at the place in question. My Lords, we want to avoid shooting in Ireland, not only because of its deplorable results anywhere, but because of the fatal results which it might produce in the present phase of Irish affairs. And that is
1056
why, in what is going on in Ireland, you will find that recourse is always had, where it can be had, to Police remedies, to the arrest of the leaders, their prosecution, their trial, their imprisonment. I may mention, as one instance of the Police action on the part of this weak and vacillating Government, that one of the offenders is suffering at this moment a sentence of penal servitude.
My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, who. I think, has not been quite fairly treated in this matter—I am not speaking of this House, but generally—is continually faced with this difficulty, arising with regard to almost every question that comes up. He has to put to himself the question, Is this case a public offence, or is it a Police offence? If he takes strong action, will be provoke tumult and bloodshed; will he do anything to stop the chances of that appeasement in Ireland about which my noble friend Lord Wimborne spoke with so much eloquence?
Let me take another case, to which my noble friend Lord Chaplin alluded. It was the case of uniforms. Well, the wearing of uniforms is prohibited. But it is a prohibition which you cannot enforce in every case. If a single individual chooses to put on a uniform do you mean to say that you are to hunt him down by the Police? What the Government tries to do in Ireland is this. If there is a collection of people in uniform, a collection which is a challenge to public authoirty, to the civil power, then that is firmly dealt with, provided, of course, that the force is available for the purpose. Take another case, that of the carrying of arms. The carrying of arms is illegal. It is prohibited. It cannot as a general principle be allowed. But, again, the head of the Executive in carrying out the policy of preventing the carriage of arms has always to consider the question, Can he act in a way to avoid bloodshed; has he the force to carry through the orders of the Government without provoking something of that description?
Then I come to the case of meetings. Some noble Lords—I think my noble friend Lord Lansdowne was one of them—seemed to be somewhat disconcerted at the unrestrained liberty with which, these meetings and the speeches that are delivered at them are allowed to take place in Ireland. My noble friend Lord Chaplin particularly called my attention to a meeting

1057
at Waterford, which he thought was a typical and, I suppose, a scandalous case of inability on the part of the Government to carry out a policy of firmness in defence of law and order.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I asked whether it had not been proclaimed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will give the noble Viscount the actual facts about the Waterford meeting. This was a meeting which was announced by the Sinn Fein party to be held in an open space called the Mall, in the city of Waterford, on Sunday last. It was to be addressed by Mr. de Valera and Mr. Arthur Griffith. It was prohibited by the General Officer Commanding on the ground that it was likely to give rise to grave disorder. Processions in connection with the proposed meeting were also prohibited. The reason for the prohibition was that the Police had definite ground for expecting a breach of the peace if the meeting or processions were attempted. Accordingly, ample means for the enforcement of the prohibition were provided. The proclaimed meeting did not take place, nor was any profession held. But what happened? Mr. de Valera came from Dublin to Waterford, and on Sunday afternoon he drove out to a distance of three miles from the city to a place called Ballynaneeshagh, and he there addressed an assembly of 700 or 800 persons largely composed of women and boys. I hope your Lordships will not say, "Oh, that is the official account of the thing," because, happily for my case, one of the English papers has published pictures of the meeting—I shall be happy to hand them to the noble Viscount opposite—showing a long line of the youthful Sinn Feiners, many of them apparently not much over the age of 14 or 15, marching out to hear the mellifluous utterances of Mr. de Valera. Well, the meeting took place. There was no procession; there was no breach of the peace; members of the Constabulary were present at the meeting, and they found no reason to interfere with the proceedings. The noble Viscount, in his anxiety that I should be thoroughly acquainted with what happened at this place, was kind enough to send me an extract from a paper giving a somewhat more rhetorical account of what took place. But this is how it ended:
1058
" This evening Waterford is as quiet as a churchyard. The Sinn Feiners and the soldiers are all indoors drying their feet."
Now, supposing that the Executive had acted in the kind of manner which was indicated, which was almost suggested, by the noble Viscount to-night, I think it is quite likely that Waterford would have supplied a churchyard in another sense of the term, and that, instead of the whole affair evaporating as it did in drizzle, it might have burst out into an open and a dangerous conflagration.
I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who spoke rather slightingly of the "traditional exuberance" of the Irish people. But is not there something in it after all? I mean, are all these meetings to be taken too seriously? Do Irishmen take them very seriously themselves? Will you not find in Ireland that, in the opinion of a great many of the people, the dullness of a Saturday afternoon or of a Sunday is sensibly relieved by the opportunity of going out and attending a meeting and making speeches? Is not speechmaking one of the traditional delights and glories of the Irish race? Can we have a better illustration of it than the noble and gallant Admiral, Lord Beresford, who seldom loses an opportunity, either in this House or out of it, and when he is not engaged in this House I am perfectly certain, if you look at the newspapers, you find that he is occupied outside in vindicating this inestimable tradition of his countrymen. Must we be too serious about all this? Law and order, of course, must be kept. Incitements to rebellion and to disorder must be put down. But really if we are to begin to interfere with these meetings and with these speeches all over Ireland, I believe that not only will the Government be undertaking an impracticable task, but they will be acting unwisely. After all, are, not these meetings often a safety valve for the pent-up emotions of the people? And may I not put this consideration to your Lordships, that at these meetings, as they take place, every extreme speech that is delivered—and this has been my argument in the earlier part of my remarks—is more likely to drive the moderates away from the extremists than it is to drive the extremists into action.
I must confess that I think for my own part it is better that sedition, if you like, should be openly preached on the hillside, than that plots against the State should be

1059
secretly concocted in private meetings of which the law knows nothing. I hope I have thus shown your Lordships that in respect of drilling, of the carrying of arms, of the wearing of uniform, of processions, of the use of troops, of the holding of public meetings, and of the making of speeches, the inquiry ought to be made by the Executive in each ease, What is the nature of the menace; how can it be met; and is it wise for the sake of a local manifestation of force, which may be very gratifying and may even be desirable, to jeopardise the great task on which we are engaged in Ireland of evolving by the agency of Irishmen, and, as we ultimately hope, with the consent of Irishmen, some solution of this almost insoluble problem?
There remains only for me to say a word about the general condition of Ireland. The House listened with respect to what fell from my noble friend Lord Wimborne. I need not deal for the moment with the question of prosperity. That is undisputed. It may be said that it does not tell directly on the arguments that your Lordships are addressing to the House to-night. But I think that the evidence which I have adduced, and which is accessible to anybody who wishes to seek it, does show that there is no general prevalence of crime in Ireland, that there is no policy of violence in the proceedings of the Sinn Fein party, and that the isolated cases, which are deplorable and reprehensible, are incidents which can be and have been dealt with adequately by the police and by the military in that country.
I would not deny that the condition of Ireland is critical. I would not say that it does not want very careful watching. But when the noble Viscount gets up and makes the kind of speech that he did to-night, and when, still more, a noble Lord, like Lord Ancaster, follows it up by the even more outspoken appeals that he addressed to us, I would ask them exactly what they do want. What do they want us to do? It is possible, of course, provided that you have the men, to go in for a wholesale repression of all these unhealthy symptoms of which I have been speaking. You might succeed, although I doubt it. You might produce a superficial quiet, which might lead everybody to think that peace was reigning in the land. I doubt whether that would represent the real facts. You would be driving these feelings—very dangerous as they are in some cases—as I said just now, underground;
1060
you would make cheap martyrs of the men you arrested and put in prison or deported; and, still more, you would go a long way to check all those wholesome influences about which I was speaking in the earlier part of my remarks, and as to which I cannot exaggerate the importance that I, at any rate, attach to them.
My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is ploughing a very difficult furrow. He is ploughing that furrow, as I see the case, with infinite forbearance, patience, and self-control. He runs, I will admit, great risks. He runs the certain risk of being misunderstood—he has been so in this House to-night. He is prepared to be so misunderstood everywhere. He also runs the risk of failing to succeed. That is the greatest risk which a public man can run. He is willing to run that risk. He is pursuing his task with patience and with courage; and if he is travelling on the right road—as I believe him to be—I am certain that even the most critical of your Lordships will not complain, however long that road may be and however grave and irritating the obstacles which may be found in its path, if he does eventually succeed in arriving at the goal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend began by protesting that there had been no difference of intention, or in fact of meaning, between the speech of the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons three weeks ago and the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on the same occasion. I do not know what was the intention, but there was a very different impression produced by those two speeches. The Chief Secretary was apologetic from end to end, and no Chief Secretary whose speech I have read has ever got up in the House of Commons and apologised in the way that Mr. Duke did for the simple performance of his duty. The speech of the Prime Minister was pitched in a very different key. He made no apology, and he laid down a policy which commends itself not only to the Government but to all the members of both Houses of Parliament. If the Government really carry out the policy as laid down by the Prime Minister we have no criticisms to make. But it is because we cannot see that the Government in Ireland is carrying out the policy of the Prime Minister that this Motion has been put down to-day.
My noble friend the Leader of the House began by repeating the policy enunciated

1061
by the Prime Minister, and he did it with his usual skill and emphasis. So far as that part of his speech went, we are in complete accord with him; but in the latter part of his speech, with the great power of language of which he is a master, he drew us a picture of Ireland the keynote of which was: Is it not easy to take these rather ominous signs too seriously? Is there not a lot of truth in the plea of the exuberance of the Irish character? Is it not better that these thing should exist and be watched, than that we should run any chance of bloodshed? My criticism on that part of his speech is that he treated the state of Ireland too lightly. Our anxiety arises from the fact that, as far as we can understand, not the policy, but the administration of the Government of Ireland is exactly the same as that which led to the bloody revolution of Easter, 1916. It is because we dread lest exactly the same faults which led to that awful tragedy are now being repeated that our anxiety is so great.
Let me first of all draw attention to the Lord Lieutenant's account of the event of last Sunday week, and what he said about it himself. The Lord Lieutenant claimed the history of last Sunday week as a triumph for the policy of the Chief Secretary, and he ended with the statement that "not even a dog barked." There was, he said, no disturbance in Ireland on that occasion, and the Chief Secretary is entitled to all the credit for that fact, just as the responsibility would have been his if there had been a disturbance. But I do protest against the impression left by what the Lord Lieutenant said, and to a less extent by what my noble friend said, that these hours were not very critical indeed in Ireland. My noble friend only alluded to the military precautions taken. We know what those military precautions were, though it is not perhaps in the public interest that they should be publicly stated; but I have never known military precautions more eloquent as a testimony to the gravity of the crisis. Therefore, although the Government and the Chief Secretary are entitled to the credit of the result of their precautions, yet I think it is deceiving this House for the Lord Lieutenant to give it the impression that there was no grave crisis which might have, turned out very differently.
Then my noble friend dwelt; on the diversity of Sinn Fein. He laid great stress upon the fact that Sinn Fein contained
1062
gentlemen shaded from the implacable revolutionist down to the poetical theorist. That is absolutely true, and I think all your Lordships who have taken any trouble to examine the nature of Sinn Fein will admit the truth of that description. But my noble friend left out—and in his account the Lord Lieutenant entirely left out—this ominous fact, that it is the men who hold revolutionary opinions who are leading Sinn Fein and who are winning every by-election, and that if there was a General Election to-morrow, so far as we know, outside Ulster, every single seat would be filled by a Sinn Feiner who holds extreme opinions. I submit that my noble friend and the Lord Lieutenant have not given an accurate picture of the state of Ireland when they omitted to lay stress upon that sinister fact.
It is admitted on all hands that the whole of the policy which has been pursued is directed to one end, and that is to assist the Convention to an auspicious conclusion. The Chief Secretary described his task as that of creating an atmosphere. I think it may be a very wise thing for a statesman to try and create an atmosphere, but I do not think it is a wise thing for a statesman to say that he is going to try to create an atmosphere. I think he had much better create an atmosphere, if he can, and say nothing about it. But our contention is that the atmosphere which the Chief Secretary has succeeded in creating is exactly that which must be fatal to the Convention or to any settled form of government in Ireland or in any other country. This contention is one which the Lord Lieutenant never attempted to meet, and which I do not think my noble friend has met successfully.
There are special difficulties, of course, in Ireland. We all know that the conditions there are different from those in other countries, and the difficulties are special; but I would say, and I do not think my noble friend or any other in this House—and there are many who have had direct personal responsibility of government—will deny the correctness of what I am going to say, namely, that there are certain elementary principles of successful government which are everywhere applicable, and there are certain perplexities which are met with everywhere. Let us take the question of seditious speeches and writings. No general rule can be laid down about them; no principle can be stated that will be applicable to all writings

1063
or speeches that can be called seditious. They must be dealt with in every country and in every case according to the circumstances and conditions of the moment; and therefore as I have no knowledge of the peculiar circumstances and conditions of the passing speeches or writings, I make no criticism about them. I am not prepared to admit that the Irish Government have always been wise on the subject, but I do not make that point of general criticism, because I admit that you cannot lay down a principle or a general rule. But I do say this, and I will direct my noble friend's attention to this point. He quoted to us certain of Mr. de Valera's speeches made in the last three weeks. He drew a distinction between their quality of sedition and the quality of sedition of the previous speeches, and he said, Would it have been wise to have dealt with such utterances as these? I must make this comment, that if those speeches had been made in England by any man he would have been dealt with at once under the Defence of the Realm Act. Far less seditious utterances have been so dealt with, and I have seen nothing comparable to them which has not been dealt with in England or Scotland.
I pass to the question of the wearing of uniform. I understand my noble friend to say that the wearing of uniform by the Irish Volunteers is prohibited. I am rather sorry that it is prohibited. I really do not see why, if the Irish choose to wear eccentric clothes, they should not wear them. But I am sure it is wrong to prohibit the wearing of these clothes, and then allow them to be worn. That really brings me to the principle which I wish to lay down, and I am quite certain that the last man in this House or the country to differ from me is my noble friend opposite, when I say, You never ought to give an order unless you mean to and know you can enforce it. That seems to me to be an elementary principle of government, and it is because that has been so frequently broken, as we understand, by the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, that our confidence in their method of government has been so rudely shaken.
I will not take the question of the Waterford meeting. I understand my noble friend to say that that meeting was prohibited and not held, but that another meeting, which had not been prohibited and which the authorities on the spot
1064
thought innocuous, was held. I know nothing more than what my noble friend has told me. I accept that from him. But I will take the previous case—previous, I think, to the speech of the Prime Minister—as an illustration of what I mean. The Chief Secretary prohibited through the Censor the publication in Ireland of a certain manifesto. Notwithstanding that prohibition the Freeman's Journal published it, and the Chief Secretary took no notice of this defiance of the law. I say that is bringing the Government into absolute contempt. That is not the way to govern Ireland or any other country in the world. Unless the Chief Secretary was prepared to suppress the Freeman's Journal or any other paper in Ireland he ought never to have prohibited the publication of that manifesto. It is not because of his judgment, but because of his vacillation, because of his timidity in carrying out his own orders and in not pursuing the policy laid down by the Government, that we criticise. We can understand a continuous and consistent policy. What fills us with alarm is a vacillating policy.
My noble friend has told us—and we have complete confidence in his statement—as the Prime Minister told us before, that not for one moment will the Government tolerate the setting up of a rival government in Ireland, nor will they tolerate another military organisation or drilling in a serious form. I do not quite agree with the distinction which my noble friend tried to draw between drilling that was serious and drilling that was not serious. I admit, and every one knows, that it would be impossible to prevent surreptitious drilling by small bands of men in glens or bogs in the more remote parts of Ireland, but I do say that as far as the Executive have power they should everywhere and on all occasions prevent drilling or any kind of attempt to establish a military organisation.
The last general principle I would lay down is this, that when you have to deal with an attempt to establish a military organisation or to establish a rival government, there is no use striking at the rank and file; strike at the head. To leave the heads alone and to prosecute the insignificant people who are misled by them is again to bring your Government into contempt and to defeat the thing which you have in, view. I understood my noble

1065
friend to speak of some leader who was in prison. I am glad to hear that is so. Certainly those who have appealed to be the leaders, so far as we can gather by the publications we Toad, have hitherto been left severely alone. My noble friend took the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, to task for what he said about public opinion in England and Scotland. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne said something very like that; and my noble friend the Leader of the House placed emphasis on the necessity of conciliating public opinion in Ireland, drawing away from the extremes of Sinn Fein the more moderate section of that movement, and consolidating moderate opinion in Ireland in favour of a reasonable settlement. I think he is quite right to lay stress on that. We should be wrong, very wrong indeed, if we omitted from our purview that all-important consideration. The Government would be just as wrong if they neglected the warning uttered by Lord Lansdowne.
This is not a matter which can possibly be held to affect Ireland alone, and my noble friend is the last man, I am sure, to say that it can. That is why, when we last discussed this matter in this House, I ventured to criticise what he then said about the intentions of the Government in respect of the recommendations of the Convention. I was still more alarmed by what the Prime Minister said the other day. What did the Prime Minister appear to say? I understood him to say that any recommendation from the Convention that was substantially unanimous would be adopted by the Government, and that the Government would endeavour to give effect to it. With great respect, I do not think the-Government had any right to say that. I can conceive a majority of the Convention, perhaps a substantial majority, suggesting for Ireland exactly the same Constitution as is enjoyed by Canada or Australia, but I cannot imagine the people of England or Scotland accepting or agreeing to that. That, I agree, is not separation, but everybody knows that if Canada or Australia wished to separate we should not endeavour to prevent them by force of arms. The separation would be in perfect friendliness, though to our deep and heartfelt regret. The people of Great Britain could never agree to the people of Ireland being put into that position, when, by their own initiative, they could take the step which is open to Australia or to Canada. Therefore,
1066
while it is true that this matter vitally affects the Irish people and that we have to do all we can to conciliate moderate opinion in Ireland of all parties, I do on the threshold protest that this is a matter which affects English, Scots, and Welsh just as much as the Irish because of its effects on the future of the whole British Empire. The attitude of a section of people in Ireland—how large I do not know; I hope it is not large—is that of implacable hostility to England and to Scotland. I think the Lord Lieutenant told us that it is not a large section; there fore I will only call it a section. The attitude of England and Scotland is wholly different. There is an absolutely unanimous wish on the part of the British people for a friendly settlement with the people of Ireland.
I have often thought that perhaps the greatest argument for Home Rule was the incapacity of Englishmen to understand Irishmen, but I think there is a great danger of a reciprocal want of comprehension. I believe that at the present moment there is a very real danger that Irishmen may wholly misunderstand Englishmen. If Irishmen think, because the English say nothing and are willing to go to the most extreme lengths in order to conciliate Irishmen, that they are therefore afraid of Sinn Fein, they are making a most lamentable mistake. There is an intense desire for reconciliation; there is no fear. There is also an absolute determination never to admit separation or anything that may lead up to separation. A great responsibility rests on Mr. Birrell. He has admitted his responsibility for the recent tragedy, and I have nothing more to say upon it. I do say, however, that if, with the example of Mr. Birrell before him, a rebellion or anything like a rebellion follows the administration of Mr. Duke, on him will be a far greater responsibility, because not only is involved in that issue the relations of England and Ireland for generations to come and the whole prospect of settlement and reconciliation, but another rebellion might have an effect that is perfectly incalculable on the fortunes of this war.
VTSCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Earl for dealing so fully as he has done with this question this evening; and, if I may be permitted to say so. I think he ought to be much obliged to me for having given him

1067
an opportunity of removing what otherwise would have been a very false impression with regard to the meeting at Waterford which was proclaimed. I took the opportunity of sending him, yesterday, the longest extract I could find in the Press dealing with the question on purpose that he might, if possible, get official information in time to enable him to remove the
1068
false and unfavourable impression which would have been undoubtedly created in the public mind.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.