Sitting of 14 January 1918

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 20th December, 1917—met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (CHRISTMAS ADJOURNMENT).
The following Papers, presented by His Majestys Command during the Christmas Adjournment, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95:—

1. China, No. 1 (1918).—Copy of Text of Notes exchanged between the United States and Japanese Governments regarding their policy in China and Declaration of the Chinese Government on the subject.

2. East India (Trade).—Copy of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries, 1911–12 to 1915–16.

3. Colonial Reports (Annual).—Copy of Colonial Report No. 945 (Swaziland. Report for 1916–17).

2

4. Ministry of Food.—Copy of Meat (Restriction of Retail Sales) Order, 1917, Bacon, Ham, and Lard (Provisional Prices) Order, 1917, Cattle Feeding Stuffs (Committees) Order, 1917, Sugar (Brewers' Restriction) Order (No. 2), 1917, Bread (Use of Potatoes) Order (No. 2), 1917, Dutch Cheese (Prices) Order, 1917, Pigs (Maximum Prices) Order, 1917 (General Licence), Sugar Order (No. 2), 1917, Potatoes Order, 1917 (General Licence), Milk (Use in Chocolate) Order (No. 2), 1017. Condensed Milk (Returns) Order, 1917, Food Control Committees (Audit of Accounts) Order, 1917, Live Stock (Restriction of Slaughter) Order, 1917, Tea (Provisional Prices) Order (No. 2), 1917, and Food Control Committees (Local Distribution) Order, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

5. Judicial Statistics (Scotland).—Copy of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1916.

6. Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.— Copy of Thirteenth Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1916

7. Midwives Act., 1902.—Copy of Report on the Work of the Central Midwives Board for the year ended 31st March, 1917.

8. Government Chemist—Copy of Report of the Government Chemist upon the

3
Work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1917, with Appendices.

9. Enemy Banks (London Agencies).—Copy of Second Report of Sir William Plender to the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated 13th December, 1917.

10. National Health Insurance.—Copy of Report on the administration of National Health Insurance during the years 19141917.

11. National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1917.—Copy of Notes explanatory of the National Health Insurance Bill, 1917, as passed by the House of Commons.

Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 12th January, 1918, made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Corn Production Act, 1917, with respect to the establishment and constitution of District Wages Committees and the delegation of powers to sub-committees [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 515, declaring the area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order No. 9,907, dated 18th December, 1917, described as a Suspension of Article 2 of the Foreign Animals Order of 1910 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).
Copy presented of Order, dated 15th December, 1917, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Deposit Contributors' Benefits) Order, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 21st December, 1917, and 2nd January, 1918, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL PRIZE ACT, 1864, AND PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 21st December, 1917, finally approving a further amendment in the Prize Court Rules, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACTS,
1881 AND 1915
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 2nd January, 1918, applying Part 2 of the Act of 1881 to British India and various neighbouring Territories [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
Copy presented of Statute made by the Senate of the University of London on 19th December, 1917, adding a second Proviso to Statute III. of the University.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Lunacy.—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 31st December, 1917 [by Act].

5

2. Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1917 (Rules).—Copy of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Rules, 1918 (Supreme Court and Courts of Summary Jurisdiction), dated 11th January, 1918, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1917 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH-AMERICA NICKEL CORPORATION.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the Government has guaranteed the interest on the outstanding £2,000,000 Six per Cent. Bonds of the British-America Nickel Corporation; and, if so, for how many years and up to what amount; (2) whether the sum of £600,000 which the -Government has invested in the British-America Nickel Corporation ranks pari passu with the first mortgage debentures of the corporation held by the National Trust Company of New York; (3) whether the whole of the assets of the British-America Nickel Corporation have been mortgaged to the National Trust Company -of New York; whether the Government has entered into any guarantee for the payment of interest on the debentures; and, if so, for what period of years; (4) whether the money which has been advanced by the Government to the British-America Nickel Corporation will be required to pay off the loans of the corporation, redeem debentures, or pay arrears of interest on their debenture bonds; and whether he is aware that none of the money advanced by the Government will be available for the purpose of developing the production of nickel by the company?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): His Majesty's Government have not guaranteed the interest on any part of the share or loan capital of the British-America Nickel Corporation. The advance made to the corporation by His Majesty's Government is secured by an issue of 3,000,000 dols. first mortgage gold bonds,
    6
    forming part of an issue of 6,000,000 dole. first mortgage gold bonds, the whole issue ranking together. The trustee for the bondholders is the National Trust Company, Limited, a company incorporated in Canada, and not in New York, as stated by my hon. Friend. The advance is specifically allocated to purposes of development and the provision of working capital.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Government any security that this advance of £600,000 will be applied to purposes of development?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; I believe that is so.

    TRBATY RATIFICATION BY PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an undertaking that no treaty will be signed with a foreign Power before its terms are made known to Parliament; and whether he has considered the precedent of the American Constitution and the possibility of submitting to Parliament for ratification any treaty of first-class importance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The subject raised by my hon. Friend's question involves a very grave constitutional change; and I fear cannot be dealt with by question and answer.

    FOODSTUFFS (UNITED STATES AND SWITZERLAND).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning an agreement between the United States and Switzerland providing for the importation of foodstuffs into Switzerland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Commander Harris): An economic agreement was concluded between the United States authorities and the Swiss Government on December 5th last. Its general effect is that Switzerland is allowed to import certain quantities of foodstuffs and raw materials from America, subject to guarantees against their re-export to the enemy.

    ENEMY RAIDS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, following upon the two recent successful raids of the Germans, one of them near the Tyne mouth, he has made any important changes in the Navy, especially in the higher commands?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Eric Geddes): As already announced, changes have been made in certain appointments on the Naval Staff at the Admiralty, but it would be entirely incorrect to infer that any of these changes have been made in consequence of the incidents referred to in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. LYNCH: In consequence of that reply, I will take an early opportunity of raising the whole question of the incapacity of the higher ranks of the Admiralty.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKERS (WAGES INCREASE).
    7. Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that since the Order he made giving 12½ per cent. increase to time-workers considerable labour disturbances have arisen; whether there has been any increase in the demand for extension of this bonus to other branches of munition makers, including those engaged on piece-work; whether, before issuing the Order giving the increase in wages, he consulted and acted in harmony with the Ministry of Labour; and, if not, whether he will take care to do so in future and thereby help to avoid difficulties in the engineering trades?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The present position so far as the 12½ per cent. bonus is concerned is set out in the official announcement sent to the Press in the course of last week, which states that
    "The Cabinet have decided that the settlement of any claim arising from the recent Orders granting an advance of 12½ per cent. to plain time-workers in the shipbuilding and munitions trades shall be referred to the Ministry of Labour in place of the War Cabinet Labour Committee."
    And adds that the Ministry of Labour propose to deal with applications on the lines of a resolution passed by the committee of trade unionists advising the Minister of Munitions to the effect that: (1) the bonus shall be extended to cover time-workers who have not yet received
    8
    the advance in the shipbuilding and munitions trades, and (2) that so far as pieceworkers in these trades are concerned no 12½ per cent, shall be given, but that low piece prices shall be revised.
    The Ministry of Labour and the other Departments concerned are actively engaged in settling the matter in accordance with this announcement. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to my previous statements, which were to the effect that not only was the Ministry of Labour consulted in this matter, but that the decision was given by the War Cabinet after prolonged consideration and consultation with officials of all Departments involved, including the Committee on Production.
    Sir F. HALL: Can my hon. Friend give any idea what is the total cost of this, increase?
    Sir W. EVANS: I am afraid I cannot.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman present in some intelligible form what changes have been made since the first proposal was made, so that we can appreciate what this 12½ per cent. increase means?
    Sir W. EVANS: I think the hon. Member will find if lie looks at the announcement made last week that it is perfectly intelligible.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the hon. Gentleman not noticed himself the various changes which are announced from day to day in the newspapers with regard to this, and cannot he give us a complete statement of what it really means?
    Sir W. EVANS: I think the hon. Member must be satisfied with the public announcement which has been made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his own Department has calculated that the cost would be £120,000,000?
    Sir W. EVANS: No, I am not so aware.

    BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS (OFFICIALS EXONERATED).
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked (1) the Minister of Munitions whether he can now state the result of the inquiry on the alleged case of bribery and blackmail in connection with the importation of agricultural tractors; and what action, if any, is being taken; and (2) the Attorney-

    9
    General if he will produce the correspondence between himself and the Ministry of Munitions with reference to an alleged ease of bribery and blackmail in connection with the importation of agricultural implements; and on what date the papers were deposited with him by the Ministry of Munitions?
    Sir W. EVANS: The allegations referred to by the hon. Member have now been fully investigated under the supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with assistance. These allegations rest entirely upon two statutory declarations made by two gentlemen recording a conversation they had had on the same day with a Mr. E. B. Killen, a director of the company, which acted as the agent for the sale of "Moline" tractors in this country.
    The statutory declarations were entirely based on this conversation, and the declarants did not purport to deal with the facts as being within their own knowledge, and their statements are not therefore in any sense evidence of such facts recorded in such conversation, but only of the fact that such a conversation took place.
    Mr. Killen was examined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in regard to the conversation, but repudiated ever having made some of the most important statements attributed to him, and emphatically denied his having at any time, or to anyone, stated that any agreement or any document in writing was ever in existence, saying that he must have been completely misunderstood.
    He did, however, repeat certain allegations based, not upon his own knowledge, but -upon facts which he alleged to have been communicated to him by two of his co-directors. These gentlemen have also been carefully examined, with the result that they, in turn, repudiate all the material statements attributed to them by Mr. Killen.
    There is no reason to doubt that, the statutory declarations record with substantial accuracy the statements made by Mr. Killen in the conversation referred to, and I consider that the declarants acted properly in calling the attention of the Minister thereto.
    But I am advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, as the result of the searching investigation to which the statements then, and subsequently, made
    10
    by Mr. Killen have been subjected, not only is there no primâ facie case against any officer of the Ministry upon which any proceedings could be launched, but that the result of the investigation has been completely to exonerate the Agricultural Machinery Department of the Ministry and its officers, past and present, from any justifiable suspicion of corrupt practices or of improper conduct.
    I regret that Mr. Killen cannot be held criminally responsible for making his slanderous and untrue statements, which, whether made wilfully or carelessly, were calculated to throw doubt upon the honour of patriotic public officials, but I am advised that the form in which his statements were made protects him from such proceedings.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that any statement of this kind can be made by any member of the public accusing a Department of bribery and blackmail, and that the Department can take no action against such civilian whatsoever?
    Sir W. EVANS: I would remind the hon. Member that the gentlemen who made these statments did not give any publicity to them. It is the hon. Member himself who gave them publicity.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that this statement has been offered by two responsible citizens, requesting that action should be taken against tins wan for making these statements in their presence, and that the Minister refuses to take such action; and is the Minister prepared to publish the shorthand reports of all the inquiries that they have made or to lay them on the Table of the House?
    Sir W. EVANS: The hon. Member has not correctly summarised the statements made. The statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Killen are denied by him.
    Mr. BILLING: Do Mr. Killen's co-directors or do they not admit the truth? Do they accuse him or does he accuse them, and in view of the importance of the charge, does the hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that a full inquiry should be made—a public inquiry?
    Sir W. EVANS: The fullest possible inquiry has been made. If there was the least chance of success I should continue to proceed.

    BATTLESHIPS IN ACTION.
    Mr. Killenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the doctrine still prevails in the Navy that requires that a battleship shall keep beyond 10,000 yards from the enemy to fight her guns; if so, whether the results of this cautious policy have justified the strategy of the Admiralty; and, if not, whether he will place in the position of First Sea Lord a man of greater enterprise and resourcefulness than the present holder?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Nothing is known at the Admiralty of the doctrine referred to, and the remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that doctrine is taken from the literal words of Admiral Jellicoe, and is it on a par with the administrative capacity of the Admiralty that they are not aware of the words of their own chief printed in all the public Press?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
    Mr. LYNCH: If in place of the right hon. Gentleman covering ignorance by this method, will he endeavour to bring a little illumination into his own Department and into his own mind?

  CONVOY LOSSES.

    COURT OF INQUIRY (REPORT).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement on the results of the inquiry into the loss of the second Norwegian convoy; and whether he will make a statement as to the outcome of any inquiry into the attack on a convoy off the Tyne on the same day?
    Sir E. GEDDES: A Court of Inquiry, appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, has been held into the circumstances connected with the attack on the Scandinavian convoy, which took place on Wednesday, the 12th of December, 1917, when His Majesty's ship "Partridge" was sunk, and His Majesty's ship "Pellew" damaged. The Court consisted, as announced in the statement which I made to the House on the 17th of December, of Admiral Sir Doveton Sturdee, Vice-Admiral Sir John M. de Robeck, and Rear-Admiral W. E. Goodenough.
    12
    The Board of Admiralty, after full consideration, confirm the finding of the Court in its opinion that the escorting vessels did their best to protect the convoy, and were fought in a proper and. seamanlike manner, and that the other forces which were at sea for the purpose of giving protection to the convoys which were crossing the North Sea at that time took all possible steps to come to the assistance as soon as the attack was reported to them, and to prevent the escape of the enemy.
    The Court of Inquiry makes a number of recommendations on the convoy system. These, I need not assure the. House, have received, and are receiving, the closest consideration. From the commencement of the convoy system its great difficulties have been recognised. Adjustments and improvements are continually being made, and its general great success is attributable thereto.
    It is due to Sir David Beatty that. I should say that the Board of Admiralty are further of opinion that the circumstances which prevented the covering forces from being on the spot at the time of the attack were such as could not be prevented, and they are of opinion that the Commander-in-Chief's dispositions were the best that could have been made with the forces available at the time.
    As regards the second part of the question, the enemy's attack off the North-East Coast of England was upon two neutral vessels which had become separated in the dark during the night of the 11th-12th of December from a southbound convoy. One of these two vessels was attacked in the very early hours of the morning of the 12th of December, and sunk. The survivors, except two engineers who went down with the ship, were picked up by patrol forces which were shortly on the scene. Soon afterwards, on the same morning, the other neutral vessel which had been separated from the convoy was also attacked, and the crew abandoned the ship, which afterwards broke in two, the two halves being later towed into port. The vessels escorting the convoy from which these two ships had fallen astern were unaware of the attack owing to the distance separating them.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As the right hon. Gentleman stated in the course of Debate that Sir David Beatty was responsible for the arrangements for these convoys, does he still adhere to that statement?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The statement that Sir David Beatty was responsible—yes. I adhere to it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The statement that Sir David Beatty is entirely responsible for the defence of these convoys and the arrangements for the convoys?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Yes. I stated that.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to this matter on another occasion.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the object of the Admiralty is to lead the Navy to victory, or to cover up every blunder and every defeat by misrepresentation in this House?

    SHIPBUILDING (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a convenient site for a Government shipbuilding yard can be obtained from the Dublin Port and Docks Board; and whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of establishing the industry in Ireland's capital?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour on the 28th November last, in which I stated that there was no intention of establishing a national shipyard in Ireland, but, as I have stated before, every effort is being made, and will be made, to take full advantage of the resources of the various shipbuilding yards in Ireland. With regard to the Dublin Dockyard Company itself, the berths of this company are being rearranged, so that instead of having three berths they will possess four berths within six months. As regards the site referred to by my hon. Friend, it has been suggested to the Dublin Dockyard Company that this site should be utilised as an extension of their existing yard. We are in communication with the company on the matter.

    AIRCRAFT FACTORY, DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board whether it is intended to establish an aircraft factory in Dublin, seeing that labour, materials, and site are available for that purpose?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS: A proposal of this nature which was put forward by the hon. Member for Waterford is under consideration, and I hope that a decision will shortly be reached in the matter.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HORSES, CATTLE AND SHEEP (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what further relaxation has been made respecting the export of horses not required for agricultural or industrial purposes in Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Department to take a census of Irish cattle, sheep, horses, and pigs with a view to retaining a sufficient breeding stock and food supply in the country?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Department of Agriculture are prepared to consider applications for licences to export horses which would not in ordinary course be suitable for, or used for, agricultural purposes in Ireland. A census of cattle, sheep, horses and pigs will be taken in the ordinary course on 1st June, and in the meantime, if necessary, approximate estimates will be obtained of the numbers of livestock in the country.

    FOODSTUFFS (EXPORT PERMITS).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether a permit is required for the purpose of exporting foodstuffs from the British Isles; and, if so, what Department is responsible for the issue of such permits?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. All foodstuffs exported from the United Kingdom to destinations other than the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man require a special permit, except where such export is covered by a general permission, as in the case of foodstuffs for the troops. Licences other than those on Government account are issued by the War Trade Department after consultation with the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many permits have been issued during the last twelve months?
    Mr. PARKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PENSIONS TO WIDOWS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now announce the increases in pensions to widows?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I am not yet in a position to make an announcement with regard to the new Royal Warrant, which will deal with increases in pensions to widows as well as various other matters.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how long the suggestions have been before the Treasury in regard to the pensions for widows; and can he say whether he is aware that the pension of a widow when her husband has been killed is very much less than the amount she receives in separation allowance when he is alive and serving?
    Mr. HODGE: I am hopeful of having a decision within the next fortnight.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will put the question down in a fortnight's time.

    ALIENS (RUSSIAN NATIONALITY).
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board how many eases of appeal to the Special Tribunal dealing with aliens of Russian nationality have been disposed of to date and how many remain still to be heard?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Eight thousand six hundred applications, including some applications far renewal of exemptions, have been received; 3,300 have been decided. Steps have been taken, by the appointment of additional members, to expedite the hearing of the outstanding cases, so that they may be decided as soon as possible after the local National Service officials have made their inquiries.

    SHIPS BUILT AND SUNK.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the proportion of ships completed to ships sunk by the enemy which prevailed in November has been maintained in the month of December?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The reply is in the negative. The results in December were not so favourable as in November.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he can state the number of standard ships completed up to 31st December, and how many, if any, have been sunk?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Thirteen standard ships were completed and delivered up to 31st December, 1917. The number sunk remains at one.
    Mr. PRINGLE: is it not the case that a second has been reported sunk during the month of December?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No, Sir. Only one has been sunk up to date.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    NEUTRAL ALIENS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether, before further drafts are made on British manpower, he will take steps to make available for work of national importance all friendly or neutral aliens of military age whose countries do not require their return for military service or who belong to countries with whom no convention for military service exists or to a country with whom such convention has been annulled; and will he take steps to ensure that in no case is any foreigner allowed to acquire permanently the business or position of a British subject called up for service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 14th of December last, and I am glad to say that, as the result of arrangements which have now been completed with the other Government Departments concerned, measures have been taken for the purpose of utilising, to the fullest possible extent, in work of national importance, the services of all suitable aliens, including those of the class

    17
    referred to in the first part of his question. With regard to the second part of the question, much has already been done, with the assistance of the Local Government Board, to safeguard the interests of men called up for service, and I may add that very shortly we hope to be able, under a new Defence of the Realm Regulation, to prevent either foreigners or other persons from opening new retail businesses or branches without a licence.

    MEDICAL GRADING.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of National Service whether the three grades into which men are now put after medical examination are divided into three subdivisions; whether not only the men but the tribunals have been refused any information as to which sub-division of a grade a man is put in; whether, in view of the assistance to employers, men, and tribunals such information would give, he will at once issue instructions that full particulars of the sub-division of the new grades shall be given; and will he issue to the House full details of these subdivisions so that it may be known how men are to be utilised in the future?
    Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed about the system of medical grading by National Service Medical Boards. There are no subdivisions of any of the three grades for men who are fit for military service, and it would not be practicable from a medical point of view to make such sub-divisions. Full information as to the scope of each grade is given to the tribunals, but it would not be possible to give, either to them or to employers or to the men themselves, any information about the way in which the men are likely to be utilised in the Army. This is, and must be determined by the varying demands of the War Office for men for particular services, and by many other considerations, none of which are constant.
    Mr. GILBERT: Did not the old grading under the War Office A 1, 2 and 3, and B 1, 2 and 3 mean grading for particular service; and is not the same kind of grading taking place under the present National Service scheme?
    Mr. BECK: The present grading is much more satisfactory, and the hon. Member
    18
    must know that the grades he has mentioned were the cause of much heart burning and dissatisfaction in the old days.

    EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked when the Committee for the Co-ordination of Educational Administration in Ireland met to discuss their recommendations; and whether any action has been taken in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: There has been no recent occasion for a meeting of the Committee referred to. The methods of co-ordination originally recommended by the Committee have been carried out by means of conferences, committee meetings, and otherwise as occasion required. A conference between the Intermediate Education Board, the Department of Agriculture and their respective inspectorial staffs was held last month, and conferences have beer held with the authorities for primary and higher education.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the sum granted to Ireland for education is altogether inadequate, he will increase the Supplemental Grant of £384,000 to a figure more in accordance with the equity of the case and the real needs of the situation?
    Mr. DUKE: The suggested increase is altogether beyond the province of the Chief Secretary.

    LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested. Districts Board will consider the condition of the Westley estate, and, in view of the necessity of improving the tillage so as to meet the food problem, and also having regard to the fact that a number of tenants are living on uneconomic holdings and working hard for a bare subsistence, if he will advise that the striping out of the land will be proceeded with at once?
    Mr. DUKE: The estate referred to has not been purchased by, or offered for sale to, he Congested Districts Board.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this case personally, even if only from the point of view of food production, considering the number of tenants

    19
    who are willing to till the land and are held back only by proprietary interests of a selfish character?
    Mr. DUKE: That is a very large question. It is impossible, simply because there are lands occupied in a particular method according to law to meet the wishes of people in the neighbourhood who are willing to cultivate them, but have no right to do so. The general policy of cultivation is being carried out by very strong measures indeed throughout the country.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this case himself, as far as possible, as it stands out very conspicuously?
    Mr. DUKE:I will see what are the facts of the case.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Major NEWMANasked whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to again review the pay, emoluments, and war bonus of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and make the pay and bonus of the force somewhat more approximate to that enjoyed by members of the various county police forces in Great Britain?
    Mr. DUKE: The Treasury have sanctioned an addition of 2s. 6d. per week to the existing war bonus of the Royal Irish Constabulary, to take effect from 1st December.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is satisfied with the flow of recruits to the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether the losses by enlistment into the Irish Guards at the commencement of the War have been made up, or whether the force is being kept to strength by retaining the services of members who have reached the age limit; and is he aware of cases of head constables of over sixty years who have been asked to continue on the active list, with a consequent block of promotion to the junior ranks and discouragements to recruiting to fill vacancies?
    Mr. DUKE: The reduction of the numbers of the Royal Irish Constabulary by reason of the enlistment of members of the force in the Irish Guards has not been made up, but recruiting for the force is now proceeding, and excellent recruits are
    20
    being enrolled. Retirement on pension has been stopped by the operation of Section 2 of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915, except on medical certificate or to take up Government appointments, and to that extent the strength of the force is being kept up by retaining the services of men who, in normal tmes, would have retired on pension. It is, however, not correct to say that men are being retained in the force who have become inefficient owing to age. Head constables over sixty years of age have not been asked to continue to serve, but a few men of this rank between the ages of sixty and sixty-five, who are reported to be still active and efficient, are allowed to continue serving. Men over sixty years of age who are reported to be inefficient owing to age are at once called upon to retire.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether cast Army horses are still being sold on the Western Front; whether, as a live horse fetches £4 more than a dead one in Paris. these horses are forced to endure unnecessary cruelties in order that they can be sold alive at their destination; and, if so, whether he will take steps at once to put an end to this practice?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): An average of 150 horses are sold weekly to French agriculturists for work on the land under special arrangements with the French authorities. These secure good treatment. There is no foundation for the suggestion that cast horses are subject to unnecessary cruelty for the sake of an additional £4 per head. The live horse selected and sent to Paris for human food fetches no more than the dead one sent for the same purpose. It is impossible to destroy all animals locally owing to insufficient abattoir accommodation and difficulties of transport. Animals which are sent alive to Paris are carefully selected and are inspected by the Deputy-Director of Veterinary Services of the area. They are accompanied by a conducting party of the Army Veterinary Corps, who water, feed, and attend them on the journey, and they are met and accompanied up to the abattoir by members of the corps.

    WAR OFFICE (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the war bonus of 8s. to temporary male civilian clerks in receipt of 40s. a week or less, or 7s. to those in receipt of more than 40s., covers the additional cost of living since the outbreak of hostilities; and, if not, whether he will increase the bonus, so that these poorly-paid clerks may not be in a worse position than they were in July, 1914?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The claim of these temporary employés is now before the Conciliation and Arbitration Board of Government Employés, and I understand that an award will very shortly be made.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if the Government will make any announcement with reference to the Convention; and if he can now state what the prospects are?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I cannot make any statement on this subject.

    JUNIOR OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the decision of the Government on the increased pay of junior officers, and whether separation allowances are to be paid?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member knows, the decision of the Government has already been announced.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, according to the decision which appears in this morning's papers, separation allowance is to be given in the case of officers' children for males up to eighteen years of age and for female children up to twenty-one years of age, and for invalid children beyond those years, when the separation allowances for the children of private soldiers cease at fourteen years of age, and there is no provision for invalid children?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOGGE: My question is down on the Paper. It has been answered by a statement issued in the Press this morning, which is a convenient form. Surely I ought to be entitled to raise this point arising out of the answer given?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wants information on the point which he has mentioned, he must give notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have given notice.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question does not directly affect the question which he now raises.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give this House an early opportunity to discuss the question of pay and allowances to junior officers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that the House will be satisfied with the ordinary opportunities for any discussion of this question.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what opportunity for discussion can we have if the Prime Minister does not propose to give an opportunity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The business which we have to do during the remainder of this Session is very considerable, and I think that it would be very difficult to afford an opportunity. I am sorry to say that there will not be a long interval between this and the next Session.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pay of both officers and men is quite as important to them as the question of the workmen's pay is to the workmen, and will the right hon. Gentleman give at least the same consideration to those who are fighting as is shown to those who are not?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Surely the decision which has been announced shows that we do recognise the men who are fighting.

    SECRET SESSIONS (STANDING ORDER).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to move the new Standing Order regulating Secret Sessions of this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to take this Motion on the first convenient day.

    LORD NORTHCLIFFE'S MISSION.
    Mr. D. MASONasked under which Vote Lord Northcliffe's mission to the United States of America comes; and when will there be an opportunity to discusss his actions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The general expenses of Lord Northcliffe's mission are defrayed from the Votes of Credit, and can be discussed on those Votes.
    Mr. MASON: Seeing that we shall not have another Vote of Credit for some time -will the right hon. Gentleman afford us an opportunity of raising this most important matter on the Motion for Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It can be raised, without any assistance from me, on the Motion for Adjournment; but there was a Vote of Credit not long ago, when it could have been raised.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Are the expenses of the mission to continue if Lord Northcliffe does not return to America?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They will continue. Lord Northcliffe is doing very useful work in connection with the mission here.
    Mr. BILLING: What is the relationship between Lord Reading and Lord North-cliffe?
    Mr. MASON: I will raise this question on the first possible opportunity.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    33. Mr. PRINGLEasked when the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill will' be taken?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a definite announcement regarding this matter.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the Government are unable to proceed with the Bill this Session, will a Motion be moved carrying it over until next Session?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; but I hope that it will be proceeded with early next Session, in the same way as the English Education Bill.

    PETROLEUM BILL.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Petroleum Bill; and, if so, when this will be done?
    Mr. DENMANasked whether progress will now be made with an amended Petroleum (Production) Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been decided not to proceed with this Bill, as it has been found that the action necessary can be taken without special legislation.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the Government will be able to make arrangements for payment of royalties without legislation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; but we have come to the conclusion that we can do what is necessary for the War.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are the Government proposing to go behind the back of a direct vote of the House of Commons by administrative action
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given an answer which shows that we have no such intention.
    Mr. DENMAN: Are we to understand that no borings have yet been made?
    An HON. MEMBER: They have been going on a long time.

    MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say on what date it is proposed to introduce the Man-Power Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: To-day.

    AIR COUNCIL.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the names and constitution of the Air Council?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: These have already been published in the Press.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what day His Majesty's Government propose to give for the discussion of the Reports of the Committee on National Expenditure?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Discussion on this subject will take place as soon as possible, but I am not yet able to state the exact date.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be possible to have a discussion before the Prorogation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so. I gave some promise, I think, that it would be taken before the Adjournment.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for Central Sheffield whether, as a result of the recent Conference between British and Turkish representatives, any agreement has been reached with regard to the exchange of prisoners of war; what are the terms of the agreement, if any agreement has been made, and how soon it is expected to become operative?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The agreement concluded at Berne has not yet been ratified, and I regret. therefore, that it is not advisable to give complete details at present. I may say generally, however, that its terms are more satisfactory than had been expected. Arrangements have been arrived at with regard to exchange on a substantial scale, the inspection of camps, and improvement in the general treatment of prisoners. It is hoped that as soon as the agreement has been ratified by both Governments, its provisions will be carried out without delay. I shall be happy to give my hon. and learned Friend full details at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. PETO: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the improvement in the treatment of prisoners will include the delivery within a reasonable time of letters and parcels to prisoners of war in Turkey?
    Mr. HOPE: I think I had better not mention this or that provision before the
    26
    ratification, because if they were not approved and fell through, there would be great disappointment.

    Income Tax.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked. whether Income Tax is being charged on the lump sum payable to Civil servants on retirement in lieu of pension; and, if so, under what authority?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL,—"to extend and amend the National Registration Act, 1915," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; supported by Mr. Munro, Sir Auckland Geddes, and Mr. Stephen Walsh; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the foundation of Bishoprics of Bradford and Coventry; and for matters incidental thereto." [Bishoprics of Bradford and Coventry Bill [Lords.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales, and for purposes connected therewith."
  The Bill which I had the honour to introduce last August has received, if I may say so, a remarkable measure of preliminary benediction and support. Not least, it has been welcomed as an honest attempt to treat education, not as an appendix of a religious controversy, but as a grave matter of national concern, which all parties and creeds in the State should unite to promote. And here I should like cordially to acknowledge the spirit in which these proposals have been approached by men and parties holding the most opposite views on fundamental questions of religion and politics. There are many features, both positive and negative, in the administrative scheme of the Bill, there are things said and things unsaid to which perhaps each one of the recognised religious bodies in this country might feel itself entitled to take exception; but I have observed very little disposition either to discover or to inflame points of difference, but, on the contrary, a very general acceptance of the governing principle of the Bill, which is to secure as much educational development as possible through the operation of our existing authorities, and in recognition of our confessed, but not, I hope, irreducible differences in the sphere of religious teaching.
  Some criticisms, however, have been addressed to a portion of the Bill which, though it carries no stirring message to the general heart of man, is nevertheless regarded as important, and rightly so, by the bodies upon whom it devolves to administer our Education Acts. Some of the administrative Clauses of the Bill have been criticised. It has been contended that they lodge an excessive degree of power in the hands of the Board at Whitehall, and though I think that the success of our educational administration depends far more upon the spirit in which the partnership between the Board and the local
  56
  bodies is worked than upon the actual letter of the articles of association, yet I think that some of these administrative Clauses, in expression though not in design, do give colour to the criticisms to which I have alluded. Accordingly I have decided to introduce Amendments with the hope, if possible, of meeting the opinions of those local bodies upon whose willing and unstinted co-operation the successful administration of our Education Acts must necessarily depend. It appeared to me that I should best consult the convenience of the House if, instead of deferring my Amendments to the Committee stage of the Bill, I took the earliest opportunity of placing before the House and the country a new Bill containing the Amendments to which I have alluded, and embodying some of the changes which, in view of representations which have reached me, I consider to be necessary or desirable.
  The position then is this: The Bill which I now introduce is substantially identical with the measure familiar to the House.. It imposes upon the councils of counties and county boroughs the duty of providing for all forms of education. It abolishes exemptions from school attendance between five and fourteen years of age. It provides for further restrictions upon the industrial employment of children during the elementary school age, and for the gradual introduction of a system of compulsory day continuation classes for adolescents. In the new Bill, as in the old one, local education authorities are empowered to give assistance to nursery schools, and in other ways to provide for the physical and social welfare of the children committed to their care; and, indeed, attention to physical welfare is a special and distinctive feature of both measures.
  On the other hand, I have either omitted or amended certain of the administrative Clause's. I introduce a new Clause in place of Clause 4, which provided the machinery and procedure for the approval or disapproval of schemes. I propose to omit Clause 5, which provided for Provincial Associations, but to embody in Clause 6 provisions to facilitate the federation of local education authorities for certain purposes, which was the governing principle of Clause 5. I propose to omit Clause 29, which provided the procedure for transferring the powers of Part III. of authorities to county councils in certain cases and to substitute a somewhat altered

  57
  Clause for Clause 36, which relates to public inquiries. I omit Clause 38, which dealt with the reference to the Board of Education of certain educational questions. I also propose to substitute for Clause 40 a new Clause dealing with grants and providing more specifically for a deficiency Grant in aid of education in those cases where the substantive Grant does not amount to 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure upon elementary or higher education as the case may be. I have also inserted words in different places in the Bill to meet the apprehensions of religious bodies who feared that one of the effects of the Bill might be to prejudice the position of the voluntary schools and of religious education in those schools. In response to certain suggestions which have reached me from other quarters I have introduced some alterations in the Clauses dealing with the attendance at continuation classes, at nursery schools, and also in the Clause dealing with the abolition of fees. A White Paper will be circulated so that hon. Members may be able to sec clearly the changes of substance introduced. I hope it will be recognised that the adoption of this course will facilitate the expeditious discussion of the Bill in Committee. I am the last person to desire to prevent hon. Members from having the opportunity of expressing their views with respect to any question which may arise out of the changes which I have indicated, but I think that the course I am pursuing will be for the convenience of the House and that it is desirable that when the consideration of this question comes up again next Session, the House should have before it the Bill in its amended rather than in its original form. I hope that as the result of the consultations and discussions which I have held with various representatives of the local education authorities during the last few months a large portion of the measure which might otherwise give rise to protracted debate may be taken as substantially agreed upon.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the Pill will be circulated to-day?
  Mr. FISHER: As soon as possible.
  Question put, and agreed
  to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Fisher, Mr. Barnes. Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Herbert Lewis
  EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL,—"to make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales, and for pur-
  58
  poses connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

MILITARY SERVICE.

  MAN-POWER (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).
  The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I beg to move "That leave be given to introduce a Bill 'to repeal Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Military Service Act, 1016, and to provide for the cancellation of certificates of exemption from military service granted on occupational grounds.'"
  The subject with which I have to deal to-day is complicated. The figures to be given are numerous—so numerous that I am afraid I cannot trust my memory accurately to remember them all in the circumstances of this my first speech to this House, so important that I dare not let inaccuracies creep in. I hope, therefore, that I may be permitted by the House to follow closely the full notes which I have prepared. No man in my position would, I think, be other than deeply impressed with the responsibility which rests upon him. I realise fully that if I have made any substantial miscalculation or error in preparing the estimate and statements which I have laid before the Cabinet, and upon which they have arrived at their decisions, the consequences must be serious. Before I enter upon any details descriptive of our present positions or of cur plans for the future, I think that it is desirable for me to define what is meant by the man-power problem. People speak as if it were something which could be solved by some dramatic stroke if only the Government could summon up courage to do something. Nothing could be more misleading. The man-power problem is the central problem of the War. It means everything—ships, armies, munitions, food, light, heat, coal—everything. No dramatic stroke less than a divine miracle would simultaneously solve all the problems which are loosely called one problem and labelled Man-Power.
  The problems change from day to day. Now we have to swing our man-power in this direction, now in that. At one time the provision of men for the shipyards may 'be the most urgent need, at another

  59
  the provision of men for the Army, at still another it may be men for the land. These problems are being met every day and successfully dealt with on a scale of which few outside the central ring of administrative officials have any conception. It is my hope that before I sit down I shall have been able to show this House something of the gigantic work that goes on from day to day. At the moment our most anxious problems are not those concerning the supply of men for the Army. What we seek to do is to take steps now against the time when they will be the most anxious—a time which I believe I can see coming at no very distant date.
  I have seen it definitely stated that recruiting has broken down and that the Armies at the front are melting for lack of recruits. Plain facts do not support that statement. The British Armies in the field in December, 1916, were stronger than in December, 1915, and stronger again in December, 1917, than in December, 1916—stronger not only in establishment, but in ration strength. It is true that some units were short of drafts. That is a matter which concerns only the military authorities. They knew so long ago as February, 1917, approximately the number of recruits they might expect to receive in the course of the year. If they decided to make new units, to develop new arms of the Service, that was a matter wholly within their sphere. Recruiting has not broken down. I shall have some figures to give in a few minutes which will, I think, dispel any doubts on that point. But armies in these days are something far more than men in the field. In the old days of spears and swords and slings and stones, clubs, and battle axes, that was true. But, to-day, an army is a body of experts handling the most wonderful machines, guns, and machine-guns, trench-mortars, aeroplanes, telephones, electric lights, gas—I know not what. And all these things have to be made by men and women and transported to the front, with hundreds of thousands of tons of shells and bombs and high explosives. There is the whole vast army of rearward services extending from the mines through the factories along the lines of communication right to the hands of the men who use the weapons. All that long chain of human beings has to be maintained as well as the fighting units, and we have greater numbers to-day employed supplying our Armies than ever before.
  60
  In some ways supply is outstripping demand; we have to keep the balance right, for until we are sure that it is right we cannot be sure that we are developing our utmost hitting force. Every day the hitting force of Britain becomes of greater importance to the Alliance. Russia no longer strikes for freedom. France has poured forth her strength in the struggle and cannot sustain the full burden indefinitely. America is not yet in the field, and months must elapse before she can advance with full stride; Italy has suffered grave misfortunes. On Britain and on the skill with which she handles her man-power in the months to come everything depends. It is clear that we must prepare to play a larger part on the field of battle until America conies in, and that means more men for the Army. But not men regardless of the vital industries which support the Armies, and not men or munitions for the Armies regardless of the Navy, on which all else depends, nor men regardless of food, upon which the health and endurance of the people depends. What we require is a sane, carefully considered, carefully balanced programme, steadfastly pursued. We must avoid being led away by the thought of Continental Powers, to whom their Army is their all-in-all. We are an Island, not a Continental nation. Ultimately it is on the. control of the seas by us for our Allies that all depends. Since August, 1914, we have trodden some strange paths, and they have brought us little profit for the treading. Let us return to the faith of our forefathers, and recognise that on the sea and by the sea we live. Do not think that this means that we can afford to weaken our effort on land. That we cannot do. I will tell you in a few minutes what it is we have to face this year, but let us keep our sense of perspective, and remember that at sea we must be supreme, in the air we must win supremacy, and on land we must do the best we can to fill the gap that Russia has made until America can take her place, and all the time we have to keep our vital industries going. Industries not vital to the War may have to suffer. It is a pity, but what is the alternative?
  It is impossible in a single statement to describe fully all the activities of the State with regard to man-power. I must select and omit or I would never finish. I propose to deal with the international military man-power position first, but the

  61
  House must realise that this cannot be considered apart from the naval situation and from tonnage and industrial requirements, for all are mutually independent. The Government have examined in great detail the strength, character, and composition of the forces of ourselves, our Allies, and our enemies, in the light of the situation which has arisen on the Eastern Front. They have considered in each case the present fighting strength of the forces in the field, the reserves now in the Armies, and the potential reserves still in civil life. The results of this examination are not unsatisfactory. Wholly excluding Russia and Roumania, we and our Allies have a substantial superiority both in fighting strength and in ration strength over the Armies of the Central Powers. Regarded, therefore, from a purely statistical point of view, the strength of the opposing forces gives no cause for anxiety that the enemy, owing to the Russian collapse, will be able to bring such forces to bear on the Western Front as to overwhelm us by sheer weight of numbers.
  Figures, however, are not an accurate index of fighting capacity. This depends upon many conditions, some of which vary from time to time, and all of which vary between different armies—e.g., the system and quality of command, organisation, maintenance, and communications, the stability and solidarity of public opinion and Governments. As an illustration of the importance of not being led away by figures, it is only necessary to refer to a comparison between the enormous man-power of Russia and the part she played in the War in 1917, and to the strength of the Italian Armies and recent events in Italy. Those considerations, which compel a statistical review to be regarded with caution, are extremely difficult to weigh as between the enemy and the Allies. By the possession of a unified system of command and an interior position with good railway communications, the enemy possess an undoubted advantage over the Allies. But in stability and solidarity of public opinion the enemy possess no corresponding advantage. War-weariness in Austria is certainly very great. In Germany it is surely greater than in England. Turkey is utterly war-weary. On the other hand, public opinion carries less weight in the enemy countries than in the more democratic Allied countries; but the Allies have the inestimable advantage of the accession of the United States
  62
  of America, a nation which, though still inexperienced in modern warfare, is of great tenacity and of immeasurable strength, which will prove a material and moral support of the greatest value.
  Nor must we forget the age composition o] the opposing Armies. Already the Germans have had to place lads of eighteen in the trenches on the Russian Front, as compared with the British age limit of nineteen for service overseas, the French limit of twenty for service in the field, and the American age limit of twenty-one. Not only are our enemies employing younger men than we are, but in Austria the upper age limit has been raised as high as fifty-five. These considerations point to the conclusion that the enemy reserves of man-power are of inferior quality, and are more nearly exhausted than those of the Allies. I am sure it will be of interest to the House to know, approximately at all events, what the withdrawal of Russia from the War means to the Central Powers in terms of man-power available for service on the Western Front. If we assume—and it appears to be the only safe assumption—that the Germans will be able to withdraw the whole of the German divisions which were on the Eastern Front when the armistice began, and are suitable for offensive operations, and to entrust the defence of their Eastern Frontier to Landwehr and Landsturm formations, they will he able to bring to the Western Front some thirty-eight divisions. Nor is this all. The remaining divisions, though unsuitable for active fighting in the West, can undoubtedly be used to supply individual men as drafts to replace casualties on the Western Front. This process has in fact been in operation for several months past, seasoned soldiers having been transferred from regiments on the Eastern Front to units on the Western Front, their places being taken by the youngest class of recruits, who, in turn, are made into seasoned soldiers on the Eastern Front. We cannot count that less than 950,000 men will be made available in these ways. They will comprise fighting personnel of all kinds—Infantry, Artillery (heavy and light), machine-gun teams, aeroplane squadrons, gas companies, and trench mortars.
  In addition, it is necessary to make allowance for the cessation of the war wastage in the German divisions remaining on the Eastern Front. Similarly, we

  63
  must count that a considerable number of Austro-Hungarian divisions, containing a majority of Germans or Magyars, might be transferred to the Italian or the Western Fronts. Further, if all the remaining Austro-Hungarian heavy artillery and march-battalions were transferred, a considerable force might have to be reckoned with in the West. This would leave an ample force of Austro-Hungarians to hold the Russian-Roumanian Front. It is also possible that some of the Slav or Rouman Austro-Hungarian divisions might be transferred from the Russian Front to the Italian Front in order to set free for service in France or Belgium some of the German and Magyar divisions now serving there.
  Taking all these factors into consideration, the secession of Russia from the Allies has added to the potential enemy strength on the Western Front, including Italy, possibly as many as 1,600,000 men, without taking into consideration the reserves which would otherwise have been required for service on the Russian Front.
  It is right that the House and the country should realise what the event in Russia means to those nations which came into the War as a result of Russia's action in 1914. It seems, had Russia remained constant to the Alliance, she would not only have saved her own possessions, which now are in Prussian hands, or lie open to such terms as Germany will dictate, but she would have been insured a speedy and complete victory, in common with all the nations who have entered the War, against the Central Powers. Notwithstanding her defection, however, the supreme issue should be in no doubt. The resources of the Allies and America actually mobilised in military units or in reserve in civil life are sufficient to assure victory. Nothing but a psychological catastrophe in our own or an Allied country, such as that which has befallen Russia, can save the Central Powers.
  It is obviously impossible for me to state precisely the strengths in the field and in reserve of the Armies of Britain and her Allies, but I can assure the House that they are at present in relative numbers and morale in a position to face at least on equal terms the forces of the enemy at present opposed to them, and that, if the necessary reinforcements are found during the present year, as without doubt they can and ought to be found,
  64
  having regard to the resources of the Allies, they can face any additional forces which the enemy can bring into the field. As the full force of America comes into play the endurance of the Allies will be justified by the establishment of a superiority which should prove the sure herald of complete and final victory. Till that superiority is established—and in this I am sure the House will agree with me—it is our duty to husband our human resources, and whilst maintaining our Armies at their appointed strength to see that no casualties which can rightly be avoided are incurred.
  The Government has gone most carefully into this question of casualties. While seeking not to hamper the action of our Commanders in the field by judging their actions by the casualty returns alone, it is determined that carelessness with regard to human life and thoughtlessness with regard to casualties shall be stamped out wherever it appears. May I, for my own part, say that if I were not convinced that the War Cabinet were determined to secure proper consideration at all times for the men in the ranks I would have neither part nor lot in the unpleasant, but none the less urgent, duty of raising men for the armed forces of the Crown.
  4.0 P.m.
  I do not wish to be misunderstood. We are accusing no admiral or general of recklessness or of disregard. for human life. The Government is laying down a perfectly plain, general principle which I am abundantly clear ought at all times, and more especially at this time, while we await the coming of America, to guide the Government in its supervision over the action of the Commanders whom it has appointed. In dealing with the question of casualties there is one point to which I wish particularly to refer, and with which I am sure the House will sympathise whole-heartedly. It is the desire of the Government to give special consideration to those men who have been severely wounded more than once; and it. is our ambition that no man who has been severely wounded more than once shall be sent back to the fighting line, but will, so far as possible, be returned to civil life and civil work to replace in some essential industry some young man who has not yet served his country in the field. It is our intention to watch over and safeguard the interests of the men who have fought

  65
  and suffered. This will mean an increased demand for recruits to be drawn from civil life; but it is an increase which I am sure the country will willingly accept.
  Before asking the House to consider the demands for men for the armed forces of the Crown, which must be met during the present year, I wish to lay before them a statement of the effort which we, the British League of Nations, have made, so will they view in the right perspective the requirements for 1918. In August, 1914, the total personnel of the Navy was less than 150,000. The Regular Army, including Reserves and Special Reserves, amounted on mobilisation to about 450,000 men. The Territorial Force contributed some 250,000 more. Of one sort or another, therefore, there were available 700,000 soldiers, of whom over 100,000 were serving in foreign stations, leaving something less than 600,000 men, at least half of whom were only partly trained, available both for the defence of the United Kingdom and for the Expeditionary Force. From the outbreak of war to the present time, the expansion of our armed forces has continued. The Navy from 150,000 in August, 1914, stood in October, 1917, at 400,000. The British Army to-day has on its rolls over 4,000,000 men.
  As an instance of the expansion, it is of interest to note that the combined Air Service, from a strength of 2,000 in August, 1914, on the 1st August, 1917, stood at over 125,000. Since then it has been further largely expanded, and the limits of its expansion are not yet in sight. The actual strength of the forces to-day obviously only represents a part of the call that has been made on our man-power. To it must be added our losses in killed, died, missing, prisoners, and in maimed and invalided men who have been discharged. Taking these into consideration, we may say that the effort which the British nations have made under the one item of "Provision of Men for the Armed Forces of the Crown" amounts to not less than 7,500,000 men, and of these-4,530,000, or 60.4 per cent. have been contributed by England; 620,000, or 8.3 per cent., have been contributed by Scotland; 280,000, or 3.7 per cent. have been contributed by Wales; 170,000, or 2.3 per cent., have been contributed by Ireland; 900,000, or 12 per cent., have been contributed by the Dominions and the Colonies. The remaining 1,000,000 men, composed of native fighting troops, labour
  66
  corps, carriers, etc., represent the splendid contribution made by India and our various African and other Dependencies.
  Such figures, vast as they are, fail wholly to indicate in any way our total effort. They take no account of the manufacture of munitions, of ships, naval and mercantile, of aircraft, of our increased production of food, iron ore, of oil, of supplies of all sorts with which we have furnished our Allies. Above all, they take no account of the enterprise of that great company of gallant men, the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. This is an effort of which the British nation may well be proud, but if this effort is to be carried on and the sacrifices which inspired it are not to have been in vain, our Armies which have been created and supported through three and a half years of struggle must be maintained during the present year. Their demands can be met from two sources. The first is the reserve now in the Armies at home and abroad; the second is the men still in civil life. During the past twelve months the Armies abroad have undergone a strict scrutiny as a result of the reports of inspecting officers. Although much has already been accomplished, further accumulation of fit men and the need for even more strict economy make it necessary that a constant watch should be kept to prevent the waste on subsidiary work of officers or men who in age and physique are in every sense battle-worthy.
  There are considerable reserves in the home Armies, and these must be made fully available. To secure this the composition of the Armies at home is being so readjusted as to enable the greatest possible proportion of the demands of the Armies overseas to be met from within the Army itself. This means not only a readjustment of the present basis on which the Home Defence forces are organised, but also in many cases in the Navy, Army, and the Air Force, the employment of women enrolled in corps. But when all this is done, if we are to expand the Navy and the Air Force as we propose, and to maintain the Armies in the field, it is necessary to proceed immediately to raise in His country 420,000–450,000 men from among those now in civil life. These figures must be regarded as the absolute minimum, and it may well be that the exigencies of the military situation will in 1918 necessitate the withdrawal of a still larger number of men from the ranks of

  67
  industry. Simultaneously, however, we shall be returning a large number of men from the forces to civil life, so that the reduction of our industrial strength will be much less than the the total number withdrawn.
  The Government have considered very carefully whether the situation necessitates at the present juncture any far-reaching changes in legislation. Three obvious possibilities have been considered. The first is to lower the military age. The Germans are already taking into the Army boys of seventeen. The lowering of the military age below eighteen is, however, except as the last resort, not only contrary to natural instincts, but also economically unsound. In view of the heavy weights which the soldier in the field has to carry, and the serious hardships to which he is exposed, the fighting value of the average boy under eighteen is small, and is not commensurate with his value in civil life. We have therefore decided for the present not to lower the legal military age.
  The second possibility is to raise the military age. As we have seen, in Austria-Hungary it has already been raised to fifty-five, whereas ours for all practical purposes may be placed as forty-three. Economically this is open to less objection than the first alternative. But although many men between forty and fifty could undoubtedly render useful -service in the Army, particularly in the auxiliary services, the actual fighting value and staying power of a normal man of forty-five is considerably less than that of a normal man of twenty-five. It must further be borne in mind that a large number of men of between forty-three and fifty have voluntarily enlisted in the Army, and the raising of the age even to fifty would in fact yield fewer men than is generally believed to be the case. But above all the Government feel most strongly that it would be contrary to the interests of the nation to raise the age limit so long as there are notoriously large numbers of younger men fit for general service, still in civil life, who can be released without seriously endangering the output of essential industries and the maintenance of essential public services. In this resolution they are confident that they are supported by the full force of public opinion of all ages and all classes in the country.
  68
  The third possibility is to apply compulsory service to Ireland. With regard to this vexed question I can only say that the Government have carefully considered it from the point of view of finding the most effective means of prosecuting the War, and they are satisfied that the reasons which led to the exclusion of Ireland from the scope of the original Military Service Acts have lost none of their cogency. They have decided for the present not to ask this House for powers to introduce compulsory service in Ireland. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]
  The Government would not hesitate to adopt any or all of these measures, if the military needs of the situation could not be met in other ways. The War Cabinet is, however, satisfied after investigation that it is not necessary to adopt any one of these obvious possibilities at the present time. They are determined, however, to make available for military service a very large number of the young men now engaged in essential industries and to take all steps necessary to maintain those industries after the young men have been withdrawn. Many of these young men have acted as if they thought that their protection from recruitment was due to some peculiar privileged position which was theirs by right. So far as it is possible to secure it they must share fairly with their fellow countrymen, their contemporaries in age, the burden of defending their own interests and the nation's before we proceed to draw their fathers into the fighting ranks or continue to re-send to the front and re-send again the men who have fought and bled. This decision of the Government will leave in civil life a large reserve of man-power, which our enemies will not possess. It will remain available to throw into the scale, should the fortune of war make such a call necessary.
  In his speech on 20th December the Prime Minister referred to a series of pledges and undertakings which had been given to certain trade unions by the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle on behalf of the Government. He stated that the conditions in which those arrangements had been made had materially changed, and changed through circumstances over which no Government has any control. He made it clear that it would be necessary for us to take action which would enable us to call fur service men who at the present time are protected under such arrangements. At the same time he under-

  69
  took that I should meet the trade unions who were parties to those arrangements. and place before them the circumstances which had necessitated their revision. This I have done. A series of Conferences have been held, commencing with general meetings, at which representatives of all these unions were present, and followed by sectional Conferences of representatives of the various industrial groups. This has enabled me to lay before the representatives not only the general position in relation to man-power and the present needs. but also to explain to them in considerable detail the precise way in which the Government proposals will affect each industry. I have received from the representatives material assistance on many points of detail.
  The constitution of the groups for the sectional Conferences was discussed at length in the general meeting, and was settled in accordance with the wishes expressed by the Conference itself. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers expressed the wish to meet the Government separately from the other unions in the engineering group. The sense of the Conference was very strongly opposed to any such proposal. The Government entirely shared the view thus generally expressed. The circumstances are such that the Government cannot give preferential treatment to any organisation. I regret that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers did not accept the decision of the general Conference and did not accept the invitation of the Government to the sectional Conference of the engineering group. The invitation is still open to them, and I shall be pleased to summon a further Conference of the engineering group if representatives of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers decide to avail themselves of the opportunity. The series of Conferences afforded a happy opportunity for the Prime Minister to make his statement upon war aims. The unions have expressed the desire that after the conclusion of the sectional Conferences the representatives should again assemble in a general Conference, and this we are doing.
  I wish to take this opportunity of placing on record my great appreciation of the spirit which I have found to animate the leaders of organised labour with whom I have discussed the nation's needs from day to day. I hope that the country can count on the same spirit of fair-mindedness in the rank and file that has been
  70
  shown by their leaders on this as on other occasions. Efforts are now being made by pacifists to stir up strife in the munition factories; but I hesitate to believe that in this, the last phase of this great struggle, any of the young men engaged in the vital industries will claim for themselves privileges, exemption, and immunity opposed to the urgent needs of the nation and rot accorded to their fellows of the trade unions of the less vital industries, or, indeed, to any other section of the community—an immunity only to be purchased at the price of the men who have fought and been wounded, at the price of sending their fathers to the trenches, and of limiting, if not stopping, the leave of the soldiers from the front. That is what their claim for immunity amounts to. These young men are now threatening to take what they call drastic action; in plain language, they are threatening to hold up the output of ships and aeroplanes in order to force the Government to send out the wounded men again and again, to force the Government to drag out their fathers, and to force the Government to stop the leave of the men at the front. [HON. MEMBERS: "Traitors!"] I believe that ill they do they will meet such a blast of hatred and contempt that will surprise them. Think of the monstrosity of the claim of these young men—that we should send out the wounded again and again to fight for them while they draw high wages, that we should take their fathers and send them out while they stay at home and draw high wages, and that we should stop the leave of men from the front while they stay at home and draw high wages.
  Colonel BURN: Put them under martial law?
  Sir A. GEDDES: That is their claim. and they are going to take drastic action to enforce it. We shall see. Before I quite pass from the subject of the Conferences, I desire to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has at my request undertaken to arrange for me to meet a representative gathering of employers in order that I may discuss the details of the application of the measures that we propose with them just as we have done with the trade unions. The main object of the present proposals is to distribute fairly the burden of military service and to secure, so far as is practicable, equality of sacrifice. It would be idle to pretend that the Military Service Acts have borne

  71
  equally upon all sections of the community, but it is the intention of the Government to remedy such inequalities. To secure this certain comparatively small legislative changes are required. For these provision is made in the Bill which I beg to introduce to-day. It is a short measure of two Clauses.
  Clause 1 is designed to abolish the automatic addition of two months' exemption at present enjoyed by certain men who were in certified occupations or in occupations subject to the provisions of Section 7 of the Munitions of War Act and the addition of two weeks in the case of other men. With regard to applications for a renewal of certificates of exemption, it leaves the period within which application for renewal must be made to be decided by Regulations made by Order in Council. At present an application for the renewal of a certificate under the Military Service Acts has to be made within fourteen days of the date on which a certificate ceases to be in force. The two months' provision has for long been a cause of grievance and, indeed, an injustice to many men, for it did not apply to attested men or to men in possession of a protection certificate whether attested or not. Its original object was to meet the difficulty created by the provision which existed in connection with the "leaving" certificate, under which a man, if he left his employment without obtaining a certificate, was not entitled to be re-engaged for a period of six weeks. As the "leaving" certificate and the provision attaching to it have now vanished, there is no reason why a consequential safeguard should continue. Quite apart from the intention of the automatic addition of two months to an exemption, it is necessary to consider the practical results. These too often were that a man, whose continuance in civil life was unnecessary in the national interest, found in the two months opportunity of concealing his identity and of obtaining, perhaps under an assumed name, in some distant place, civil occupation possibly of quite an unimportant kind. The difficulties which the two months have introduced into administration have been legion, and the inequality of treatment which they produced have done much to create dissatisfaction with the statutory provisions with regard to military service, and with their administration. If the Clause as drafted be-
  72
  comes law, I anticipate that administration will be simplified, and that men who are intended to join the Army will do so not only more rapidly, but also in larger numbers than has been the case in the past.
  The second Clause of the Bill is designed to give to the Director-General. of National Service power by administrative Order to withdraw any certificates of exemption granted on occupational. grounds, either under the Military Service Acts or to voluntarily attested men. In the Bill a certificate granted on occupational grounds is defined as one which is granted wholly or partly on the grounds that it is expedient in the national interests that a man should, instead of being engaged in military service, be employed either on civil work in which he is engaged, or in which he wishes to be engaged, or, if he is being educated or trained, that he should continue to be so educated or trained, or which in the case of voluntarily attested men is based on similar grounds, or a certificate which is granted by or under the authority of any Government Department.
  It is proposed that the administrative. Order may be applicable either to individual certificates or to certificates granted to any class or body of men, and that the Order may be made applicable only to men falling within such limits of age or fulfilling such other conditions as may be specified in the Order. The object of this provision is to meet the greatest of all the imperfections of the present Military Service Acts. It is a fact that at the present time there are in civil life a large number of men holding certificates of exemption on occupational grounds who are engaged in work or practically no national importance. The whole history of these certificates of exemption on occupational grounds is, in fact, a tangled story. Many of them have in the past been granted by agents of Government Departments without full appreciation of the needs of the position. It is current gossip, and I have had from time to time evidence that. the gossip was not all ill-founded, that many of these certificates were obtained by their holders through influence. Some of them, indeed, have been proved in the Courts of Law to have been obtained by corrupt means. But quite apart from that, it is necessary in equity that some such provision should exist, for there are at the present time a

  73
  large number, over 1,000,000 men, who hold administrative protection certificates from military service which can in fact be cancelled by order of the Director-General of National Service.
  The intention is to assimilate the position of all other men who hold exemption on occupational grounds to that of the men holding the protection certificates to which I have just referred. It is necessary that I should at this point make it plain that there is no intention to ask for powers to cancel certificates of exemption granted on personal grounds or on grounds of conscientious objection, or on any other grounds except that of occupation where it is alleged that it is in the interests of the nation that the man who holds the exemption should remain in civil life. It is impossible for any individual or body of individuals who have not all the facts before them to decide what is the national interest with regard to the occupation of any man or any body of men.
  In order that the Members of this House may understand what the proposed provision would mean in practice it is necessary for me here to describe at some length the theory which, in my opinion, must underlie any scientific system of recruitment. To begin with, I desire to make it clear that, keen as I am for the young men to go, it is impossible to conduct recruiting on the undiluted principles of "youngest first" and "single men first." It is obvious that at the present time few, if any, men regardless of their age or marital state who are engaged in the vital industries of shipbuilding and ship repairing can be withdrawn from civil life. It is equally obvious that a bathing-machine keeper should not be exempt on occupational grounds, even though he be a married man of thirty-five. We require a system of recruitment based on occupation, conditioned by age, and, if you will, marital state. It is such a system that we now propose to introduce. Under it, if we obtain the powers for which we now ask, we shall be able to proceed with recruiting on an easily understood system of clean cuts by age, by occupation. The way in which we propose to administer the system may be briefly outlined. Let us suppose that we have a series of occupations which, for our present purposes, I may describe as occupations A, B, and C. The production effected by occupa-
  74
  tion A may be extremely vital and just equal to requirements; that of occupation B may be to some extent equally vital, but may be one-third in excess of minimum requirements; whereas that of C, although equally vital, may be one-half in excess of minimum requirements. We propose in such cases to leave industry A alone; to draw from industry B roughly one-third of the men engaged in it; and from industry C half the men engaged in it; taking from really vital industries only those fit for general service and securing the number required by a clean cut determined on an age basis for that particular occupation. In no other way that I know of can the highly complicated business of recruiting for the Army be carried on in a modern highly industrialised State without leading to what may well be a disastrous disturbance in the production of essential munitions of war.
  As a result of past methods of recruiting, it is not possible now to apply this system in its cleanest and most simple form. Our action must to some extent be complicated by the presence of men of little skill in industries into which they were drawn when the industry was being diluted. It would obviously be unsound to leave in civil life the unskilled who are fit for general service until we had taken all the younger men possessed of a high degree of skill and training. The need for considering such matters, although complicating the administration, does not in any way modify the general theory underlying the procedure which we propose to adopt. We intend to reinforce our Armies with the youngest men (not boys) we can get; we are going to take the young men out of the essential industries and we are going to substitute them by men of those trades who have fought and been wounded, if male substitutes are necessary at all. For this purpose we ask for powers to make our action coincide with our intention.
  An HON. MEMBER: Are you going to shut up the one-man businesses?
  Sir A. GEDDES: In asking the House for the further powers which I have indicated in connection with recruiting, it is only fair that I should give some account of the recruiting machinery as it has been reconstituted. It is not necessary to recall, except by reference, the several stages of voluntary enlistment. the Group System associated with the

  75
  name of Lord Derby, with its accompanying machinery of tribunals, and the successive Military Service Acts, through which we have approached our present system. Of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, to which the Royal Assent was given on the 5th April last, I would just say this: I am determined that it shall be administered with great care and consideration. Indeed, by the concession already given to men who, having served overseas, have been discharged from the Navy or Army on account of disablement, the Government has refrained from exercising the full powers given to it by Parliament. I can assure the House that so long as I am responsible for the administration of this Act the powers conferred by it will be used with a due regard for all men who have served their country in the field overseas. It is unfortunate that such an Act should have been necessary, but without its powers it would have been impossible to deal with the large number of cases in which men had been either discharged or rejected on quite insufficient grounds.
  Until recently recruiting was regarded as purely the duty of the military authorities. It is now a civilian duty, and the change has been, in my opinion, in every way beneficial. I sometimes wonder if this House realised for a moment what a risk was run in taking the decision to effect transfer of the control of recruiting, with all that it implied, in the middle of a great war. The risk was run, and Great Britain is now, for the purpose of recruiting, divided into ten regions, each under an officer responsible for the due administration of recruiting within his region, and everything, I think I can say, is running smoothly and well. The old machine has been taken to bits, the new one created. The story of how it was done will be quite worth the telling some day. I wish it were possible to tell it now, but I must hasten on.
  In addition to the work of recruiting in this country, a very considerable amount of work has been done in the way of recruiting British subjects resident outside the United Kingdom, elsewhere than in the self-governing Dominions. A special mission was sent to the United States, where it was received with great friendliness and cordiality. It has been successful in securing a large number of
  76
  British subjects, both for the British Army and for the Canadian Forces. Concurrently with this, appeals were made to British subjects in neutral countries to enlist for service in the forces, and arrangements have been made for the medical examination of the men who have volunteered. In accepting such men for service, the necessity of safeguarding the commercial interests of this country has not been lost sight of. Mutual arrangements have already been made, or are now being arranged, with the principal Allied States, in which an interchange of liability to military service is feasible. A. Convention was made in the summer of 1917 with Russia, and Conventions have since been made with France and Italy. Negotiations are proceeding with the Government of the United States and have reached a point at which the two Governments are practically in agreement. I wish to-day it were possible for me to describe the reforms which have been introduced in the system under which recruits are medically examined. Suffice it to say the old system has been replaced by a new one which, though it still shows a few raw edges, is a vast improvement on the old. I wish, too, that I could stop to tell of all the work that has been done to co-ordinate the demands of Government Departments for medical men, and to ensure an adequate supply of medical practitioners to meet the nation's needs in 1920, 1921, and the years following.
  We must recognise, however, both in connection with recruiting and in connection with the Army, that the efficient working of the recruiting and medical machines rests finally upon a complete and accurate system of registration. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has to-day introduced a measure which is designed to complete that work, and I feel that both he and I can recommend that measure to the House with confidence, in view of the enormous amount of work already done in connection with registration, which has proved exactly what further powers are necessary to complete the work. There is one point in the Bill to which I wish to refer, namely, the provision with regard to the registration of discharged and demobilised soldiers. This is not designed to make them more available for military service, but to make it easier to provide them with work of national importance.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will they be offered it?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Registration is necessarily a difficult and complicated business. We have, since August, reconstructed and reorganised the whole registration machine. The new system reduces to a minimum inconvenience and annoyance to the general public caused by the improper issue of calling-up notices, and by applications for information, through the police or otherwise, to men who have not yet joined the forces, or to relatives and friends of those who have. Moreover—I think this is an important consideration—it will be possible to arrange for a 50 per cent, reduction of personnel, with a corresponding saving of public money.
  As I pass from a. description of the work of recruiting I desire in a few words to refer to the development of Women's Corps for work with the Navy, Army, Air Force, and on the land. My Department is responsible to the War Cabinet for the general control of recruiting for these corps, and I am glad to be in a position to announce that Lady Mackworth has accepted the appointment of Chief Controller of Women's Recruiting. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of contradicting emphatically rumours which have been in circulation as to conditions which are alleged to obtain in certain units of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, reflecting adversely both upon the members of that corps and upon those who are responsible for their supervision and welfare. I can best do so by giving the figures for discharges overseas and at home. These figures are limited to the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps. I have no knowledge of the position in some of the irregular, non-official bodies. I am speaking of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, about which these rumours are existing. Out of the thousands of women who have joined that corps, the only discharges for misconduct overseas have been two, and at home four. There have been a few discharges on other grounds. That, I think, is an answer to the accusations which have been made about the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps.
  Before passing to a consideration of the work of that Department of my Ministry which I took over from the old National Service Department, I should like to pay a sincere tribute of respect to Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Much misunderstanding still exists with regard to his position and actions. The problems of National Service
  78
  are varied and manifold, and Mr. Chamberlain's personal contributions to the solution of the man-power problem were both solid and valuable. To him, I think, is due the credit of finally convincing the country of the need of a Ministry to work out the problem of the strategical use of man-power; and when he had done this he resigned and left to his successor the work of building up such a Ministry as his pioneer work alone had made possible.
  While the establishment of a Ministry of National Service with the necessary powers was essential in order that the Government might be presented with a complete review of the man-power position from time to time, and to assure the co-ordination of action on the lines laid down, it would be impossible for the Ministry to carry on the whole of its work at a central headquarters in London. I have, therefore, decided to decentralise to the greatest possible extent the vast amount of administrative work of the Ministry, while at the same time retaining control of policy. The men who have hitherto acted as Directors of Recruiting—that is to say, the distinguished civilians who came two months ago to help us as Directors of Recruiting—will become Regional Directors of National Service, each in charge of a region, and will exercise in that capacity wide powers in connection with all branches of the work of the Ministry, thus ensuring prompt action and full consideration of all local conditions.
  I now return to the other vast side of my multitudinous duties, and propose to review the industrial situation in relation to man-power. I shall indicate to the House some of the means by which the needs of the essential trades and industries can be and are being met. But in doing so I wish the House not to picture the work of the Ministry as a centralised undertaking in Westminster, but as a dynamic force working throughout the country. In developing the necessary machine, two guiding principles have been always present to my mind. The first, as I have said, is to retain the control of policy at the centre, while decentralising the administrative work, and affording wide scope to those responsible in each region for devising suitable plans to meet local conditions. The second principle has been to make the fullest use of all existing organisations, whether instituted by Government action or private enterprise. Full use has been made not only of Government organisa-

  79
  tions, such as the machinery of the Employment Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Supply Departments of other Ministries, but also of the trade committees representing employers and workmen in various industries, for the formation of which I have much reason to be grateful to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and of the local advisory committees of employers and workmen which have been and are being established throughout the country. These and many other organisations, formed either for general or for specific purposes, co-operate in the work of the Ministry in different localities. Wherever machinery exists for carrying out the work which is to be done, that machinery is used, and it is only to bridge gaps in organisation that new machinery is formed.
  While developing the necessary organisation for dealing with the industrial side of man-power, it was of the first importance to obtain a complete and comprehensive review of the labour demands, not only those of the moment, but also the whole requirements for this year for the execution of Government work. Arrangements were made with the Government Departments for their immediate demands to be notified through the local Employment Exchanges, in order that they might be dealt with locally so far as possible, and the balance submitted to the Ministry of National Service for examination arid circulation throughout the country after being graded for priority. The demand for men actually ascertained in this way amounted to over 90,000, and consisted of actual vacancies for which men were immediately required. A large number of these have been filled, but by reason of the conversion of part of the prospective demand into current demand, and the normal wastage, the actual demand to-day stands at approximately the same figure. The relative urgency of current demands necessarily varies, and the National Labour Priority Committee, consisting of representatives of all the principal Government Departments concerned, under the chairmanship of an officer of the Ministry of National Service, was constituted on a representative basis to grade all Government demands for priority, subject to general rulings on policy given by the War Cabinet. The existing demands have been examined by the Committee, and some 20,000 have been accorded different grades of priority; and it is now possible,
  80
  week by week, to follow up the supply of men to meet the different demands, and to determine, week by week, how available labour has been disposed of. The prospective demands have been examined. They amount to 439,000 persons in all, of which 320,000 were for men (70,000 skilled and 242,000 unskilled) and 119,000 for women. As I have stated, some of these have already materialised and now form part of the current demand.
  Further, in order to be able to deal with subsequent variations in the demand, it has been arranged that all new programmes or alterations in existing programmes of the Departments shall come under the review of the Ministry of National Service, so that the labour position as a whole may always be before it. The prospective demand for men, amounting to 320,000, may be roughly divided into three parts. Rather more than a third is for the requirements of the Ministry of Munitions, rather less than a third for the Admiralty, and the remaining third is divided among the other labour - employing Departments, namely, the War Office for aerodrome construction, the Board of Trade for timber production, the Board of Agriculture for Food Production, the Office of Works for various forms of Government constructional works, and other minor requirements for various other Departments. The demand for 119,000 women is almost entirely for the Ministry of Munitions, and it is additional to the demands which will be made for the various women's corps.
  Of all these demands, the most important is that for shipyard labour font the construction of merchant tonnage. I am glad to be able to say that the appeal for labour for the shipyards has met with a most gratifying response, and at the present moment men are coming forward in larger numbers than can be absorbed, at, all events in some districts. Some 10,000 vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchanges for shipyards during the month of December. The Exchanges have in the last four weeks (which include Christmas and New Year holidays) submitted over 5,500 men in respect of those vacancies, and about 2,100 of these have started work; and no doubt numbers of men have also been engaged direct. Temporary difficulties have been experienced which have prevented in some districts the absorption of all those who have come forward As soon, however, as

  81
  those difficulties have been overcome, more men will undoubtedly be wanted, probably in the near future.
  It is of the utmost importance that all actual vacancies in shipyards should be filled as they arise. Every ton of shipping built, every ton of shipping saved from submarine attacks, every ton of shipping economised by the substitution of home production for imports, means a ton of shipping available to bring the forces of America into the field. This is the vital problem. Upon our failure to solve it our enemies are staking everything. Our success in solving it means certain victory. On the construction of an adequate amount of merchant tonnage depends our supply of food, timber, iron ore, oil and many other essential commodities which we cannot produce in sufficient quantities to satisfy the national need. The production of these commodities in this country is being stimulated, and additional supplies of labour for them have been included in the figures of demand already quoted. But, even if all these labour requirements are met, we shall still need a very large number of men for the shipyards, and priority for these demands over all others has been accorded by the Government Committees dealing with this question.
  Although the demands which I have summarised will almost certainly be reduced in some cases by rulings of the War Priorities Committee, directing the discontinuance or postponement of certain work, particularly in relation to constructional work, and although it is anticipated that some part of the demands which remain will be met by readjustments in the use of existing labour under the control of the Departments concerned, and by the absorption of labour now employed on contracts which are nearing completion, it is certain that a very large demand will remain to be met by reinforcements from other sources. A good deal has been already accomplished. Thus during the last month (including the Christmas holidays) 47,000 vacancies for men and 36,000 vacancies for women have been filled. But it must be borne in mind that the vacancies to be filled in the ordinary course include vacancies for work of every kind and description—for example, vacancies to fill the normal wastage due to death and other causes—whereas the figures given in the demand refer to the net increases in direct Government work, on new or extended programmes.
  82
  The first point which it is necessary to ensure is that all programmes put forward by Government Departments are carefully scrutinised to see that any part of a programme which can safely be postponed or eliminated is so dealt with. This work is being continuously undertaker. by the War Priorities Committee. This scrutiny enables us to determine with reasonable accuracy the exact demands which must be met. In meeting these demands, the first obvious source is the men and women who, from time to time are thrown out of employment in various industries. The restriction of imports and exports which has been necessary in order to save tonnage has involved a corresponding restriction in the supplies of raw material available for the loss essential industries; and the curtailment of these industries and consequential unemployment, is bound to increase during the present year. Every effort is made to employ persons so thrown out of employment in their own locality, not only by their absorption in other factories in those localities, but by the adaptation of factories for the production of munitions of war. In order to secure that this policy is carried out to the fullest extent, the Government has instructed all Departments who are contemplating the erection of new premises to make full investigation as to whether existing factories can be used instead of building new factories. I may take the example of the cotton industry in Lancashire. As the House is aware, the imports in raw cotton have been considerably restricted. Preliminary arrangements have already been made for the utilisation of certain factories in Lancashire for the production of aeroplane parts, and it is hoped that other factories there may be used for the assembling and manufacture of aeroplanes. Similarly, on the East Coast I am at present trying to arrange for miners, who are only partially employed in the getting of coal, to secure employment in local shipyards within reach of their homes. But in all such cases there must necessarily remain a comparatively large body of labour which it is impossible to absorb locally. To all these men and women who possess the necessary qualifications, or who can be trained to new work, it is our duty to afford the opportunity of transferring to work of national importance in other districts; and the co-operation of the Trade Committees and Trade Unions is of the

  83
  greatest value in this work. Again, owing to the system under which shipping now reaches this country, there is unavoidably a certain amount of dock labour only partially employed in some ports, while other ports are short-handed. A scheme for the transfer of such labour from port to port through the instrumentality of the Port Labour Committees is at the present moment under consideration, and it is hoped that, if successful, it will tend materially to the better utilisation of dock labour and the more expeditious handling of dock work. In order to meet the frequent cases of men with dependants. moving to work away from their homes, a subsistence allowance has been sanctioned, and is incorporated in the War Work Volunteer Scheme instituted by the Ministry.
  5.0 P.M.
  Another source of labour supply, and one in which I know hon. Members will take special interest, is discharged soldiers. The Army has established seven discharge centres, and I felt it my duty, both in the interests of the discharged soldiers themselves and in the national interest also, to see that the fullest opportunity is afforded to these men of filling the vacancies which exist in work of national importance. In this I have received the greatest assistance from all the Government Departments. The Ministry of Labour has arranged to establish an Employment Exchange at each discharge centre. The Admiralty and the Ministry of Munitions will have representatives at these discharge centres, and the War Office have arranged that soldiers about to be discharged shall have the opportunity of going on leave in order to be tested for suitable vacancies in employment. In this- way an opportunity is to be afforded to every discharged soldier of securing employment of a kind which is suited to his qualifications and previous civil training in so far as such vacancies exist in civil life, and also his employment on work of national importance.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will he then be called up under the Review of Exceptions Act? We might have that made clear now.
  Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no!
  Mr. HOGGE: Are you sure?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Of course, the hon. Member will not expect me to make a definite statement now as to what may happen if the War continues for, say,
  84
  another two years. Not only are we arranging to supply work of national importance to soldiers who are going to be discharged, but also we are arranging to get men released from the Army for work of national importance—men who are of lower grade at present in the Home forces, whose work as soldiers is not of the greatest importance and who are not, therefore, immediately required for service in the Army For these men we are finding jobs before they are released, then we are asking the War Office to release them, and the War Office is allowing large numbers of them to come back to civil life. It is in connection with this work which I have just described—the work of the discharge centres in the provision of work for the soldiers who have been discharged and the finding of men in the Army to fill jobs which exist in civil life—that we look to find the great majority of the substitutes who will be required to fill the place of the young men whom we shall' remove from the essential industries. In other words, we are looking first to the interests of the men who have fought for their country and who in fighting have suffered some loss of physical capacity.
  In connection with one-man businesses there is a point to which I wish to refer, and it is this: We have found by experience that it is possible to arrange, through the Federation of One-man Business Associations, to get a large amount of part-time work undertaken by the men of lower categories who are owners of one-man businesses, and that work they are undertaking to help the men of higher categories whom it is impossible for us in the present position of our man-power requirements to leave in their own businesses. To protect them the War Cabinet has given authority for a Defence of the Realm Regulation to be passed which will limit the establishment of retail businesses to those cases in which licences have been granted—that is to say, new retail businesses to be established only on licence. That is being done to protect the one-man business where the owner has had to join the forces and where some stranger, possibly an alien, opens a business beside his shop and tries to take his business away from him.
  Sir J D. REES: Is that in addition to, or in variation or cancellation of, what is laid down by the circular recently issued by the Local Government Board?
  Sir A. GEDDES: It is in addition. Besides, I am increasing the opportunities

  85
  for using the services of Allied and neutral aliens on work of national importance. After full consultation with the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Labour, it has been agreed that an Article shall be obtained under the Aliens Restriction Act, providing that aliens shall not in future be employed in certain restricted occupations of an unessential character without a permit. A permit will, however, be granted in all cases where suitable employment on work of national importance is not available. I have established a Committee to advise me in this connection, and I am glad to say that Lord Burnham has consented to act as Chairman. The constitution of the Committee, containing as it does representatives of the principal Allied nations, will be of great assistance. I have arranged also that, so far as possible, enemy aliens who are uninterned shall, if they are physically capable of undertaking work of national importance, either do so or be interned. In this my Department has acted in close cooperation with the Local Government Board, and has received great help from the Home Office.
  There is one point further in connection with the employment of aliens to which I have to refer, namely, the prisoners of war. The Government has entrusted to the Ministry of National Service the allocation of prisoners of war, and I am glad to state that the Secretary of State for War has expressed his willingness to relax the stringency of the conditions which have hitherto attached to their employment. In these circumstances, I hope that considerable use may be made of them in assisting the programme of the Board of Agriculture. We are also taking steps to provide labour for our essential industries through part - time schemes—through schemes which are developing in connection with the employment of schoolboys and in connection with the employment of Boy Scouts. I should like in passing to refer to the most excellent part-time scheme which has been evolved by the Part-Time Committee in Liverpool. This is being brought to the notice of our Regional Directors of National Service as a model of what can be achieved in the way of getting work done by part-time employment.
  But when we have taken all these steps there is still going to remain an urgent need for workers to reinforce our vital industries, and to save tonnage. I have explained that the Government does not
  86
  intend at the present time to raise the age for military service; but I wish to make the strongest possible appeal to able-bodied men over military age, who are not employed in essential industries, to place their services at the disposal of the State to fill the specific vacancies which are made known from time to time. There are two classes of men to whom I would particularly appeal. First, there are a large number of men with adequate private means who, with a little inconvenience and a little sacrifice—small, indeed, compared with the sacrifices which have been made by younger men in the Army — could easily leave their homes and take up work in a shipyard or munition factory, at timber work, or on a farm. Secondly, there are many men over military age and of good physique who depend for their living on the work which they do with their hands, and who are now indeed employed, but not on work of first-rate national importance. To both these classes of men I would appeal to come forward and undertake work of national importance, because to meet the large demands I have indicated—demands running up to 420,000 persons—we cannot as a nation afford to have any wastage of such human material on work of compratively small importance. I am afraid I have kept the House a long time with this review of the labour side of the work of National Service, but it is essential to any understanding of what our proposals are with regard to raising men for the armed forces of the Crown that the labour side should be kept steadily in view, because National Service is not a question only of raising men to fight—it is a question of maintaining an even poise and a balance between all the activities of the State, all those activities which are essential to the winning of the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has presented a very comprehensive survey of the needs of the country in respect of man-power both for military and industrial purposes. I am sure that the House congratulates him upon the comprehensiveness of the survey which he has given. Unfortunately, however, the proposals which he is laying before the House and the Bill which he has asked leave to introduce are by no means as comprehensive as the survey. I think it well now in the month of January, 1918, when we are invited to discuss this question of man-

  87
  power, to remind the House that it was precisely in order to deal with this problem that the present Government came into existence thirteen months ago, and it may be within the recollection of the few Members who now remain in the House that on the 16th December, 1916, the Prime Minister, in making his first declaration of Ministerial policy, stated that for the first time the Government was going to take in hand the whole question of the mobilisation of the man-power of the country. He then indicated that a new Department of National Service would be set up and that in three weeks' time, when Parliament reassembled, proposals would be placed before the House which would provide for the scientific organisation of the whole man-power of the country. I remind the House of these things so that we here may be in a position to judge as to how far the performances of this Government square with the promises with which they entered upon office.
  Obviously the subject has been treated in the same hand-to-mouth way as had marked the Wait-and-See methods of their predecessors. We had the Review of Exceptions Act last year, an Act for which the right hon. Gentleman has made an apology to the House. He has told us now that he intends to administer that Act in a careful and considerate way—a real admission that that was a measure which should never have been introduced at all and which it was a disgrace to both Houses of Parliament ever to have placed upon the Statute Book. I had hoped, indeed, that, recognising all that, we would have had an announcement from the right hon. Gentleman that it was forthwith going to be repealed. We are gratified indeed to know that now severely wounded men are not going to be sent back time after time to the trenches. It is a gratifying and welcome announcement, but we got no such undertaking six months ago when this proposition was put to the House. I remember on the adjournment for the Autumn Recess raising this very question of the cruelty with which the War Office was dealing with severely wounded men, hustling them out of the hospitals in order to send them to the front, and I read an instruction of one of the military directors to hospitals actually laying it down that the test of the efficiency of the medical officers of hospitals was the speed with which they returned men to the front. I
  88
  am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that these methods are no longer going to be employed. That is one of the announcements which will gratify everybody, not only here, but outside.
  But there were one or two observations which seemed to me to be irrelevant in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which, in a considered statement of that kind, were rather surprising. In one of them he reviewed the origin of the War, and in the second he gave by implication a new theory of the conduct of the War during recent months. In the first place he remarked on the position of the Allies, who had come into the War on account of Russian's action in August, 1914. That is not a theory of the origin of the War which we accepted in this country, and I am surprised to find a Minister of the Crown, after three and a half years, attributing responsibility and culpability to the Government of Russia of that time. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks about pacifists interfering with recruiting I should have thought that the weapon which he has delivered into their hands by that statement would be invaluable for their purpose. I hope that without loss of time this strange statement from a responsible Minister will be promptly disavowed by someone representing the Government. But there was a second implication. He made a statement in regard to casualties which was a veiled and implied censure upon the Commander-in-Chief in France. He said that during the present year no casualties had occurred which could have been avoided, and he went on to say that carelessness and thoughtlessness will be stamped out. If that statement means anything it implies that in the past there have been both thoughtlessness and carelessness. If that is the considered view of the Government they are adopting and accepting the case made from this bench last month by my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Wedgwood), and if that is so they must surely adopt the policy which he advocated on these premises, and make a change in the High Command in France. I thought these somewhat irrelevant observations required attention called to them, and that we should gather whether, implying censure as they do on the one hand on the High Command and on the other implying a theory of origin of the War not hitherto accepted in this country, they are the considered views of His Majesty's present advisers.

  89
  But my main object in rising is to make a plea for information on behalf of the House of Commons. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he and the Prime Minister have met the trade unions. They first of all met a general assembly of representatives of all the unions, and subsequently the Prime Minister made a statement upon War aims. We have heard also that during the week that has followed there have been sectional Conferences with the trade unions, and that he has not exhausted these Conferences, and still intends to have more. I want to know whether the information which he has given to the House to-day is the same information as he has given to the trade unions, and, in the second place, whether he has given as full information to the House as he has given to the trade unions. It may -be said they were entitled to receive full information on these important questions, both regarding the statistics of our fighting strength and that of our Allies, because they were asked to give up certain pledges which had been made to them, both by the late Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Henderson). But we in the House of Commons are in a more important fiduciary position than the trade unions. We are here to decide whether the measures which the Government is asking us to pass are adequate to the national need. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day, full and comprehensive as it was, is totally inadequate to enable the House to decide that question for itself. We have had general statements regarding the industrilal situation—shipbuilding, agriculture, and the respective reserves of man-power of the Allies and of the Central Powers—butin no essential respect have we been brought down to actual figures. We are entitled, therefore, to ask that figures should be given to the House. When the second Military Service Act was passed, that was done by the late Prime Minister. The Government of that clay decided to have a Secret Session, and the late Prime Minister made a statement regarding our military necessities which enabled the House to say which of the competing methods then before the Government of dealing with the military service problem was adequate to the situation. Why should we not have a similar opportunity now? After all, this is a far more critical time than May, 1916. The situation has developed in many way?
  90
  since then, and even taking the admissions of members of the Government, we know that the situation of this country and the Alliance has never been worse than it is to-day. The Minister of Munitions said only a day or two ago that the British Empire was now hanging in the balance That is a very serious situation.
  Mr. D. MASON: He is a most unreliable authority.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But he still remains a member of His Majesty's Government. Undoubtedly, even allowing for the natural exaggeration of the Minister of Munitions, the situation is sufficiently serious. Everyone will admit that it is far more serious than in 1916; in fact, the statement of our strategy during the present year indicates clearly that it is very much worse. In these circumstances it is the duty of the House of Commons before it gives a Second Reading to this Bill to obtain sufficient information from the Government to enable it to judge whether the proposals now put before it are adequate to the national needs, and I hope there are other hon. Members who will equally insist upon this point. It is due to the House of Commons that this should be done. We have at present a far greater responsibility resting upon us than at any other period of the War, and when the Government comes before -us with new legislative proposals, as they are doing now, it is not -only our duty to give a perfunctory assent and to throw the responsibility upon the Government, it is our duty to ascertain, so far as we can, that the proposals the Government is putting forward are adequate, because unless we do so we fail in our duty to those whom we represent.
  But apart from these general considerations, there are a number of other matters of detail upon which we should obtain some further assurances from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the present position in the Array in reference to the Review of Exceptions Act. I would ask him if he is quite satisfied with the new system of medical examination. I know that in many cases, as a result of the change of control and the change of system, there has been a substantial improvement; but I have also information that in certain parts of the country the new medical boards are acting in very much the same fashion as their predecessors did.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are very often the same people.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But that is not all. I have had evidence put before me of the experience of certain invaliding Boards. In the middle of last summer invaliding Boards were set up in the various commands in order to discharge the large numbers of unfit men who were at that time admittedly in the Army. These invaliding Boards naturally have good means of judging the quality of the material which is being placed in the Army, and the information which has been put before me—it was confidential, and I cannot give the name of my informant—was to the effect that there were still large numbers of unfit men being passed into the Army whom it would have been far better to leave in civil life. They are frequently passed into the Army on the footing that their service will be used for certain purposes; but once they are in the Army they are set to completely different work from that for which they were passed, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should inform us whether the National Service Department has any security that, once it parts with the men, and they come under the command of the military authorities, they are allotted to the tasks for which alone they were passed by the National Service Medical Board. There are many cases where I know that that is not so. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that although he talks about the more considerate administration of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, that that consideration has not permeated all his officials in the country. I can give him one very interesting example. It comes from the far north—Stromness. There is at Stromness the bead master of a school who is 4 ft. 10 ins. in height and a cripple. He has been called up by the National Service representative there, and as a result of the considerate activity of that National Service representative this schoolmaster, who is doing work of national importance and who is not an A 1 man, but a cripple 4 ft. 10 ins. in height, has had to go to Inverness in order to have himself medically examined. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman regards that as either consideration or efficiency in the administration of the Review of Exceptions Act, or whether he regards it as a scientific organisation of the man-power of the country ! That is only one example, and although it is a fairly extreme
  92
  example, the fact that such an illustration can occur proves how haphazard still are the methods of recruiting in this country.
  There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. It is a well-known fact that many classes of munitions are being produced to an extent far in excess of demand. The Prime Minister when he was Minister of Munitions believed that an inexhaustible supply of shells would be necessary; and he gave very large orders; but now we have had considerable experience of the amount of shells which our Armies can possibly use, and I am informed that for some time past we have been producing shells in this country far in excess of what will ever be used no matter what the duration of the War may be. There are shells rusting in France. The amount of shells in many places is a positive danger. Is it not possible in these circumstances to rearrange your industry? You are using steel, of which there is a considerable deficiency, and you are employing labour unprofitably and uselessly. Why cannot you immediately set to work to turn these munition factories from the production of shells to the production of things which are far more important at the present time in the national interest? We know the difficulty in regard to shipbuilding. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) made a speech the other day in which he referred in very gloomy terms to the shipping situation, and the speech which the Minister of National Service made this afternoon proves that at last the Government has realised that the sea is the most important element for this country. If this Government and its predecessor had realised that before we should not have been in the position we are in to-day. I remember speaking in March, 1915, upon this question in this House, and it was impossible then even to get a fair hearing for the proposition that the greatest risk which this country ran in the War was the risk at sea. Now that proposition is adopted on the high authority of the present Minister of National Service, and we are told that the Government are going to work upon that basis.
  Have the Government made provision for the men in shipbuilding who have been demanded by those who are responsible for the programme of shipbuilding? The right hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the number of men who had volunteered for shipbuilding and the number of

  93
  vacancies which have been filled, but the question which I now ask is one which requires an answer. Has the Government made provision to meet the demand of the authorities responsible for mercantile shipbuilding? if it has not, it is not doing its duty to the country. It all depends upon shipbuilding at the present time whether you are going to have the active assistance of America at the end of this year. If you do not increase your output of ships, allowing for the continuance of the submarine campaign in its present form, you cannot have the active assistance of America. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the active assistance of America is the decisive factor in the War; therefore, I think, the House must ascertain, either in public or in Secret Session, before it parts with these proposals, whether the proposals of this Bill regarding our military forces, and whether the proposals for directing the man-power of the country for every essential national purpose, are adequate to the existing situation. The long and interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman did not give the House the data upon which it could decide this point. There is no doubt that more complete information has been given to unofficial bodies outside. We know that some people have opposed Secret Sessions on the ground that there were pacifists here who might use the information to the disadvantage of the country; but there are pacifist members of trade unions who have got this information already and who may be using it. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that they are using it in the country. The sole body responsible in the present situation is the House of Commons. It is to the House of Commons that information should be given, and if the House of Commons does not insist on obtaining the information, not only spoonfuls of information but the whole information, it is unworthy of its trust and is betraying the responsible position which it holds.
  Mr. C. EDWARDS: In the first place I would like to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his very interesting, very lucid, and very comprehensive speech. Having said that, may I from a totally different point of view to that adopted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) express profound disappointment regarding many parts of the speech? My attitude towards the right hon. Gentleman's statement is rather the attitude of -the curate towards the egg that was pro-
  94
  vided at the bishop's palace—it was quite good in parts. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on two or three matters which he has revealed. I am glad to hear for the first time that the Government have really awakened to the scandal and the absurdity of going on with new buildings without first inquiring whether there are not existing factories equally suitable for the purpose. I remember calling attention to a specific case in regard to aeroplane construction on he day that the House rose in December. I am glad to hear that at last, after representation upon representation, it has been borne in on the minds of the Government that something should be done to increase the available voyage tonnage by seeing that dock labour is made available at ports where ships go, instead of their having to wait for a long time and then being sent round to other ports, where there are available berths. I am glad, too, that at least those responsible for recruiting contemplate in this new Bill the definite step of over-riding the decisions of local tribunals with regard to occupational exemptions. I shall have something more to say in regard to tribunals; but in passing I would say that there have been very grave scandals, not in isolated cases but in a very great number of cases, all over the country, where the tribunals have decided, on occupational grounds, that a man should not be recruited. We were all very glad to hear that something is to be done to save us from the national inhumanity of sending again to the front badly wounded soldiers when there are available reservoirs of men of military age who have not been to the front at all. I am glad to find chat even the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides has shown repentance with regard to the older man who is in the fighting lines. I remember making very strong representations to the right hon. Gentleman when he was Director-General of Recruiting, urging, in conformity with the requests from the pit heads in South Wales, that the young men should be combed out, and that if it was necessary to have men to carry on the mines the older miners should. be brought back from the front. The right hon. Gentleman told me then that whilst he personally was sympathetic the War Office would not hear of substituting for men ·who have taken much time and cost to train young untried recruits. I am glad to hear that there is provision in the

  95
  new Bill for substituting older men who have done their share of fighting for the younger men who are to be combed out.
  I am rather alarmed at some of the omissions in the very comprehensive statement we have heard this afternoon. If the statement had not been so comprehensive I should have felt that some of the things were in the nature of mere accidental omission. I was hoping, in view of the very large number of men of military age who have been let through the large meshes of the local tribunals, that the Bill contemplated doing away with the tribunals for entirely local areas so that the members of the tribunals would be relieved both of the odium and the responsibility of having to decide as to their neighbours' sons not going to the front or going to the front. I am certain from my experience of tribunals when they deal with small areas, that there is much too close relation between the members of the tribunals and the men whose cases have to be decided or the men whose sons' cases have to be decided; and if it is not at present in contemplation in this Bill to substitute for these local tribunals for small local areas, tribunals for much larger areas, I hope that the Government will at least leave it to the decision of the House so that we can put in an Amendment substituting tribunals of a much larger and more impersonal character for those o f a purely local and very largely personal character. I was also hoping that we should have heard to-day that there would be a proposal in the new Bill to abolish the machinery of the Colliery Court. It would be very much better, when dealing with the question of combing out the young colliers, instead of having a Colliery Court, which is more or less balanced by the employers interested on the one side and the trade union's interest on the other, if you simply laid down in your new Bill absolutely definite, rigid lines as to the ages within which men should be combed out, and it would then be very much better to leave it to a perfectly independent body or individual in the different localities merely to decide the simple fact as to whether a man is or is not within the particular category. One knows perfectly well what has happened over these tribunals at Colliery Courts again and again. That is to say, the manager of a particular pit is anxious to preserve there a certain friend. He bargains with the
  96
  representative of the trade union to let him have certain of his friends in the mine there, and the Colliery Court has not worked as a successful piece of machinery.
  There is something else which I hope will be provided in the Bill. Under the existing Military Service Acts managers of collieries are required, on Forms 18 and 20, to give particulars of men who have come into the colliery. There are collieries within my own personal knowledge where the returns that have been given under Forms 18 and 20 do not include anything like all the men who have come into those particular collieries since 4th August, 1914. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take power in the new Bill—and I say this to him advisedly—to see that the books of the colliery are themselves produced before whatever authority is decided on for the combing out, and that he will not trust to a mere extract from those books. That will make a difference of a great many thousands of men in all the coal-fields of the country. In common with my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, I was hoping that we should have heard something a little more definite with regard to what has transpired at the Conferences with the trade union. For the right hon. Gentleman to talk as he has done this afternoon, and as has been done in official statements which have emanated from his Department, about a practical agreement being arrived at, when at the same time he tells us that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are standing out, is really, if I may say so with respect, playing with the House on this important matter.
  Sir A. GEDDES: I did not think that I said anything about agreement, practical or otherwise, nor have any statements been issued by me.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I took it that the statements, such, for instance, as the statement in the "Times" to-day, had emanated directly from the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If that is not so, I entirely withdraw. But certainly, I gathered from the statement in the "Times" to-day and from different statements which have appeared within the last few days, that they were official, because it was announced the other day that there would be an official statement issued as to these proceedings, and I took it that these were in fact official statements. Of course, if that is not so, I withdraw entirely what I have said.
  Sir A. GEDDES: So far there has been no opportunity for agreement because the discussion is merely proceeding.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I will merely pass on to make the point which I was making, that to talk of any possibility of agreement until you can get the men who are members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers is an absurdity so far as the engineers are concerned. I have taken the view from the very beginning that this Government and the late Government have blundered most flagrantly and egregiously in the way in which they have dealt with labour. Instead of either making a direct appeal to the great rank and file of the workers of this country on the one side, or dealing with the solid, old, trusted representative leaders, they have done neither. They have dealt with them as with the miners. More than once we have had the attempt to deal with the miners through a body of delegates who have been pitchforked into their positions by the caucuses of the syndicalists and the pacifists of that trade. They are dealing with the engineering trade and with munitions trades in precisely the same way. They are dealing with this delegate type, a body of mushroom growth within the period of the War, a body that has been pitchforked there, not only by the caucuses of the syndicalists and the pacifists, but the caucuses of the Sinn Feiners. They have committed, to my mind, the appalling blunder, following upon the Coventry trouble, of getting employers to make arrangements for the recognition of the shop steward. It is a vital blunder for this reason, that it gives recognition for all negotiation to the men who are not responsible as trustees for the finances of the trade union.
  Mr. ROCH: Surely my hon. Friend must be aware that this was done by the Ministry of Munitions.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I am not quibbling about Government Departments. I am talking about the blunders made by this Government and the previous Government. It is no reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman here, except in so far as he may have been a party to it. But I am talking about the broad, essential blunder, in my view, that has been committed by this Government and the late Government in dealing with war labour. The great distinction between dealing with those who are responsible as trustees for the funds of the union, like the per-
  98
  manent officials, and the executive committee, and dealing with a body of shop stewards, who are not so responsible, is I this, that you find throughout the history of trade unionists that where there was power to call a strike without any liability in regard to funds the strike has been called. This has always been the case where you have had these delegated bodies. Take the case of the South Wales miners. Three times within the period of the War strikes have been asked for that have not been asked for by the executive committee of the South Wales miners. They have been asked for by the monthly meetings of the delegates. Invariably the executive of the South Wales miners set their faces against any strike. In the first case the Government have done this with regard to shop stewards, and in my view, and with my intimate experience of the trade union world, the sooner for the sake of the men, and for the sake of carrying on industry for the purposes of the War, they undo that blunder the better. The fact is that the Government have no men handling these things who have the necessary personal knowledge of these matters. The result is that they are afraid.
  They were afraid of the South Wales miners. They laughed at me when I told them last May that the miners in South Wales at the pit-head had passed resolutions in favour of themselves being combed out. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself, when Director of Recruiting, thought it was a pure fantasy of some wild Member of Parliament. Bat we had then at the pit-heads meetings, as the House knows, passing those resolutions, and at the very time threatened by the activities of the pacifists to have a strike, if they went on with the combing out; the Government were nervous about the prospect in view, but we fought them and beat them hollow. If the Government would just take their courage in both their hands and appeal direct to the heart of the workers on this point, they can snap their fingers at shop steward or delegate, or pacifist., or Sinn Feiner, or syndicalist, or any others. The heart of the workers in this country is more definitely in this War than the vast majority of this House, and, instead of the right hon. Gentleman coming here and saying that he very much regretted that the pacifists are already seeking to create trouble in the munition factories, if he Will go to the other Departments in the Government who are

  99
  responsible for the administration of the criminal law and see that the powers which the Government have taken under the Defence of the Realm Act are used, he would find approval not only from this House and from the general body of opinion in the country, but he would find an overwhelming endorsement from the great body of the workers in those particular trades. I commend that policy quite earnestly to the right hon. Gentleman. There is one other point with regard to the statement to which we have listened. I heard with profound regret the decision that nothing is to be done in regard to recruiting in Ireland. I did hope that we were going to have some indication as to precisely what were the powers to be taken under this Bill. I hope that, when we get it, it will be a decision to get a clean cut up to a certain age.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I listened with great attention to the speech this afternoon from the Minister of National Service. I think the House of Commons ought to be grateful to him for the information which he has given us. He has given us, at any rate, a great deal of information that will be acceptable to the House, and that is helpful in order to enable them to form ideas with regard to the future of the War and its prosecution. I was present at the trade union meetings that have been animadverted on by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, who told us, in this House, that these meetings of trade unions were getting the whole of the information while only a portion of it was given to the House of Commons. It was in my capacity of a trade unionist that. I attended those meetings or Conferences, but I say here, to-day, as Member for Barrow-in-Furness, that the information given to the trade unions was information which, in my judgment, was exceedingly helpful to this country, enabling as it did those delegates who were present to carry much of the information to those they were representing, in order to enable them to form such a view of the War as it is at present, and as to its future possibilities, as would bring about in them a frame of mind that would prompt them to still greater sacrifices to win the War. If anybody is to be blamed for making a statement of that kind, then of course the new Minister of National Service is open to be gravely blamed; but I venture to say that in the speech which he has delivered
  100
  to-day the right hon. Gentleman has given at least twice or three times the amount of information that was given to the trade union delegates at the Conference. [An HON. MEMBER: ["No 1"] Probably that represents the hon. Member's view, but I say, knowing these delegates intimately for a great number of years, that the speech Which was made to them, and the information which was imparted, had a real effect upon their minds and in influencing their views. I know, of course, that there are some in the trade union movement who hold an opposite view from that which I do in regard to the War. I myself believe in the War. and I desire to help the country through its difficulties in order to encompass a successful issue of this great struggle.
  I am aware, I say, that there are men in the trade union movement who hold a different view from mine; still, I repeat that the information which was given to these delegates at. the Conference will, I believe, not only help to strengthen the minds of those who were present at that Conference, but will enable them, in turn, to hold meetings among the men, and show them the position in which matters stand with regard to the War. These delegates have been put in a position to show the workers that the transfer of large masses of German troops from the Russian front to the Western front in France, Flanders, and Italy, must add greatly to the difficulties of the Allies in this stage of the War. It is of the last importance that the people should be made to realise the enormous strain that is likely to be put upon the British, French, and Belgian Armies, and it is necessary, too, that the workers of this country should be shown why it is that they are asked to do their share, and should be led to understand, know, and realise why it is an increased number of men are to be taken into the Army. I am confident that as soon as the gravity of the situation is understood by the workmen of this country there will be no disinclination to join the Army, or to do their share in bringing about a successful issue to the War. The case as it has been put by the Minister of National Service in this House is simple, clear, and understandable, and it shows why it is necessary that men should take service in the Army. The decision which has been arrived at by the Minister is one which is at any rate worthy of consideration, and, what is more, I believe it will receive

  101
  support in all parts of the country. At any rate, I believe that is the view so far as the trade unions are concerned.
  It has been said that there has been one exception. The exception is a continual exception. It is not so very long ago that there were Conferences with regard to the institution of what are known as shop stewards. The Engineers' Union took part in that up to a certain point, and then retired from the whole business. Even in this Conference to which I have been referring the chairman of the executive council stated that the society which he had the honour to represent was in favour of the proposal of the Minister of National Service to meet members of the labour movement in sections. Since then, of course, there have been, I suppose, some contrary decision of the executive; but, in any case, I believe that with regard to the engineers it may be that they will have special points to put, and if they were to take advantage of any future Conference, along with other trade unions similar to theirs, I see no objection to their doing that. After all, there are other unions besides the engineers' union interested, and I think it is unreasonable to assume that the Minister can meet each trade union separately, for, if that were the case, he would never be done at all. Seeing that there are many other unions who follow exactly the same calling, and which have exactly the same interests at stake, it seems to me that the least the engineers' union can do is to act in unity with other organisations, and state their case on the matters that arise. After all, the Conference was held with a view to imparting information, and with a view to ascertaining what was likely to be in the Clauses of the Bill, while, of course, indicating why fresh men should be called for the Army. I believe that it is in the interests of the country that the great bulk of trade union workers should realise the urgent necessity there is for an increase of men for the Army, and I believe that any opposition that may exist at the present moment will pass away, and that the people of this country, as the previous speaker has pointed out, will rally to the support of the Government, so that the War may be carried to a victorious conclusion.
  Captain O'NEILL: There is one point in connection with this Debate on which, as an Irish Unionist Member, I feel that something should be said. So far I have only heard one Member refer to it, and it was the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite
  102
  (Mr. C. Edwards), who said, towards the end of his observations, that he was sorry to see that the Government had no intention whatever of applying compulsory service to Ireland. I, in common with every other Member of this House, was greatly interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I listened to it with close attention. I must say that he went further than I expected. He did not confine himself to a survey of the immediate needs of his own Department; he went far beyond that. He entered into matters of high policy. He touched upon the effect upon the War which the defection of Russia will have. He touched upon. the numbers of men which the Germans will be able to transfer from East to West, and his speech comprised a large number of very interesting and very vital questions far outside mere matters of National Service in this country. Therefore, the question of Ireland and its relation to compulsory service is a question of high policy. The question of Ireland, in this Debate especially, since it has been so specifically referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, is one of great importance and may be referred to. The right hon. Gentleman stated there were three alternatives in connection with the raising of the number of men required, and the third alternative, he said, was to extend compulsory service to Ireland, but he never told us why the Government would have nothing to do with compulsory service in Ireland. He gave no explanation why it was thought to be undesirable, or as to why the Government had decided to withhold Conscription from Ireland. He merely stated that the same causes operate now with regard to that question as operated when the Military Service Acts were being introduced into this House. The same causes! Why, has not the War made any advance since 1916? Has nothing happened to make the number of men available in Ireland more vital now than two years ago? The principal reason given against Conscription for Ireland in January, 1916, was that the Military Service Bill was nothing but the fulfilment of a pledge by the late Prime Minister, and it was said, that being so, the pledge did not refer to Ireland, and therefore it was absurd to include Ireland. That reason does not operate now.
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, the Leader of the Nationalist party, based his opposition to Conscription in Ireland merely upon the ground

  103
  of expediency. He did not oppose Conscription for Ireland because he was opposed to the principle, but declared in this House that he was opposed to Conscription for Ireland simply and solely because it was a question of expediency, and he considered that at that time Ireland had produced under the voluntary system the number of men which had been asked from her. The then Chief Secretary, in a very eloquent speech in that Debate, said that it would be impossible, at any rate undesirable, to bring in compulsory service for Ireland, because Ireland was producing 1,000 men a week. Is Ireland producing 1,000 men a week now? Do the same causes operate now that operated two years ago, in 1916? The right hon. Gentleman dismissed the whole question of Ireland with the expression, "We have nothing to do with Ireland, and the causes which operated in 1916 operate to-day." If I may say so, it was one of the weakest points in an otherwise admirable speech, and the right hon. Gentleman gave no conclusive reason for leaving Ireland without compulsory service. I do not wish to go into details as to whether one part of Ireland has done better than another part of the country, because I am concerned with a much wider and more important question than that. I submit that Ireland as a whole has not done her part in the War. It was with grief and shame that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say to-day, when he gave the percentages of the different parts of the Empire of men enrolled for the Army, state that Ireland—whose sons, we know, are as gallant as those from any other part of the Empire — has only sent 2 per cent. of the forces which have been serving at the front in the War. Only 2 per cent. of the population of Ireland, and as far as I know, although it is roughly 10 per cent. of the population of Great Britain, it has only produced that percentage of soldiers. But I do not want to blame the Irish people for this. Not a bit of it. Why, every great country in a crisis of this kind has got to adopt Conscription. I do not say that because they have not come forward they are necessarily cowards. They are nothing of the sort. The people who are the cowards are the Government, who will not act. They are the people who are the cowards, not the Irishmen. Why, the Germans have
  104
  had to adopt Conscription, and the English have had to adopt Conscription. In this country we could not say that, because the married men did not come forward without a pledge that they were cowards. That is not the point at all. Conscription has come to be in a war of this magnitude a question far above that. We know, and experience has told us so over and over again, that it is utterly impossible to get a country to do its full share of the War without Conscription. So that I do not cast any aspersions upon the Irish for not having come forward without compulsion, because compulsion is necessary for every country which has entered into this War.
  There was this one other point which touched upon this question of Ireland, and which struck me very much in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, I did not hear the end of the speech, because I had to go out of the House, but I think I heard the part of it which dealt with the larger question of policy under which, of course, this question of Ireland must be grouped. I think the only occasion during his speech in which the right hon. Gentleman really let himself go, and in which he became emphatic and dealt with the question with the heat of his inner feelings, was when he was telling the House of his contempt for the young men in the munition factories who were trying to shirk and who would not come forward, and who, by so shirking and neglecting to come forward, were practically telling their fathers and their younger brothers that they could go to the front as long as those people remained safely and securely in the munition factories. He used strong language about them, but he never said anything about the men in Ireland. I must say that, little as I approve of any action of the kind which young men in munition factories in England may take, and much as I deprecate any attempt on their part to shirk or not to fall in with the provisions of this Bill, at the same time I do feel, and the House cannot help feeling, and the country must realise, that so long as there are in Ireland 200,000 young, able-bodied men whom hitherto the Government have not had the courage to compel to come forward —as long as those men are there how can the right hon. Gentleman consistently use his eloquence against those munitioneers in England who do not conic forward and who shirk and try to hide behind their fathers and young brothers? I have said

  105
  all I intend to say on this occasion on this matter. I do think, and the party which I represent do feel, that this is a question which was bound to be touched upon today, and I have the authority of my hon. Friends who sit near me and of the Irish Unionist party to say that when this Bill comes forward for Second Reading we intend to put down an Amendment the effect of which will be to urge that compulsory service should be applied to Ireland.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: In reference to the remarks which have been made with such clearness by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I still look upon Ireland as a reserve of fighting men in the common cause. The timidity of Governments and the muddling of Governments is quite as much responsible for the state of affairs in Ireland to-day—more responsible, indeed—than any lack of the fighting spirit of a race that is to be found on every battlefield doing its duty wherever the Flag is; and it is a strange thing that in the American Army, which is now pouring across the Atlantic to share with us the burden not only of a common cause but of a common race, a larger percentage of Irishmen arc found among the ranks of the American Army than there are Irishmen in proportion to the total population of the United States. That is not only a fine tribute to the qualities of the Irish race as fighting men, but it is a lesson to Irishmen in Ireland itself that they cannot long neglect. Ireland must ultimately come in, either, I hope, by consent or be compelled to come in. It is now encircled with Allies all of whom have adopted Conscription, and in many cases in its most drastic form. The Irish people, as far as the aspirations of the majority are concerned, have had the all but unanimous support of the Dominions and of the United States. That support is still there on one great issue, but that issue is now overshadowed by the menace that threatens this Kingdom and Ireland and the Empire and the common cause of civilisation. I, therefore, say that Ireland must still be looked upon as a reserve of fighting men, and it remains for the Government, either by means of wise statesmanship following the deliberations of the Convention, if, as I hope, they are effective, or for them to take such steps
  106
  as will make Irishmen of the future proud of the conduct of Irishmen as to their part in the War. So much for Ireland.
  I rose to pay my tribute of congratulation to what I think is the illuminating and courageous speech made by the Minister of National Service. I had the honour of serving under him for some time. He brings to bear on this question of recruiting for the Army and essential industries an intimate knowledge both of the military side and of the civilian side, and he has a very excellent record as a soldier himself. He has put before us to-day a scheme which is courageous and a scheme which I hope will be productive of the man-power of this country which the Allied cause sorely needs. But I warn him, speaking with considerable experience of Front Bench speeches on the First and Second Readings of Bills, that, however courageous he may be, unless he keeps his War Cabinet up to the mark they will let him down. The first strike of those youths of twenty for privileges which their fathers and some of their grandfathers do not claim might intimidate the Government. I hope he will stick to his guns, and rather resign than give way one iota from the courageous speech lie has outlined to-day. I say that for another reason. The numbers he speaks of to me are not adequate to the demands that will be made upon our Army, especially on the Western Front. What is the position? The men he dealt with in his appeal will not be available until May or June—that is the first of them—and yet he says in his speech that the Germans can roll from the Eastern to the Western Front 950,000 trained soldiers.
  Mr. J. MASON: Not counting the prisoners in Russia.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: And, as the hon. Member for Windsor remarks, not counting the prisoners they may get from Russia. That figure also does not count the Russians who may be compelled to serve in the German Army. Men who are starving may serve for a meal a day, and the German officer, to give the devil his due, has been able to make first-class fighting material out of every country he has been successful in conquering. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Germans could roll from the Eastern to the Western Front 950,000 trained soldiers. To meet that he has the ordinary incoming flow of recruits from the usual sources, and, in addition, some 400,000 or

  107
  450,000 men he expects to get during this year under this Bill. The first of those 450,000 men cannot be ready until May or June, and before May or June I am one of those who believe that this country will pass through a valley of shadows which it has never seen or felt before. We are now on the Western Front and on the Salonika Front, for all practical purposes, on the defensive. From July, 1916, until recently we have been on the offensive. Now we are oh the defensive. That is a great strategical change, brought about, no doubt, by the Russian collapse and the Italian reverse, both having effects in a way Which, if I may say so, the ordinary Member of this House does not seem to realise. I look upon the future with the greatest possible anxiety. My one criticism of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not presented to this House the sources from which he can with certainty claim to get an adequate number of men. He says himself we can look forward to being at least on equal terms with, the enemy if the necessary reinforcements are found, but is that sufficient security for the common cause to be only on equal terms with an enemy that now controls a larger number of trained soldiers—and I emphasise the word "trained"—and a larger number of trained officers than it has ever before commanded? I said we were on the defensive. We are bound to be on the defensive until the Americans come in in sufficiently large numbers to help us out. I have no particular knowledge that is not open to any Member of the House, but I do know something of the United States and of its system of recruiting, and I know something about tonnage, and I know of the decreasing tonnage, and that it is not possible on the tonnage we have got to-day, or that we can foresee, for the Americans to be in effective strength to enable us to take up again the offensive, which is the only way to win the War, until well on towards the end -of this year. That is a very serious outlook for the gallant soldiers who are struggling on every front, and particularly on the Salonika and Western Fronts, but as this is the First Reading of a Bill that I hope will be carried through' the House, I do not delay the House further.
  I whole-heartedly congratulate the Minister on his Bill, subject to the criticism I have made. After all, he approaches the question from the point of view of honesty,
  108
  and earnestly desiring to secure the best men possible for the Navy and the Army, and also to maintain the essential industries of this country. He is establishing a flow into the Army of young men, and he is establishing a returning tide of soldiers from the Army back into the essential industries. He has the knowledge both military and civilian, and he has the courage. His courage is shown especially in those remarks that appeal to me as a member of that great organisation called the Comrades of the Great War, whose particular duty it is to assist the discharged and disabled sailors and soldiers. For the eloquent words he used about those gallant men I thank him. I would like to see take that old fraud, the Review of Exceptions Act—
  Mr. HOGGE: For which you voted.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, for which I voted, because the interests of the millions at the front are even to-day more important than the interests of tens of thousands of discharged soldiers at home, and I myself would think little of a discharged soldier who was not willing to go back to the Colours if and when the resources of those who have not already gone have been exhausted. I voted for that Bill because I was told it was essential to get the 100,000 men under it to save the situation. I believe now I was deceived in the statement. [An HON. MEMBER "Yes!"] But, even so, I have not the advantage of the lion. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) of regularly voting against the Government, and getting in these days what is a sinister reputation, namely, of refusing to assist the soldiers at the front. I will vote again on a statement of the Minister with authority, that men are needed to reinforce the men at the front. To me at any rate, now and at all times, the soldiers who are bearing the burden of this Empire and the common cause of civilisation are first, and, therefore, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic words about discharged and disabled soldiers, and especially about those wounded heroes whom he is going to save from returning again to the trenches with broken nerves after the second wound, and replacing them with these fresh, healthy young fellows, who I for one never accused of being shirkers, who have been rather petted and pampered, until they have begun to believe that they are doing work which is really of more im-

  109
  portance than fighting for their country. It is for the House of Commons, and particularly the War Cabinet, to back up the Minister's efforts to reinforce the men in the field, to maintain our essential industries, and to equalise the splendid burdens Of a fateful war.
  Sir J. D. REES: The speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire was so totally destructive and so totally non-constructive that I was very glad when I heard him speak that he was the critic and not the controller of national labour. He twitted my right hon. Friend with having just discovered that the Navy was the chief arm of this country, but he himself has not yet discovered that in the Napoleonic Wars to which ho referred England was not a small military power, but, relatively to others, a considerable military power, and that sea-power was not able to conclude the war any more than it is now. I leave my hon. Friend and his strategy. I was glad to hear the Minister draw the interesting picture he did of the condition of the nation at war. It was comforting to hear him say that our system of recruiting was not broken down, and I was extremely gratified to hear him say, as he practically did, that the Review of Exceptions Act— for large numbers of my Constituents certainly have a very strong objection to the Act—will be retained only for the purpose of dealing with cases of fraud upon recruitment. I understand he went almost as far as that, and. if that is so, I think it will go far to relieve a very strong feeling which I know exists in the Midlands. While I am on this, may I ask him, do I rightly understand that no soldier who has been invalided and discharged, after having served in France, is liable now to be called upon again to serve with the Colours? I believe that is so, and yet I confess I do not know where to refer for the chapter and verse to that effect. If that really is the case, it would be gratifying to have it on authority, and possibly my right bon. Friend will be able to give that assurance. If he can, I shall be glad to hear it.
  Sir A. GEDDES: It is an Instruction; it is not a legal provision. It is an Instruction which is faithfully carried out.
  Sir J. D. R EES: I welcome that assurance, and I feel sure that when it is reported it will be received with general gratification. Then my right hon. Friend said he had further considered the case of the one-man business men, and he said,
  110
  if I understood him rightly, that his Department were arranging with the One-man Business Federation to get as much of the work as possible of these one-man business men who were called up done by men of lower categories. That, I think, would prove m practice somewhat difficult of execution. However, I have profound confidence in my right hon. Friend, and I do not despair of his being able to carry it out. He said, I understand, that in future steps are to be taken to prevent any fresh men coining in and taking the business of any of these one-man business men who go to the front. But will not that also be very difficult to carry out? On some future occasion—we do not want details on First Reading—1 hope he will tell us how he proposes to implement these pledges, which seem to me rather difficult of execution. Licences are only to be given in such cases to men who come in to do the work in such businesses, and none are to be given to aliens. Very good. What steps will also be taken to place upon their legs, to refit for the conduct of their business, these men? Will they have any claim upon the Civil Liabilities Committee In what position will they be in this respect? Those arc also questions which I hope will he answered in detail on one of the subsequent occasions on which this Bill will be before the House.
  I ventured to interrupt my right hon. Friend for a moment to ask him whether the provisions of which he now speaks are in addition to, or in cancellation of, the circular of 17th December by the Board of Trade, regarding one-man businesses. He said, as I expected, that they were merely supplementary in Character. Having studied that circular with some care, I cannot see that it carries out the original undertaking that, in the evens; of businesses which were the sole mears of support to the proprietors' wives and families being closed if the proprietors were taken for military service, such proprietors would be eligible for—I think almost entitled to—exemption. It is not my case to press for exemption, but that apparently was a pledge, and, looking through this circular, which still holds good after my right hon. Friend's speech to-day, I find that it deals rather—in fact, I think it almost deals exclusively—with what steps are to be taken with the business of the man when he is gone. There are large numbers of men in my Constituency who think that they ought not to go. That is a different issue. I under-

  111
  stand from this very circular that such people in cases of serious hardship will be entitled to exemption, and if they have not obtained exemption the issue of this circular entitles them to a rehearing. But I know cases where men have applied for rehearing and have found it very hard to get, and, indeed, have not got it, and when it has been got have not got their exemption. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider this circular rather closely, together with the pledges he has been good enough to make to-day, and to consider whether they were given a pledge that they should not be called up, and whether from that point of view, and not only from the point of view of what is to heroine of their business when they are called up, they have not a claim for his consideration.
  I am anxious not to trench upon what is, at any rate, the custom of this House, it not the order, not to enter into details upon a First Reading, but I wish to refer quite briefly to a case of exemption. It might be thought that that is a detail, but I submit that when the action of certain tribunals has produced a feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction from Perth to Peterborough, and from Nairn to Nottingham, it is not a small local matter, and that anything that produces a feeling of injustice in the hearts of those who are called upon to fight for their country, and who are willing to go, and are not shirkers—I am not speaking for men who are skirkers or for conscientious objectors or anything of that sort—it is necessary that they should not be affronted by the spectacle of which they and I cannot approve. Quite lately—and this case has been noised abroad — a Commissioner for live-stock and five Sub-Commissioners for live-stock were appointed in,Scotland from men of military age at considerable salaries—men whose places could have been taken by innumerable other farmers not of military age in Scotland, which is a country full of the best farmers. Those men were given large salaries. They did not volunteer, and when Conscription came they obtained exemptions. The cases of those men, which I will not pursue any further to-day, I have mentioned to the Secretary for Scotland, who replied that the Department concerned is the Food Department, and therefore I have put down a question for the Food Department. But, I submit, it is relevant to the last degree to
  112
  this present Bill. This Bill is to provide, inter alia, for the cancellation, if necessary, of exemptions given by heads of Departments. Here are exemptions given by heads of Departments that offend the conscience of a gallant nation, the Scottish, and the rumour of which at least has passed down to the Midlands. This case should be looked into to see whether Mr. McDougall and his assistants are really of military age, and, if so, why they were appointed, and why they were given exemption. I should be glad if anything can be said on this case. The right hon. Gentleman should have known of it, and I dare say he does, and in spite of my being referred to the Food Controller, I shall want to know what is the attitude of the Food Controller, of the Under-Secretary for War, and of the Minister for National Service. I assure all three—and I hope one of them will answer—that our gallant fellow citizens who are doing their duty are affronted by what has happened in this case, and I assure my right hon. Friend that it requires his most careful consideration.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: In a very few words I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make it plain as to whether it is contemplated making any change towards the men exempted on the ground of being wholly engaged in agriculture.? I do not claim any favouritism for the industry of which I am a member, but I do feel it to be my duty to point out that while agriculturists will do their utmost to provide the food which is absolutely necessary for the people, and needed to win the War, if there is any further depletion of the men engaged in agriculture it cannot but be at the expense of that production. Having regard to the dire need for food at the present time, I venture to say such a course as I have indicated would be disastrous. I am aware that much is being done to secure women's help in agriculture. That help is valuable so far as it goes. In some parts, too, German prisoners are being utilised for the same purpose. I think it might go still further. Even then, it is absolutely necessary to have these men who have been exempted in order to superintend, teach, and lead the classes which I have mentioned who are going forward to help and engage in the industry. Another point I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember is that just at present because of the very large enlistment of shoeing smiths and machinists

  113
  it is difficult for the farmers to get their horses shod, their implements repaired, and their wagons rendered fit to do their work. Any further depletion of this class of men would also tend to hinder that full production of food which we, connected with the agricultural industry, are all labouring to promote. We feel that. the appeal to the country and the steps to be taken to get more men are necessary absolutely if we are to win the War—a matter upon which we have all set our hearts. We recognise, too, the importance of equality of sacrifice. But I must also emphasise the fact that if more men are taken from the land it can only lie at the expense of the increase of production.
  May I mention another point which may appear insignificant, but, as is known, we want to bring all the rabbits we have in the country into the market for human consumption. Rabbit trappers have been taken away. That may be thought to be necessary; still it will have its effect upon the rabbit problem. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to secure the help of returned soldiers who are unfit for further service, that they may be encouraged to engage in these agricultural classes of work, and thereby add to the increased production which we are all endeavouring to promote. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make clear what is the attitude of the Government on these several matters, because it is most desirable that confidence should be maintained, and that all those engaged in producing food should have the certain knowledge that in the enormously increased effort which is being put forth they Will not be hindered by the further withdrawal of the men absolutely indispensable to accomplish the full object we have in view. I hope, also, that, in reference to the men engaged in single trades, something will be said or done. Many very severe hardships have occurred in that direction, and the distribution of food and the necessaries of life have been hindered, in many cases rather seriously, by the withdrawal of these men. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to avoid as far as possible anything further in that direction. My object, however, was just to say that if more men are taken from agriculture it will be, it appears to me, at the expense of the increase of food production, which is so necessary for the country, and which those engaged in agriculture are doing their best to provide.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I should like to add my word of congratulation to that which has already proceeded from several speakers on the lucidity of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The statement which he has made to day is one of extraordinary importance. We can thank him for at last having brought before the House the proposals he has made; and which he has come to the conclusion are best fitted to meet the case. I think it is also necessary to point out that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman really is a grave indictment of the Government policy in the last year or year and a half in dealing with this question. Long before the Russian collapse the late Government were perfectly aware that there was going to be this question of the shortage of man-power at the end of 1917. The present Government were also reminded, not once but a dozen times, by everyone who took an interest. in this question of keeping the Armies in the field up to strength, of the dangers which would assuredly come upon this country unless the Government fearlessly faced the issue and provided the drafts to fill up the Armies as casualties occurred. For all these months nothing was done, anti the reason I rise is solely this: The House of Commons as a whole is not aware of the fact of how criminal it is to send untrained men into the fighting line. I can conceive of no greater crime towards our fellow-countrymen than to call them up for a few weeks, or a few months, as has been sometimes the case, and then to pitchfork them into the battlefield. Over and over again one has seen scores and scores of cases where the untrained man has been the man to go down, through sickness, or casualty, from lack of physical training, and from lack of discipline. Therefore, if we are really going to meet this question it is imperative that the right hon. Gentleman should get busy at once.
  I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I think he indicated partially what he is going to do—that he should take steps to warn every single industry at the earliest possible moment that he is going to withdraw men from that industry. For instance, the moment he has got the idea let him give the warning to the industries so that they can begin to train men or women for those jobs at present being carried on by young, unskilled men. This seems to me to be the only way really to organise this question. The right hon. Gentleman is in this difficulty: lie has told

  115
  us of the enormous accretion to the power of the German armies on the Western Front which we may expect to come from the East. Germany is being enabled, as we have been told, practically to bring 1,000,000 extra men to the Western Front. It may be more by the release of prisoners in Russia; by various obvious means it may be a considerably greater figure. As against this the right hon. Gentleman has come down to the House to-day to propose raising something like 420,000 to 430,000 men. I want to remind the House that every country which goes through this ghastly struggle from time to time feels that the burden which it is bearing is so great that it is almost impossible to go on. But I do think we ought to remember what is the comparative man-power of this nation of super-men—as these Germans like to believe they are!—compared with the total man-power of France and ourselves—leaving out of account the other nations. When the War broke out the white man-power of France was about 40,000,000 souls, and the white man-power of the British Empire was something like 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 of white souls. The consequence is that we have had this as a margin: compared with the British Empire and France, Germany's white man-power was as seventy to a hundred—for the German man-power may be put at 70,000,000. All along, therefore, we have had the advantage of Germany in manpower — that is as between France and ourselves compared with Germany. When we see the United States coming in with her hundred million of inhabitants it brings the ratio of the two great Western Powers plus the United States to this 200 against seventy. When one listens to the miserable speeches which are made from the bench immediately behind me by those who are always trying to impair the unity of this country and suggesting that we cannot see this thing through, I ask them, is it the fact that seventy Germans are better men on the battlefield, that German science and mechanism is greater to the extent I have indicated, that seventy Germans can beat 200 Anglo-Saxons and Frenchmen? The point is one which indicates that the Germans had done far more and have made greater sacrifices of their man-power than we have.
  7.0 P.M
  I do not know how far the eye of the right hon. Gentleman has wandered, and whether he has been able to look into the question of raising man-power from our
  116
  tropical possessions in Africa. I know a great deal has been done in connection with this matter for labour in France, but it always has seemed to me a surprising fact that we have not done more to recruit ourArmies fighting in hot climates from these sources of admirable fighting men. We have a very large number of wounded officers who could possibly train these men at short notice, and it seems to me an amazing thing that more has not been done. Every 50,000 men sent to Mesopotamia or Palestine weakens by that much man-power our position on the main fronts. May I express the hope that we may possibly hear something in this connection. We have to remember that over and above our white man-power the British Empire supplies a vast field which is not possessed by our enemies, and which as yet has hardly been tapped at all. I pass from that to another question. I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has at last listened to the counsel of those who have been advising the Government all this time with regard to the combing out of the home Armies. The thing has been nothing but a scandal all these years. You have had all these lame ducks and flat-footed individuals going about wasting the taxpayers' money, being kept in uniform when they would have been much better kept in civil employment. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman is going into this matter in a. strenuous manner. I hope his comb is to go through very thoroughly. There are scores of different ways in which women might be introduced. For instance, I believe that in the medical service—I know that this is the opinion of skilled nurses who have told me—that in many cases women could undertake the work that men are now doing. Because, said these nurses, we have got to make many of these arrangements now. They are ready to do it, and I believe it can be done. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman may feel—because we never know—that with increased German man-power there may be considered an invasion of this country, it may be that the home military authorities will be reluctant to allow a lot of men to go away who are really of very, very little good as soldiers. I want to refer to what I have for the last two years mentioned in this House—that is the question of the volunteers. I have never been able to understand why the

  117
  Government in this great crisis have not seen their way to introduce in regard to the volunteers an element of compulsion, or, rather I should say, why they have not changed the present volunteer system into a compulsory one. We all remember the training the Territorial Force went through before the War, when ten drills a year was considered sufficient with a fortnight in camp and limited musketry practice. Is it not obvious that by training the volunteers on Saturday afternoons, on occasional evenings, and on Sundays in musketry and other forms of training, we should be able to get a very much more efficient force than under the old Territorial system? The Government ought to consider a compulsory system under which they would form all the fit men who are older than the average recruit into a national body, which in an emergency could take the place of those who are now on home service. Are these men now being organised in order that they could be sent at short notice to vital points on the East Coast? It seems to me that there has been woeful neglect on this subject, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will talk this matter over very seriously with the War Office. You might easily raise a division in London which could be called up in twelve hours to go to any danger post, and thus provide a real safeguard against a possible invasion.
  With regard to Ireland, I have never been able to understand why that country has been treated in such an exceptional manner from the start. There was only one reason which could have influenced the Government, and that was the position of the United States. The Government may have had strong reasons for thinking that the United States was opposed to Irish Conscription, and that may have been the reason why during all these long months Ireland has not been giving equality of sacrifice. But when the United States came into the War that reason went, for the United States are now conscripting not only English, Scottish, and Welsh, but Irishmen as well, and they are not asking where they come from. The messages which have reached us show really what their views are on this subject. Can the Government, for party or sentimental reasons, continue to go along on this path? I am informed that a great deal of the unsettlement in this country has been due to the fact that the Government have not faced the Irish question. Why on earth should a man, who is absolutely essential
  118
  to his business, be sent to the War while men of nineteen, twenty, and twenty-five, in the prime of life in Ireland have never yet been conscripted? What is the real truth of the matter? I imagine that the Government have been afraid to introduce Conscription in Ireland, and what has been the cost to this country? It has cost us an Army of Occupation, and we have to have so many trained men there all the time because young Ireland is bubbling over with military enthusiasm and has been drilling and learning military arts.
  When the Irish Rebellion took place, prior to the late Prime Minister's visit to Ireland and opening up negotiations with the Irish rebels, the whole of Ireland was expecting Conscription, and there is no doubt whatever that the mere fact that the Government discriminated in this way all the time made the Irish problem more difficult. The more you give way to Ireland, and say that Ireland is the only country throughout the length and breadth of the Empire where Conscription is not to be, so long as they feel that, they feel all the time that they have got the Government by the throat, and they do not dare to act. We have now reached a period of the War when these sentimental reasons ought not to influence us, because we have reached a position when the man-power of this country is fully employed and our fighting forces are very nearly exhausted. You have in Ireland a great untapped source of supply, and you have also got there an Army of Occupation. You can free both those supplies and get anything between 280,000 and 400,000 men from those two sources if the Government had the courage to act. But if the Government hesitate any longer they will not find their task any easier in the days to come. There are a great many people in this House, and in the country, who are desirous of seeing the Irish question settled, but if Ireland is to be divorced entirely from this country of her own will and by her own threats against the Government, if she is to be divorced from us during this great struggle, haw can anybody believe it will be advisable for us to come to any sort of arrangement in the future with Ireland
  We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Glamorgan (Mr. C. Edwards), and he pointed out that the people of this country are still absolutely just as sound at heart in regard to the War as they were on the first day we went to war, and yet they have not received that guidance from the Government which

  119
  they deserve, and the spirit of the people has always been far ahead of the courage of the Government. I hope when the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Irish question or with the industrial problem, in regard to which he used such brave words, he will realise how splendid is the spirit of this country, and how ready the people are to follow those who will lead them. If he will only do this, I believe he will get all the men he requires to see this thing through; but if we hesitate at a time when we see this great rolling army of Germany coming to the Western Front, when we know our Armies are not up to their full strength, if we hesitate and do not get to work in this country and in Ireland, this country is going to see dangerous times if half-trained men are to be flung into the battle line, for then we shall have to suffer a great number of casualties which would be absolutely needless if we were to speed up our action and show more courage in our policy.
  Mr. HOGGE: We have had a very prolonged speech from the Minister of National Service covering an extraordinary amount of ground, but he managed to conceal, as most Ministers do, speaking from that bench, the real situation which the country has got to face. One Labour Member of this House during the subsequent discussion rose to say that he had been present at the Trade Union Congress with the Minister of National Service, and he declared that the right hon. Gentleman had told the House of Commons a great deal more than he told the Trade Union Congress. I think that statement is absolutely the greatest travesty of the truth which I have ever heard expressed in this House. Personally, I know what was said at one of those Conferences, but I do not propose to repeat it, because at the particular deputation that I had the advantage of attending with the Minister of National Service he was particularly good in what he placed before that deputation; but I say deliberately that the House of Commons this afternoon has not been put in possession of the facts, and I do not think the House of Commons could be put in possession of those facts unless it met in Secret Session. If the House of Commons wishes to know the truth as I know it now from the Minister of National Service, and as those deputations of trade unions know it, if they were told exactly what I was told, then this House is
  120
  entitled to a Secret Session at which the facts can be made plain, because obviously, whatever other differences we may have, we all want as speedy a conclusion to this War as possible, with as few casualties to our own men as possible. If that could be secured, I do not suppose there would be any dividing line between hon. Members of this House. Knowing exactly what I do know, I say that the House of Commons is not in possession of the facts, and that the situation is very much more serious than has yet been indicated by any speech made this afternoon.
  The Minister of National Service is in an awkward position, for, after all, he has nothing to do with the policy which demands the men he is asked to provide. The Minister of National Service is a kind of "handyman" for the War Office and the Admiralty. It is his duty to keep his hand on the situation in the country and supply to both Services whatever they may demand without dislocating any of the essential industries of this country. Therefore, while he is not concerned with the policy but simply with the method, we in this House are concerned with the policy which makes it necessary for him to come to this House and ask for the men. I suggest that in addition to the speech we have had from my right hon. Friend, and another which we may yet have from his colleague, this Debate ought to have been opened or taken part in by some responsible member of the War Cabinet on the question of the policy which has created this new demand for men, and which ought to be justified to the House. I will take a point which has not been mentioned by the Minister which occurs to me on the question of policy. It is a point which may have struck other hon. Members and which would govern the increase of the troops. We have been talking from the point of view of German activity in the immediate and the near future on the Western front. I suppose it has occurred to a great many others besides myself that possibly there may be a great German activity on the Macedonian front, and an attempt made at the restoration of King "Tino" on the throne of Greece. Such a suggestion as that opens up the kind of thing I mean when I say we ought to have had present a Minister to justify on the ground of policy the necessity for these further troops that are to be raised.

  121
  While, therefore, this Bill, so far as I can understand, will be a very short one and will deal simply with the mechanism of a particular part of the Military Service Acts, it will only be possible on this reading and on the Second Reading to raise the question of policy. Consequently I desire to say a few things about policy. I want to insist again, as my hon. Friend who opened this Debate insisted, that the House of Commons is entitled to the information which is given so readily outside. I wonder why the Government have not come to that conclusion long ago. I would like to know what earthly reason there is why trade unionists should be summoned to get that information when they did not represent the constituencies that many of us here represent. Most of us represent constituencies which arc composed of trade unionists and for which Labour members have never been returned at all. Although we are returned by those people and although we are responsible to them for what we do, we are not taken into the confidence of the Minister for National Service, but people who do not represent the constituencies. These people, forsooth, are supplied with information which enabled them to make up their minds, and the House of Commons has the melancholy duty left to it as the last of its privileges of registering the decisions of other people.
  I should like to know why it is that the British nation is being asked all the time to bear so much of the burden. Why is the heavy hand of everything, from ships to men, from money to material, even, as my right hon. Friend knows, including food, laid upon Britain? There is a great deal of talk about America. I have always been led to believe that America is a great country, and I have been assured again this afternoon that is so. In the Recess I read that the American Army is now 1;500,000 men either in the field or in training. That statement was made by an American statesman or an American official connected with the authorities. The truth of the matter is that America will not be able to help either France or Great Britain until—as has been suggested and hinted by my right hon. Friend and has been actually said by other people in this Debate—August or September of this year; and when she is able to assist Great Britain and France the wastage on our Western Front, apart altogether from any question of an offensive, if it is at all like the average that has existed up to now,
  122
  will he such that the contribution of America will not fill up one out of every two vacant places in that line. America is training its reserve power which it is sending to our help in the form of units, and units it will be used when it comes into the field. If America were sending us men to be used as drafts either in the French or in the British Armies, then we should really be getting some assistance from America. On the contrary, so far as I understand the position, we have got to wait until the late autumn before we can have any substantial help from the American people.
  In the meantime we have got to hold the Western Front. We have got to raise more men in case France, as most of us already know, is not able to find further reserves for her line. We have got to maintain the Italian Front until the Italian Army is recreated. Everybody knows that the entire Italian Army was practically desolated in the recent disaster on the Italian Front. The Germans then captured so many guns and so much material that it will take months for the Italian Army to get back into anything like competent fighting strength. In the meantime we have got to build more ships in order to bring food to the people of this country, and we have got to have a decent distribution of that food when it is brought to this country. We have got to go on building and making guns for many of our Allies. This country has got to go on providing much material within its own shores, such as timber, in order to prevent the use of too much tonnage from abroad. Even the money that is lent to our Allies by America has got to be backed by this country. It is this country all the time that is being bled, and, when the Government come to us on the first afternoon of the Session and ask us to still further bleed the country, we only really get from the Minister the methods that are to be used in raising the men. We get no justification of policy at all. All the speeches that are made that would enable us to make up our minds about policy are made when we are not here in this House. The recent speech of the Prime Minister, for instance, with regard to the terms upon which we would be willing to negotiate peace with the German people, was made outside this House. It may or may not have a reply from the German people, and I do not very much care at the precise moment. We know that the Government had considered that speech

  123
  and that it was not the creation of the Prime Minister, but was the joint effort of the War Cabinet. It represented what the Government would be willing to do at the present time with regard to approaching Germany on the question of peace. If that is so, the search for more men, the need for more men, and the method of getting those men, ought to be justified on the grounds of policy. I protest, as I have protested often without any effect and as I will go on protesting upon every opportunity, against the slipshod and muddling way in which all these things are done. I sympathise with the Minister for National Service on having the unpleasant task put upon his shoulders of coming to the House and saying, which he does in so many words, "My duty as Minister for National Service is to comb out 450,000 men in 1918 from somewhere. I have got to get them somehow, and here are the proposals that I suggest for getting them." It is not fair that he should have that task imposed upon him. I am not sure, knowing my right hon. Friend as I do, that I would not rather put him in the place of the War Cabinet and make the War Cabinet do his work. I am sure that we should have a better policy, and they would enjoy finding the men.
  There are one or two things with regard to the methods about which I want to be quite clear, as it may shorten subsequent Debates on this Bill. I have already, as my right hon. Friend knows, taken some considerable interest in the Bill which became the Review of Exceptions Act. That Bill has been described by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood) this afternoon as "a fraud of a Bill." He admitted that he voted for it, because, as he said, he had been deceived. I do not know how it ever deceived anyone. It ought not to have deceived anybody of any sense, because it was a Bill which on the face of it and in plain words which anybody could read—and I believe my hon. Friend can at least read—sought to bring back into the Army wounded men and men suffering from neurasthenia and other organic diseases. That Bill was fought in this House, with the result that an Instruction was issued, which was not incorporated in the Act of Parliament but which was approved subsequently by the War Office, and which laid it down finally that no man who had been abroad and who had been discharged for any disability of any kind could be recalled, but that, on the contrary, he could
  124
  claim his final discharge. The Minister for National Service said that was being done, and I think it is true with exceptions. There are cases yet in which attempts are being made to call up men, even although they have been abroad. I have got a case in my pocket now which I only received by post at mid-day. I have a man's discharge certificate and his calling-up notice for the 29th of this month, and he is told he is liable to a fine or imprisonment if he does not answer the call. I have advised him not to go. I ask hon. Members to be vigilant about these cases, because, however honest the Minister may be, one does not find all over the country the same meticulous care. That type of man is beyond any further criticism. His case is met and dealt with. There are a large number of other cases, however, which are not met and are not dealt with under that Instruction. Every man who has not been overseas, but who has been discharged for the same disability for which a man who has been overseas has been discharged is liable to be recalled under the Review of Exceptions Act, not once but many times. He is entitled to exemption for one year, and then to subsequent re-examinations at intervals of six months. Some of those men are now enjoying the privilege of never knowing how long they may settle down to anything. Although they have served and have been discharged. they are subject to this recall. My right hon. Friend said some interesting things about that, and if he will answer just a few questions which can easily be answered by an affirmative or a negative I can shorten my speech very much He said that he was proposing to set up seven regional centres. and to place them in charge of regional officers. Men who are discharged in future will go to those regional offices and will be offered work of national importance? The answer to that, I think, is in the affirmative?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; discharged soldiers.
  Mr. HOGGE: That applies to men from now onwards. It leaves the men who are already out and who have been discharged disabled. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether those men will get the opportunity of going to those same offices or other equivalent offices and getting the. same offer of work of national importance as he now proposes to give to every man as and when he is discharged?
  Sir A. GEDDES: Other equivalent offices? Yes.
  Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend agrees with that. I think we may come to an agreement, and get rid of a great deal of discussion, if my right hon. Friend w ill say that all the men now inside the Review of Exceptions Act who have been discharged disabled, but who have hot been overseas, will have the same opportunity as the men now discharged of getting work of national importance. It will then at any rate be possible for every discharged man to have the offer of work of national importance?
  Sir A. GEDDESindicated assent.
  Mr. HOGGE: The next point is one on which it is not fair to ask now for an answer, "Yes'' or "No." If those discharged men, the old ones and the new ones, remain in this work of national importance, will they be recalled by re-examination to the Army before fit and eligible men are called up? It is perhaps not fair to ask for a direct answer to that question now, but will the right hon. Gentleman take note of it, and, if he likes, keep the point for the Second Reading? It is the real point at issue now. I can claim to know a number of these discharged soldiers particularly well, and what they object to mast is being called up to the Colours when fit men who should be called up remain in our munition and other factories. Therefore if my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance of that kind he would, at any rate, free the subsequent discussions on the Second Reading and in Committee on this Bill from any opposition of mine on that point. I do not say that it would reduce my opposition to zero, but on that point I would be prepared to accept a compromise, and I am perfectly certain those whom I represent would already be ready to accept it. I think it could be arranged if my right hon. Friend could say that these discharged men, having got work of national importance, so long and until they refused to do that work of national importance, having already served, will be protected from being recalled until every other fit and eligible man is called. That is a position which is perfectly fair and straightforward.
  The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has drawn attention to a case in Scotland, the details of which one need not emphasise, in which the
  126
  Board of Agriculture in Scotland in recent months has appointed men to do certain work which could be equally well done by men who have already served and who have the same kind of knowledge. All of us could produce cases of that kind which are within our own knowledge, but I will not weary the House with them at this moment. I do not want to continue the discussion on the First Reading, naturally because we have not yet seen the Bill, and it is unfair to the Minister to worry him too much on the First Reading, especially when he is recovering from the effects of his maiden speech, which all of us know takes some considerable time. We have ventured to put to him the topics which concern us most, and which, if they are met between now and the Second Reading Debate, I feel perfectly certain will make a great difference to the future progress of this Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give them his close consideration.
  Mr. KING: Throughout the discussion which has taken place this afternoon there has been expressed from various points of view a great deal of distrust of the policy of the Government in connection with this Bill. The most emphatic and the most serious charge against the Government was made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) when he stated that the facts on which this Bill was introduced had not been told to the House. They have not been told to the House, but they have been told to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, and apparently they have been told to the trade unions. They are so serious that apparently they can only be stated in this House in Secret Session. On the basis that the facts have not been told to us, we must naturally distrust the Bill now before us. I hope that some attempt will be made, either in the course of this. Debate this evening or upon the Second Reading, to face the very serious accusation which has been levelled against the Government. I am afraid that there is a great deal of ground for the statement that we are being led into a new development of our man-power policy without the facts being put before us. I noticed it in various statements that have been made during the course of the discussion. For instance, the Minister of National Service told us that
  "America was not yet in the field."

  127
  Those were his words. But the hon. Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood), whose association in the War Office is well-known, and who speaks with some authority, said
  "The American Army is now pouring across the Atlantic."
  Those were the words he used, and I took them down at the time. Which is true? I cannot believe both are true, because they are diametrically opposed to one another. The fact is clear that either the Government does not know its own mind, or that it does not know the facts, or that it will not tell the facts. I could quote various other instances. It is well known that thirteen months ago, when the present Prime Minister took office, he summoned the editors of papers to a private conference and informed them at that time, as he has informed various persons and conferences since, that Russia must be regarded as out of the War. Yet one of the excuses and reasons put before the House and the country in various quarters for a new development of policy is that Russia has defected from the cause of the Allies, or that there has been a Russian collapse. As a matter of fact there has been no Russian collapse of the Army at all. The Army of Russia to-day is holding up as many men as it ever did, and the announcement in the papers this morning is that a new recruiting policy is being started by the present Government in Russia. The right hon. Gentleman stated that 950,000 Germans would be released to be transferred from the Eastern to the Western Front.. That is a very extraordinay statement. It is absolutely in contradiction to very elaborate statements which have been put forward, for instance, by the military correspondent of the "Times" and other papers. For my own part, having read all the literature I can on the subject, and having discussed the matter with persons possessing greater knowledge than myself, I cannot see that. there is any possibility of anything like 500,000 men being transferred by the Germans from the Eastern to the Western Front. To put the figure at 950,000 is extraordinary, and we must have something a great deal better than the mere ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman to persuade us to believe it.
  There has been a great deal of absolutely misleading talk about the effect of the Russian Revolution. When it
  128
  started it was welcomed by the Prime Minister, who said it was due in a large measure to the wish of the Russian people to carry on the War more energetically. He welcomed it in this House on that ground. Later on there was a great offensive on the Eastern Front by the Russian Revolutionary Army. There would have been a continuation of a vigorous war support to the Allies from Russia if the Russian Revolution had been wisely handled. One cannot read the late Note and late speech of President Wilson, with his very sympathetic references to the Russian Revolution, without seeing that, it is his opinion that the Allies in Europe have largely themselves to blame for not getting more active military support from Russia at the present time. I believe myself that the present Russian Government arc certainly the most effective Government Russia has ever had. They are actually feeding the people, they are actually carrying out their promise and conscripting wealth, which we have talked about for a long time and have not yet taken in hand, and they have actually put a stop to all profiteering, which I wish could do here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: None of these facts have anything whatever to do with this Bill. We are not discussing Russia now, we are discussing England.
  Mr. KING: I must apologise to you, Sir, for making a reference of that kind. I will pass from that subject. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill made a very welcome reference to the question of casualties. He spoke words which I am sure must have pleased, and, at the same time, surprised the House very greatly. I could have wished that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) had been here to receive such a reply to two speeches which he made recently, but which at the time received no response. The words of the right hon. Gentleman in this connection were:
  "Carelessness as to lass of life and thoughtlessness as to casualties must be stamped upon."
  Those were very remarkable words in-. deed. They admitted, I suppose, undoubtedly that there had been carelessness with regard to loss of life, and that there had been thoughtlessness as to casualties, for if there had not been anything of that kind, why should they need to be stamped upon, and why was such

  129
  an important statement as this made at all from the Treasury Bench? For myself, I go a little further. I ask what steps exactly are the Government taking to stamp upon this carelessness and this thoughtlessness? It is all very well to make a vague profession that this horrible evil is being stamped upon. What we shall want to know more specifically later on is what are the exact methods that are being taken by the Government to do away with what undoubtedly is a very grave and serious evil. One further matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the methods now adopted in his Department which he says, and I have no doubt truly, are in many ways a considerable improvement on the older methods; but to my knowledge, after having gone into several cases, there is a great opportunity for more prompt and humane treatment of the cases that come before the National Service Department.
  I have lately called the attention of the Department to the case of a man who was in good work—work of national importance, and who was called to the Army. He went before the Mill Hill Tribunal, from there he was sent from one place to another, and he was finally rejected. But during the whole of that time he has been deprived of his employment, he has got into arrears with his landlord, the shops where he bought his necessaries of life have refused to supply him with any more food, and, as a result., at Christmas time this man was in a state of absolute starvation. I have personally inquired into this case, and I say here you have a case under the Ministry of National Service in which for three months a man who was doing good work has been held up simply because he was passed from one tribunal to another, and with your red-tape methods, with your inhumane and harsh rules—for they are nothing else—you have brought that man and his formerly well-nurtured young children to absolute beggary. Such cases are a scandal; they are known to hundreds of people, they are making your work of recruiting very much more difficult than it would be otherwise, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who are both humane men, to do everything they can to introduce humanity and promptitude into their methods. I will conclude my remarks by quoting some words which were used by the present Prime Minister, now, alas, nearly three years ago, words which seem
  130
  to me to have been almost the wisest he has uttered during the course of the War. They were spoken on the occasion of the Budget an the 4th May, 1915, and they had a direct bearing upon the object of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then said that we had to determine the part we wished Britain to play in the great combination of the Allies, and to decide the best service she could render. He went on:
  "What service can Britain render to this great combination? She can keep command of the seas for the Allies. She has done so, and she will maintain complete control to the end…. What is the second service which Britain could render? She could of course maintain a great Army, putting the whole of her population into it exactly as the Continental powers have done. What is the third service? The third service which she can render is the service which she rendered in the Napoleonic wars of bearing the main burden of financing the allied countries in their necessary purchases for carrying on the War—purchases outside her own country more especially and also to help the Allies with the manufacture of munitions and equipments of war. Britain can do the first. She can do the third, but she can only do the second within limits if she is to do the first and the last and I think that is important."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1915, col. 1014, Vol. LXXI).]
  Since that time we have, practically on the same basis as the Continental countries, put our whole available manhood into the Army. We have maintained the Navy, we are financing and munitioning the whole of the Allies, and beyond that we have made greater sacrifices than any other nation in our recruiting for the fighting forces. It is to be remembered that there are many exemptions which hold good in France, in Italy, and in Russia which do not hold in our own country. Therefore, I say, however we may look upon this Bill, there is a limit beyond which we cannot really raise men for the Army. The limit has been reached, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks of raising a minimum of 450,000 men for the Army this year I say I do not believe it can be done without seriously weakening our fighting strength and oar national effectiveness in this War in other directions. Although on the First Reading of this Bill I do not suppose anyone will care to vote against it, I certainly hold that, unless we have far more information and stronger assurances than have yet been forthcoming the measure should be steadily opposed on all its subsequent stages.
  Mr. D. MASON: I agree that we are entitled to have some outline of policy before this Bill is accepted by this House. I wish. to make one or two observations on the merits of the measure in the first place, and secondly, with reference to the

  131
  policy or lack of policy, by which it is sought to justify it. I believe I am right when I say that an increase in our shipbuilding facilities is a proved necessity. Ships at the moment are the most urgent question. We commenced this War with some 3,600 ships, one half of which were used for transport and other military operations. But the balance has been largely reduced, and yet it is by means of that balance we have to maintain our food supplies, and supply the necessities of the Army as well as the people of this country. If this Bill has for its purpose the combing out or withdrawing of men where they can be spared, and I doubt whether many can be spared from civil industries—whether they can be spared from munition factories I gravely doubt, because so long as the War continues it is necessary to maintain a good supply of munitions— but if the men are to be withdrawn from civil life it seems that the duty of providing more ships can be the only real reason which would justify their withdrawal. We are already contributing a very large proportion of the armies in the field, but we must have regard to the position as a whole, and we cannot afford to neglect the very grave position with regard to the food supply of the country. That is the only justification for withdrawing men from civil employment. An ex-civil Lord of the Admiralty recently made a speech in which he pointed out that 30 per cent. more of British shipping was sunk in December than in November, and three and a half times more British shipping had been sunk during the past year than had been built. If that is the case, and I assume the right hon. Gentleman was well informed, it is a very grave position. Recently the First Lord of the Admiralty rather confirmed the statement that we are hardly keeping pace with the losses through submarines, and again I say that is the only justification for any further withdrawal of men from civil employment. Whether we can afford to take these 450,000 men, whether they are qualified, whether they will be the sort of men suitable for shipbuilding, I cannot say. It may be they may supplement the labour in the shipbuilding yards to the extent of releasing more men for the more skilled work, and again to my mind that is the only justification for a Bill such as this.
  8.0 P. m.
  The second point to which I wish to refer was touched upon by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who
  132
  asked what was the policy upon which this Bill was based. I assume it is based upon the war aims which have been recently outlined by the Prime Minister and by President Wilson, and I think, therefore, we are entitled to offer a few observations upon those aims so far as they are the cause of this Bill. I do not subscribe to the war aims as outlined by the Prime Minister. Many of us agree with regard to the primary cause of the War, but we do not agree that the War should be prolonged for purposes which this country certainly had not in mind when it decided to enter upon the War, and which are calculated to increase the danger to which we are exposing this country and Empire by pursuing the War. There is, for instance, the question of Alsace-Lorraine. I yield to no one in deploring that most unfortunate blunder and injustice which was committed by Germany in 1871, when she tore these two provinces from France. But to suggest that this War, with all its losses and suffering, should be prolonged because of that injustice is an entirely different matter. I would like to remind the House that this country—that Europe acquiesced in the peace which was made in 1871, and to prolong the War therefore on this ground is, to my mind. to lose all sense of proportion. It is to. confuse the issue. There is no dissension. in this House or in the country with regard to the original cause for which we entered upon the War, namely, the complete restoration of Belgium, and when we are asked to pass a Bill of this nature because of war aims upon which the country has not been consulted, and which have not even been submitted to this House, but have been outlined to outside audiences—to ask us to pass a Bill when we have had no opportunity of debating the policy on which it is based, is, I submit, asking too much. In any case I submit we are entitled to debate the war aims first before the Bill is passed. We. are here the accredited representatives of the people. We are entitled to express the views of the Parliament of this realm, and I do protest against this Bill being thrown on the floor of this House and against our being asked to support it without our being informed of the policy upon which it is sought to justify its introduction. I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, the representative of National Service, on

  133
  his very lucid and clear statement. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), he, of course, gets his orders and has to find the men to support a policy which, as I have already said, we have not endorsed and do not support. I do not believe there will be unanimous support in this House either for this question of Alsace-Lorraine or for other questions included in that speech, such as the ultimate destination of the German colonies. Those are all questions more susceptible of settlement by negotiation in a congress, and ought not to be the basis for prolonging the War, endangering the lives of subjects, increasing the liabilities of the country, and passing a Bill of this character. It is because of those two main reasons that I rose—because, firstly, I doubt that by the Bill itself we shall be able to alleviate the position and carry out the objects it is intended to achieve; and, secondly, because I do not believe the policy on which it is based commends itself to the House or to the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Auckland Geddes, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir Gordon Hewart, and Mr. Beck.
  MILITARY SERVICE BILL—"to repeal Sub-section (3) of Section three of the Military Service Act, 1916, and to provide for the cancellation of certificates of exemption from military service granted
  134
  on occupational grounds," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Ordered for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  PETROLEUM—PRODUCTION [PAYMENTS AND EXPENSES].
  Order for Committee thereupon read. and discharged.

  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
  Order for Committee read. and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn "
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  FOREIGN-OWNED BUSINESSES (TAXATION).
  FOREIGN-OWNED BUSINESSES (TAXATION).
FOOD SUPPLIES
  SUGAR
  SUGAR
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, IRELAND (WOMEN CLERKS).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, IRELAND (WOMEN CLERKS).
  GRAND CANAL COMPANY, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  GRAND CANAL COMPANY, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  ADMIRALTY INSPECTORS (WAR BONUS).
  ADMIRALTY INSPECTORS (WAR BONUS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  SOUTHERN ARMY COMMAND (INSTRUCTION SYLLABUS).
  SOUTHERN ARMY COMMAND (INSTRUCTION SYLLABUS).
  MILITARY FORCES (INDIVIDUAL COST).
  MILITARY FORCES (INDIVIDUAL COST).
MUNITIONS.
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENI).
  DISCHARGED SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENI).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (REMUNERATION).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (REMUNERATION).
  AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.
  AUSTRALIAN ZINC CONCENTRATES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  Telegrams (Addresses).
  Telegrams (Addresses).
  Motor Fishing Boats.
  Motor Fishing Boats.
WILLS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Discussion resumed on Clause 4:
Franchise (women).
4.—(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; or where she is the wife of a man who is entitled to be so registered in respect of premises in which they both reside, and she has attained the age of thirty years.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add "or is the wife of a husband who is entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector and who would be entitled to be registered as a local government elector, but for the fact that the premises occupied by him for the qualifying period and in respect of which he is registered as a parliamentary elector, are in more than one local government electoral area."
The noble Lord said: The point to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention is one which was overlooked in the various stages of the Bill in the other House. I think that my Amendment really deals with a substantial defect in the Bill. On Thursday last your
530
Lordships passed a provision in Clause 4 that "a woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if she is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered as a local government elector."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the noble Lord comes to that, I want to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill two questions about paragraph (c), subsection (1). Might not the effect of paragraph (c) be to deprive of a vote the wife of a certain class of soldier? I will take the sergeant-major, the colour-sergeant, and the sergeants of a Regular regiment in normal times. They would have married quarters, and I presume they would not be local government electors. If so, their wives would not get the vote. I think your Lordships will agree that, if any woman is to have the vote, this is a class of woman we should not like to exclude. I would ask the noble Viscount to look into that point.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): I think there is an Amendment later which deals with part, at any rate, of the difficulty suggested by the noble Earl—that is, the case where women would be entitled to have votes but for the fact that their husbands, being away at the war, cannot be qualified as local government electors as they otherwise would be. Perhaps this later Amendment will meet the point raised by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: All I want to do now is to ask the noble Viscount to look into the point, which applies to peace conditions and not to war conditions.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am familiar with the point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is another point on the same matter. It has been suggested that the wife of a local government elector does not get a Parliamentary vote under Clause 4 (i) (c) unless she is a partner under Clause 3, proviso (v).
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that proviso (v) is based upon their being joint occupiers; and that is not the case under Clause 4.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It has been suggested that she does not get the vote unless she is a joint occupier with him. I will ask the noble Viscount to look into that point, too.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will look into it; but I think it has validity only under proviso (v) of Clause 3, where they must be joint occupiers.
LORD GAINFORD: I was endeavouring to point out that on Thursday the House decided that the wives of local government electors should be given a Parliamentary vote through the qualification of their husbands as local government electors; and your Lordships have already passed in an earlier stage of the Bill, in Clause 1, the provision that a man must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises in the constituency or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county. In that way any individual moving from one county to another or from one borough to another—for instance, moving from one side of the Thames to the other, or, we will say, from Manchester to Salford, or from Newcastle to Gateshead, or from anywhere in Essex to somewhere in Kent—will be in contiguous counties and will continue to retain a Parliamentary qualification. He will retain, of course, for a certain period after removing, the vote in the constituency in which he previously resided, and then when he comes on to the new Register he will continue a Parliamentary voter without having lost his vote at all.
But owing to the peculiar qualification of women voters for Parliamentary elections, it is proposed in the Bill that the woman, although she accompanies her husband from one constituency to another, shall be deprived for a six months' period of her vote as a Parliamentary elector. In other words, she is going to be handicapped to the extent of six months whenever her husband goes from one part of the country to another, or follows his work from one county to another. Therefore you will have side by side the husband, being able to vote as a Parliamentary elector, and the wife, whom it was intended to qualify as a voter, but who will not be able to exercise her vote for that period of time. It is neither logical nor expedient,
532
nor just that Parliament should attempt to whittle down what Parliament decides shall be given to women; and they should be able to vote, as they desire to vote, practically in the same way as their husbands. It is a technical point; and the only thing that I can suggest the Government might say, if they are not prepared to accept my Amendment, is that they do not want to extend the local government qualification to a system of successive occupations. But it is not really any new qualification. It is only applying for the benefit of married women the same successive qualification as men already have in connection with the Parliamentary vote, and I ask the Committee to agree with me that an Amendment of this kind is really required to give the same opportunity to married women as their husbands now possess of the Parliamentary vote.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("or is the wife of a husband who is entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector and who would be entitled to be registered as a local government elector, but for the fact that the premises occupied by him for the qualifying period and in respect of which he is registered as a parliamentary elector, are in more than one local government electoral area").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who has brought forward this Amendment suggests that Parliament is attempting to whittle away the vote given to married women, but I should rather put it the other way—namely, that the noble Lord by his Amendment wishes considerably to extend the vote given to married women. If I may be allowed to say so, the noble Lord, by his Amendment, raises an ingenious point. It arises out of two things, one from the fact that a woman does not get the vote on the same terms as a man. On the contrary, she gets it by reason of its attachment to her husband's local government vote. I am talking, of course, of married women.
The second fact from which difficulty arises is that the successive occupation is different in the case of local government voters and of Parliamentary voters; so that it is quite true that if a man and his wife are living in a particular county, and the man is acquiring both his Parliamentary qualification and his local government qualification, and if, say at the end of five months, before he has obtained those

533
qualifications, he moves into an adjoining county, he carries with him his Parliamentary qualification and therefore he may get the vote in the county to which he moves, but he will not get the local government vote, because it would be a great extension of the local government area of successive occupation if he could move from county to county and carry his local government qualification with him. Very well, then. His wife, being dependent upon his local government vote, which he has not got in the new county, will not get the Parliamentary vote.
What the noble Lord wishes to do is this. He wishes to say that, although the husband has not got the local government vote, yet the wife shall have a Parliamentary one, because if the husband had remained in the first county for six months then she might in the first county have got the Parliamentary vote. What he really desires is this, that the wife shall get the Parliamentary vote although her husband is not qualified to pass it on to her. It is clear that that is a very large extension of the proposals in the Bill and would be creating an absolutely new franchise for women. I submit that such a proposal would be against all principles and would give a vote to women in the air. I hope that your Lordships, therefore, will not accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree with the noble Viscount, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. But as I listened to the intricacies of the Amendment, so clearly explained by the noble Viscount, and to his observations upon it, I was struck with the precarious character of the woman franchise which we are establishing. The Amendment is only one more illustration of how difficult it will be in the future to resist any firm demand for an extension of the franchise which we are now conceding, for no human being can apply any logic or philosophy to the particular lines on which the franchise is now being given.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SOMERLEYTONmoved, at the end of subsection (1), the addition of the following proviso: "Provided that no woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector by virtue of any local government qualification of
534
her own which would not also entitle her to be registered as a parliamentary elector if she were a man, nor by virtue of any local government qualification of her husband which is not of sufficient value to qualify him for registration as a parliamentary elector."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move is one that I hope will commend itself to your Lordships, and which also I believe will meet with the approval of the Leader of the House, and, I trust, of the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill. It is clear that when this Bill was brought in the Government were anxious not to give the vote to women to the same extent as to men, and they therefore withheld the vote from women under thirty. Yet what they took with one hand they are proposing to give with another, and I think they are a little inconsistent in this clause of the Bill, because they give a vote to a woman where she would not obtain a vote if she were a man.
The object of this Amendment is to prevent women securing the Parliamentary vote for a qualification which would not give the Parliamentary vote to men. If the Amendment is not carried, the Bill will give a Parliamentary vote to women for the occupation of land or premises of any value, whereas the same land or premises would not qualify a man for a vote if it were not of the value of £10. Surely men and women should be put on the same footing in this respect. It is to be noted that it is not suggested that women should be prevented from having a qualification in respect of premises occupied as a dwelling-house whatever the value. It is a very simple Amendment and I trust it will be accepted by the noble Viscount. As I pointed out before, you have deprived women of the vote under certain conditions where men have the vote, and surely it is not necessary to give them the vote for a qualification which does not give the vote to men. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the noble Viscount, and that he will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, after line 26 insert:
"Provided that no woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector by virtue of any local government qualification of her own

535
which would not also entitle her to be registered as a parliamentary elector if she were a man, nor by virtue of any local government qualification of her husband which is not of sufficient value to qualify him for registration as a parliamentary elector."—(Lord Somerleyton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that this particular Amendment is to some extent an illustration of the observations which fell from my noble friend Lord Salisbury a moment ago. The object of the Amendment apparently is, as stated, to give the vote on the same basis to women as to men. That goes absolutely, of course, against one of the leading principles of the Bill, because, as I have stated more than once, the Bill does nothing of the kind. It establishes quite different principles for the granting of votes to women and to men. The effect of the Amendment would be considerably to limit the number of women who would get the vote. The noble Lord wants to substitute for the existing qualification for women a £10 qualification—that is to say, he wants to substitute the existing business qualification for men for the qualification as proposed for women; and he puts it on the ground that men and women ought to get the vote on the same conditions. May I suggest to the noble Lord that it is rather a dangerous Amendment, because if I were to accept it some one else, with rather different views, would at once suggest that women ought to have the residence vote because men have it; and, of course, if that were so, we should have a good many millions of women added to the 6,000,000, less the reduction brought about by the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: If I may correct the noble Viscount for one moment, I would say that the object of the Amendment was that women should not obtain the vote for such a qualification as would not give it to men. I do not say they should be put on an equal footing. I admit that the Bill puts them on a different footing. But my point is that they should not be given a vote for a qualification which does not give it to men.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I followed the argument of the noble Lord, and I was pointing out how very easily it could be turned against him. Perhaps I ought to remind the noble Lord again that it is an artificial qualification that is given to women in order that a certain number of women may
536
be enfranchised. It is not a very logical distinction, I agree, but if the noble Lord begins to alter the qualification for women on the basis that he suggested, I think he would be bound to alter it for men as well. Anyhow, I am compelled to resist the Amendment, because it very largely alters the whole basis of the Speaker's Conference. It deprives women of the advantage which they have got of being registered for the Parliamentary vote in respect of a local government qualification, or in respect of the qualification of their husbands. This Amendment would make a serious diminution in the women's vote; and as the basis of that vote has been accepted, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. There are several other Amendments on the same lines, some increasing the vote for women and some diminishing it. I can only hope that your Lordships will be inclined to leave the women's vote where it is, and not by this serious diminution reduce the 6,000,000 by a very considerable number.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have nothing more to say about the illogical character of the women's franchise, because that has been frankly admitted by my noble friend opposite. There is no kind of defence whatever for it. It is a mere arbitrary line. One arbitrary line is very much like another, and it is impossible to argue about it at all. But there is a substantial point beyond the illogical character of the subject. The proposal of the Bill which my noble friend's Amendment seeks to alter is this. It allows a woman to get a vote for an occupation, however small, which would give the local government vote, whether she is a local government elector herself or whether her husband is a local government elector.
Now, applied, it comes to this. If a woman occupies an allotment worth a shilling, or is the wife of a man who occupies an allotment worth a shilling, she will get the Parliamentary vote if she is thirty years of age. I do not know how long this particular arrangement is likely to continue a part of our law; but if this goes on, just imagine what a happy hunting ground it will be for the Parliamentary agent who wishes to create faggot voters. It will be the simplest thing in the world. He does not have to change the residence of the lady. All he has to do is to get her an allotment. He acquires from a benevolent person of strong Party convictions a large field and

537
divides the field into shilling allotments, which he lets to various ladies or their husbands. Each of these allotments will give a local government vote, and an enormous mass of faggot votes will be at once created. That will be done with the greatest facility. The Government do not seem to have thought of any of this sort of points. No precautions seem to them to matter. They have taken a leap into this perfectly arbitrary system of suffrage and they do not mind what consequences it produces.
I do not suggest to my noble friend that he should at this moment press his Amendment, but I want the Government to see, if they are going to make a good watertight Bill, that they must be prepared to deal with the particular mischiefs which arise from the provisions. It is no good to reply, as my noble friend replied just now, that it is a very arbitrary provision and so is the rest of the Bill, and that it does not matter very much. That does not seem to be a sufficient reply. The question is, Can you deal with the evils and mischiefs which arise in it? I may, of course, have exaggerated the mischiefs. Indeed, it is a very difficult Bill to understand, and I may have misinterpreted its language, but, if I understand it, there is a mischief to be remedied which my noble friend proposes to remedy, and I hope the Government will be able to deal with it.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Marquess never exaggerates anything, but I think he has not appreciated the full force of his arguments. He drew for your Lordships a horrible picture of these faggot voters, but he omitted to notice that he should have taken his objection on line 23, because if the husband can be made a local government elector so, I take it, can the wife, and we have already passed the line which says she shall be entitled to the vote if she is entitled to be registered as a local government elector herself. Therefore I think the proposal now before the House would not, at any rate, admit this bogey of the faggot voter which has been raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of the word "either" after the word "and" in subsection (2). The noble Viscount said:—This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. It makes it quite clear, in connection with another Amendment,
538
that the method in which the woman can acquire the vote is alternative and not concurrent.
Amendment moved—
Page4, line 29, after ("and") insert ("either").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: This Amendment raises a matter which I think deserves the attention of His Majesty's Government. The House may not be aware, or at least not every one may be aware, that the British Universities stand in this respect on a somewhat different footing—
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I have not moved the Amendment in line 30 yet.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I beg your pardon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to make a short statement on my next Amendment, which is to add to subsection (2) the words "or, so long as at any University women are not admitted to degrees, has passed such examinations and kept such residence at that University as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man." I ought to explain perhaps why I, as representing the Government, come to move an Amendment at all on the vote connected with women. The reason is this. It was pointed out in another place that as the University vote was granted to women if they were able to obtain a degree, it was rather unfair that, as neither Oxford nor Cambridge gave degrees to women, women who had passed similar examinations to men should not be able to get the vote. An undertaking was given that such an Amendment should be brought forward in your Lordships' House. I am not in a position, of course, to press this Amendment. I put it forward for your Lordships' consideration. I think I ought to say there is some difference of opinion (so at least I understand) between the two Universities. It is, perhaps, an unusual course that the House is considering. But I dare say your Lordships will agree that there are particular reasons in the cases of Oxford and Cambridge why this should be done.
The Universities have been consulted—not, of course, the electorate, as that would be impossible—and I understand that the ruling authorities at Oxford are quite

539
ready to accept this Amendment. I believe the same thing has not been done at Cambridge. I should like to read to your Lordships a resolution of the Council of the Senate at Cambridge, agreed to on December 3, 1917—
"That the Council do not consider themselves to be in a position to express any opinion on behalf of the University with regard to the proposal to grant the University Parliamentary franchise to certain women students. There would be no serious difficulty in preparing a register of women who have passed the examination," etc.
The resolution, of course, is of a non-committal order, but I understand that the Parliamentary representatives of the University are still strongly opposed to this arrangement, mainly, I believe, on the ground that the government of the University would run a risk of being, to some extent, altered if these women were admitted to the vote. There is, I think, no ground for a suggestion of that kind; indeed, the proposal of the Government gives rather an easy way out to the University which does not wish to grant degrees to women. If these two Universities are the only Universities in the whole country at which women graduates could not vote, there would obviously be extremely strong pressure put upon them to give degrees to women. Under this Amendment, women who pass the same examination as men will be entitled to get a vote, and therefore there would not be so much pressure as there would otherwise be on these two Universities. I suggest that this Amendment is rather of assistance to Universities which do not wish to grant degrees to women, and if your Lordships would look at the Amendment you would see that this provision is valid only so long as at any University women are not admitted to degrees. As soon as they are admitted this provision becomes of no effect, and they will get the vote in the ordinary way.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, at end insert ("or, so long as at any university women are not admitted to degrees, has passed such examinations and kept such residence at that university as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: On the merits, and as a matter of logic, this Amendment has everything in its favour, because it is clear that even those who are most opposed to extending the suffrage to women will
540
admit that if any women are to have it, none can have a stronger claim than the graduates of Universities. On that point we should all be unanimous, and therefore I welcome the Amendment on its merits.
But I desire to call your Lordships' attention to a point which has been partly taken up by the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment—namely, the attitude of the Universities themselves towards it. I have seen it stated that the Universities have not been consulted on the subject, and perhaps it did seem proper that they should have been consulted. I understand the noble Viscount to say that Oxford has been consulted, and that the Council has expressed its approval of the proposal, but that Cambridge has not yet given an answer. As a mere matter of courtesy it would seem proper to consult the Universities and to tell the House what their opinion was. By the Bill we should be, of course, creating a very anomalous class of persons; persons who are members of the University for the purpose of voting, and not members for any other purpose, and it may be that a close inspection of the Statutes of the University may disclose some difficulties which would arise out of the creation of this new class.
Therefore I would suggest to the noble Viscount that while the House might accept the Amendment now, it would be desirable that the matter should come up on the Report stage, and that he should be able, if possible, to give us then some more definite deliverance from the Universities as to how far any complications would be introduced into their system by the creation of this new class. Personally I do not take any exception to it, and I do not know that the opinions of the representatives of the Universities ought to govern the case. The matter ought to be governed, as far as it is not governed by Parliament, in some accordance with the views of the Universities themselves, and, if they take no exception to it, I submit that the Amendment is a very proper one.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am going to ask your Lordships not to assent to this Amendment, and I do so on two grounds First, on the ground taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, that this Amendment proposes that certain persons should be registered as voters who are not members of the University at all, but are only

541
guests. The second point is the one mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, but I must use it in exactly the opposite sense to that in which he used it. I object to this Amendment because it indirectly affects the very vexed and difficult question of mixed Universities; in my opinion it prejudges the question, and Parliament would be forcing the Universities to take a step in the direction of mixed Universities and giving degrees to women, without their having been consulted. Oxford and Cambridge stand really in the same position. Neither of them has admitted women to membership of the University or given degrees to women.
Let me make my position clear at once. I have no claim whatever to speak for Oxford University, and I do not profess to. Some of the things I shall say apply equally to Oxford as they do to Cambridge. Neither do I make any claim to speak for Cambridge University. That would be a most arrogant thing for me to do. I will only say this that I do not believe any one—not even the noble Lord whom I do not see in his place to-day, and who is Chancellor of the University—is in a position now to speak for the University of Cambridge. In many cases he would have been naturally the mouthpiece of the University in your Lordships' House. But I claim to speak for a very considerable body of opinion in Cambridge University who regard this Amendment, for the reasons which I have stated, with considerable apprehension.
May I remind your Lordships that an Amendment was moved in the House of Commons, not in exactly but substantially in the same terms—the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, will correct if I am wrong. Mr. Hayes Fisher, in his reply, a quotation from which I shall ask your Lordships' permission to read, really seemed to misunderstand the whole position. He said—
"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 loved 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 graduates of other Universities. I think that in any case the force of public opinion would secure the end which my hon. friend has in view."
542
I submit that I am entirely justified in suggesting that pressure will be put by Parliament on Universities in the direction of their giving women degrees and making them members of the Universities. I say that because I have never heard any practical scheme—and I have consulted those at Cambridge who are thoroughly conversant with the government of the University—whereby they could concede the giving of degrees to women and exclude them from membership of the University.
The Universities—the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, mentioned this point—of Oxford and Cambridge are in a totally different position from the other eight Universities mentioned by Mr. Hayes Fisher. They are practically, as you know, the great residential Universities, having the associated ancient foundation colleges of the government of the University with full powers of giving degrees, of which the colleges all form a part. The new Universities, on the other hand, are teaching, examining, and degree-giving bodies only, and while there may be no objection whatever to men and women having equal facilities for those purposes there and receiving degrees in common, there is very great objection indeed to anything which tends towards the establishment of mixed residential Universities.
Any one with a knowledge of the government of either Oxford or Cambridge will bear me out that this is a very difficult and vexed question, and one which leads to an acute difference of opinion. Not in this country but elsewhere, these kinds of Universities have been tried and have failed. I will quote Harvard University in the United States. There, I believe, they never did give degrees to women, but the question became very acute, and it may very well be that they found the best solution, which was that the women's college should be placed in a position of giving its own degrees, while all the privileges of lecture-room, laboratories and examinations were shared in common with the men. That, I think, was the solution which they found to be the best and most practical, and I am not at all sure that it is not the solution to which many are working in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I cannot, however, speak with any certainty.
But I will quote a stronger case than that, and that is the case of the more

543
modern University of Chicago. This was actually started as a mixed University, and the difficulties which arose in consequence were found so great that they actually separated the two governments and are now each degree-giving bodies with their own government. This, therefore, is taken out of the domain of conjecture and is placed in that in which there is some practical experience from which one can form an opinion. It is not in the lecture-room and in examinations that the difficulty arises, it is in the Government of the residential University, when, in the opinion of very many, it is desirable that they should be independent of one another.
There is one other point in what Mr. Hayes Fisher said, and it was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel. Mr. Hayes Fisher said that he was bringing this to the notice of the two Universities, and then suggested that some Amendment such as this might be proposed "in another place." What really happened was this. He brought it to the notice of the Vice-Chancellors of both Universities. The Vice-Chancellors sent it on to the Hebdomadal Council in the case of Oxford, and to the Council of the Senate in the case of Cambridge. The Council of the Senate had no more right to express the opinion of the University than any other collection of people or committee that might be brought together. I believe that the Council of the Senate is the executive body which carries out the decisions of the Senate, and which has no additional function to that other than to say that if a question has to be voted on by the Senate it should be in such a form that the vote can be conveniently taken. Only the Senate, and, in the case of Oxford, Convocation, has the power to express the mind of the University, so that it is not right to say that the Universities have been consulted. Certain persons have no doubt been consulted. I entirely agree with the Noble Viscount, Lord Peel, that it is impossible to consult Convocation of Oxford and the Senate of Cambridge at the present moment. Even the residential members are very few, and the non-residential members are scattered in all directions; it would, therefore, be quiet impossible to obtain at this moment a vote of the Senate or of Convocation, which would really express the mind of Cambridge or of Oxford.
It has been said outside this House—not inside—that women have not been
544
altogether fairly treated at Cambridge. I want to point out that they have been treated as guests, and as privileged guests. All lectures, all the laboratories and examinations, are freely open to them, and they pay neither matriculation fees nor University dues. At Cambridge they are in some cases allowed to go in for examinations on conditions less strict than those which are required for men. So far as I know, the only restriction which is put upon them is that they must enter through the recognised colleges. They cannot go into these examinations and have these privileges except through Girton and Newnham, and the reason for this is obvious. If they could be non-collegiate students, and they were not limited in this way, a lecture room might very easily be overcrowded, and there would really be no control over the women who were entered for the examination. The only other restriction, as far as I know, is that they may not take Pass degrees; they are obliged to enter for Honours examinations—what we call at Cambridge Tripos examinations.
I earnestly ask your Lordships not to pass this Amendment, because this is a matter which very seriously concerns these two Universities, and it is most undesirable—I was going to say most improper—that Parliament should, without the power (as the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce has said) of getting the opinion of either of the Universities definitely stated, introduce this change which may end in great difficulties and possibly in impairing the value of the work done by the Universities.
Will your Lordships understand that this has nothing whatever to do with the question we debated on Thursday, or with women as such. Under proper conditions and qualifications, I do not know of anybody at Cambridge who wants to oppose women, especially, as Lord Bryce has reminded us, those possessing the highest intellectual capacities, who are naturally those who, among women, would be the last to be excluded from the Parliamentary vote. This question really does not touch that point. It is a question of serious, interference with the government of these two Universities, the ground of this interference being that the Parliamentary vote is being given to women in other Universities of a totally different character. What I am trying to point out is that Cambridge and Oxford stand on a perfectly

545
different footing, and you would possibly, if you passed this Amendment, be drawing them into serious complications, and, perhaps, interfering in the settlement of a question in which there is an acute difference of opinion. These Universities at present have not had an opportunity of studying the whole question as it affects them, and of placing their case before Parliament. In these circumstances I ask the noble Lord below me not to press this Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I hope that your Lordships will support the Amendment. I urge it, not as a general advocate of woman suffrage, for I have not been a supporter of that, and only now acquiesce because I see that the thing is practically decided for us by the general voice of the country. But as to the two ancient Universities, Oxford and Cambridge, I think the noble Earl opposite has not stated the facts correctly, and he has also conjured up visions of danger and disturbance which are to my mind purely chimerical. As to the obligation to consult the Universities, which would mean the convocation of a large body of electors dispersed throughout the country, their opinion would not be worth much if they were consulted; you might as well consult any constituency in England on the question of whether they wanted to have women added to their electorate.
The noble Earl has tried to frighten you by conjuring up the bogey of co-education of men and women, and also the question of a residential University. As a matter of fact, as far as I know, all the Universities of this country, except still to a limited extent the University of London, are now residential Universities. It is a great confusion to think that residence in a college, within four walls, of men, or possibly, as in Rabelais' Abbey of Theleme, of women and men living together, constitutes residence. Residence is determined by residing in the place whore you receive your education; and the noble Earl himself stated with perfect truth that both at Oxford and Cambridge the lectures and the laboratories have been thrown open with great liberality to women, so that co-education exists there. But it exists on sufferance and by courtesy, and not as a matter of right.
The noble Earl was perfectly well aware that as to residence in the strictest sense
546
there are Girton and Newnham at Cambridge, and Lady Margaret's and Somerville at Oxford, which are places of residence for the women who go there, and not the slightest inconvenience has been caused. I think it is certainly a good deal more than forty years, both at Oxford and Cambridge, that women have been admitted with growing and increasing liberality to the lectures, the laboratories, and the other teaching facilities of the Universities.
Another thing. When the noble Earl tried to frighten your Lordships with the idea that this would affect the government of the Universities. I would point out that it does not touch it at all, because this Bill is to give votes only to Bachelors. We know that at Oxford and Cambridge there is no right to partake in the government of the University given until you become a Master of Arts. I think that what the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said was perfectly true—namely, that there are some old-fashioned people at Oxford and Cambridge who hug the idea that they shall be purely male Universities. They can embrace that idea with greater affection, because these people will be given the franchise simply on account of educational qualifications. For my part, I think that if there is any sphere which ought to be open to women it is the intellectual and mental sphere; and, whatever you may think about their power to make laws for the country, we ought all to rejoice that they should have the fullest power of self-improvement and the highest range of education possible. I should be glad, therefore, if the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would admit co-education as a matter of right. I think that this is a moderate proposal, and I hope the noble Viscount will carry it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Lord Plymouth, with his accustomed modesty, entirely disavowed the character of a representative of Cambridge in this matter; but still he stated very categorically, and with no little force, a particular view which is held by some at Cambridge of whom he for the time being was undoubtedly acting as a representative. It is true that there is at Cambridge, and no doubt also at Oxford, a strong body of opinion which dreads any further association of women with the University, while quite content to offer them the facilities which are at present given; and that view was forcibly stated by my noble friend.

547
Personally, with no more claim than my noble friend to speak for Cambridge, I am one of those who have always desired that women should be admitted to degrees at the old Universities. But my noble friend who has just sat down has pointed out, with, I think, unanswerable force, that this question is not in any sense raised by the Amendment. On the contrary, those who are desirous that women should obtain the full degrees might take exception to this Amendment on the ground (which the noble Viscount stated) that the agitation—if that is the word—for the granting of the degree would be greatly strengthened by the Bill as it stands; because it would be said it is absurd that women at Bristol, Leeds, Manchester, and Sheffield, who obtain a degree, should get the vote, while women at Oxford and Cambridge—of equal mental calibre—are denied it. If the Amendment of the noble Viscount is carried, that particular argument will undoubtedly disappear. For that reason, its passing might even be regretted by some of those who are strongly in favour of the admission of women to degrees.
There is one other point only on which I wish to say a word. I think that my noble friend Lord Plymouth pressed somewhat too strongly the difference between the old Universities and the new. Such differences as exist are well known and obvious. But it is not reasonable to regard them as being altogether different in their constitution; and it will be found, I think, as years go on, that the newer Universities will tend to become more residential, even in the sense in which the word is used by my noble friend—that is to say, by a multiplication of hostels—and they will not be residential only in the sense in which Lord Sheffield properly so described them, namely, that the residents in the great towns which they serve will send their sons and their daughters to be educated there.
I may point out that the fear which Lord Plymouth expressed of something like a divided management between the sexes, which appears to be impending over Oxford and Cambridge, has not been realised in the case of the newer Universities. I know something of the Victoria University, having been a member of the Court for a great number of years; and I recently became Chancellor of Sheffield. In both those Universities the general management is carried out on very parallel lines to those which obtain at the two old Universities.
548
I think, therefore, that the fears of my noble friend may be soothed, and that those of his friends who hold similar views need dread no untoward results from the passing—which I hope we shall see—of the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
LORD PARKER: As a member of the Senate of the University of Cambridge, and also as one holding office in that University, I should like to make one or two remarks. I am entirely in sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but I think it would be wise if the noble Viscount who moved it could see his way to postpone this matter until the Report stage. I will give one or two reasons for my request. The only objection which it appears to me could be raised to the Amendment would be in so far as it might affect, or react upon, the internal government of the University. There is no doubt that, even as things stand at the present day, the outside element that votes for the Senate is sometimes antagonistic to the inside element which really has control of the affairs of the University. And, of course, if the admission on the other part of the Bill of Bachelors to vote at Parliamentary elections should lead to the increase of the outside element—because it must be remembered that as soon as a person has obtained his degree he gets the vote in perpetuity, and you will have generation after generation of people constituting an enormous electorate which will entirely swamp the inside vote in the management of the University (I do not say that this is the necessary result, but the tendency is in that direction), one wants to see very carefully, in looking at the Statutes and otherwise, how far an Amendment of this sort, if carried, would react upon the internal government of the University. I should like to have an opportunity of consulting not only the Statutes but certain members of the University interested in the matter—especially the Parliamentary Members—as to whether they see any objections to the Amendment on that ground.
There is another question which strikes me as rather important. I am speaking from recollection rather than from knowledge, but I think I am right in saying that either at Girton or Newnham, the residential qualification which admits to the University examination is different from that which would qualify a man. Therefore, if the Amendment is carried in this particular

549
form, I am afraid that it will have the effect of not admitting to the franchise any past members of one of the Colleges while admitting the others. I think that is a matter to be deprecated altogether. It occurs to me that the result might be secured by expressly mentioning those colleges—" people who have resided and kept their terms at Newnham and Girton and who have passed the examinations." It is, as your Lordships have already been told, a matter of courtesy with the University itself to admit to the examinations; they have made relaxations in respect of residence and, I think, other rides in favour of the governing body of the particular colleges; and it might be better, instead of putting the Amendment in this form, to mention expressly those who have resided at, and passed the examination from, the colleges in question. I expect the same probably holds with regard to the hostels and colleges at Oxford. That being the case, I should like to have an opportunity of looking into the matter a little more closely before the Amendment is voted upon; and if the noble Viscount can see his way to postpone the matter until the Report stage, I will in the meantime look into it and see what Amendments may be necessary, having regard to the considerations I have mentioned.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I mention two points before I reply to the noble Lord? One is that the noble Lord is perfectly right in his assumption that the matter has been considered by the Hebdomadal Council of Oxford and approved. Another matter is that the noble Earl who spoke on behalf of Cambridge, if I may say so with respect, also roped in Oxford on several occasions. Oxford, so far as its Council is concerned, has been consulted and is prepared to welcome the change.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I only said that, as the two Universities were in their government and constitution on the same footing, some of my facts applied to one as well as the other. I limited myself strictly to that. I have no wish to speak for Oxford in any way whatever.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a little difficulty in regard to Newnham and Girton, and of course if the noble and learned Lord makes an appeal that I should postpone the Amendment to the Report stage
550
perhaps I ought to do so, in order that he may have an opportunity of further conferring with Cambridge, because no doubt your Lordships would be unwilling to force a clause of this kind upon the University. I will only say this, that as we have had a rather full discussion, I hope that your Lordships on Report stage will not consider it necessary to cover the same ground again.
LORD PARKER: I made the suggestion I did in order to keep the matter open for myself in case it should be necessary to move an Amendment on the Report Stage, but if on the general question the noble Viscount thinks it well to take the opinion of the whole House, giving me an opportunity on the Report Stage to move any Amendment which may be necessary, I should be satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it would be more convenient to postpone the Amendment to the Report Stage, and for this reason. The Government have consulted Oxford University and received their reply. They have consulted Cambridge and have not received their reply. I understand that is so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I read out the Resolution that they were "not in any position." I cannot quite interpret those words.
THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: I think the words of the noble Viscount rather suggest that we ought to wait. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parker, illustrates the difficulty of dealing with this matter in the rather sketchy form in which it stands in the Bill, because it seems that one of the principal colleges of Cambridge does not keep the residential terms necessary for men to get a degree. What guarantee have we that at Oxford residential terms are kept? Does he know that residential conditions are fulfilled at Oxford in the case of women? Once you abandon the solid ground that the members of the Universities are to be the voters for the Universities, you are rather launched upon a chartless sea. We do not exactly know what we are doing in this respect.
It is true that the Bill proposes in another clause to extend the University franchise to Bachelors of Arts. They are members

551
of the University. That is quite understood. But these ladies, although deeply interested in the Universities, are not members of the University. May I illustrate the point which I am upon. The matter ought primarily to be left to the Universities to determine, because when we were discussing the case of Dublin University the other day, Lord Rathmore pointed out that in the case of Trinity College, Dublin, from time immemorial, the scholars of that University had had the vote for its Member. This House unanimously resolved that the old practice should be maintained. By parity of reasoning the practice which has prevailed always in Oxford and Cambridge should be continued. The graduates of the Universities are the governing bodies of those Universities, and although you may extend that by a provision to include the holders of the B.A. degree as well as the holders of the M.A. degree, still it is a strong measure to go outside the wishes of the University itself and to say that these ladies, because they live here and take advantage of our education ought also to be the persons who have control of the Parliamentary representation of the University. Prima facie one would imagine that the graduates of the Universities should elect the Members for the University, and what the noble Lord, Lord Parker, has said, illustrates the difficulty once you leave that solid ground. You do not know whether the conditions of graduation are actually fulfilled in the case of women, and there seems good reason for postponing the matter to the Report stage.
EARL RUSSELL: We have had unexpectedly a long discussion on this Amendment, and I suggest to the noble Viscount that the general sense of the House is that we should to-day accept the principle of the Amendment and insert it in the Bill, leaving it to be amended, if necessary, on the Report stage. I rather gather from Lord Parker that he would not think that course discourteous, or be embarrassed in moving subsequent Amendments. I hope the Government will see their way not to pass from this matter now that it is in possession of the Committee.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it would be better if I withdrew the Amendment.
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to omit from subsection (3) all words after the word "man," where it first occurs, and to insert: "Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the occupation of the same land or premises."
The noble Earl said: By this subsection, any woman who possesses the qualification for any local government area shall be registered as if she were a man. The second part of the provision which I am moving to omit goes much further, and says that where she is the wife of a man who is entitled to be so registered in respect of premises in which they both reside, she shall be entitled to be registered as a local government voter if she has attained the age of thirty years. I may say, my Lords, at the very outset, that with the first proposition of this subsection—namely, that every woman who is qualified should have a vote for local government—I am in thorough agreement; but with regard to the second subsection, I think we are embarking upon a very dangerous course, and I am therefore moving its omission. There are two main arguments in favour of this vast addition to the local government electorate, involving, I believe, the addition of from five to six million women voters. The first of these arguments is that the wives of Parliamentary electors are given the vote by reason of their husband's qualifications as Parliamentary electors, and therefore the same rule should apply to local government elections. Secondly, it is argued that women are speecially interested in sanitation, health, education, and child-welfare, and that therefore they are a valuable addition to the local government electors.
Before I deal with these two arguments—and I think they are both weighty ones—it would not be out of place if I briefly gave the history of how this proposal to give the vote to wives of local government electors found its place in the Bill. I may say that it had no place in the original Bill as drawn by the Government, and, what is perhaps more important, it found no place in the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. In fact it is exactly the reverse of what the Speaker's Conference recommended, as they distinctly stated that this qualification should not be given to the wives of local government

553
electors. This is what the Speaker's Conference reported:—
"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 first part of this subsection gives effect to that recommendation. The Report then goes on—
"For the purpose of this Resolution neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises."
I think we may take it that these words are very strong indeed, because, as a matter of fact, they distinctly recommend that the local government franchise should not be extended to the wives of local government electors.
No doubt acting on that Report the Government introduced their Bill, and, as I say, no recommendation of this sort was found in the Bill. An Amendment was proposed in Committee in the House of Commons to place the wives of local government electors on the Register, but that was defeated, and it was not until the Report stage in that House was reached that this proposition found a place in the Bill. Then an Amendment was moved, and it was opposed by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Sometimes people say it is a good practice to sleep on a difficult question, but I regret to say that on this occasion the Minister in charge of the Bill slept on the question and when he returned to the House of Commons on the following day he went over bag and baggage to the enemy, and surrendered without a word. I cannot help thinking that this death-bed repentance on his part caused a very great flaw in the Bill. The Amendment was inserted without any real demand from outside, when nobody was expecting it, and after it had been reported against by the Speaker's Conference and had not been put in when the Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons.
If I may be permitted to say so, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place did not, in opposing the Amendment, state the true and real objection to the proposal perhaps as strongly and as forcibly as he might have done. At the present moment the local government
554
authority is really a combination of rate-payers for the purpose of deciding what is to be done with the levy on the ratepayers. For the sake of convenience they hold elections and choose representatives, but when their numbers are few, as is the case in certain parishes throughout the country, they do not even go through the form of election. The ratepayers then meet together and discuss what should be done with their money, and how it should be spent, and what schemes they ought to put into force. I do not know whether at these parish meetings to which I am referring the wives of the local government electors will also attend. Perhaps they might make these meetings somewhat more amusing and their discussions at times perhaps a little more acrimonious than they are at the present time.
The main point is that as regards local government the principle that "taxation and representation should go together" still holds good. Although that is an old maxim, it is a sound one, and I believe it is a maxim that has answered extremely well in our local government. It is perhaps rather late in the day to dwell on this subject. Unfortunately, as regards our Imperial taxation, we have possibly gone a good way from it. On one memorable occasion not many years ago your Lordships had rather an unfortunate difference of opinion with another place when large amounts of money had to be raised for Imperial taxation for various purposes, and the Government of the day proceeded to select certain classes of taxpayers and made them pay the whole of the increased levies, while placing no extra burdens on other classes. That is a principle with which I never agreed, and I never shall agree. As regards Imperial taxation the principle cannot be argued so strongly, because by indirect taxes almost everybody in the country has to pay some share towards the expenses of the nation. Therefore there may be some reason for giving the vote to this number of women for the Imperial Parliament.
The moment you come to deal with local government you are in an entirely different sphere of action. By this measure you are enfranchising some five or six million women, who in no way will be directly paying the cost of government. I confess that if this large addition of irresponsible persons is made to the local government electors I dread the day very

555
much when we shall have the policy which may be summed up as the famous policy of "Ninepence for Fourpence" introduced into our local government elections. On the whole, in the past that principle of electioneering has not taken a leading place in our local government elections. Although, of course, certain candidates do occasionally promise a great deal, I think we should not be wrong in saying that the great majority of local government candidates almost always state that they are going to look after the interests of the ratepayers and see that their money is not thrown out of the window. The principle of compounding rates—an unfortunate principle, in my opinion—whereby the tenants of certain small premises or small plots of ground compound for their rates, does not really make the tenants direct payers of rates, but if rates rise to an abnormal height there is no doubt that, even with this principle of compounding for rates, the householder or the small tenant eventually has to pay by an increase of rent or by some other obnoxious way.
There is another point in connection with placing all these women as local government electors which should not be lost sight of. At the present moment the owner of the land, or the occupier of the premises which are rated, is responsible for paying the rates; and there are very heavy penalties if he does not pay them. In the last extremity he can be put into gaol. There is no proposal that, in the cases where the rates are not paid, the man is to be accompanied to prison by his wife. It seems a ridiculous thing that all these married women should have this enormous power of voting the money, and that no responsibility should attach to them, whereas the unfortunate male, who finds himself in a difficulty and unable to pay his rates, is made responsible and can eventually be cast into prison.
The question of rating is an old one. I do not intend to trouble your Lordships by dealing with it at any length, but I am old enough to remember a good many fights in Parliament on this question. I have always urged that rating, as it stands at the present moment, is not at all fair to owners of certain classes of property, but whenever we have attempted to make other forms of property contribute towards the rates we have always been met by the argument, used by the late Viscount Wolverhampton when he was Sir Henry
556
Fowler, in another place—namely, that those who had to pay rates had nothing to grumble about as they were hereditary burdens. That may be true for certain purposes for which the rates are levied, such as the maintenance of the poor, and the roads, but since then many other things have been laid upon the rates, such as sanitation, the health and welfare of children, and many other matters which are in no sense hereditary burdens whatsoever; and the ratepayers think they are rather unfairly treated in being called upon to pay. I am therefore of the opinion that if by adding an enormous number of irresponsible ratepayers to the local government electorate you find there is a still further heavy charge on the rates, the ratepayers will come to Parliament with an overwhelming case to show that it is absolutely unfair that these heavy burdens should be placed upon them. Many municipalities throughout England are taking over the means of traction and lighting, and other municipal services, as they think they can run them for the benefit of themselves, and that it would be better for them to run these necessary adjuncts of municipal life themselves, rather than let outsiders come in and make a profit. When you come to deal with all these matters I think an overwhelming case is made out that only those people who are directly responsible for paying rates—they and they only—should be the people who have a vote.
Now I come to the other argument in favour of giving these married women the local government vote, and that is the argument that women are much more interested in matters of education, child welfare, sanitation, health, and other subjects. There is no doubt that women are greatly interested in these subjects, but at the present moment you have a large number of women—I think the exact number is between one and two millions—who are electors, and they have a very powerful influence if they choose to make it felt on these different questions. On the committees which are appointed by our different councils almost invariably women have been co-opted wherever the help and advice and experience of women was required. Therefore, up to the present time women have made their voice felt in local government, and there is no reason to believe that by this vast increase of irresponsible women they are likely to use their influence to any better purpose.
The fact that women have stood on our councils, and have taken a leading part in these matter of health and sanitation, is all to the good, but I do not think it is entirely owing to this that there has been such improvements in these matters during the last few years. The large amount of improvement that has taken place in this way I put down, first of all, to the greater medical skill which now exists, and to the many discoveries made lately which have greatly helped in dealing with these matters. At the same time I think there has been a very large advance in the kind of men whom we get as our medical officers. From my own experience of local government I must say that almost all these matters largely depend on the class of medical officer the county has as its servant. And where a medical officer goes into all the new discoveries, and puts before his council the new methods which are perpetually coming out, you will find that the council is ready to do everything that is proper for the welfare of children and on the subjects of sanitation and health. I very much dread that if you place this large number of irresponsible women on our local government, women who are not directly responsible for rates, you will find there will be a steady deterioration in our local government elections, and I am not at all certain that a candidate for local government office will not find it a great deal better to advocate free tram rides and free meals, rather than advocate that there should be more inspectors coming to visit the houses and see that the children's teeth and hair are properly looked after. I am not at all certain that these proposals, which Parliament frequently passes, are always so popular among the homes of the working classes as some people would like to believe; and I am very doubtful whether this large increase of married women in our local government elections will tend to promote any of these objects.
In addition there is one thing which, when the horizon is rather dark, becomes a matter of congratulation, and that is that almost universally we find that our different local governments have been saving money and been careful as regards their expenses. It is a very bright spot, when so many old and new departments are spending money right and left, that we still have some public bodies which have some idea of economy and do not throw money out of the window. I believe that when it comes to reconstruction after
558
the war you will find that this is a wise policy, and that most of our local bodies will be a very valuable asset. Before I close, I should like to read an extract from Mr. Gerard's book, "My Four Years in Germany," which I think bears on this subject. He states—
"Already the mere interest of the War Loan of Germany amounts to four billions of marks a year, and to this must be added, of course, the interest of the previous indebtedness of the country and of each political sub-division thereof, including cities, all of which have added to their before-the-war debt by incurring great debts to help the destitute in this war."
It is some cause for congratulation to know that in one respect we are better off than Germany, because, apparently, all the great municipalities of Germany have during the war continued to pile up debt. In this country I am pleased to say that our great municipalities and our county councils have almost all acted in exactly the opposite direction. They have been saving money and paying off debt, and will be in a good financial position when the period of reconstruction conies.
I most sincerely ask your Lordships to give this matter your very serious consideration. It is a great pity to depart from the old established principle of taxation and representation going together. The local government bodies are dependent upon one thing only to raise their money, and that is the rates, which are levied on but one class of property—namely, land and houses. It is a most radical, and in my opinion most unwise, principle to throw all this to the winds because on the last hour of the Bill in another place the Minister in charge made a death-bed repentance. I do not believe that if you throw out this proposal of giving votes to the wives of these local government electors you will retard the good work of improving child-life, of improving sanitation, and of having better drainage and better houses. We run a very grave danger, indeed, if this mass of women is placed on the Register of bringing about great extravagance. There is no greater certainty than that high rates always mean low wages and high rents. I can only ask noble Lords to look back on those years when rates rose to such an enormous height that Parliament had to step in and alter the Poor Law Act, as a warning against taking this dangerous step of enfranchising many millions of utterly irresponsible people.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("man") to end of clause, and insert ("Provided that a husband

559
and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the occupation of the same land or premises").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I would point out that the noble Earl's Amendment overlaps others, and that if it is put in the form in which he has placed it on the Paper it will cut out no less than five subsequent Amendments. I therefore propose to put the question that the words from the word "man" to the word "reside" stand part.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has made an interesting and eloquent speech on the subject of local government. I could not help thinking, however, that he was so eloquent because he felt that he was fighting a somewhat forlorn hope. The noble Earl intends, by his Amendment, to prevent no fewer than 5,000,000 married women from voting for local government—one of the largest Amendments, I think, that has been moved during the course of the Committee stage. The noble Earl dwelt rather lightly on what happened in another place. I do not think that he reminded the House that the change was carried without a Division. It was felt—and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will feel also—that if you are to give the Parliamentary vote to these 5,000,000 married women, there would be something almost of an absurdity in not giving them the vote also for local government in respect of matters which I should certainly think, and others too probably, are far more within their competence than are the matters on which the House has already decided that they shall have a vote.
I would also point out to the noble Earl that in another place some of the strongest opponents of the women's vote, some of those who fought it consistently for years, said they would not oppose the grant of the local government vote to women because they thought that it was rather a matter which came within their purview. I must admit that the two classes of votes are based upon different considerations. The theory in local government is that those who vote should pay the rates. Unfortunately, that theory has been a good deal masked by the system of compounding, and the noble Earl himself has advocated on various occasions that rates should be paid direct. But I think that he goes rather far when he talks of these 5,000,000 married
560
women as being "irresponsible." Surely he must realise that they are just as much interested in the family economy as the men, and that if a man has to pay more in rates his wife will probably get less for her household expenses. Though I admit that the women do not pay the rates directly, I think that the noble Earl's expression is rather too strong, and that wives must at least be considered to be associated with their husbands in their desire for economy. That is really the whole question. I hardly imagine that your Lordships will decide to take away this vote from 5,000,000 women when you have already given them the larger Parliamentary franchise, and I think that you will follow the unanimous view of another place and vote against the suggestion of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not quite know why my noble friend should have taken it into his head that my noble friend who moved this Amendment must know that be was supporting a forlorn hope, and I do not think that he has given us any reasons in support of that decided opinion. For what has he told us? That the Amendment would prevent 5, 000, 000 women having votes for local government who otherwise would have such votes. That is quite true. But it means something more than that. The proposal in the Bill which is now before us, and which it is desired to amend, means the giving of a double vote to 5,000,000 women. That is a very different view of the situation. My noble friend cannot deny that the interpretation which I have placed upon the effect of the Bill as it stands is absolutely correct. As long as I can recollect, the unfairness of the burden of the rates has existed upon real property. The rates upon that kind of property have been increasing during recent years so enormously that it has become something in the nature of a scandal.
I forget how many years ago it was, but I was induced by these reasons even at that time—and it certainly is a long time ago—to introduce the Agricultural Bating Bill in the House of Commons. That Bill was designed to remedy a tremendous abuse, an abuse which was then admitted, and all the facts that were adduced in support of the contentions which I put forward for the purpose of proving the abuse remain un-contradicted at the present day, and nobody has ever attempted to meet them. It is

561
quite true that it led to a violent opposition on the part of a great number of Members of the Opposition, and was the cause of incidents which, fortunately for your Lordships, are rare in this House at all events, for we were kept up night after night during the progress of that Bill, which consisted of only seven clauses. However, the Bill was carried and, to a certain extent, the complaints which we were justified in making were removed by its operation. But nearly all the good that was done at that time has been removed, and more than removed, by the enormous increase of the rates; and, that being so, I am certainly not encouraged to take the view that has been taken by the representative of the Government on this occasion. I do not see the least reason for giving a double vote to live millions of the ratepayers at the present time, and if my noble friend goes to a Division on this Amendment I shall most certainly support him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The grounds upon which it has been urged for your favourable consideration are as I understand, two—first, that the acceptance of the Amendment would tend to local economy: and, secondly, that it would remove from the Register of the local government electors a large number of people whom the noble Earl consistently called "irresponsible voters." What is meant by an irresponsible voter? A person, as I understand, who gives a vote without any sense of the responsibility involved in seeing what its effect may be. Have these married women no such sense of responsibility? Is not the young married wife of an artisan as interested as anybody in seeing that the rent of her house is not unduly overloaded by unnecessary rates? And has she not an even heavier and graver responsibility than that? Is she not the person on whom is placed the responsibility of seeing that her children are brought up in decent surroundings and with a fair chance of being able to be made into honest citizens? Any one who knows how shamefully local government has been neglected in some of our cities in the past would, I cannot help thinking, welcome this opportunity of including in the local government electorate the people who have suffered most by local neglect, and who have the most to gain both by economical and
562
efficient administration and by seeing that the ratepayers' money is used for the purpose of securing the opportunity of healthy development for their children.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I venture to address to your Lordships a few words in opposition to what Lord Buckmaster has just said. My reason for being in favour of this Amendment and for objecting to the clause as it now stands is that this Bill is primarily a franchise Bill, and is not a local government Bill. Hither-to the muncipial franchise has been conferred upon those who pay the rates, and by this provision in the Bill your Lordships would take away from the ratepayers the control and give it to other persons. I do not say that those persons are irresponsible, or that they are not inclined to be as economical as possible; but they do not pay the rates, and therefore they really are not properly within the scope of this Bill. I very much doubt whether this Amendment, when it was inserted at a very late stage in the other House, was within the purview of the Bill, the title of the Bill. I can see no reason for giving this large control over ratepayers' money to persons who do not pay the rates. That is the real objection. As the noble Earl told your Lordships, it was not in the Bill originally. The Government opposed it on more than one occasion in the House of Commons, and why at the last moment Sir George Cave came down to the House, having refused the application only three days before, and gave way, Heaven knows. I think there is a very strong case for this Amendment, and if your Lordships go to a Division I shall vote for it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think this discussion is a very good illustration of the evil caused by mixing up these two things, the Parliamentary and the local government franchise, in one Bill. It would have been much better if we had had a clear issue upon this important matter in a Bill by itself. I have said so before, and I do not desire to develop that argument. But I do feel, after what I said the other night, that I cannot give a silent vote upon this question; and I am afraid I must say to the noble Earls behind me who have spoken that I value their support for the Amendment which I moved the other day, but I am not able to join with them, owing to the position in which

563
we are, in attempting to disqualify women from the local government vote. I welcome the assistance of women in local government matters. I think it stands upon a wholly different platform from the Parliamentary franchise, and although there is force in the contention that perhaps the female voter will not directly have to pay rates for these matters which have been mentioned, I think they are equally responsible and equally entitled to be consulted with the men in matters of local, government concern.
I share the opinion of the noble Earl about the compound householder. I am thankful to say that, except to a very limited exent, we do not know that individual north of the Tweed. It is a very great evil that those who pay the rates do not know the amount that they pay as between rent and rates, and I am glad to think that in many places the authorities are now separating the charges, and that when the bill is presented to those who have to pay, at any rate either by the agency of the local rate collecting authority or by the agency of the landlord, the amount which is paid by the tenant respectively as rent and as rates is separated and they are enabled to tell what they pay under each head. I am indirectly responsible for a large estate in South London, the estate of the Duchy of Cornwall. There we take care, when any demand is made upon the tenants, to let them know how much goes in rates and how much in rent. I think it would be a valuable thing if that were done to a wider extent, because then a great deal of the argument for putting these ladies upon the local Register, would be largely done away with. I repeat that although I dislike the mixing up of the local government and the Parliamentary franchise in the same Bill, I shall not be able to go into the Lobby for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to leave out "or" in subsection (3) and to insert "and (b)." This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("or") and insert ("and (b)").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the last nine words of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not intended to shut out the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster; it is directed to removing what seems to me to be a blot on the Bill. Allusion has been made to the Bill being somewhat illogical, but to me it is almost ridiculous to insert a subsection of this kind which directs that there shall be two classes of female local government voters—namely, the unmarried woman who shall be permitted to vote from the age of twenty-one and upwards; and the married woman who shall be allowed to vote only on attaining thirty years of age. In other words, there appears to be a presumption of what I may call mental paralysis on the part of the married woman. I suggest that we should do one of two things—either raise the age of all local government voters to thirty-one, or enable all married women between twenty-one and thirty, who are qualified under their husbands' qualification, to record their votes in the same way as those who happen to be upon the rate-book in connection with the occupation of premises or land (which will be of a purely nominal character under this Bill), who may record their votes between the ages of twenty-one and thirty.
I will not develop further the argument in connection with the great advantage which married women are to the community, because that matter has been alluded to before. I know what magnificent work young married women have done in the field of education; in connection with the nursery schools of this country, in the establishment of crèches and in the upbringing of children. They have served on health committees, and they are now serving on agricultural committees, pension committees, and so on. And I cannot conceive why the single women between twenty-one and thirty, who have very little interest in a place, should be allowed to retain their votes—possessing, it may be, a small sweetshop, or something of that kind—while you debar the married women between twenty-one and thirty, who are much more competent to exercise the right of a local government elector.
It is on these grounds that I move this Amendment—although I am quite aware that if it is carried it will add very largely to the number of local government electors.

565
It is on behalf of the married woman that I venture to urge that we should make the Bill as logical as we can, and reduce the age so as to enable them to be qualified at the age of twenty-one. I beg to move down to the words "and she has attained the age of."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("and she has attained the age of").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had on the Paper an Amendment to substitute "twenty-one years" for "thirty-years" at the end of subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: There is an Amendment standing in my name, which follows Lord Gainford's, but it might be more convenient if I say a word upon his Amendment instead of upon my own. I have, perhaps, an excusable affection for my own words, which I think better than those of the present Amendment, because although the Bill when it deals with granting electoral qualifications to a man makes the condition that he shall be of full age, electoral qualifications conferred upon a woman are made dependent upon certain specified ages, and if this Amendment were accepted there might be a question whether a woman could vote although not twenty-one. But that is a small matter which can be put right on Report.
I trust that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, or this reason. There has been expressed in this House, I think, a general approval of the principle that women should be permitted to enjoy and to exercise the vote in local government matters. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, who moved an Amendment to exclude women from possessing the Parliamentary franchise, expressed himself in strong terms as to his approval of their possessing the franchise for domestic matters; and I believe that many noble Lords who spoke upon the noble and learned Earl's Amendment expressed the same view. As the matter stands, a woman is entitled to a local government qualification if she is either unmarried or married If she is unmarried she is entitled to that vote when she attains the age of twenty-one. If, after she has possessed a vote as an unmarried woman, she marries, as the Bill stands she automatically loses that vote. If her husband dies before she is thirty the vote is once more restored; and if she marries again before she is thirty
566
she loses her vote once more, and, I suppose upon the hypothesis that her electoral reason is in a state of suspense, she recovers it only when she attains the age of thirty.
When the Amendment of Lord Loreburn was being considered there was a considerable amount of justifiable criticism directed against the illogical provisions of the Bill which enable a woman to exercise the Parliamentary franchise only at the age of thirty years. Indeed, such drafts were made upon diction for the purpose of finding proper phrases for expressing the absurd character of these proposals that I do not propose now to use them again. The Lord Chancellor said that the proposals were grotesque, and I think that that was one of the mildest phrases used. If it was grotesque when you were conferring a new franchise for the first time upon a woman, what is the true character of a provision which, when a woman already possesses the qualification, takes it away because she has married and only restores it either when she becomes a widow or when she attains the age of thirty years?
I have seen Bills in my time which were both obscure and difficult, but this seems to me to be something that is almost humorous. Surely if a woman who is unmarried at the age of twenty-two, for example, is entitled to a vote for local government, there is no conceivable reason why, from the mere fact that she has married, it should be taken away. If, of course, you base your whole qualification upon the hypothesis that no woman ought to have a vote unless she is an independent ratepayer, then why give it to her when she attains the age of thirty years? There is no principle at all which underlies this provision, and I ask the noble Viscount to consider whether in truth the provision has not been introduced by some oversight—whether the Government have really considered what it effects or how little reason or logic there can be behind it. The principle of the Parliamentary vote in its limited form cannot be supported upon logic or philosophic principles, as the noble Marquess said; but there is no reason why we should not make the local government vote as logical and as philosophical as we can.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment did so on the ground that he wanted to make this provision as

567
regards women logical. I do not think that even his ability can attain as high as that. In fact, if I may allude to the observations which I made in introducing this Bill, I then said that this measure must be regarded rather from the point of view of compromise than of logic, and if those who hold strong views on one side or the other of the woman question are prepared to drive their logic to the utmost limit, they will obviously upset the compromise. This Amendment is, of course, precisely opposite to that which was recently moved by Lord Ancaster. He wished to cut down the woman local government voters by 5,000,000. The noble Lords who support this Amendment wish to add, not, I agree, such an heroic number as 5,000,000, but still a considerable number of women.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Viscount know how many millions it would involve?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I have not got the figures. I do not think the proposal in the Bill, however difficult to defend on the ground of logic, is as absurd as was suggested by the noble and learned Lord. I think there is a certain class of principle in the matter. Married women of over thirty get the local government vote through their husbands. That is to some extent an indirect way of getting a vote. Women between twenty-one and thirty get the vote, not through their husbands, but through their own right, which surely is a stronger ground of possessing a vote than if they got it through somebody else. The noble Lords who support this Amendment wish to see married women between the age of twenty-one and thirty secure the local government vote through their husbands I suggest that that is a very serious alteration of the compromise, which limits the vote to the cases of women over thirty. Moreover, Lord Buckmaster, in his effort to make the proposition as absurd as possible and in order to gain his point, I think slightly overstated the case, because he said, "You have a woman who has the local government vote, who is twenty-two years of age, but who, if she marries, loses her vote." She does nothing of the kind. If she has her vote, if she has got it in her own right, she retains her vote and is not disfranchised.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Supposing she is entitled by virtue of occupying her house, and she marries and goes and lives in her husband's house, she loses her vote at once.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We are not discussing the same point. The noble and learned Lord is referring to the occupation of the house. I was referring to the occupation of land. Then take the case of a house. The only restriction is that both husband and wife cannot be registered in respect of the same premises. Very well, here is a woman who has a house and who marries. She is not deprived of that vote. Of course if she is foolish enough to say she will hand over the property to her husband, and that he shall be registered in respect of that property, then it is her own fault, but she has a perfect right to retain the vote if she wishes. Therefore I think the noble and learned Lord has gone a little too far in saying that if a woman of twenty-two, who has got the vote, marries, she loses the vote.
A woman over thirty years of age gets the vote through her husband, and a woman under that age gets it through herself. It is a clear distinction, and I beg your Lordships not to disturb the arrangement in the nature of a compromise which has been come to. Allow these 6,000,000 to get their votes, but do not seek to add to their number. The idea was to limit the number of women voters to some extent, illogical though it may be, and if you are going to upset the compromise, there is a fear that those who have acquiesced in the arrangement may say that the compromise has been disturbed and they will no longer hold to it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add at the end of subsection (3) "and is not subject to any legal incapacity". The noble Viscount said: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("and is not subject to any legal incapacity").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to add at the end of the clause thè words: "For the purpose of this provision, a naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a residence qualification which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed to

569
be resident in accordance with the qualification. The noble Lord said: I hope I may be a little more fortunate in securing the acquiescence of the Government in this Amendment. It is, I believe, required because by the repeal section in Schedule VIII of the Bill the Act of 1914 has been repealed which would enable a man serving abroad to retain a qualification and be deemed as continuing to occupy the premises which would entitle him to a local government vote.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether it would shorten the proceedings if I say that I am quite ready, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: I was proceeding to explain the Amendment, but if the House approves of it, I do not desire to trouble your Lordships further.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("For the purpose of this provision, a naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a residence qualification which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed to be resident in accordance with the qualification").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the Lord Chairman puts the Question, may I ask whether it was on this Amendment that my noble friend said the point could be considered which I raised at the beginning of the discussion?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; it was on Clause 5.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had given notice of an Amendment to insert, after Clause 4, the following new clause—
Referendum as to franchises (women).
".—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, no steps shall be taken to put into operation the provisions entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary electors unless and until the male parliamentary electors shall have signified their approval in manner provided by this Act.
"(2) At a date to be fixed by His Majesty in Council, being subsequent to that on which the first register prepared under the provisions of this Act shall come into force, but not less than six months nor more than twelve months after the end of the present war, the provisions of this Act entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary
570
electors and to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament, shall be submitted by referendum to the women registered as local government electors for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in favour of those provisions.
"(3) At a date to be fixed by His Majesty in Council being not less than one month nor more than six weeks after the result of the aforesaid submission by referendum has been declared, the same provisions of the said Act shall be submitted by referendum to the male Parliamentary electors.
"(4) The questions put to the voters under subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be:—
"Are you in favour of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary electors and, when so registered, to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament, and a copy of sections four and seven of this Act (so far as applicable to women) shall be printed upon every ballot paper issued.
"(5) if a majority of the male Parliamentary electors voting on referendum as aforesaid shall reply to the question in the affirmative, the said provisions of this Act shall come into operation forthwith.
"If a majority of the male Parliamentary electors voting on referendum as aforesaid shall reply to the question in the negative, the said provisions of this Act shall be of no effect.
"(6) The voting of the female local government electors under subsection (2) of this section shall be known as Part I of the referendum, and the voting of the male registered Parliamentary electors under subsection (3) of this section shall be known as Part II of the referendum.
"(7) No person may record more than one vote, otherwise than as a proxy voter, at the referendum. Any person who shall do so or attempt to do so, shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "illegal practice" shall be construed accordingly. A statement of the effect of this subsection shall be printed on every ballot paper issued.
"(8) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, frame regulations prescribing the method of conducting the aforesaid referendum and ascertaining and declaring the result thereof, and such regulations may apply to the referendum the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act regulating the holding of Parliamentary elections, including any provisions imposing penalties in connection with voting at those elections, or in connection with ballot or proxy papers, or the official marks thereon, with such modifications as may be prescribed for the purpose of adapting those Acts to voting at the referendum."
The noble Lord said: Before I say what I have to say in regard to this Amendment, I should like to say that I propose to move it in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. I could not give notice in time for the Amendment to be reprinted, but it is not very material. I propose to move it without the limit of time to a certain number of months after the war. This will apply to the second and third subsections.

571
The words in subsection (2) which I leave out are "but not less than six months nor more than twelve months after the end of the present war". The effect of this will be to leave absolute power to His Majesty in Council to take the referendum, if it is agreed to, at any time that is thought best.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): Does the provision in subsection (3) as to "six weeks" come out also?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes, I know that in moving this Amendment I am raising a very large issue. I am also aware that in all probability I shall have two main arguments to meet. On the one hand, I shall be told that it is a novel suggestion, wholly foreign to our Constitution, and doubtless I shall have to meet the hostility of the out-and-out supporters of the woman's vote, who probably will say—as I expect they will—that it does not matter to them whether the majority of women want the vote or not; that those of them who are anxious for the vote would like it for themselves.
Before I deal with these two points I want to ask the Committee carefully to consider the issues involved, and some of the statements which were made and the arguments used last week. Whatever our opinions upon the merits of the question may be, there is no doubt whatever that in the discussions of last week both sides acknowledged to themselves and to the Committee the magnitude of the issue which we were discussing. It was described by the Lord Chancellor as a "momentous issue"; by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, as "a plunge in the dark." Other member of the House called it "a leap in the dark," "a revolutionary measure," and it was said to be the "crossing of the Rubicon," and "the most serious change that will have occurred for more than half a century." These descriptions of the effect which the Bill will have should, I think, convince your Lordships that we ought to make very certain that what we are doing is being done, not against, but in accordance with, the will of the great majority of the people of this country.
Another outstanding fact which it seems to me we ought to gather from last week's
572
discussion was this, that the deciding factor in the Division of Thursday night was not really the actual merits of the question, but that a great variety of other considerations were involved. There was a certain amount of what I shall venture to call prejudice raised through the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl on the bench below the gangway being described as a motion for the rejection of the Bill. I do not admit the validity of that description. I am still of opinion that, if people had been willing to do it, the Bill could have gone on without votes for women. But even if that were not the case, that fact was not the fault of those who were opposed to female suffrage. The presumption is raised in my mind that the fact that those who are in favour of female suffrage use that argument shows that in their heart of hearts they were by no means as convinced as they would like to be that without that argument they would be likely to win their case. I may venture to say without conceit that I know this House pretty well. I have not been so long in it as some of the noble Lords I have the honour of addressing, but I have entered upon my forty-second year of consecutive membership of this House. I have many friends in the House, some of whom last week frankly told me that they agreed with me on the merits, and that they agreed with the noble and learned Earl below the gangway, but that they did not wish at this particular time and in all the circumstances in which we are placed to enter upon a conflict with the other House. I am as certain as I can be of anything that that consideration was really the deciding factor in the Division of Thursday last, and not the merits of the question whether or not it was wise to take this plunge.
One cannot help sympathising with the contention. I am not desirous of making difficulties for the nation at the present time, or of entering into a great internal contest in present circumstances. I know that that consideration was uppermost in the minds of many. It was candidly confessed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who I am sorry is not able to be here to-night. The first part of his speech was one of the most convincing arguments against the proposal in the Bill that I have ever heard, and it was quite clear that it came absolutely from his heart. There was one omission in his speech—I will not do more than mention it,

573
because the noble Earl is not present (but it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, who spoke from one of the back benches) that it was largely owing to the intervention of the noble Earl himself in the management of the Association against woman suffrage that agitation had not been more marked in the months through which we have just passed. I do not know whether that fact, if it had been present to the mind of the noble Earl, would have made him take a different course from that which he took, but I am bound to say that we did not expect him, although he might abstain from voting, to put all the pressure which the latter part of his speech undoubtedly put on loyal supporters not to vote according to what he knew were their real convictions on this matter.
I say again that this is a very momentous issue, and it is reasonable that we should be quite sure of our ground, and that we should not take the responsibility of making this great change unless we are certain that the majority of those to whom we are responsible desire it. I do not know whether I shall be thought equally candid with the noble Earl, but I am bound to say that I think there are some questions in the near future, such as marriage laws and the important problems connected with commercial and industrial reconstruction, on which the women have a strong right to be represented. I am not sure that they will get greater justice by being a body by themselves, with their own interests, than if they trusted to the fairness of those who would desire to see fair play in matters of that kind. But I do feel apprehension upon the dangerous step we are taking even in regard to those matters, because I look forward with the greatest fear if this step we are taking were to bring about a regular contest between the male and female sexes in this country. I am not without apprehension that this is what we are preparing for, and that we shall be in greater difficulties by having given the vote than if we had not done so.
I am confirmed in this view by a reported contribution from the pen of Mrs. Pankhurst which I saw in the Daily Express of Saturday. These words are attributed to her—
"I believe that women will vote more together as a sex than the men have done. Men have been nurtured in an atmosphere of political Parties, but they themselves are now agreed that the old political system is a failure."
If the 6,000,000 women are going to accept
574
leadership of that kind, then I say that the fact that they have the vote is preparing difficulties for them and for the country which, without it, none of us could have anticipated. The description is not mine, and. I am not responsible for it, but it does give expression to what is in my humble opinion a change which those who are forcing it must feel they will be responsible for, and one of the things which makes me mistrust the stop we are taking.
I am not going to trouble yoür Lordships with many quotations. I prefer to found my argument upon the passage in the late Mr. Leeky's book on Democracy and Liberty, where we find these words
"A due sense of the proportion of things; an adequate subordination of impulse to reason; an habitual regard to the ultimate and distant consequences of political measures; a sound, sober, and unexaggerated judgment—are elements which already are lamentably wanting in political life, and female influence would certainly not tend to increase them."
If it is to be female influence under the leadership of those who associated themselves with the burning of our churches, with the breaking of windows, and with the assaults on the police, then I say we are preparing for ourselves very serious trouble in the future. All we can say is that we hope for better things and that those who are moderate will be able under the new circumstances to regulate their leadership in a way they have not done in the past. That can only be a hope, and it does not take away from me the feeling of responsibility for the change we are making.
I know I shall be told that it is a large and revolutionary change which I am proposing. At any rate, in regard to it, it cannot be alleged that we are doing anything contrary to what was settled in another place. This question of the reference to the people was not brought forward in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact, it was ruled out of order; there was no discussion, no debate, and no opportunity of testing the feeling of members of that Chamber. But although it was ruled out of order in the House of Commons, that is, according to precedent, no reason why your Lordships should not insert it in the Bill. I will state in a word or two the exact technical position upon that point. It so happens that there is an exact precedent made no longer ago than last year. In the case of the Parliament and Local Elections Bill there was a point of order on exactly the same grounds

575
decided against those who wanted to move an Amendment. The exact reference is on August 23, Hansard, House of Commons, column 2695. When the Amendment was inserted in this House and was down for consideration in another place, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, asked for the ruling of the Speaker, and the Speaker's words were, "The rules of procedure are different in the two Houses. Each House is judge of its own rules." I am shortening the quotation. In the House of Lords the same ruling did not obtain and the provision was inserted. Then the Speaker went on to say, "It does not, therefore, come before us as an Amendment in which the question of privilege arises. It is for the House to decide the question on its merits as to whether or not it will accept the Amendment." The Amendment was moved, the House of Commons accepted it, and it is now the law of the land. Therefore it is obvious that no point of conflict with the other House arises on this occasion.
Now I turn to the point that this suggestion of mine is a novelty in our Constitution. In the first place, I say it is not so great a novelty as female suffrage. It is much less of an innovation and it is much less a dangerous innovation, because, after all, it is only a proposal to consult those who, in theory at any rate, are supreme in the government of this country. Let me see how far we can go on common ground in putting forward that argument. It is, I think, agreed by everybody that the theory of our Constitution is that the will of the people shall prevail. That, of course, means that it must be the real will of the people. The House of Commons represents, to a large extent, the will of the people of this country as constitutionally ascertained. It is because it represents, and only because it represents, the will of the people that it has its basis of authority. It is no derogation to the House of Commons to say that no House of Commons can be representative on every point. It cannot reflect the exact opinion in everything that comes up for discussion. It is very easy to give illustrations, but I will not weary your Lordships by doing so, because I do not suppose that the thesis that I have put forward will be seriously disputed. I would like to say, in case I am misunderstood, that it is no slur upon the House of Commons to make that statement. It is no fault of that House that it cannot represent exactly on every point the
576
opinion of the majority of people. What I do think it right to point out is that the majority of a majority does not necessarily mean the majority of the people outside. This is especially the case when the question at issue, like female suffrage, cuts across the ordinary Party lines. The fact is some people may rejoice over it, some may deplore it—that our system of organisation, what is called the caucus of the Party organisation, many merits as it has in some ways, does undoubtedly tend to squeeze out the independent man. He is not liked by the Party organiser, and the Party organiser does all he can to put him out of Parliament. Abraham Lincoln defined the proper form of government as "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." I am afraid that we are getting too much into a contrary system—Government of the people, by the Party, for the sake of the Party. It is that particular thing which the referendum, if it ever became a part of our Constitution, would cure, and it is because it would strike at the authority of the Party organiser that the Party organiser is always against it.
There are other objections made to it from time to time. There is the question of the expense, the question of the delay which will arise, the question whether the referendum would involve the fate of the Government, and so on; and there is the point, often made, that the subject of the reference would be so complicated that the average voter would not understand it. There is, further, the question which is prominent in the minds of some, that if you begin a reference to the people you will have the initiative and a great many other horrible things which are portrayed in striking colours. For my part, if I were proposing to make a referendum part of our Constitution I would face all those dangers cheerfully, rather than go on under the thumb of the Party organiser as we are doing at the present time. I believe that it would be an infinitely less danger to our institutions.
All these things, however, are side issues at present, because my Amendment does not propose to make this part of our Constitution. What it does propose is a perfectly simple issue which can be understood by every man and woman in the country. It is proposed to take the decision of those who, after all, have the right to decide a point of this kind. I am always glad

577
to make a quotation from those who are against me on a point at issue. I could multiply quotations from prominent statesmen on both sides, some keenly in favour of, some not so keenly in favour of but indifferent to, the question of the referendum. But here is what was said in The Times, which is against the proposal that I am putting forward, of August 22, 1916—
"We have no provision for the referendum, which, whatever its limitations, is essentially the best method of settling such a question as woman suffrage."
That is my case. Here is an isolated instance of a very important change easily understood by the people which I cannot understand any possible constitutional objection to submitting for their judgment and consideration.
I turn to another point which was discussed very much last week. My noble friend, Lord Selborne, said that if ever there was a clear case as far as he could see in our Constitution, there was clearly what is popularly called a mandate for woman suffrage by the Election of 1910. He did not use the word "mandate," and I use it only as a short method of describing what is meant, because I detest the word. The allegation which Lord Selborne made was that this matter was sufficiently before the people in 1910 to be regarded as decisive at the present time. Let me refer to the exact circumstances under which the Election of 1910 was taken. The most prominent issue was the Parliament Bill. It absorbed nearly all attention at the time of the Election. There were some vague indications that some sort of Home Rule Bill was also to be introduced by the Government. The nature of the Bill itself was not described, but there was a general statement that there would be a Home Rule Bill if the then Liberal Government was returned to power. I suggest that these two issues by themselves absolutely overshadowed any question of female suffrage at that Election.
Let me illustrate what I mean. It is quite possible that a majority of those who were returned to the House of Commons were in favour of female suffrage, but when there were two other questions of such enormous importance as those that I have mentioned before the electorate, what was the position of the man who was against woman suffrage and against the Parliament Bill and Home Rule? He is given only the choice by our Party
578
system of two candidates. And supposing one of these candidates had declared in favour of Home Rule and the Parliament Bill and the other candidate had declared against legislation on these subjects, but in favour of female suffrage. Surely the average man who is against those two very large measures, which were prominent, could take no other course than vote for the candidate with whom he was in sympathy on those measures, notwithstanding that the same man was a professed supporter of female suffrage. I need not labour it further, for I have too much desire not to take up more of your Lordships' time than is absolutely necessary.
I turn to another point which was made in the course of that discussion. It is alleged that there was no opposition in the country to the proposal to include female suffrage in this Bill. I have two or three remarks to make upon that. It is easier at any time to organise in favour of a change than it is to organise against it, but the agitation against this change was deliberateately damped down upon the grounds that it was too great a change to make in the circumstances in which it was being made, and that it was not proper to divert the attention of those concerned from the work which they were doing to win the war. Beyond all question, the influence of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council was used, for reasons I have no doubt sufficient to him, to urge those who were against this proposal not to disturb matters and agitate and divide the country at the time.
Summing up all these arguments, I say that if the fate of this Bill, which I want to see passed, is involved in carrying female suffrage, surely the fairest thing to do is to ask that question by itself—Are you, or are you not, in favour of this great change? I do not claim that my Amendment is perfect. I can understand criticism of the details, but the point I want to make is this—that those of us who mistrust this change, who dislike the method by which it has been brought about, shall be relieved of the responsibility of tacitly consenting to what we so much dislike and mistrust. I have put down in my Amendment provisions for taking the vote by women separately and by men separately, and not taking them together. Personally I think that we have come to that stage when the deciding issue will be, if we can find it out, whether the women of the country really

579
desire this change. And I have very grave doubts whether, if a very considerable majority of the women were proved to want it, men would be found to vote against it.
I have put in the Amendment the taking of a reference to women first, because we have now the local government register, or shall have when this Bill passes, with six millions of women upon it, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that they should be asked to decide whether or not this great change is to take place. I do not know whether I shall go too far when I say that hostility to my proposal arouses in my mind the suspicion that those who are spokesmen of this change are not so certain in their own minds that they would get the majority for which they seek. At any rate here is a point which is at least in grave doubt; it is a momentous change, a leap in the dark; and, if we mistrust this policy, surely we are not going too far in saying that the responsibility is too great to allow it to pass when we know that it does not profess finality, that it is founded on no principle, and that further changes will certainly be urged upon us. To sum up what I have to say in favour of a reference to the people on this point, the issue is clear and precise. It is in accordance with the best principles of our Constitution to make this reference to those who, after all, are supreme in authority; and it is by this means, and by this means alone, that you will secure a final decision on a high matter of principle without complication and without any confusion of other issues.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert as a new clause:
" Referendum as to franchises (women).
".(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, no steps shall be taken to put into operation the provisions entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary electors unless and until the male Parliamentary electors shall have signified their approval in mariner provided by this Act.
"(2) At a date to be fixed by His Majesty in Council, being subsequent to that on which the first register prepared under the provisions of this Act shall come into force, the provisions of this Act entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary electors and to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament, shall be submitted by referendum to the women registered as local government electors for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in favour of those provisions.
"(3) At a date to be fixed by His Majesty in Council, the same provisions of the said Act shall be submitted by referendum to the male Parliamentary electors.
"(4) The questions put to the voters under sub sections (2) and (3) of this section shall be:—
"Are you in favour of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, entitling women to be registered as Parliamentary electors and, when so registered, to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament, and a copy of sections four and seven of this Act (so far as applicable to women) shall be printed upon every ballot paper issued.
"(5) If a majority of the male Parliamentary electors voting on referendum as aforesaid shall reply to the question in the affirmative, the said provisions of this Act shall come into operation forthwith.
"If a majority of the male Parliamentary electors voting on referendum as aforesaid shall reply to the question in the negative, the said provisions of this Act shall be of no effect.
"(6) The voting of the female local government electors under subsection (2) of this section shall be known as Part I of the referendum, and the voting of the male registered Parliamentary electors under subsection (3) of this section shall he known as Part II of the referendum.
"(7) No person may record more than one vote otherwise than as a proxy voter, at the referendum. Any person who shall do so or attempt to do so, shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "illegal practice" shall be construed accordingly. A statement of the effect of this subsection shall be printed on every ballot paper issued.
"(8) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, frame regulations prescribing the method of con-ducting the aforesaid referendum and ascertaining and declaring the result thereof, and such regulations may apply to the referendum the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act regulating the holding of Parliamentary elections, including any provisions imposing penalties In connection with voting at those elections, or in connection with ballot or proxy papers, or the official marks thereon, with such modifications as may be prescribed for the purpose of adapting those Acts to voting at the referendum."—(Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: If your Lordships will allow me to intervene for a moment, I desire to say that this is a matter which is open to the House. Therefore on the part of the Government I do not propose to make any statement on the grave considerations advanced by the noble Lord. I should like, however, to make one or two observations on small points. As regards the form of the Amendment, your Lordships may observe that there is first of all a referendum to the women, and then to the men. Apparently if the women are in favour of the vote it does not follow that they will get it, because they may be upset by the vote of the men. On the other hand, if the women decide that they do not want it, apparently the men may decide that they do. The form, therefore, is rather curious.

581
I think I ought to call attention to this, that the proposal of the noble Lord suggests that we might have in the very near future no fewer than three Elections. I do not want to refer to the expense, because that is a vulgar matter which is rather the business of another place. But I think it is worth considering that if we are to take this referendum before we get an appeal to the electorate we may in a very short time have no fewer than three Elections—first of all, the election in which the women are consulted; secondly, the Election in which the men are consulted; and, thirdly, the General Election. This does involve very considerable machinery, because in all three cases—and, of course, nothing can take place till July, when the new electorate is on the Register you will have to put in force the whole machinery that you would for a General Election; that is to say, the vote by proxy, the vote by post, and all the other matters. I am only stating these points in passing, because your Lordships may think that other considerations outweigh them.
May I incidentally say that no doubt the change made by the noble Lord in his Amendment is a great improvement upon the wording as he put it down on the Paper, because that put off this referendum till rather a late stage and kept the matter for some time in suspense. But supposing the General Election takes place before the referendum, then you will have Parliament elected, and that Parliament will, of course, be able to do exactly what it likes with this clause; it may repeal it or not. The result is that, if the referendum is put off till after the next Election, it really is putting off this question for the determination of another Parliament; That is, I think, what the proposal really amounts to. There is this further difficulty. The Government had hoped—in fact, it was one of the reasons for bringing in this large measure during the war—that all these matters of electoral machinery might be dealt with and that the consideration of the new Parliament might be devoted to those vast questions of reconstruction that lie ahead. Of course, that would not be so if you bad this contested question discussed in all its issues and in all the constituencies during the General Election.
The noble Lord said, in dealing with this matter, that if you introduce the referendum you will not be doing anything contrary to the views of the House of Commons. I am not sure whether that can be said
582
to be an accurate statement of the case. The House of Commons, by a majority of seven to one, decided in favour of woman suffrage. When a decision like that is come to by a Legislative Assembly I think it always means that as soon as the Bill becomes an Act its provisions shall come into force. Therefore, to that extent. I ought to suggest that limitation on the accuracy of the statement of the noble Lord.
There is only one remaining point. Woman suffrage having been passed by this overwhelming majority of seven to one in the House of Commons, and by a large majority in this House, the question is whether your Lordships feel not only that you are prepared to put in this Amendment now, but that when it comes back from the other House—as, of course, it will come back in view of the overwhelming majority there—your Lordships, in view of the feeling in the other House and in view of the statements made by my noble friend the Leader of the House last Thursday, will be prepared to stand by that Amendment. That is all I have to say at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in moving his Amendment, stated that there were two classes in your Lordships' House who might be expected to oppose him—in the first place, those who regard the introduction of this new constitutional device as representing a gigantic innovation, and those who, as out-and-out supporters of woman suffrage, would be certain to offer opposition. That no doubt is true. On the other hand, my noble friend may expect to gain the support of some who, though not exceedingly interested one way or the other about the woman's vote, take a keen interest in the referendum as an addition to our constitutional machinery, and would, therefore, be disposed to support him on that account.
I am very anxious on this occasion not to discuss the general merits of the referendum as an addition to our Constitution and one in opposition to the representative system under which we have so long been governed. It is a very large question. Seven or eight years ago it was, as many of your Lordships will remember, before the House and was discussed at great length for two days. I dare say that some of your Lordships may remember the discussion. I am anxious, therefore, not to deal with the general question at all. In fact, my noble friend

583
himself did not do so to any great extent, although he did undoubtedly try to extol the advantages of this particular system of arriving at public opinion and of ultimate government.
But there is one difficulty which everybody knows attaches to the institution of the referendum—particularly would be likely to attach in a country like this—namely, the exact body of persons to whom the reference is to be made. It has been often pointed out that in the case of a Scottish Bill, or an Irish Bill, or a Bill which applies exclusively to England, a general reference to the electors of the whole United Kingdom might in some instances be out of place. At any rate, so it has been argued. It has been pointed out that the introduction of the system would be far more easy under a Federal Constitution than under that with which we live. I think it cannot be disputed that in this particular instance this difficulty arises—it was drawn attention to very clearly by the noble Lord above the gangway (Lord Willoughby de Broke) in his speech on Clause 4 the other day—namely, the almost amazing anomaly of referring a question of this kind, as to whether they are or are not fit for the vote, to the class of persons who themselves are stated by you to be unfit.
Let me try to find a parallel. Subject races in the Empire who are not supposed to reach to the full stature of political manhood are sometimes granted what are called representative institutions by degrees, and with gradually enhanced powers until at last they attain the full status of a responsible Government. I certainly never heard it suggested that, when some form of representative government was to be conferred on such a race, a referendum should be taken of that race asking whether it did not think it was fit for responsible government. Yet that is apparently what my noble friend proposes to do. There is this set of people described by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn as congenitally unsuited for the control of our Imperial affairs, and yet you want to put it to them whether they are or are not suited. I confess that this seems to me one of the most astonishing suggestions that has ever been put before your Lordships' House by a responsible statesman like my noble friend.
It has often been alleged in the past, of course, that this question of woman
584
suffrage is a particularly suitable one for the introduction of this constitutional novelty, because it does not cut (as my noble friend said) straight across the lines of Parties, which, as we know when Party government was in full swing, constituted the principal difficulty in the way of a Government of either Party submitting it to the popular consideration. No Cabinet that could have been formed before the war but would have contained members holding diametrically opposite views on this question, and therefore it was thought, almost as a counsel of despair, that a referendum was the only way out of the difficulty. But the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill has pointed out, in the short speech he made, what are some of the special difficulties surrounding the submission of this question to a popular reference at this time, and I should be greatly surprised if any one of the noble Lords who favour the Amendment of my friend can find an answer to those difficulties.
To my mind, the fatal objection to this proposition, apart from any question as to whether the referendum is a good thing in itself or not, or whether we wish to see it introduced, is that this is a deliberate invitation to a new and probably violent agitation on both sides; and I cannot believe that the Government—although I gather from my noble friend that they do not wish to take a special part as a Government in opposing this Amendment—would regard with anything but the utmost apprehension and dismay any probability of the sort of agitation which would be aroused by accepting the proposition of my noble friend.
Then I come to the final point which the noble Viscount opposite mentioned. The proposal certainly would not be accepted. It is not to be supposed that the House of Commons, having passed the measure by the vast majority it did, would sit down and agree to what is practically the rejection of that measure in favour of an entirely different plan. It is inconceivable that any House of Commons could accept a proposition of that kind from your Lordships' House, and this, I cannot help feeling, must be the governing consideration in the mind of this House. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment of my noble friend In spite of the powerful arguments which he used as to the difficulty of submitting

585
this question apart from others—arguments which, of course, may hold good for a general acceptance of the principle of the referendum—those arguments of his, I thought, tended further to a support of some system of proportional representation than they did to the introduction of the referendum. I trust, for the reason I have named and for many others which other noble Lords have given, the House will not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: There are, as we all know, a great many of us who entertain feelings of considerable suspicion with regard to this novel method of taking the opinion of the whole people by what is called the popular vote. It is a novel proposal, and it is difficult to foresee how far it might carry us. But I want to submit a few reasons for thinking that the objections that attach to the plan of popular voting which we know as a referendum do not apply to this particular proposal made by Lord Balfour.
The main objection to introducing a system of popular voting as a new principle of our Constitution is that it would supersede the constitutional system which we have long observed, and with which we are satisfied, of legislating by Parliament and appealing to the people to elect a House of Commons which can represent their views. The proposal of my noble friend does not do anything of the kind. He proposes, not to ask the electors to go past the House of Commons and to deliver their opinions upon a question which they could decide at a General Election, but to ask those who are not represented in Parliament at all, and who have no means now of expressing their view, to deliver their opinion. Therefore he is not introducing any principle which is open to the objection generally taken to referendums.
My noble friend finds in this case that the main contention which has been urged on both sides during the debates has been as to the wish of the women themselves. I notice that those who are in favour of woman suffrage have fallen into the habit of always saying "Women ask for this; can you refuse the demand of the women?" Surely that is to assume the very question at issue. The contention of those who are opposed to woman suffrage is that the women have not given any such opinion, and that those who claim to speak for them
586
and ask for woman suffrage here have no commission to speak for the women of this country. They represent a section; and there is another section, which many of us believe to be equally large, or larger, which is opposed to the gift of the franchise. I hold in my hand a memorial which I have just received and which is signed by a very large number of women. I have not counted the signatures, but there are twelve folio pages very closely printed. They are all engaged in war work in some form or other, in which the women of this country have been rendering such splendid services. If your Lordships had time to peruse this memorial, I think you would be struck by the very large number of women of all classes engaged in all kinds of war work who have signed it, who ask your Lordships to oppose the proposal in this Bill, and urge that this question should be submitted to the judgment of the whole of the women of the country.
It was remarked in the debate a few days ago, by, I think, Lord Selborne, that in 1867 when the question of the extension of the borough franchise was being debated, and again in 1884 when the franchise was extended to county voters, it was not thought necessary to argue that they wanted the vote. Of course, it was not. Everybody assumed it. It was not thought necessary to take their opinion, because nobody doubted for a moment that the men of the country did want to have the vote. But the case of the women is entirely different. They have never had any opportunity of declaring their opinion, and it is perfectly open to any one to say with conviction that if the women of this country could be properly consulted a very large number would be opposed to the grant of the franchise.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Viscount has not quite accurately quoted what I said. What I said was that the statesmen of that day were quite satisfied that there was a demand which required satisfaction. They never thought it necessary to inquire whether an actual majority of the men to be enfranchised were clamouring for the vote.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Earl, but my argument is just the same. Certainly nobody then suggested that the men did not want the vote. It was assumed that

587
every man wanted the vote. No men ever petitioned against it, no meetings were ever held against it, and no society existed among working men asking that working men should not be enfranchised. Therefore we have perfectly different cases; and it is essential to the case that is made on behalf of woman suffrage by those who advocate it here that some far better and more conclusive evidence should be given than has yet been furnished that it is the desire of the general mass of women of this country.
My noble friend Lord Crewe, in the remarks which have just fallen from him, suggested that we were not in the habit of inquiring, when it was proposed to confer a gift, whether those upon whom it was to be conferred were competent to undertake the duty. Here it is not a question of competence. What we are asking the women is whether they wish it, and whether they think it would be to their good; and those who have tried to follow this question and ascertain the opinion of women upon it know a very large number of women—whom every one would agree to be perfectly competent, and whom we should desire to enfranchise if we could do so without enfranchising the large mass of women—who are entirely opposed to it. Many of your Lordships must know large numbers of the most capable and intelligent women who deprecate the gift of the vote and say that it would take women out of their proper sphere, and, so far from doing them good, would possibly do far more harm. I express no opinion on the question. I say it is only right that women who entertain that opinion should be given a chance of declaring their views. We have, fortunately, the opportunity of doing so, because this Bill contains provision for setting up a local government register, and upon that register it would be perfectly easy to take the opinion of the women of this country.
It is not for me to anticipate what final form my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will give to his proposals. I think that an answer could be given, but it is better that he should give it, to the practical difficulties which were indicated by Lord Peel in the few remarks which he made at the beginning of this discussion. But there is one point I wish to notice, and to appeal to my noble friend regarding it. His Amendment proposes two referenda, one to the women and one to the men. I would submit to him and to your
588
Lordships that the result of the referendum to the women might be accepted as practically decisive. I think that those of us who deprecate the extension of the suffrage to women would withdraw our opposition at once if there was a substantial majority of the women in favour of their having the vote; and I cannot imagine resistance being successfully maintained if the women had given a decision to that effect. On the other hand, if the women rejected it, I think it may fairly be assumed that those who have hitherto professed to speak on behalf of women as a whole would, when they found that they had been mistaken, withdraw, for the present at least, the demand they have put forward. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend may be able to indicate that he will be content with a referendum to women alone, which, moreover, would be free from the constitutional objection that I have ventured to point out.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My noble friend Lord Halifax has tabled an Amendment which meets the suggestion made by the noble Viscount. It was not put down in time to be printed in the Marshalled List of Amendments, but it is lying on the Table.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I was going to say that I had given notice of an Amendment to limit the referendum to women alone. I suppose it will be more convenient that I should move it in the event of Lord Balfour's not being carried.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I have one or two observations to offer upon what was said with regard to the position of the House of Commons in this matter. I submit that we are not entering on any contest with the House of Commons if we pass this Amendment. The matter was never before the House of Commons. It has not delivered any opinion against a referendum. Therefore we are not controverting any views that it expressed. More than that, the members of the House of Commons claim, and rightly claim, that they are entitled to represent their electors, but the women are not their electors. The women are not represented by the House of Commons. The very case that is made in favour of the grant of woman suffrage is that the House of Commons does not represent the women of this country. The House of Commons is, therefore, surely no better interpreter of the

589
feelings of the women of the country than is this House. Its members do not profess to know, and they cannot know, what are the feelings of the women. We do not claim to know either. We are both equally ignorant of what the decision of the women will be. Therefore, there is certainly no offence to the House of Commons in our asking that it should join us in endeavouring to ascertain that opinion.
What the Amendment proposes pays a tribute to the wishes of the women themselves. It is said that men ought not to legislate for women. Well, we are going to ascertain whether women themselves wish to legislate. That is a recognition of the fact that they ought not to be entrusted with the function if they do not desire to fulfil it. I submit to your Lordships that there is nothing in this proposal which is either inconsistent with constitutional practice, or which ought to be taken, or will be taken, as a matter of grievance by the House of Commons, or as an attempt on our part to enter into a contest with that House. It is a proposal surely which that House can accept without the slightest loss of dignity, and one, which, in fact, ought to commend itself to its members as removing what has been one of the chief causes of difference between the supporters and opponents of this proposal—namely, the question of what is the real wish of women themselves.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment had, I think, little need to appeal to that long experience of membership of this House—and, I may add, it is Ministerial and legislative experience—which has given him the influence and authority that he so justly exercises among your Lordships. I rise, however, to point out that in no matter has he shown that experience better than—and I hope he will forgive me for saying perhaps more craftily than—in the selection of the manner of this new counter-attack, to be carried out apparently by picked troops, upon the position which was carried by frontal attack a few nights ago. My noble friend appeals to the General Election of 1910. His skill in advocacy is shown by the fact that he knows well enough that every member of your Lordships' House who has come here since the General Election of 1910, and who belongs to the Unionist Party, is one of those who in that Election and in the political contests of those days advocated the use of the referendum;
590
and since then my noble friend and I have been collaborating in recommending, in certain circumstances and for certain purposes, the use of the referendum as a solution of political questions. He, therefore, rightly anticipated that some advocates of woman suffrage would find themselves in great difficulties were such an Amendment as this moved.
Perhaps the most subtle portion of my noble friend's attack is that in which he said the advocates of female suffrage suffer from unavowed doubts as to its acceptability in the country. That is a very subtle form of argument, because it is difficult to meet it except by the expression of personal views. It is my opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of most of the advocates of female suffrage, that we do already know what the country thinks about it. In this connection let me meet what was said by the noble Viscount who has just sat down—that he attributed supreme importance to the proposed vote from the women alone. Some of us advocates of woman suffrage regard the vote of women alone as not only unnecessary but irrelevant. To my thinking, this sex distinction for political purposes has always been a false classification. Surely when every day sees us placing further obligations upon and exacting further services from women, accompanying them by no further privileges, this is not the time to say that we are entitled to regard them as anything but residents, inhabitants, and citizens.
We have seen and had made known to us the resolutions of various organisations in favour of woman suffrage, and we have seen the absence of anything like a spontaneous agitation against it. The length of time that has elapsed without legislative effect being given to this feeling, which we believe to exist—the failure to translate the movement into legislative action—is due entirely to the fact that it cut right across the lines of Party cleavage; you could never get a united Ministry in its favour; it never became the subject of a Government Bill, and never could be successfully pressed upon the attention of the Legislative House. Now we have such an opportunity.
This Bill, and the proposal to legislate in favour of woman suffrage without reference to the country, arose from what I may call a wave of feeling in the House of Commons, of which I was then a member. When discussing registration we were led

591
on to discuss franchise, and from franchise to discuss the extension of the franchise to other classes than those who had enjoyed it before. The desire was expressed on the spur of the moment, that all these questions should be deferred to an impartial inquiry and made, if possible, the subject of general agreement. You may say that waves are things of an unsubstantial character and soon expend their force, but of that wave I can say one thing—it was influenced entirely, and chiefly, by the desire to place this and other like questions at once outside the realm of Party disagreement and controversy. If you ask me anything else about this wave, of which I was a witness, I will say that it resembled exactly that wave of feeling which led to the barring of all controversial subjects from the operation of the Legislature during the time of war. We are all in the realm of paradox at the present time, and this Bill is itself to a great extent a collection of paradoxes, being a constellation of compromises.
I do not altogether assent to the idea that the House of Commons, which has sat for more than seven years, is necessarily the most unrepresentative House of Commons we could possible have. I have a recollection of something like ten contested elections, and at no time in my Parliamentary career did I feel a more delightful sense of freedom to take what course I liked than in the first few months after one of the contested elections, when you had five solid years to look forward to before you rendered your account. Whether it be five years, or seven years, or a longer period, there does come to members of the House of Commons a certain intuition, a certain instinct, when they have sat for a long time in the House, and have corresponded with constituents and had an opportunity of making acquaintance with those, not the least worthy, members of their constituency who do not always take part in contested elections. For all the time there is creeping on that fateful hour at which they have to give their account. It is in these circumstances that the present House of Commons has given this tremendous decision by so gigantic a majority, and has taken the opportunity of reversing the judgement which, in totally different circumstances, it had so recently pronounced. These are some of the grounds on which I base my conviction that we have the country with us in this proposal.
And in these circumstances I tell my noble friend who has moved this Amendment
592
that I cannot support him, although, like himself, I am an advocate of the referendum. I am an advocate of the referendum in appropriate cases, of which I do not conceive this to be one. My advocacy of the referendum in 1910, as now, was and is limited to cases where, as I conceive it, the matter is in doubt as to what the electorate of the country really desired; and, secondly, as a means of solving all the difficulties arising from cases, of which this is not one, in which the two Houses of Parliament have come to a disagreement. In view of the agreement which was, happily, arrived at a few nights ago, I trust that your Lordships' House will not interpose a further delay in the satisfaction of claims which we believe to be just and well-founded and entertained by the majority of the people of this country. I hope your Lordships will bear in mind that the advocates of woman suffrage have already suffered quite enough in the way of having their hopes rendered apparently futile by the adoption of dilatory tactics.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two, and only a word or two, before a statement is made from the Government Bench. The position taken up by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh seems to me to be unassailable in argument. Throughout these discussions we have contended that there were grave reasons for doubting whether this immense change was desired by the electorate of the country and, more than that, whether it was desired by the women themselves. We seek to put these questions to the test, and the only test to which they can be put—namely, a direct appeal limited to the particular matter at issue. And, let me say, I am glad to learn that my noble friend is prepared to limit the reference which he desires to make to an appeal to the women, because I think if the women gave an unambiguous vote in favour of what is proposed it is improbable that the electorate would turn against them. I say that the referendum is not only a good way of ascertaining how the women of this country regard the matter, but it is the only way in which we can really get at their opinions. This procedure is, to my mind, specially attractive because it seems to me that by resorting to it we meet effectually the argument, so constantly used in debate last week, that we were offering what was called an insult to the women.

593
You cannot possibly contend that we shall be offering an insult to the women if we give them an opportunity of saying themselves whether they desire the franchise or not. Nor am I at all intimidated by the argument used just now by the noble Marquess who leads on the other side of the House, Lord Crewe, that in his opinion it was an anomaly to ask the women themselves whether they desired the franchise or not. I fail altogether to see what the anomaly is. We make a challenge. You express the view that the change is desired. We doubt it, and we ask you to appeal to the only authority which can give us a decisive finding upon the question.
The question which naturally occurs to one is whether, by supporting the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, we shall, from the practical point of business, advance our cause. Let me examine that for one moment. Those of us who are opposed to female suffrage are anxious to do what we can to prevent it, and, if we cannot prevent it, at any rate to make our protest in the most decided manner possible. So far as our protest is concerned, I doubt whether anything could be very much stronger than the protest which some of us made on Thursday of last week. The speeches made by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn, by the Lord Chancellor, by Lord Curzon himself, up to the point when he announced his intention of not taking part in the Division, were protests as strong as any Parliamentary protest could be. Can we do anything more, not by way of protest, but as a practical step to prevent a change which we believe to be a disastrous one? I think that it is true to some extent that the position was compromised by the Division of last week, and I think it also quite possible that the forces arrayed against us may be reinforced by the vote of some members of this House who are strongly opposed to the referendum. We shall, I suppose, be given to understand again that the House of Commons has spoken, that the House of Commons is in no mood to listen to arguments of this kind, and that His Majesty's Government cannot do anything to influence the action of that House, and therefore we shall be told that we are obliged to accept defeat. That is, as far as I understand it, the attitude of the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill.
I do, however, submit to your Lordships
594
that the issue to-night is a different one from that which was before us last Thursday. On that occasion we were frankly seeking to deprive women of the vote. To-night we are not seeking to do that. On the contrary, we imply as distinctly as possible that if the result of the referendum should show that the franchise is desired by women we are ready to abide loyally by the verdict. In these circumstances, even if it was reasonable for my noble friend the Leader of the House, whose absence we all regret, to stampede the forces opposed to the clause by the speech which he delivered on Thursday night, it does not seem to me equally reasonable that the same kind of argument should be allowed to prevail upon the present occasion. I cannot help hoping that if any more be said from the Government Bench we shall be told that His Majesty's Government recognise the fact that we are not debating to-night the same issue which we were debating last Thursday, and that, if the majority of votes cast here this evening should be in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, His Majesty's Government will do what lies within them in order to bring about elsewhere the consideration to which our arguments are entitled.
Let me say—this shall he my last word—that although, as the noble Marquess opposite suggested, there may be technical difficulties in the way of applying machinery with which we are not familiar, and although those difficulties may not be inconsiderable, yet any difficulties of that kind seem to me absolutely trivial and negligible compared with the immense gravity of the issue which we are called upon to decide.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure whether your Lordships are desirous of coming to a decision on the Amendment at this moment, but I should like to ask leave to say a few words so that I may not give a silent vote.
LORD BERESFORD: There are many more noble Lords who wish to speak.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understand that a good many of your Lordships desire to speak on this subject. In those circumstances perhaps it would be for the

595
general convenience if the noble Marquess would himself move the adjournment of the discussion on this Amendment until to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move.
On Question, House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday the 22nd instant.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until 3.30 to-morrow.—(The Earl of Crawford).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.