Sitting of 4 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords,]
As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
Gas Provisional Orders Bill,
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
Order [15th October] that the Paper relative thereto do lie upon the Table, read, and discharged: Paper withdrawn.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1918–19).
Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1919 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 127.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Discharged Seamen and Soldiers) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 28th June, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance. Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners, and by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting alone, entitled the National Health Insurance (Benefits of Invalided Seamen and Soldiers) Regulations, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Copy presented of Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1918, out of the
1756
Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 975 (Malta, Report for 1917–18) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Interim Reports of the Civil War-workers' Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARDS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES AND SCOTLAND.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Local Goernment Board and the Secretary for Scotland to consider questions of Building Construction in connection with the Provision of Dwellings for the Working Classes in England and Wales and Scotland and report upon Methods of securing Economy and Dispatch in the Provision of such Dwellings [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, dated 24th September, 1918, postponing the date of operation of two Orders referred to in the Schedule thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    SUBMARINE WARFARE.

      MAIL STEAMERS (ESCORT).
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which took place between the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company or any of the directors or

      1757
      officials of that company and his Department regarding the question of convoy or escort of the mail steamers "Leinster" and "Ulster"; can he say whether a letter from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company to his Department on this subject was written in July, and that no answer was given to the same until the 9th October, the day before the "Leinster" was torpedoed; and whether the effect of that answer was that nothing could be done?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I shall be pleased to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of correspondence with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, but I do not think any advantage would be gained by publishing it. The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company wrote on on the 15th July requesting the Board to support with the Admiralty their request that the mail steamers should be provided with an escort. On the 24th July the Board wrote to the Admiralty on the subject, informing the company on the same day that they were doing so. As the question of protection was one solely for the Admiralty, no further action was taken at the time, but subsequently, on the 7th October, the Board took the opportunity, when addressing a communication to the company on Board of Trade requirements, of stating the substance of the letter received from the Admiralty on the subject of protection of the mail steamers.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Am I to understand that the Board of Trade was in no way responsible for the protection of these cross-Channel steamers, and that the responsibility lies solely with the Admiralty?
      Mr. WARDLE: As far as protection of the steamers is concerned, certainly.

      LIFEBELTS (CROSS-CHANNEL STEAMERS).
      General McCALMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of enforcing the continuous wearing of lifebelts by civilian passengers on cross-Channel steamers?
      Mr. WARDLE: At present notices are posted up on cross-Channel steamers instructing passengers either to wear life-jackets or to have them at hand ready to put on immediately, but I will consider whether it would be practicable to give effect to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
      General McCALMONT: Is my hon. Friend aware that the matter was brought to the notice of the Board of Trade several months ago, and that if there had been an order of this kind the loss of life on the "Leinster" would have been very much less than it was?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a problematical question.

    TIMBER CONTROLLER (STAFF).
    Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the number of persons employed in the various Departments under the Timber Controller; whether he will give the cost of running those Departments during the last financial year; and will he give the average monthly expenditure during the present year?
    Mr. WARDLE: Information so far as possible on the lines referred to by the hon. Member is being prepared, and will be forwarded to him.

    COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS.

      METAL TRADE.
      Mr. ROBERTSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and at what date, a company has been formed with a capital of £6,000,000 to do business in metals; whether four of the directors are former members of the Committee on Non-Ferrous Metals; whether several of them are employed in the Ministry of Munitions; whether the Government has promised the company financial or other assistance; and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the support to be given?
      Mr. WARDLE: I understand that application has been made for the registration of the company to which my fight hon. Friend refers. As regards the proposed directors, three were members of the Departmental Committee on the position of the non-ferrous metal trades after the War. I believe that one is at present engaged in the Ministry of Munitions. No financial assistance has been promised or will be given to the company by the Government, and, as has already been stated in this House, there is no intention to accord to the company any preferential treatment as compared with other British controlled companies having similar objects.

    RAILWAY TRAVEL

      PASSENGER SERVICES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say whether, in view of the shortage of coal, the Railway Executive Committee propose to reduce the existing passenger services on any of the railways during the winter months; and if he can make any statement on the subject?
      Mr. WARDLE: It is hoped that it will not be necessary to make reductions in passenger train services beyond those which have already been made.

      SEASON TICKET COMMITTEE.
      Mr. COTTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state who are the members of the Season Ticket Committee appointed by the Board of Trade; whether they receive any and, if so, what salary for their services; what are the principles upon which they decide the cases which come before them; and what machinery has he devised for remedying cases of injustice in which an adverse decision has been reached?
      Mr. WARDLE: The conditions regulating the issue of renewal of season tickets are set out in the Railway Season Ticket Order, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. Cases in which a railway company feel unable to issue or renew such tickets are open to review by Mr. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., who has been good enough to undertake this work gratuitously. No appeal from Mr. Lloyd's decision is provided for.
      Mr. COTTON: Is Mr. Lloyd the only member of this committee?
      Mr. WARDLE: So far as I know, there is no committee.

    BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE IN PARIS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that our representative in France, in sending a wreath to the recovered city of Lille, described himself as the English Ambassador; if so, is he aware that such description of himself is a breach of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, the first and third articles of which Treaty expressly state that the
    1760
    United Kingdom shall be called Britain; and will he see that in future his representatives in foreign countries use the proper name of their own country?
    The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I understand that Lord Derby described himself on the occasion referred to as "Ambassadeur d'Angleterre," which is the ordinary French designation of His Majesty's Representative at Paris. I am quite sure that Lord Derby had he intention whatever of violating the provisions of the Treaty referred to.

    RUSSIA.

      MB. LOCKHART.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state the conditions under which Mr. Lockhart was arrested at Moscow, where he was imprisoned, and how long he was kept there?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. I have not yet received Mr. Lockhart's report.

      BRITISH SUBJECTS IMPRISONED.
      Mr. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British subjects are still imprisoned by the Bolshevik Government; whether he is in possession of information regarding the reasons for their imprisonment; and whether he can do anything to procure their immediate release?
      Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) on Thursday, to which I regret I have nothing to add.

      SPECIE (OMSK).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies or the Czecho-Slovaks have captured 65 millions sterling in specie at Omsk; if so, in whose hands this sum now is; and whether it will be available for the funds of the new Czecho-Slovak Government?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the rest of it does not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware that Lord Northcliffe's papers are responsible for this extraordinary statement?

      SIBERIA.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there are now in Siberia two competing Governments, one the Siberian Directorate emanating from the Oufa conference, and the other the Siberian Government relying on the military force of the Czecho-Slovaks; whether financial or military support has been given by this country, its agents, or the Allies to either or each of these authorities; if to one only, to which; and for what distance the Siberian railway is now in British or Allied hands?
      Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative; no part of the Siberian Railway has been taken out of Russian hands.

      MR. NABOKOFF.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Nabokoff has the privilege of communicating in cypher by telegraph with any persons in Russia or elsewhere; and whether Mr. Nabokoff's letters and telegrams to persons abroad have diplomatic immunity from censorship?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No, special arrangements have been made with regard to Monsieur Nabokoff's postal correspondence.
      Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recently published correspondence with Mr. Nabokoff, in which he reflects very gratuitously and unceremoniously upon the Foreign Office?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman read it?

    SALONIKA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on or about 10th November, 1915, the Entente Powers declared that the occupation of Salonika and its environs would be followed by return of all territory occupied and full payment for losses caused by the occupation; whether the return of our troops from the Salonika Front may soon be expected; and how the compensation for losses will be settled?
    Lord R. CECIL: The points raised will not be forgotten.

    CHINA.

      GERMAN PROPERTY (SHAMEEN).
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the orders to be made by His Majesty's Minister at Pekin vesting the property of Germans in the British concession on the Shameen in the custodian of enemy property in China must be issued during the continuance of hostilities with Germany, or whether the orders will have equal effect if issued after the signing of any armistice; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to secure the eviction of these Germans from the British concession before the conclusion of hostilities?
      Lord R. CECIL: The orders will have equal effect if issued after the signing of an armistice. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES (GRANTS).
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any grant of public money and, if so, of what amount is made, either by or on the recommendation of his Department, to the Agricultural Organisation Society or the Agricultural Wholesale Society; whether there is any connection and if so, what, between these two bodies; and whether societies or individuals affiliated to the Agricultural Organisation Society receive any special treatment with respect to discount for goods purchased from the Agricultural Wholesale Society?
    The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): Grants of public money to the Agricultural Organisation Society have been made since 1909–10. Those for the current financial year are £10,000 from the Treasury through the Food Production Department, £4,000 from the Small Holdings Account, and, from the Development Fund, a block Grant of £5,800, together with a Grant equal to four times the amount of the Society's income from contributions from affiliated farmers' societies during the current year, and a Grant equal to the amount of the subscriptions received in the same period. The

    1763
    Grants are all subject to Treasury sanction. The Grants for the three previous years were stated in a reply given on the 21st of last month to the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division.
    No Government Grant is made to the Agricultural Wholesale Society. That society is the central trading body of the agricultural co-operative movement, the Agricultural Organisation Society being a purely propagandist, organising, and advisory body. The Agricultural Wholesale Society was formed under the auspices of the Agricultural Organisation Society and on its initiative as an essential part of its work of organising co-operation, but there is, I am assured, no financial connection whatever between the two bodies. In reply to the third part of the question, I may say that, as the Agricultural Wholesale Society is an independent body receiving no Grants whatever from the Government, it is free to make whatever terms it likes in regard to its trading.
    Colonel WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it quite fair to private firms who pay Income Tax that a Government subsidy should be given to societies working in opposition to them, and will he take into consideration that these societies, registered under the Friendly Societies Act, do not pay Income Tax as private firms do?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I said the subsidy of the Government was to the Agricultural Organisation Society, which is a purely propagandist society.

    LAND FOE SAILORS AND SOLDIERS.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how much land for the purpose of settlement thereon of those who have served or are serving in the forces has been acquired under the Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act or similar legislation; how many men are now actually in occupation of their holdings; how many are under instruction; and how many have applied or signified their desire to obtain a portion of land?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Under the Sailors and Soldiers (Gifts for Land Settlement) Act, 1916, the Board accepted a gift of 312 acres from a gentleman at Bosbury, in Hereford. A further gift of 500 acres
    1764
    from the same gentleman has been offered, subject to certain conditions with which the Board hope to be able to comply. The Board obtain vacant possession of the 312 acres in February next.
    Under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, the Board have acquired a total area of, approximately, 6,000 acres in four colonies. Possession of one colony in Wales was only obtained at Michaelmas. Twenty-seven men are now in occupation of their holdings; 16 are under instruction; and 389 have signified their desire to obtain a portion of land; of these 116 are still serving with His Majesty's Forces.

    MUNITIONS.

      WOOLWICH ARSENAL (STAFF).
      Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the letter of Commander Colomb, R.N., of 19th September, addressed to the Shoreditch Tribunal, in which he substantiates his charges with regard to assistant foremen of military age employed in January, 1917, at Woolwich Arsenal; whether he is aware that on that date there were in that Department eight assistant foremen out of ten who were of military age, that two of them were the sons-in-law of principal foremen, one a relation of an Arsenal official, and one a connection of the Controller; and whether he can now see his way to hold an independent inquiry into this matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY and FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I notice that my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to men employed in January, 1917. The charges made in Commander Colomb's first letter were understood to refer to July of this year, and were answered in that belief. Although I have not yet obtained a copy of Commander Colomb's second letter, I have been able to get particulars of all the assistant-foremen employed in the High Explosives Establishment at Woolwich in January, 1917. I find that Commander Colomb was inaccurate in stating that four of the eight assistant-foremen of military age in January, 1917, were related to officials in the Arsenal. Two only were so related. One was a relative of a principal foreman in another branch of the Arsenal. He possessed technical qualifications, and was appointed

      1765
      in November, 1915, at a time when the Arsenal Authorities had great difficulty in securing suitable men for the position of assistant-foremen. He died this year. His appointment proved to be fully justified, and by his death the Arsenal lost a valuable servant.
      The other assistant-foreman in question was originally a trained lad, who was selected for his apprenticeship after passing a competitive examination. He became Liable to release for Military Service under the operations of the Schedule, but left at his own request to join the Army some weeks before his release was actually due. Of the remaining six assistant-foremen of military age, one had over sixteen years' service; one was a qualified engineer; three were chemists; and one a teacher of science. These also were appointed solely on account of their qualifications. Two of the chemists, who were in low medical categories, were, on reporting for enlist-ment, referred to the Arsenal by the re-cruiting authorities. The Controller of the Filling Factories has no relations in his department.
      In view of these facts, I do not consider that any Rood purpose would be served by instituting an independent inquiry. I take this opportunity of stating that the attack on the methods of combing-out in the Royal Ordnance Factories at Woolwich are made under a complete misapprehension of the position. The Arsenal has offered to the recruiting authorities one and a half times the number of men who were serving at the outbreak of war. Of these, over three-quarters, or about 12,850, have been accepted. The others, after being offered, were rejected or placed in low medical categories. At the present moment, in round figures, there are 19,000 men of the former military age employed in the Ordnance Factories at Woolwich. Of these, 6,000 are covered by the Schedule of Protected Occupations, and have not been required to undergo medical examination, as they are protected even if Grade 1, and about 3,800 are discharged Service men. The 9,200 remaining, who are liable for release if Grade 1, have all been medically examined, and in the case of B1 and C 1 men re-examined recently, and altogether there are only 785 men fit for Grade 1 who have not been released.
      The filling factories, which includes the branch in which Commander Colomb worked, has been thoroughly combed out. Out of 4,600 men of military age, only 12
      1766
      Grade 1 men under thirty years of age remain; 9 of these have over twelve years' service. In the filling factories every employé, almost without exception, has been medically examined, including those covered by the Schedule of Protected Occupations. There are only 146 Grade 1 men there altogether who have not been released, and half of this number are covered by the Schedule. During the six months ending 23rd October, 1918, 1,137 discharged Service men were taken on at the Arsenal.
      I think the authorities at Woolwich are entitled to praise rather than hostile criticism.
      General CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether it is not the fact that in the period mentioned by Commander Colomb, out of ten assistant foremen eight were of military age and four were related in some way or other with the principal foreman, an Arsenal official, and the Controller?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: No. I gave the fact that two were related, and one of them is dead and the other in the Army.

      MIDLAND FACTORY ACCIDENT.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Munitions whether any recognition has been given to those who so greatly distinguished themselves for courage and devotion to duty on the occasion of the accident to a Midland shell-filling factory?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Recommendations for the recognition of those who specially distinguished themselves are being put forward by the Minister to the Home Secretary for submission to the King for inclusion in the New Year's Honours List.

      NEWPORT AIRCRAFT COMPANY (WAGES).
      Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions why eighty semi-skilled and unskilled workers employed by the Newport Aircraft Company have not received the 5s. addition to wages and the 12½ per cent. bonus in accordance with award 1,555; and whether he will cause investigation to be made in view of the unrest that is being created?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Questions have arisen at this establishment with regard to the payment of the award named to sections of men not directly engaged on the manufacture or repair of aeroplanes or seaplanes. A claim on behalf of one section

      1767
      has been referred for arbitration; the position of the other sections is to be considered at a meeting of the Ministry arranged for to-day (4th November), when it is hoped that the matter will be settled. The Secretary of the company, who was dealing with the question previously, has unfortunately died of influenza.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RECRUITING (COST).
      Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether, now that the work of his Ministry has largely ceased or is being performed by a Department of the War Office that was originally charged with recruiting (A.G. 13), he has been able to obtain from the Treasury or Auditor-General figures to show that the saving of £100,000, which was promised in November of last year as the result of the transfer of the work of recruiting from the War Office to the Ministry of National Service, has been in fact effected; and will he give the cost of recruiting, 1st November to 31st October, for the years 1916–17 and 1917–18?
      The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I was not aware that the work of the Ministry of National Service had as yet largely ceased, nor that the branch A.G. 13 of the War Office ever was charged with responsibility for recruiting. I am afraid that no accurate figures are immediately available to cover all charges connected with recruiting for the year ending on Thursday last. To take the Metropolitan boroughs alone, however, the wages and salaries bill for registration and recruiting before the Ministry of National Service was formed was, I am informed, at the rate of approximately £420,000 per annum, exclusive of medical services. To-day the wages and salaries bill of the Ministry of National Service, including recruiting, registration, the payment of medical officers, labour supply, and trade exemptions for the London Metropolitan Police district and the counties of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, which together constitute the London and South-Eastern region, is at a rate less than £300,000 per annum, notwithstanding the rise in salaries and increased bonuses to staff, consequent on the increased cost of living.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that the Department of the War Office A.G. 13 gives considerable help in recruiting?
      Sir A. GEDDES: No, I think the hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. When the control of recruiting ceased to exist in the War Office a new branch, A.G. 13, was formed for the reception of recruits into the Army. It has nothing whatever to do with recruiting, and merely provides the link between National Service and the units.
      Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the cost now per head of the men recruited?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a conscientious objector named Hugh Russell was on the 8th instant sentenced to another two years with hard labour, and is now undergoing such in Duke Street Prison, Glasgow; whether it was for the same offence as he had before that date served a term of imprisonment, and is it permissible under the King's Regulations to punish twice for the same offence; and is he aware that this man has brothers fighting with distinction in the Armies of France?
      The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I presume my hon. Friend is referring to Private Andrew Russell, who was sentenced by court-martial on the 4th October and is now undergoing punishment as stated. He was not sentenced for the same offence but for a further offence of a similar nature.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he has been able to identify this case, seeing that on a great many occasions he has refused to answer questions put by me because I did not indicate the regimental number in such cases?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I invariably try to answer any question put to me. I have no recollection of having refused to give the hon. Member any information that I had. It is extremely difficult to identify any particular private soldier unless you get his number and rank, but in this case I happened to have personal knowledge of it.

      INTERRUPTED APPRENTICESHIP.
      Mr. MacCAWasked the Minister of Labour whether he can see his way to allow training to discharged soldiers who have had interrupted apprenticeships through service in the Army so that they may complete their apprenticeships; and is he aware that there are many cases of hardship where such training has been refused?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend is aware that hardship has been caused to men whose apprenticeship has been interrupted by military service, and a Bill to deal with the matter is in course of preparation.

      CALLING-UP NOTICE (SUSPENSION).
      Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Alexander Clement Turner, 56, Somerset Road, Tottenham, N., is the last of four sons, three of whom are serving, Private S. J. Turner, No. 201203, 4th Middlesex Regiment, has lost his right arm, Rifleman W. M. Turner, No. 11873, 13th King's Royal Rifle Corps, Command Depot, Andover, wounded in the thigh, and Private H. T. Turner, No. 50179, 9th Suffolk Regiment, D Company, Hut 62, W Lines, I.C.D., Scorton Camp, Catterick, Yorkshire; that the father died on 27th August, 1918, after an operation in Tottenham Hospital; whether he is aware that this boy, notwithstanding medical certificates to the effect that he has cardiac dilation and defective eyesight, has been examined by the board of medical assessors and confirmed in Grade I; and whether, under these circumstances, as he cannot be released on medical grounds, he will give instructions cancelling the order to join the Colours on grounds of special hardship to the mother, who has lost her husband and has given three sons to the Army?
      Sir A. GEDDES: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am making inquiries into this case, and have given instructions that in the meanwhile Turner's calling-up should be suspended.

      RE-EXAMINATION (DEATH).
      Mr. HINDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Alfred Stephens, No. 63510, 3rd Battalion
      1770
      South Wales Borderers, who died at Hotel View Auxiliary Military Hospital, Waterloo, Liverpool, on 14th October, 1918; whether this man was totally rejected on 11th July, 1917, re-examined on 25th June, 1918, and placed in Grade 1; whether his father appealed for re-examination, furnishing medical evidence as to his son's health, but his request was refused; whether his death was due to his unfitness for military training; whether there was any negligence on the part of the military authorities; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case. I am inquiring as to the cause of the death of Private Stephens, and whether there was any negligence on the part of the military authorities. The remaining parts of my hon. Friend's question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service.

      OFFICERS (TUBERCULOSIS).
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any and what special pay or allowance is granted to officers who have contracted tuberculosis by exposure on active service and who, after a period of treatment, have been retired from the Army on half-pay as totally unfit even for light duty; how such officers are to pay for the further special treatment and diet necessary; and why they should not have special Grants as in the case of officers who have lost a limb on active service, but who are not so incapacitated for light work and do not require special diet?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Officers retired from the Army, whether for tuberculosis or other causes, are dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions as stated in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 31st October. I understand the question to refer to officers who have not been retired from the Army, but are on the half-pay list. Such officers receive a special grant of three guineas a week towards the cost of treatment for tuberculosis.
      General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this will continue?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot without notice.

      HOME DUTY (PREFERENCE).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange that men who have been in France since February, 1915, can have the preference for a turn of home duty?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the written reply which I gave on the 21st October to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour.
      Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I do not desire to ask in individual cases, though I could provide several—is not this really a case for inquiry?
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Now that the operations in Palestine have ceased, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that men who have been over two years without leave shall have it at once?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I fancy I have a question on that point later from my hon. Friend.

    MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether, having regard to the fact that, apart from the calling-up of those attaining military age, the major portion of the work of his Ministry has been completed, he will say what reduction in the personnel of the Ministry is contemplated; and will he take steps to ensure that the position of the 3,000 officers who were lent to his Department by the War Office has not been or will not be worsened as to their future employment when they are returned from the Ministry of National Service to the War Office for disposal?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Under the Acts governing the establishment of the Ministry of National Service the complete abolition of the Ministry is contemplated twelve months after the War, or earlier if so fixed by Order in Council. In the meantime, the staff is retained at the minimum strength which will enable it to perform the duties required of it. Military officers who are serving with the Ministry have to be returned to the War Office as soon as they can be spared. Thereafter they are at the disposal and under the sole jurisdiction of the military
    1772
    authorities, and it is obvious that it will not be in my power to determine their position, but I shall continue to do my best to protect their interests. I hope and have every reason to anticipate that the good services rendered by these officers to the country will be recognised by the military authorities, and I am glad to take advantage of this opportunity to express my deep appreciation of the value of the work done by them while serving with the Ministry.
    Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those 3,000 have been returned already?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I should require notice of that question.

    POST OFFICE (ENGINEERING BRANCH).
    General CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether the subjects set in connection with the last examination for probationary sub-engineerships were determined by the Postmaster-General's Department or by the Civil Service Commissioners; if, and to what extent, his Department was responsible for the questions set; and if such subjects and questions represent the standard which will be required in future examinations for entry into the Post Office Engineering Branch?
    The ASSISTANT-POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The subjects of examination for probationary sub-engineerships were settled conjointly by the Civil Service Commissioners and the Post Office eight years ago. The Civil Service Commissioners were responsible for the questions set at the examination. I cannot say what will be the future scheme of examination for admission into the higher grades of the Engineering Department.

    AEROPLANE POST (HOME AND FOREIGN MAILS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the possibility of hostilities ending soon, he can make any statement as to the probable use of aeroplanes for postal services for both home and foreign mails; if he is aware that the American and French postal authorities are making experimental services; if he

    1773
    has had any reports on the same or has made any experiments in this country; and, if not, whether he proposes to do so and can make any general statement on the matter?
    Mr. PEASE: I am aware of the services in the United States and France to which the hon. Member refers. There have been no recent experiments in this country, and, while the question of the use of aeroplanes for both home and foreign mails is being kept in view, I cannot at present make any general statement on the matter.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    General CROFTasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the Salmon limb is no longer provided for soldiers at Roehampton; whether he can state why it has been abandoned; whether the opinion is strongly held among soldiers that it is the best limb; and if the matter can be again considered?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Cornwall): Artificial limbs made by Messrs. Salmon and Son are among those approved by the Advisory Council, and may be prescribed by the surgeons at Roehampton in any case where they regard a limb of that make as the most suitable. I am not aware that soldiers regard the Salmon limb as the best, but inquiries on that point are being made.
    General CROFTasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that in nearly every case where artificial limbs are supplied, owing to the shrinking of the stump the soldiers have to be refitted after a short time with a new limb; and whether it would be more economical to issue two artificial limbs at the commencement and so save the State the expense of railway fares, housing, etc., incurred by soldiers in returning to London for the replacement of artificial limbs?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Artificial limbs very seldom need renewal owing to the shrinking of the stump, new buckets only being necessary, but it is clearly more satisfactory to supply a second limb when shrinkage of the stump has taken place, and in the interval to supply a provisional limb in case of emergency.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      OFFICERS' WIDOWS (GRATUITIES).
      Colonel YATEasked the Pensions Minister what was the support of military opinion, and who were the military officers who gave their opinion when the Royal Warrant of August last was drafted, that gratuities should not be paid to the widows of officers who lost their lives owing to dysentery and other diseases contracted on active service?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: When the Warrant was under consideration the military authorities at the War Office recommended that the increase of the pension to be given to the widows of officers should be limited to certain classes of cases, and though they did not refer specifically to the gratuities they had the proposals fully before them, and did not recommend the extension of the gratuities to other cases than those already eligible for them. I understand that they remain of opinion that no change in this respect should be made, and I am entirely in accord with that view. The widows have gained materially by the advance from the intermediate to the highest rate.

      ROYAL DUBLIN FUSILIERS (PENSION).
      Mr. SHEEHYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware of the amount of the pension granted to Patrick Tyrrell, of Moneymore, Longwood, county Meath, ex-soldier, of the Dublin Royal Fusiliers; whether he is aware that he has applied to various pensions secretaries for increased pension on the grounds that he is becoming rapidly blind; and whether he can increase this man's pension out of any funds now at his disposal?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: It has not been found possible to identify this case from the particulars given. If my hon. Friend will state the regimental number and the date and cause of discharge, I will have further inquiries made.

      WIDOWS WITHOUT CHILDREN.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Pensions if there are any means by which, under the Regulations, a widow's pension of 13s. 9d. a week can be supplemented; and, in particular, whether a widow whose husband earned £2 5s. before

      1775
      enlistment and who has been killed can secure a higher pension than 13s. 9d. a week?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: A widow without children, drawing 13s. 9d. a week can claim an alternative pension of greater amount if she married the soldier before the War or before enlistment and if, before the War, he was earning more than 27s. 6d. a week. In the case mentioned, if the soldier earned £2 5s. a week before the War, his widow could claim an alternative pension of 30s. a week.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rate of wages which would have been paid to the man now, if he were working in the same grade would not be taken into account by the Special Grants Committee and not merely the £2 5s. which he received before enlistment?
      Sir E. CORNWALL: I have not the information at my disposal to answer the supplementary question of the hon. Member, but I will see that he has an answer.

      SEAMAN MOTHER'S ALLOWANCE.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why no Government allowance has been paid to the mother of Able Seaman J. Samuel Howarth, No. 23811, who joined the Navy two years ago, and who made an allotment of 5s. a week out of his pay; and if steps will be taken at once to see that the mother receives the sum to which she is entitled, with all arrears?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Howarth joined the Royal Navy in February, 1917, and in May, 1917, made a claim to separation allowance for his mother, which was duly investigated. There was considerable correspondence in connection with the case, in the course of which Mrs. Howarth stated that her son was a merchant seaman employed by Messrs. Lamport and Holt, and that all the money which she received from him was sent through the firm. Exhaustive inquiry was made, and it was found that only one remittance was made, a sum of £5 being sent nearly a year before the man joined the Navy. This could not be regarded as evidence of regular dependence, and no allowance could therefore be paid. If, however, my hon. Friend can furnish me with any further facts in proof of pre-
      1776
      entry dependence, I will have the matter further considered. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a new allowance—parents' allowance—has recently been instituted to meet cases of this description. On the 26th October Mrs. Howarth was instructed as to the manner of applying for such allowance, but her claim has not yet been received.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister (1) whether schemes for the domiciliary visiting of discharged men who have been treated for tuberculosis have been before the Director of Medical Services of his Department for the whole of this year; how long it is likely to be before any decision on the matter can be expected; (2) whether any appointments have been made in connection with the after-care of discharged men who have received treatment for tuberculosis; how much of the £20,000 a year, sanctioned by the Treasury, has already been expended this year; and when was sanction received for the utilisation of this money?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: A scheme for the domiciliary visiting of discharged men suffering from tuberculosis has been under consideration by my Department during the last six months, and has now been settled in consultation with the Local Government Board and the National Health Insurance Commission. Sanction for the necessary expenditure was received on 17th May last, but no part of the expenditure has yet been incurred nor, I understand, have any new appointments been made. The Local Government Board will very shortly issue the necessary instructions to the local authorities concerned. I would add that the present scheme is an extension of the arrangements for visiting and after-care which are already being carried out by local authorities in many areas.

    SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the number of cases appealed to the sheriff-principal of Inverness, Nairn, and Elgin counties in the year 1916 was ten, in all of which the decisions were simple affirmations of the decisions

    1777
    of his substitutes, and in 1915 was seven, in six of which the decision was the same as the Court below; whether the salary paid to the sheriff-principal is £800 a year, with permission to continue his practice as before his appointment; and, if so, is any change contemplated in war-time?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The figures are substantially as stated. I have nothing to add to my recent replies on this subject.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the administrative duties, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in other answers, are, as a rule, performed by the sheriff-substitutes, and, therefore, do not afford any justification for the remuneration of the sheriff-principal?
    Mr. MUNRO: No; I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The administrative duties performed by this particular sheriff in war-time involve not only great labour, but much time.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not a fact that the value of these decisions is not to be estimated by their number, but by the authority and competence of the judge who delivers them?
    Mr. MUNRO: I endeavoured to persuade my hon. and learned Friend to that effect, but without success.

    SOCIALIST LABOUR PRESS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether it was under his instructions that the premises and business of the Socialist Labour Press in Glasgow was closed down in August last; if so, will he say what was the reason for such action; was it that they had printed as ordinary trade work certain periodicals, called "The Young Rebel" and "The Revolution," which did not meet with the approval of his Department; is he aware that the author of the former was punished with one month's imprisonment in the second division, while the prosecution of the author of the latter was dropped; and whether, seeing that the printer, who was given no warning to desist printing such matter, had his machinery dismantled and his business permanently closed without trial when the actual authors of the periodicals were by authorised Courts given only temporary inconvenience, he will take any steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. MUNRO: Certain plant and material were seized by the police, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend, about the date mentioned, at the premises of the Socialist Labour Press, under the powers of, and for the reasons indicated in, Regulation 51 of the Regulations for the Defence of the Realm. With regard to the remaining portions of the question, I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Somerset on 29th October last.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are these people to be permanently prevented from resuming their business; if so, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary, who has had a great deal more experience than the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with cases of this sort, and ask him what steps he has taken in similar circumstances?
    Mr. MUNRO: In answering a question put to me the other day—I do not think the hon. Member was present—I said that if the names of these persons were given to me I would reconsider the matter.

    CIVILIAN COAST WATCHERS.
    General McCALMONTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the approximate percentage of the civilian coast watchers employed under the Admiralty who have never served in the Navy or Army or in the Mercantile Marine during the present War, giving separate figures for Ireland; and whether he will consider the advisability of replacing them by discharged men of all services who are fitted for work of this nature?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The percentage of civilian coast watchers employed under the Admiralty who have never served in the Navy, Army, or Mercantile Marine during the present War is as follows:

    Great Britain

    89.7

    Ireland

    95.8

    I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that engagement as civilian coast-watcher has never been regarded as a ground for exemption from military service, and the great majority of the men now employed in Great Britain are either over military age or totally unfit for military service. Preference in filling vacancies is always given to discharged sailors and soldiers.
    General McCALMONT: Does the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply apply to Ireland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards giving preference to discharged soldiers?
    General McCALMONT: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly we give preference, where they are otherwise suitable, to discharged soldiers and sailors in Ireland.
    General McCALMONT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to go on with civilians if he can replace them with discharged soldiers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that in regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question I can say "Yes."

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (TELEGRAPHISTS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether representations have been received from the warrant officer telegraphists of the Royal Naval Reserve with reference to their pay; whether these men suffer a loss of pay of £19 per annum on promotion from chief petty officer telegraphist to warrant telegraphist; whether the Admiralty Order lays it down that, on promotion from chief petty officer to warrant telegraphist, Royal Naval Reserve, a man should receive an increase of 15 per cent. on the rate of pay for operators in the Mercantile Marine; and whether, as there is a difference of 3s. per day between the pay of warrant officers, Royal Navy, and warrant officers, Royal Naval Reserve, he will have inquiries made with a view to securing equality of treatment for men doing precisely similar work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Representations have been received from the officers referred to, and the question of their pay is at present under consideration. As to the loss in pay on promotion, I am assured that my hon. Friend's estimate considerably overstates the case. As regards the third part of the question, in the early days of the War entrants were offered the choice between civilian pay previously earned, plus 15 per cent., and the pay of a wireless telegraph operator, R.N.R., 1st class. This, however, is no longer the practice. As regards the last part of the
    1780
    question, I have already informed my hon. Friend the question of pay is under consideration, and the points raised in his question will be dealt with.

    DUNCANNON AND WATERFORD (STEAMSHIP SERVICE).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the farmers and traders of the parish of Hook and the surrounding neighbourhood, being so far from a railway station, suffer loss and inconvenience by the commandeering of the steamer "Duncannon" that used to trade between Duncannon and Waterford daily; and whether he can hold out any hope that the steamer will soon be restored to her former trade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have been asked to reply to this question. This vessel was requisitioned to meet an urgent naval requirement and I am sorry that I am not in a position to say how soon it will be possible to release her.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous inconvenience caused to traders in all these towns by reason of the taking away of the steamer; and will he endeavour to provide that accommodation?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, Sir. There must, of course, be inconvenience in the matter. We are very sorry on that account and release will be made as soon as possible.

    GENERAL ELECTION.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY VOTERS.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of naval and military voters on the new registers who are entitled to appoint proxies, and the number of such naval or military voters who have already appointed proxies?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): All naval and military voters who are serving or about to serve afloat or on any area on land abroad where proxy voting is permitted—that is to say, any-

      1781
      where abroad except in France or Belgium—are entitled to appoint proxies, but I cannot give the numbers of those so entitled. The number of persons who have appointed proxies varies from day to day.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has arranged that men whose names appear on the new registers and who have joined the forces since the registers were compiled will be placed on the absent voters' list, in order that they may have the opportunity of voting at the General Election; and, in the event of such an arrangement being made, up to what period prior to a General Election will such names be entered on the absent voters' list?
      Mr. FISHER: An Order in Council is about to be made by which the Registration Officer, if he receives a statement notifying him that a registered elector has joined the forces since the registers were prepared, will place the elector on the absent voters' list. The statement should be received two clear days at least before the day for nomination of candidates. Registration officers have already been informed accordingly.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: If the notice of the Proclamation should be at an early date, will there be any chance whatever of these men getting on the register?
      Mr. FISHER: I should think there would be a very good chance of their being informed by the various election agents.
      Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if those names will be published, so that the candidates may see the list?
      Mr. FISHER: The registration officers will do their best to publish them, but that will depend, of course, on what notice they obtain.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Will there be time enough for this notice to be given so that candidates can see the list?
      Mr. FISHER: Notice can be given right up to two days before the nomination. The registration officers will do their best to see that a supplementary list of those put upon the absent voters' list will be obtainable for all candidates.
      Major BOWDEN: Does that amount to an undertaking that it will be given?
      Mr. FISHER: The registration officers have, or will be, instructed to inform people of the notice I have just given, and they will be instructed to do everything in their power, in the very limited time, and looking to their somewhat limited staff.
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this applies only to men already on the register?
      Mr. FISHER: Yes; this can only apply to those already on the register who would have been put on the absent voters' list if they had been called up at an earlier date.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: Will the registration officer have authority to have such a list printed?
      Mr. FISHER: The registration officer, I have no doubt, can get authority to have a list printed if there is time to have it printed. I am afraid the difficulty will be to find time to print the list if it can be added to right up to two days before the nomination.
      Mr. THOMAS: That means it will be impossible for the majority of sailors and soldiers to vote if there is an early General Election?
      Mr. FISHER: Certainly not. The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the question and answer. This only applies to those who would have been put upon the absent voters' list had they been called up at an earlier period. This is the result of a conference on which had been represented the Whips of all parties.
      General CROFT: No.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Not the Nationalists.
      Mr. FISHER: Well, so far as I am aware, and as the result of that, we have devised this new Order in Council, by which those who are called up at a later period than the list has been published will now be able to be added to a supplementary absent voters' list.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether, in order to allow further time for the counting of ballot papers received from naval or military absent voters, the period of postponement of the counting of votes as provided by Section 23 (3) of the Representa-

      1783
      tion of the People Act, 1918, will be increased to twelve days from the date of poll?
      Mr. FISHER: This matter is under consideration.

      PUTNEY CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION.
      General CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that a circular letter has been sent to the electors of the new Putney Division; that accompanying that letter was a further circular from the Conservative and Unionist Association urging electors to join that association, the minimum subscription of which is 1s., and promising a free coupon to each subscribing member for £1,000 insurance in omnibus, tram, train, or cab accidents; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such action?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am advised that no breach of the law is committed, and no action is contemplated in the matter.
      General CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of this will be that if there are 100 accidents in Putney division, £100,000 will be paid; and if such a custom is to become general, it will be absolutely impossible for a poor association or candidate to stand for Parliament?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know enough about the facts to argue on the morality of it. As I understand it, from the knowledge I have, everyone to whom this circular is circulated has to pay a subscription, and the insurance is paid out of that subscription.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of the minimum subscription is not enough to cover the risks involved in this offer?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is wrong. I think the same sort of thing is done by many newspapers, and I presume the subscription more, than covers the risks involved.
      Mr. PRINGLE: This is for a year.
      General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the whole matter and get hold of the facts, because it seems to involve a great principle?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand it, the issue is whether something in the nature of a bribe was offered.

      PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND).
      Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the approaching General Election, he will immediately withdraw the Proclamation prohibiting the holding of public meetings in Ireland without police permits?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): As soon as the date of a General Election is announced, steps will be taken to suspend the Regulation requiring police permits to be obtained for political meetings or political processions, but the wearing of what purports to be a military uniform and seditious speeches will remain illegal, and subject to punishment.
      Mr. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that after the election is over this obnoxious Order will be put into force again?
      Mr. SHORTT: That will be a matter for consideration.

      CLOSE OF SESSION.
      Mr. DILLON(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the near approach of the General Election, the Government can now state when the present Session will be brought to a close, and what business they propose to take before the close of the Session?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not able to make a statement to-day as to the amount of business we propose to get through, or as to the date of the end of the Session. I shall make it as soon as the Government have come to a decision. If the hon. Gentleman should put a question on Thursday to me, it is possible I may be able to answer them.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that among insured persons there is some apprehension lest reforms in the administration of the Poor Law should be coupled with any Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Health; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect?
    Mr. FISHER: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a somewhat similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Pontefract on the 23rd October last.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the special point I made as to whether the administration of the Poor Law is going to be coupled with the new Ministry of Health?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when the Ministry of Health Bill will be brought in?
    Mr. FISHER: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

    HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Irish Convention sitting in Trinity College, Dublin, unanimously adopted a scheme for the better housing of the working classes in the cities and towns in Ireland; and whether the Government intends to give legislative effect to that scheme?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendations of the Convention in this matter will be carefully borne in mind in the consideration of Irish housing requirements.

    EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

      SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the First Report of the Select Committee on Emergency Legislation; and whether legislation on the subject is contemplated?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the matter is still under consideration.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the Committee is under considerable difficulty unless it knows whether its preliminary Report is accepted or not?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject is at this moment under consideration by the Committee dealing with it.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (REINSTATEMENT OF MEN).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, although a promise of reinstatement to men formerly employed in controlled establishments and now serving with the forces is contained in the Munitions of War Acts, these Acts provide no machinery whereby this promise or similar promises of reinstatement made to other classes of men now serving with the forces can be carried into effect; and whether, in these circumstances, it is proposed immediately to introduce a Bill dealing with the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is at present under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to it.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fulfilment by the Government of this obligation of honour is a condition precedent to making progress in the path of satisfying the claims of different grades of workers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I am aware of this matter, and also that it is being considered now as quickly as it can be done.

    VENEREAL DISEASES.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that Regulation 40D of the Defence of the Realm Act shall include men as well as women, putting both sexes on an equality and making men equally responsible with women for the transmission of venereal disease?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): A provision for this purpose is contained in a Bill which is now under the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Am I to understand that the Government accepts the adage, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
    Mr. KING: Is it intended to pass that Bill this Session?

    WAR CONTRACTS.

      CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the consequences which are likely to occur to manufactures on the cessation of hostilities if there is delay in appointing a central authority empowered to wind up, settle, and to make prompt payments on account of war contracts; and what immediate steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are fully aware of the position referred to in the question, and are taking all possible steps to deal with it.
      Mr. TERRELL: Could my right hon. Friend state what is the nature of the steps which are being taken, as this is a matter of very great importance?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a matter of very great importance, but I think it would take me a longer time than my hon. Friend would desire if I had the information and could give all the particulars.
      Mr. TERRELL: Will my right hon. Friend publish the information?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that is a course that could be taken. It involves a tremendous amount of work by a great many authorities. It has been considered for some months, and it is impossible to say exactly in what way it is going to be dealt with.
      Mr. KEATING: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that though it involves a great amount of work, it would relieve a great amount of anxiety, if he would undertake it?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware of that. The work is not in making the statement, but in making the arrangements.

    GERMANY (ARMISTICE TERMS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to find out how the un-
    1788
    authorised terms of armistice with Germany came to be communicated to two daily papers on Thursday last?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the premature publication of these terms is not intended to prejudice the decision of the Versailles Council as to what terms should be granted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; as it happens, I did not see those terms. If they had represented the decision of the Council I should have thought it the duty of the Government to take action in the matter; but I am told they do not in the least represent the decision of the Council, and it is obvious the Government cannot deal with such a case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it necessary for newspapers making statements with regard to either peace terms or armistice terms to submit those statements to the Censor before publication?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think any such rule has been made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: They take the risk?

    OIL BORING (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion by the House of the agreement of 10th September, 1918, between the Minister of Munitions and Messrs. S. Pearson and Son, Limited, by which is involved the expenditure of £1,000,000 of public money and the grant of a virtual monopoly of prospecting, boring, recovering, and refining of oil in Great Britain, and which has not been submitted to the House for approval?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to give a day for the discussion of this subject, which can be raised on the Vote of Credit.

    EASTERN FRONTS (BRITISH TROOPS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of the end of the War against Turkey, he can hold out the prospect of the return of the troops at an

    1789
    early date from the Eastern Fronts; and whether orders have been given that officers and men at home on leave need not return to those fronts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry I have not got the answer.
    Mr. KING: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

    EMIGRATION BILL.
    General Sir NEWTON MOOREasked the Prime Minister when the Government propose to proceed with the Emigration Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not proposed to proceed with the Bill during this Session.

    GERMAN AGENTS AND SPIES.
    Colonel FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability that in any treaty of peace a complete or detailed list of German agents and spies in the Allied countries should be furnished, accompanied by full particulars of the sums paid them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated in answer to previous questions, it is impossible at present to make any statement as to possible terms of peace.

    OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst persons in Government employment with the Treasury Circular of 9th September and the subsequent departmental orders requiring all persons in Government employment to take the oath of allegiance, as this is looked upon as being an unnecessary reflection upon the loyalty of men who have rendered years of good service to the Government; and if he will withdraw the instruction?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; it is expressly stated in the Circular referred to that the requirement of an oath of allegiance implies no reflection on the loyalty of the Civil Service and I am not prepared to recommend any change in the existing Regulation which is limited to clerical and administrative officers serving in an established capacity.

    HOUSE PROPERTY (CONTROLLED INTEREST).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why investors in house property have, under the Defence of the Realm Act, had their rate of interest controlled, whereas investors in a monopoly business like banking have had no control put on the rate of interest on their investment in bank shares; and why is this differential treatment of two classes of investors legalised?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The restrictions on the raising of rates of mortgage interest in the case of small house property are imposed by the Rent and Mortgage (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, and not by the Defence of the Realm Act. The reasons which led Parliament to pass this Act do not appear to me applicable to dividends paid by banks, whose profits are liable to Excess Profits Duty.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      EGGS.
      Sir A. FELLasked the Food Controller if he proposes to fix the price of eggs or if the price is to rise higher before he takes any action?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): The Food Controller has decided to fix maximum prices for eggs, and these will be announced in the course of a few days.

      MILK, BUTTER AND CHEESE.
      Major BOWDENasked the Food Controller whether any steps are being taken to equalise the profits on the sale of milk and its products, butter and cheese; and whether the prevailing shortage of butter is due to the disparity now existing between the possible profits on cheese and milk as compared with the price of butter?
      Major ASTOR: In view of the necessity for securing adequate supplies of milk during the winter months, the Food Controller is not prepared to increase producer's prices of butter and cheese. The present shortage of butter is due to a lack of shipping facilities, and is scarcely affected by home production during the winter months.
      Major BOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices of milk and cheese are such that butter has not been produced at home at the same rate as it used to be? Will he look into the matter from this point of view?
      Major ASTOR: That point has been considered. If the relative profits on these articles are altered, as suggested, there will be a serious danger of increasing the demand without adding to the amount of the butter.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are certain traders allowed to charge 2s. per gallon more than the standard price?
      Major ASTOR: That does not arise on this question.

      PROFITEERING.
      Mr. W. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now in a position to state the steps that are to be taken to inflict severer penalties on men judged guilty of profiteering or who evade the Regulations of his Department; if legislation is to be introduced; and, if so, when this will be done?
      Major ASTOR: The Food Controller has examined this question and considers that there is at present no need of further legislative powers. He believes that the desired end can be effectively secured by strong administrative action and he is taking steps through the Divisional Food Commissioners and food control committees for this purpose. He will not, however, hesitate to press for further powers should those conferred by the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act be found inadequate.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.

      DECORATIONS AND CHEVRONS.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will state if members of the Royal Air Force who have been transferred from other naval and military services and who adopt the new uniform of the Royal Air Force are allowed to wear on their new uniforms military or naval decorations previously awarded; and, if so, why they are not permitted to wear their service chevrons?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Officers and men are allowed to wear chevrons, earned either in the Navy or the Army, on their naval or military uniforms. No Regulations are in existence as to the granting of chevrons to Airmen, therefore they are not entitled to wear chevrons on Air Force uniforms. Approval is being sought for a scheme which will enable chevrons to be worn upon Air Force uniform on terms consistent, so far as possible, with the differences between the conditions of service in the Navy the Army, and the Royal Air Force respectively.

      FLYING OVER TOWNS (PROHIBITION).
      Colonel FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will consider the advisability of forbidding flying machines from cruising just above towns and villages, seeing the amount of sickness that now prevails?
      Major BAIRD: The existing Instructions on this point provide against flying being practised under conditions likely to cause any avoidable inconvenience or annoyance to inhabitants of towns or other centres of population.

      MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR.
      Major H. TERRELL(by Private Notice) asked whether the Secretary of State or the Air Council offered or proposed to offer the appointment of Medical Administrator or Director-General of Medical Services of the Air Force to a R.A.M.C officer on the terms that he would in the administration of the Air Force Medical Service carry out the principles recommended by the Watson-Cheyne Advisory Committee; whether such officer has accepted or refused to accept the appointment on such terms; if such officer has refused to accept such appointment on such terms what action does the Secretary of State or Air Force Council intend to take in the matter; and will the Secretary of State assure the House that whoever is appointed will be required to carry out the said principles in the administration of Air Force Medical Service?
      Major BAIRD: The position of medical administrator has been offered to Colonel Fell, R.A.M.C. One of the conditions of the offer is that he will be guided by the principles laid down in the Report of the Watson-Cheyne

      1793
      Committee, subject to certain amendments as regards principles of administration.
      Major H. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Colonel Fell has accepted or refused to adhere to those terms?
      Major BAIRD: Colonel Fell is at present engaged in visiting stations of the Royal Air Force in this country and abroad. We shall get his answer in due course.

    HOUSING (POST-WAR WORK).
    Sir A. FELLasked the Minister of Reconstruction (1) if the erection after the War of new houses is to take precedence over the repair and upkeep of present houses which are, in many cases, getting in a ruinous and uninhabitable condition; and which will have the first call on the available supplies of material; and
    (2) what provision he is making to prepare the material necessary before any house building can be commenced; what prospect there is of getting the stocks of bricks and tiles that will be necessary; and if he has taken into account, in his estimate of the cost of building, the increased cost that will be occasioned if houses partly erected have to wait for the supply of material necessary for their completion?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): All the problems involved in the hon. Member's questions have been exhaustively investigated on my behalf by Mr. James Carmichael with the assistance of representative gentlemen connected with the trades concerned, including two Members of this House, and the proposed scheme of operations has been discussed in detail with the chief professional and trade organisations concerned, representative both of employers and employed.
    One of the governing considerations with respect to priority is clearly the provision of employment with as little delay as possible. Therefore, facilities for the carrying out of repairs which provide for the maximum amount of labour with the minimum amount of material will receive the first priority so far as material available for building are concerned.
    The Report will be considered by the Standing Council on Priority this week,
    1794
    and I shall hope to publish it in a few days' time. The hon. Member will see therein that the most careful provision has been made beforehand to meet the very difficulties which he anticipated in these questions.
    Sir A. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman, in supplying labour for making bricks for houses, thought of employing German prisoners?
    Dr. ADDISON: Every brickyard in the country has been marked down, and the Army authorities informed, in order to get the brickyards started. I cannot say without notice if the employment of Germans has been gone into.

    POLICE SEARCHES.
    Mr. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether police detectives in plain clothes may challenge and arrest men or women in the streets without showing badge or warrant; whether they can also enter houses and make searches without showing badge or warrant; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action to secure protection, under these circumstances, for people from offensive action in the streets by men who are not detectives, and in their homes from robbery by men who are not detectives?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am advised that it is not necessary for police detectives to carry a badge or warrant when making an arrest or search, but in view of the circumstances suggested in the third part of the question the police in Ireland are instructed to do so.

    ALL-RED ROUTE.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government have in contemplation the revival of the scheme, commonly called the All-Red Route, connecting these countries with Canada viâ Blacksod Bay?
    Mr. SHORTT: This will no doubt be dealt with by the Irish Transport Subcommittee, and until their Report has been received I am not in a position to make any statement.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the grounds on which the Local Government Board refused to sanction the granting of an old age pension to Mary Cully, of Tubberscarden, Tubbercurry Sub-committee District, county Sligo?
    Mr. SHORTT: The claim of Mary Cully, of Tubbercurry, County Sligo, was disallowed on the ground that the claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit. She is maintained on a farm of forty-eight acres, fair land, with one-and-a-half acres of potatoes, one-and-a-half acres of oats, five acres of hay, and thirty-nine acres of grass, with turf, fourteen cattle, one horse, sheep, pigs and fowl.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Is it not a fact that Mary Cully assigned the interest in her farm six years ago to her son and has no means whatever?
    Mr. SHORTT: These are not my instructions. I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Honor, otherwise Onney, Taheny, residing in Carrickbanagher, Drumfin, Ballymote, county Sligo, Ballymote Sub-committee, who was granted an old age pension by the local committee, was afterwards disqualified because her Christian name appeared as Annie in the Census register; and whether inquiries will be made and the matter set right?
    Mr. SHORTT: The claim of Honor, otherwise Onney, Taheny, of Carrick-banagher, Drumfin, Ballymote, county Sligo, was disallowed on the ground that she failed to show she was seventy years of age. Inquiries were made before the claim was decided. There is nothing to show that she was the child named Annie in the Census return. She was married on the 6th February, 1890, when her age was given as thirty-one years.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Did not a mistake arise in the entry in the register? She was put down as Annie instead of Chavey. The difference in the name put her out of Court. Will the matter be further considered?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware that there was any mistake in the fact that she was only thirty-one in 1890.

    SALMON DESTRUCTION (WATER-FORD).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the destruction of salmon in Waterford Harbour by seals that appear to be on the increase, and the consequent injury to the fishermen of Ballyhack, Arthurstown, Duncannon, and Passage East; is he aware that one of the fishermen who previously carried a rifle in his boat for shooting seals will not now be allowed to do so, but is offered a shot gun instead; and, since he will not allow the police to shoot the seals from the shore, will the Irish Government or the Department of Agriculture devise some other means for the destruction of the seals?
    Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on the subject on 30th July last.
    Mr. FFRENCH: What is the use of giving a shot gun to the fisherman to shoot seals when a shot gun is no use for that purpose? What objection is there to allowing the police to shoot seals from the shore?
    Mr. SHORTT: I hardly think that is the business of the police.

    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he proposes to introduce the Irish Police Bill?
    Mr. SHORTT: To-day.

    MOTOR REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any experts other than the expert officers of the directorate of supplies and transport at the War Office and the Mechanical Transport Board were members of the conference which considered the offer of motor firms to undertake the repair of a large number of motors at a quarter of the cost of the Government scheme at Cippenham; and, if so, will he say whether these were civilian experts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. Several of the officers who were consulted are, however, expert engineers in civil life.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Is it not a fact that the only people who decided upon this scheme were those interested in the promotion of it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I cannot say that. I do not think that is quite accurately stated.

    DEMOBILISATION.

      PRIORITY CLAIMS.
      Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that anxiety is felt by the older men in the Service with regard to the question of priority on demobilisation; and whether he will give such priority in the case of Gunner A. E. Dermott, No. 31428, Hut 14, Camp 15, 13th (R.) Battery, Royal Field Artillery, Larkhill, near Amesbury, Salisbury Plain, who enlisted as a boy in the service on 12th May, 1903, signing on for twelve years, who volunteered again for the duration of the War, who served in sixteen operations on the North-West Frontier in India and then in Mesopotamia from 1910 to July 1918, and has not returned home for eleven consecutive years?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that there is any general feeling of anxiety among the older men in the Service with regard to priority of demobilisation. As I have already stated in the reply which I gave on Wednesday, the 23rd October last, to my Noble Friend the Member for Lancashire (South-West) the scheme of demobilisation provides for a certain priority to be given to long-service men, and a percentage of such men will normally be included in each draft for dispersal. I am afraid it is quite impossible at this stage to guarantee priority of demobilisation to any individual member of the forces.
      Mr. ALDEN: Will my right hon. Friend again take into special and favourable consideration the question of the men who have served, like this man, for eleven consecutive years without coming home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall be very glad to take individual cases into con-
      1798
      sideration, but I am really afraid it is quite impossible to give any definite promise.

    NATIONAL PARTY.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will have inquiry made into and take suitable action upon the conduct of Major Edwards, of the Royal Field Artillery, France, who recently posted a notice up in the battalion saying that all men in sympathy with the objects for which the National party is formed should support it by joining; that the officer commanding was one of the originally pledged founders of the party and will pay the subscription of any man giving his name for membership this week to the battalion clerk; and that members of the National party incurred no obligation of any sort?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the War Office have commandeered the Skittles Inn, at Letchworth, as this is the only place where the workers can get a reasonable meal to suit their pockets, and is also an unlicensed inn, and is the centre where the trade unions hold their branch meetings; and why this place has been selected in preference to the Conservative Club, the Letchworth Club, and the Pixmore Hall?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on Wednesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (North-West).

    SUPREME WAR COMMITTEE.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when a statement will be made to the House regarding the proceedings at Versailles?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot hold out any hope of a very early statement on the subject. My right hon. Friend must be

    1799
    aware communications have to be, first of all, made to the Government of the United States, and I do not think it would be right to make a statement until the terms are known to the German Government.

    LORD NORTHCLIFFE.
    Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether Lord Northcliffe is at present in Paris; whether he is there in his private capacity or in his official capacity as Director of Foreign Propaganda; whether the statement of peace terms published to-day over Lord Northcliffe's name in all the chief newspapers of the world is part of his official foreign propaganda; and, if so, whether the terms stated may be accepted as the official view of the British Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not received any notice of that question, but I think I can answer it. Lord Northcliffe, as far as I know, is in Paris in his private capacity, though very likely he may be there in connection with the business of propaganda. With reference to the peace terms to which the hon. Gentleman referred, they are the expression of the views of Lord Northcliffe only.
    Mr. DILLON: Not the Government! I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that Lord Northcliffe is in charge of the foreign propaganda of the Government is it not natural to expect that this statement, published by him, as he boasts to-day, in all the chief newspapers of the world, will be taken as a statement on behalf of the British Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be a very wrong inference. I do not think it is likely to be made.
    Mr. DILLON: I am sure of it!
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the terms announced this morning in the article published by Lord Northcliffe in the "Times" are going to be published in the enemy countries as part of the propaganda?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not possible to take Lord Northcliffe a little too seriously?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of these answers, can the right hon. Gentleman
    1800
    say whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the "limes" it is said that this article is to be circulated in Germany; and, if that is so, is the article not to be used for the purpose of propaganda?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I had not noticed that especial statement in the "Times," but the article is in every sense the work of Lord Northcliffe. The British Government were unaware of it, and in no sense responsible for it.
    Mr. HOLT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this article will not be circulated in Germany at the public expense?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give that assurance. The question of what is and what is not good enemy propaganda is not one to which I could give an answer offhand and without consideration.

    MASSAGE NURSES.
    General CROFTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is a shortage of massage nurses in order adequately to treat British soldiers; and whether, in spite of this shortage, the nurses are employed to massage German prisoners?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the military authorities that there is a shortage of massage nurses in meeting the full requirements of military hospitals. No women are employed to massage German prisoners, but a very small number of male masseurs have necessarily to be employed for severe cases among German prisoners of war.
    General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that officers requiring massage treatment recently have had that treatment stopped, in order that male massage nurses could be sent away to massage German prisoners?
    Mr. HOPE: No, I am not aware of anything of the kind.
    General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it if I send him information?
    Mr. HOPE: I will ask the War Office.

    AUSTRIA (ARMISTICE TERMS).
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Can the Leader of the House make any statement with regard to the capitulation of Austria?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any definite statement to-day, but I hope that it will be possible to give the whole terms in the House of Commons to-morrow afternoon. In the meantime, I think I can assure the House that they will be satisfied with those terms when they hear them.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL, "to amend the Law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes in connection with those forces," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by the Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What business will be taken on Wednesday and Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Wednesday we shall take the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill (Third Reading), the Parliament (Qualification of Women's) Bill (Committee), the Report stage of the Tithes Bil, and any other small Bills if possible.
  On Thursday we shall take the Supplementary Estimates, and the further stages of other Bills.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Which Orders are we taking to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: All the Orders as far as we can get.
  Mr. PRINGLE: With regard to the Report stage of the Tithes Bill, the President of the Board of Agriculture suggested that certain conferences might take place before the Report stage, and under these circumstances would it not be possible to postpone the taking of this Bill until a later date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the first I have heard of that.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the President of the Board of Agriculture said last Wednesday that he hoped before the Report stage of the Tithe Bill was leached there would be a conference between the Welsh county councils and the Welsh Church?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member will understand that I am not conversant with all these arrangements. If there has been any misunderstanding of that kind, of course the Bill will not be taken to-day.
  Mr. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentlemen propose to go on to-day with the Second Reading of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I said I proposed to go on with anything I could, but that is one of which I have no hope.
  Colonel Sir JAMES REMNANT: When will the Police (Pensions) Bill be taken?
  Mr. HOUSTON: When is it proposed to take the Vote of Credit?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I expect the Vote of Credit will be taken on Monday.

  NEW WRIT (REIGATE DIVISION).
  The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Sir RICHARD COOPER:
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Reigate Division of Surrey, in the room of Colonel Richard Hamilton Rawson, deceased."
  Sir R. COOPER: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order in regard to the Notice which stands on the Paper in my name. I understand that where notice is given asking for the issue of a writ, there is no need to give notice on the Paper unless it is likely to be opposed, in which case one has to put it on the Paper two days previously in order that it may be debated, and, if necessary, a Division taken upon it. In this case I was led to understand that this Motion would probably be opposed by the Government, and therefore I placed it on the Paper. I ask now whether I am not entitled to move this Motion after Questions in order that I may quite briefly state my reasons why I trespass upon the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may move it.
  Sir R. COOPER: I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice. If the House knew that a General Election was going to take place, and that Parliament was going to be dissolved at a very early date, I recognise that it would be unreasonable on my part to press this Motion. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"] It is on the Paper. I understand that the Government has not yet come to any decision with regard to the date of a Dissolution, and, having regard to the very extraordinary events which are occurring, it is quite possible—indeed, it is even probable—that the date of the Dissolution may be put off for some little while. If that is so, and having regard to the serious responsibility which devolves on this House, probably much more serious than it has had in the life of any one of us, I feel it is a wrong step for the

  1821
  Government to say that they are hoping very shortly that we may dissolve Parliament, and with this in our minds that we should determine that the electors of this constituency must be disfranchised. If the representative of the Government cannot tell the House that the Dissolution will take place within twenty-one days, I would not press this Motion; but if we cannot be told this, I feel that the Motion ought to be granted by the Government, and I think they will be taking a very wrong step indeed if they offer any opposition to this Motion, thus denying the electors of Reigate representation in this House.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I beg to second the Motion.
  Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household)I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned," and perhaps I might give nay reasons for doing so. I do not complain that the hon. Baronet who moved this Motion in the absence of my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot), or that he thought by this Motion he would be able to draw a Member of the Government into giving him this information as to when a General Election is going to take place. He said he moved this Motion because the electors of Reigate wanted it. The reason why I object to it is not for the important reason which he has alleged, namely, that he believes a Dissolution may take place, but it is for a very much simpler reason. I have taken steps to find out what the electors of Reigate do want by applying to the association which returned the late Member, and the answer which I got from the representatives of that association is that they do not want the election to take place at the present moment, and they do not give as their reason anything whatever about a Dissolution. Their reason is a much more homely one. The candidate who in all probability they are going to adopt is laid up with influenza, and that appears to me a very reasonable cause for not forcing an election at the present moment. I put it to the hon. Baronet and his hon. and gallant Friend that it is not a very sportsmanlike thing to rush an election when a man who wants to stand is ill in bed, and I am surprised such a course should commend itself to the hon. Baronet.
  4.0 P.M.
  I am quite convinced of this, that there was no one to whom such a course would have been
  1822
  more absolutely repugnant than the late Member. I am not springing this on the hon. Baronet; I wrote to him as soon as I got a verbal message from him in regard to his intention to move. I found out as soon as I could the wishes of the association which returned the late Member and I wrote to him that I hoped he would refrain from moving the writ to-day, giving my reasons why I hoped he would so refrain. In spite of this he has moved his Motion. I have had no very long experience in these matters, but I was in the Whips' Room before the War when party feeling ran very high, and I think my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gulland) will bear me out when I say that these matters of routine, in spite of keen party strife, were so managed as to avoid squabbling, quarrelling, and, I might say, friction. I believe it is for the good of the House that these matters should be settled in a friendly way after full consideration and with give-and-take on each side. I do not know what changes the hon. Baronet and his Friends have in view, but if one of those changes is to abolish the old courtesies I venture to suggest he will be doing good neither to the methods of conducting business nor will he be making the atmosphere of this House more pleasant for political parties.
  General CROFT: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down based the whole of his case, as far as I could make out, on the fact that this was a matter of routine and not a matter of principle. I venture to think there are very few people outside the Whips' Room in this House but will agree that this question of a writ being issued for an important constituency such as Reigate at this moment is a matter which seriously affects not only the constituency of Reigate but the whole country. The hon. Gentleman told us that one reason why he suggested delay in issuing the writ was on account of the fact that the prospective candidate was suffering from influenza. I venture to think that people in the country will not approve such a reason being put forward for delay in issuing a writ. Then the hon. Gentleman informs us he has consulted the association at Reigate. I was unaware that the association had been called to consider whether the writ should be issued or not. The hon. Gentleman may have written to one or two individuals, but their view does not necessarily reflect the view of electors in the Reigate Division. He has declared it is not sports-

  1823
  manlike to take this course, but I would like to point out that as a matter of fact a reasonable period has elapsed since the lamented death of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We are now approaching issues of importance in this House such as have never yet been considered by the people of our country, and I submit on two grounds this writ ought to be issued without further delay. The first is that no constituency at this moment ought to be disfranchised. We are told that secret diplomacy is going to cease, and that the will of the people is going to prevail with regard to the peace terms which may, very possibly, in a few weeks or a few days, come before this House for consideration. I submit that the Reigate Division ought not to be disfranchised at this moment, but ought to have its representative in this House to enable them to put their views before the House on this important question. My second point is this: Never probably in recent years has it been more important that a by-election should take place than at this moment. The mind of the people is very anxiously concerned with regard to this whole question of peace. In spite of the fact that we have had statements from various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the country as to unconditional surrender, which was summed up in President Wilson's last Note as the keynote of our policy, yet it is known widely that negotiations are supposed to have been taking place—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to drag that matter in He must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House, namely, the Question of Adjournment, and he should not raise these other matters at present.
  General CROFT: Am I not entitled to point out the tremendous seriousness of the decisions which must be taken in the very near future as a reason why this writ should be issued?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only Question before the House is whether the issue of the writ shall take place to-day, or whether it shall be adjourned.
  General CROFT: I bow to your ruling. I will only add that the issue of the writ is a question of primary importance to the electors of Reigate, and my hon. Friend has moved that the writ be now issued in
  1824
  order that these electors shall not be disfranchised at this vital moment in the history of this country.
  Mr. DILLON: I speak with considerable experience on questions of this character as in the past history of this House when these questions have been raised it has always, with one or two exceptions, been in regard to Irish writs. I confess I listened with amazement to the statement made on behalf of the Government tonight. We have had many Debates on Irish writs during the last fifteen years, involving questions similar to that raised to-night, but when I heard the Whip on behalf of the Government lay down two propositions on which he based his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate I really was bewildered. His first proposition was that he had consulted the association which returned the late Member. Is it to be taken by this House that associations are entitled to speak for a whole constituency. Is a Whip of the Government entitled to oppose a Motion in the House for the issue of a writ solely on the assumption that the constituency will return the same kind of Member as it returned seven or eight years previously, and that the voters who may be anxious to vote are to be disfranchised because some members of the association which returned the late Member think it more convenient to adjourn the election? I have never heard such a proposition laid down in this House before by a Government Whip. It is astonishing too that the hon. Gentleman did not give us any evidence as regards the association to show that it had met or had discussed the matter, or was in a position to send out any authoritative communications. It is nothing but an outrage on the House of Commons that the question of issuing a writ enabling the constituency to return a Member to this House should be held up avowedly at the dictation of a political association. That was the hon. Gentleman's first reason, and I say in my opinion it is an absolutely preposterous reason.
  The second reason is absolutely ludicrous. It was that the main reason for the adjournment was that the prospective candidate—he is not a candidate; he is only supposed to be anxious to become a candidate—is in bed with influenza, and, therefore, the constituency must be disfranchised. I have taken part in many of these Debates, and am entitled to speak with great authority on this matter, for they have

  1825
  nearly always been Irish writs in regard to which the dispute has arisen; but never before have I heard such a reason alleged for suspending a writ and preventing a constituency having an election. I am strongly with the Government Whip on one point, and that is as to the desirability, from many points of view, of maintaining the old traditions of this House and the old courtesies with regard to the issue of these writs. I do not think that any private individual ought to be encouraged to move a writ—as he has a right to do—until a very considerable interval has elapsed, during which the customary privilege of allowing the writ to be moved by the Whip of the party to whom the late Member belonged could be exercised. But it has always been the custom of this House, when that privilege has not been availed of after a decent interval—and I assume that in this case the usual interval has elapsed—to allow any Member of any party to move the writ unless it can be shown why the writ should not issue on public grounds, which equally apply to all sections of the constituency and to all voters. That principle has been laid down over and over again, and the party to which I belong has been compelled, on two or three occasions recently, against our will, to consent to the issue of writs at the dictation of private Members who desired to issue them simply to inconvenience us, and any plea which we made as to public convenience was set aside. We were compelled to issue the writ.
  Sir R. COOPER: This writ is being applied for on this occasion by the Official Whip of the party, to which the late Member belonged.
  Mr. DILLON: I was not aware of that. It enormously strengthens what I was saying. I was under the impression that the late hon. Member had belonged to the party which was represented by the Government Whip, and, of course, this statement makes the case for the issue of the writ enormously stronger. It turns out now that when in accordance with the settled practice of the House, the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged applies for the issue of a writ, the writ is withheld by the Government on the ground that some gentleman who is going to run in their interests is in bed suffering from influenza. Are we to be told, is it to go abroad, that the constituency of Reigate is to be disfranchised
  1826
  until a gentleman who wishes to run gets into good fighting form? A more extraordinary argument was never submittel to the House of Commons, and I hope the hon. Member who has moved the issue of the writ will press his Motion to a Division. It would be intolerable and a totally new departure if a Member who is the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged moves the issue of the writ is to be opposed by the Government for its own selfish party interests, and without the statement of a solitary ground which will bear examination for a single moment; and, for my own part, if the hon. Member goes to a Division, I shall most heartily support him.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I have no desire to enter into what I think is a domestic controversy—
  General CROFT: Not at all!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: —between two branches of the Unionist party.
  Mr. DILLON: It is a new party.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It seems to me that it is more a party matter than a House matter. If the late Member had left the Unionist party to join the National party, if he had refused to accept the Whips of the Unionist party, and had publicly acknowledged the Whips of the National party; if both took place some time ago, my hon. Friends are quite right in claiming him as one of their supporters, and, according to all precedents, they have the right to move the writ. I must confess that I was not much impressed with the reason given by my hon. and gallant Friend for the postponement of the issue of the writ. I do not think the ground advanced, that the candidate happens to have a little indisposition, is quite strong enough to prevent the free and unqualified expression of public opinion upon matters of public policy at the present time. I should be glad to know what was the state of his temperature. Some of us have been up to a pretty high temperature of late, and I have no doubt, if this much-talked-of General Election takes place, that mere will be quite a number of candidates who will be subject to an indisposition of one kind or another. I shall support this Adjournment if it goes to a Division for a very simple reason. It is generally understood that we are to have a public statement from the Government in a very

  1827
  short time as to how long this Parliament is going to last. I do not think it is right that we should put a constituency to the trouble of an election until we know whether there is any truth in the rumour that we are going to have a General Election, and I would suggest to the Government that they should give an undertaking that this adjournment will only take place for one week. We should then probably have a better notion as to the possibilities of the future, and whether the life of Parliament is to be extended till January next. If it is, then my hon. Friends will be entitled to take the opinion of the House on the immediate issue of the writ. I suggest to them in all sincerity that they should accept this suggestion. They must know that any election which takes place at the present time cannot by any stretch of imagination be assumed to represent the electorate. The register is five years old, and it is a small register compared with that actually in preparation at the present time. My hon. Friends base the party for which they speak upon the principle of the voice of the democracy of this country. Do not let them claim this narrow five years' old, discarded register, under which the men at the front would be unable to vote when they have the prospect—it may be in a few weeks—of being able to take the vote on the new register which will include the men at the front. I ask them in all sincerity to accept the suggestion that the Debate should be adjourned for one week.
  General CROFT: Can my hon. and gallant Friend inform the House—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to speak again.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the House is entitled to a reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel).
  Colonel SANDERS: I cannot speak for the Leader of the House, but I can say that an adjournment for a week will certainly satisfy me. I only want to suit the convenience of the people in the constituency, and I understand that an adjournment for a week will be quite sufficient for them.
  Sir R. COOPER: I am not quite clear what the position is going to be. Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean that the Government within a week will either
  1828
  announce the date of the Dissolution, or, alternatively, that they will grant the issue of this writ?
  Sir E. LAMB: Are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will undertake to put upon the Notice Paper for this day week a Motion for the issue of this writ?
  Sir W. ESSEX: Supposing the adjournment be agreed upon, may the present Motion be revised, so as to give precedence to the hon. Baronet rather than to one of the Members on the Government Bench?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House will have decided to postpone the discussion of this matter for a week. When the time arrives, it will resume discussion of the Motion now upon the Paper.
  Sir R. COOPER: I accept, and I give notice that I will raise the matter, if necessary, upon Monday next.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from the Provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911.)
    The employment in recognised service of any person who is entitled to benefits under this Act shall be deemed to be included among the excepted employments specified in Part II. of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act, 1911.—[Mr. Herbert Fisher].
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Major DAVID DAVIES: On a point of Order. I have given notice of an Amendment on Clause 1—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Upon the Report stage new Clauses take precedence.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause is little more than a drafting Clause, since its object is to give effect to the clear intention and meaning of the National Insurance Act of 1911. Under that Act, among the employments to be excepted was

    1829
    "employment as a teacher to whom the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, or a scheme under Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, or the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, applies or, in the event of any similar enactment being hereafter passed as respects teachers or any class of teachers (other than teachers in public elementary schools), as a teacher to whom such enactment applies."
    It is impossible to read this passage without coming to the conclusion that it was the intention of the Act of 1911 to except from the previsions of the Act all persons who are pensionable under the Act of 1898, and all teachers who might become pensionable under any similar enactment. The present Bill, for the purposes of this Section, is a similar enactment. It confers benefits by way of superannuation and disablement allowance just as the Act of 1898 does, and it is none the less a similar enactment, because the benefits which are conferred are wider than those contained in the Act of 1898. There can be little or no question that the present Bill is a similar enactment within the meaning of the words quoted, and, if that is so, it is clear that any statutory provisions for teachers other than teachers in public elementary schools would be excepted from the National Insurance Act. Consequently, as far as these teachers are concerned, namely, teachers in secondary and technical schools, no enactment is necessary, but the passage quoted makes one exception. It makes an exception with respect to teachers in public elementary schools. It makes this exception because the Act of 1911 did not contemplate that any system of superannuation allowance would be established in favour of uncertificated teachers and teachers of special subjects in public elementary schools. If it had been foreseen that the Act of 1898 or some more beneficial enactment would be extended to those teachers, undoubtedly they would have been put upon the same footing as certificated teachers under the Act of 1898. In other words, the foundation of the exception in 1911 was that the teacher was subject to the beneficial provisions of the Act of 1898. Now that the wider class of teachers is made subject to a more beneficial scheme of superannuation, it follows, almost as a matter of course, that this exception should be extended to that wider class.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Superannuation Allowances to Teachers.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act (including any rules made thereunder), the Board of Education (in this Act referred to as "the Board") may grant such superannuation allowances as are hereinafter mentioned in this Section to any teacher who—
    (a) has attained the age of sixty years, and has either—
    (i) been employed—

    (A) for not less than thirty years in recognised or qualifying service; and

    (B) for not less than ten years, or, if he was employed in recognised service at the commencement of this Act, for not less than the prescribed number of years, in a Grant-aided school or in service which has been recorded by the Board before the commencement of this Act under the Act of 1898; and

    (C) for not less than the prescribed period after the commencement of this Act in recognised or qualifying service; or

    Mr. SPEAKER: The manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire (Major David Davies) is clearly out of order, because it would impose a charge.
    Major DAVIES: On the point of Order. This is a matter which was discussed at some length during the Committee stage, when it was treated as being in order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That was in Committee. This is on Report. We cannot deal with money matters on the Report stage.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) paragraph (b) to leave out the words "a Grant-aided school, or in service which has been recorded by the Board before the commencement of this Act under the Act of 1898," and to insert instead thereof the words "recognised service."
    This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made in Clause 16 under which, subject to prescribed conditions, service in non-Grant-aided schools might possibly become pensionable. The result of the Amendment will be that no person can get a pension who has not served thirty years in recognised or qualifying service of which not less than ten must be one of the periods of recognised service as defined by Clause 16. There is power to reduce the period of ten years in the case of teachers who are in recognised service at the commencement of the

    1831
    Act. The conditions under which the power will be exercised have not been determined, but it may be useful in the case of an old teacher whose school has only recently become Grant-aided.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Re-employment of Teachers.)
    (1) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is again employed as a teacher in a Grant-aided school, the allowance shall cease as from the date on which he becomes so employed, without prejudice, however, to the power of the Board under this Act to grant to him subsequently a fresh annual superannuation allowance.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "a Grant-aided school," and to insert instead thereof the words "recognised service."
    This Amendment is consequential upon the admission of non-Grant-aided schools to recognised service. The Clause deals with the case of teachers who have received an annual superannuation allowance, probably on the ground of disablement, but afterwards recover and return to full-time service. It is obvious that their allowance should then be stopped, and in order to cover the new case of non-Grant-aided service it is necessary to use wider terms than appear in the Bill at present.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
    The expression "service" means such service as is determined by the Board to be full-time service, but does not include service after the age of sixty-five years unless the Board in any special case allows such service to be treated as service for any of the purposes of this Act:
    The expression "recognised service" means such service as is recognised by the Board for the purposes of this Act—

    (i) in the capacity of a certificated or un-certificated teacher, or a teacher of a special subject, in or in connection with a public elementary school:

    (ii) in the capacity of a certificated teacher or of a teacher or such other kind as may be prescribed in a school certified under Part TV. of the Children Act, 1908, under the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, or under the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899:

    (iii) in the capacity of a certificated or un-certificated teacher in a certified institution Tinder the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913:

    (iv) in the capacity of a teacher in any other Grant-aided school:

    1832

    (v) in the capacity of a certificated teacher during any period before the commencement of this Act in any service which in his case was recorded by the Board under the Act of 1898, and, in the case of a teacher who was employed in such service at the commencement of this Act, in the capacity of a certificated teacher in such service during any period after that date:

    (vi) in the capacity of a teacher in any school, not being an elementary school or a school certified under Bart IV. of the Children Act, 1908, which though not Grant-aided at the date of the service was Grant-aided at the commencement of this Act, or becomes Grant-aided within five years after that date:

    (vii) in the capacity of a teacher during any period after the commencement of this Act in any other school being a school which is of such kind as may be prescribed and which satisfies the prescribed conditions:

    (viii) subject to the prescribed conditions, in the capacity of a teacher during any period before the commencement of this Act in any other school, not being a school conducted for private profit, so, however, that not more than ten years' service in any such school shall be recognised for the purposes of this Act:

    The expression "qualifying service" means any employment, whether in the capacity of a teacher or otherwise, which the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Board, may declare to be qualifying service for the purpose of calculating the period qualifying for a superannuation allowance:
    The expression "Grand-aided school" means a place of education (other than a university or university college) in receipt of a Grant, or in respect of which a Grant is made, out of moneys provided by Parliament from or by the Board or from or by any public Department whose place has been taken by the Board:
    The expression "average salary" means the average amount of the teacher's salary (exclusive, unless the Board otherwise direct, of fees or other emoluments) in respect of his recognised service for the five years of recognised service (whether continuous or not), next preceding the commencement of an annual superannuation allowance or the Grant of an additional allowance or gratuity, or if the teacher has not been employed in recognised service for five years, then the average amount of salary exclusive as aforesaid during the period for which he has been so employed.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (vii), to leave out the words "of such a kind as may be prescribed and which satisfies the prescribed conditions," and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "approved by the Treasury for the purposes of this provision and which—

    (a) is not conducted for private profit; and

    (b) is open to inspection by the Board and is shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be efficient; and

    (c) is unable out of its own resources to maintain a satisfactory pensions scheme; and

    1833

    (d) satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed as necessary or desirable for securing the public interest."

    On the Committee stage several hon. Members expressed a desire that some more definite indication should be given as to schools in which service would be pensionable under the Amendment which was then proposed, and this is an attempt to give effect to that wish. When the Bill was introduced it contained no provision for recognising as pensionable service service in schools not aided by Grants, and consequently the Board had not directed its attention to the problems which might arise if schools of that class were included; and even if they desired to do so they had not the machinery for obtaining the necessary information. Schools which do not receive Grants do not come within the purview of the Board, and we have no official information respecting them. As the territory is to a large extent unexplored, it has been found impossible to draft an Amendment stating with precision what schools would be included, and the Amendment now proposed indicates what schools will be excluded, and on this point it Lays down four principles. The first is that service in a school which is conducted for private profit cannot be pensionable. The grant of pensions to masters in a school necessarily relieves, either directly or indirectly, the finance of the persons who conduct that school, and it would be impossible for the Government to give subventions to the owners of private schools. The second condition is that schools must be open to inspection by the Board of Education. This, of course, does not exclude the Board making use of a university as an inspecting agency; but we lay it down that the school should be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be efficient. In order to ascertain whether a school is efficient, it is necessary to inspect, and clearly the body which inspects it, or is responsible for its inspection, must be the body which is responsible to Parliament for the administration of pensions. The object of the Bill is to promote efficient education, and education is not promoted by the continuance of inefficient institutions, and it would be clearly contrary to the general policy of the Bill to give pension aid to teachers in inefficient schools.
    The third requirement is that the school shall be unable, out of its own resources, to maintain a satisfactory pension sys-
    1834
    tem. Here the principle is that Government money should be given to schools which require it, and not to schools which do not require it. The fourth requirement is that a school should satisfy such conditions as may be prescribed by the Board of Education, with the consent of the Treasury, as necessary or desirable for securing the public interest. It is impossible to state at this stage what these conditions will be; but a school which takes public money must be prepared to comply with conditions which the responsible Government imposes as conditions of the receipt of that money and as essential to the public interest. It must, for instance, be made as far as possible acceptable to persons who can benefit from education in that school. It must have a responsible governing body admitting of some degree of public interest, and its internal organisation should be such as at least not to contravene any guiding principle which it may be in the public interest to impose. In addition, the school must be approved by the Treasury for the purpose. This requirement is imposed because the Board of Education is not at present in a position to give a detailed list of the schools in which service can properly be pensionable, and the Treasury, as guardian of the public purse, must be satisfied before public money is given that the case is one in which public expenditure is proper. These are the principle conditions which we propose to attach to the grant of pension aid to schools which are not in receipt of Grant aid. I hope the Government will not be pressed to seek any further for definitions. The matter is very largely unexplored, but I feel certain that those who have the interests of this class of school most at heart will be the first to acknowledge that the Government has gone a very long way towards meeting desires which have been expressed during the discussions upon the Bill.
    Sir C. HENRY: I am somewhat disappointed at the terms of the Amentment, and especially at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with private schools. In the past those schools have done useful work, and work of great necessity for education, and at one time they filled a gap, and if they had not existed education would have been in dire straits. To a certain extent, if the right hon. Gentleman excludes them, he is instrumental in sounding the death-knell of many of them. It will be

    1835
    difficult to get teachers when they have no likelihood of receiving pensions, and they will go to schools where they will obtain them. But I think the Amendment does not entirely shut the door to private schools. Supposing a school is ready to be open to inspection by the Board or a university, and is shown to be efficient and still is run for private profit, will it be excluded? Further, if a school which may start out as a proprietary school with the hope of making a profit is unable to do so owing to the growth of secondary schools in the neighbourhood and is unable out of its own resources to maintain a satisfactory pension scheme, would the fact of its being a private school exclude it from the benefits of a pension scheme? As regards paragraph (d), if a private school run for a profit satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed as necessary or desirable for securing the public interest, will its teachers be excluded? If so, I really think the right hon. Gentleman is dealing very harshly with these private schools. Does he want to close them up entirely? I would ask him to say that private schools which submit themselves to inspection by the Board or university should come under the benefits of the measure, and if they prescribe to the necessary and desirable conditions for the public interest they also should come in. I do not expect that all private schools should be allowed to benefit under the measure if they will not comply with those terms, but in the interests of the masters of the private schools and of the community generally I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot admit them. I would put another proposition to him. Supposing a proprietary school admits a certain number of free scholars, nominated by a county council, would its teachers be debarred from the benefits of the Bill? I appeal most earnestly and sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman to take this into consideration. I feel that private schools have had a real grievance. They expanded and equipped themselves and then secondary schools came in and took away a large measure of the support from them, and now, if they are to be further handicapped, the right hon. Gentleman might just as well say candidly, "It is my intention to do all I can to exterminate private schools."
    Sir P. MAGNUS: It was my privilege to place on the Paper an Amendment the
    1836
    object of which was very similar to this proposal, and, in the circumstances, I am pleased to be able to support it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the extremely sympathetic attitude which he took up when the Amendment was first placed on the Paper that the teachers of schools which are not Grant-aided should be pensionable. I feel with my hon. Friend who has just spoken some regret that the efficient private schools cannot be included within the scheme now before the House, but I do recognise at once that having regard to the principle that underlies the whole of this Bill, it would have been extremely difficult for the President to have included in this particular scheme the private schools. The Amendment, as it stands, if it forms part of the Bill, will be received with gratitude by a large number of efficient schools in this country, and I have very little hesitation in saying that it will be a means of including in this pensionable scheme hundreds of good, sound teachers, and that that inclusion will take place without any additional cost to the Treasury. As regards large private schools, I do hope and believe that on some future occasion it will be possible to introduce an amending Bill to the Bill now before the House, founded altogether on a different principle from that which underlies this Bill, by means of which efficient teachers in private schools will be capable of receiving pensions. There can be no doubt, I am afraid, that if private schools had been included in the Bill as it now stands it must have been at some additional cost to the Treasury.
    What I hope in the future to be able to see is that the teachers and not the school shall be the unit for the application of the principle of pension. In accordance with the present Bill it is the school that has to be efficient in order that the teacher in the school may receive a pension. What I want to see is that every competent teacher, who may be placed upon the register of teachers, shall be capable of receiving a pension under the scheme, and that the teacher shall be the unit rather than the school itself. That would involve an entirely different principle on which such a Bill would have to be founded. Under these circumstances, and hoping that this Bill may pass its Report stage to-day, and its Third Beading on Wednesday, so that it may be passed into law this Session, I am glad to be able to accept the Amendment, and,

    1837
    at the same time, to thank the President for his sympathetic attitude towards the object which I and many others have in view.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I want to ask the President as to the position of the Poor Law schools under the Amendment he is introducing. The teachers of Poor Law schools are largely recruited from the same class as the teachers in elementary schools, and if they are not allowed to come under the same rate of pensions it will be extremely difficult for Poor Law schools to get a satisfactory supply of teachers. Poor Law schools are doing a great service to the State and I, therefore, hope that it is possible that they may be included in one of the three classes indicated in the Amendment. I think it is necessary to have the point cleared up, because the Guardians are very anxious on this point. They feel that the efficiency of their schools may be very greatly hindered and impeded if it is not possible to brine their staffs under this scale of pension. There is no doubt a great deal of anxiety on the subject, and I should be very glad if the President would state that it will be possible for teachers in Poor Law schools to be included under this scale.
    Sir M. BARLOW: With regard to the Amendments which have been brought forward by the President, so far as they go we are grateful for them. There is no doubt about that. As the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has said they do go further than we had originally anticipated. At the same time I hope we shall not be accused of being unduly ungrateful in saying that the Amendment in its present shape does fill us with a good deal of misgiving. I think it is common ground that we want to do what is best in the general educational interests of the country. You have here what admittedly are a thousand strong schools, which at present are not in the position of being rate-aided. They surely are doing the work of the State. I am only here putting the argument which has been put so ably by the hon. Member for Cambridge University—therefore, if they are doing the work of the State and doing it at no cost to the State when their individual teachers say, "Give us reasonable consideration in regard to pensions," surely that is a reasonable claim. As I understand, the President has seen the solid ground for that claim and has accepted it. Let us see how he deals
    1838
    with it. He says, first of all, the school must not be conducted for private profit. I think we are all agreed about that. I have no difficulty in accepting that. Secondly, the school is to be open to inspection by the Board, and it must be shown to be efficient. There, again, I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Next we come to paragraph (c), that the school must be unable of its own resources to maintain a satisfactory pensions scheme. There are two words in that provision which are open to a lot of trouble. One is "unable," and the other is "satisfactory." On whose judgment is the school determined to be "unable"? Who is to decide whether the pension scheme is satisfactory? I suppose it will be the Board of Education. Or is it to be left in the hands of the teachers or of the school authorities to decide? In any case, if it is the Board which is to decide whether the school is unable of its own resources to maintain a pensions scheme, and if it is for the Board to decide whether the pensions scheme put forward is satisfactory, I think we ought clearly to understand it. It would prevent a good deal of confusion in the future.
    Assuming it is the Board which is to decide—and as the Board represents the paying authority I presume it is the Board that will make the decision—then surely we are doing what we pleaded so hard in the Committee stage should not be done, namely, we are putting a burden of uncertainty upon these schools. They propound a scheme, they get actuarial calculations. They have, of course, their own conditions as to the payment of masters and elaborate arrangements about houses, and so on, very often. Those of us who are familiar with the work of Thring, of Uppingham, know the immense difficulties there were in the way of his getting adequate masters for his school. He was obliged to make arrangements with them in the early days as to the building and owning of their houses which, later on, he probably would have been glad to modify. Each school is apt to have its own special financial arrangements and financial difficulties. Supposing a school puts forward a scheme and it has actuarial calculations. It is open to the Board to say, "You are able to put up some sort of scheme, but it is not a satisfactory scheme." Suppose the governors think it is satisfactory? It is very hard if the Board come down and say, "No, it is not." I should have thought that if the

    1839
    teachers and the governing body were satisfied that the scheme was satisfactory such a scheme ought to be satisfactory for all purposes, because you may rely upon the teachers looking after their own interests. Then there is an Amendment which is to be moved, which puts a maximum limit of salary in certain cases. I do not mind a maximum limit, but we will deal with that when it comes. It is, however, difficult to deal with these two Amendments except together. I have no objection to a maximum limit provided it is reasonably high.
    Generally speaking in regard to this Clause, I do urge the President to see whether he cannot give us a little more consideration. I do not think this Clause is going to be satisfactory from the point of view of getting peace and from the point of view of getting good teaching staffs in the schools we have in mind. That is the object we have in view. We want to improve the standard of teaching in the educational world throughout the country. Then for heaven's sake, and for the sake of some little conditions, do not render a large class of teachers—and that class admittedly in schools of the highest outlook in this country—discontented! I suggest that there should be some modifications of paragraph (c) in order to make it a little less uncertain and a little more clear as to what is in the President's mind. Generally speaking, both in regard to this Clause and in regard to the Amendment of Clause 16, I am very much afraid the effect will be to make the position of teachers concerned more difficult than it was before, and it will render it more difficult for the governing bodies to get the best teachers. If that is the result, I should deprecate it very much.
    Sir J. D. REES: For financial reasons I should think the President of the Board of Education could not properly propose to include the teachers in private schools, although I quite realise that to leave them in the position of not coming under this Act will be, if not to sound the death-knell of private schools, to seriously prejudice them. As one who prefers private effort to Government effort and private schools to Government schools, I should most deeply deplore that. But I do not think that it is admissible to include them with any fairness to the taxpayer. We are fast approaching a state of things in this country in which half the population are Government servants receiving and the
    1840
    other half are impoverished taxpayers providing salaries of different dimensions. My hon. Friend (Sir M. Barlow) argued that the teachers in private schools are doing State work. That might very fairly be argued, and with equal force, of almost everybody else. I do not see how these teachers can be more properly brought under the head of State servants doing Government work than any other persons engaged in any beneficial occupation. The effect of the moving of this new Clause emphasises my point that at the present time in an almost empty House, while the Members are away and are occupied with far greater issues, Acts are being rushed through the House of Commons and through Parliament which will entail upon the taxpayer heavy charges, and which would not have been accepted by Parliament had they been brought forward at a time when domestic issues of this character could receive the attention they deserve. I have urged that before, and it arises very much upon this present Clause. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) will work. Are the great public schools—Winchester, Eton, and Harrow, and such ancient foundations—not conducted for private profit?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir J. D. REES: No? The housemasters make their little bit, I suppose! I contend that it is very difficult to say that they are not conducted for private profit. It seems to me a rather difficult definition. I do not suppose that these masters make large fortunes, far from it, but I presume there is some private profit made in the case of these great public schools. As regards Sub-clause (b), under which the schools are to be open to inspection by the Board and shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be efficient, may I ask the President of the Board of Education, does it mean "shown after inspection," because I have always understood that such inspection was entirely optional? None of the great public schools are bound at present to undergo such inspection, and if they were not inspected would it be taken for granted that they were efficient?
    Mr. FISHER: Not unless they were inspected.
    Sir J. D. REES: Then under this Clause it might happen that the Board of Educa-

    1841
    tion might declare one of the great public schools to be inefficient. The Board of Education might fairly explain what seems to be a dilemma. As regards (c), I agree with the hon. Member that it is open to very serious objection as regards the words "satisfactory and unable." How would it be if in addition to the word "unable," we read "unwilling"? Suppose a school is unwilling out of its own resources, as heaven knows it might reasonably be, to maintain a pensions scheme—because we do not want the whole world to be brought under pensions schemes—what would be the effect, because I do not understand it? The President of the Board of Education, referring to the Clause generally, said that he had gone a long way. I am sure that he has, but has he increased the cost?
    Mr. FISHER: No.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the right hon. Gentleman can make a proposal which increases the cost of this Bill, is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire ruled finally out of order in proposing, what I meant to support him in doing, that directors, inspectors, secretaries, and organisers should be included?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment does not increase the cost of the Bill. As the Bill passed through the Committee stage the addition was made. An Amendment to increase the cost should start in the Committee stage, but the Amendment which is now under discussion does not increase the cost.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it finally ruled out as impossible on this occasion to propose that those administrative officers should be included? I ask because my right hon. Friend gave some sort of encouragement to the idea that he would consider the point, presumably favourably. If so, apparently he will be unable to give that encouragement.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That clearly would add a fresh class to those already included in the Bill, and that would mean an extra charge.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am sorry that I cannot join completely in the sentiments which have been expressed as to the scope of this Amendment, but let us remember exactly what this Amendment means. This Bill is, to my mind, in some degree a very great and new departure, and I think in some respects a dangerous departure, but
    1842
    this Clause is the only one which to a certain extent gives a little relaxation and a little freedom within what I consider to be in some respects a dangerous Bill. If this Bill were going greatly to improve the position of the teachers I would not grudge its cost for a moment, but I think that it is not merely from its financial point of view, but from its administrative point of view, that this Bill is in some respects most dangerous. I brought that out when first the Financial Clause came before the House. Instead of a contributory scheme of pensions for teachers in public or aided schools you have now a system of non-contributory pensions established for a particular set of schools arbitrarily selected, and not selected because they have contributory schemes. This Clause is the only concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made in regard to that dangerous point. It is all very well to say that you cannot admit private schools and cannot recognise service in private schools. Certainly, if you have a contributory system of your own, you are quite right to keep them out, but remember you cannot keep them out without saying, "You are outside altogether the class of teachers." It is fair to refuse them admission to a class of pensions which are contributory, but it is not fair to say to them, "We open wide to teachers who have not contributed the advantage of these pensions, but we shut out a very large class of teachers from these pensions."
    That is the central point. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has never really satisfactorily dealt with it. This Amendment is the only relaxation. But when he says, in the second Sub-section, "is open to inspection by the Board," that is not, as he said it would mean, inspection by the universities. There is a tendency in all later administration of the Board of Education to draw the rope tightly round educational administration and to make it more and more a thing which is to be under the official eye, with very little freedom of action or choice, where everything is to be inspected by the Board and everything is to be regulated and approved by the Board. That is not what I, at all events, think is the ideal of education in this country. He now makes a very large step forward, and I warn him that, however small this Bill, and however little attention is given to its various stages, he is taking a very new and a very long step

    1843
    forward towards making teachers in public schools into Civil servants, and I object to that on the part of the teaching profession. I think that sooner or later this will work evil in the teaching profession. Why are you to take one class of the community more than another, unless they are to be considered as Civil servants in the service of the State, and give them pensions without any contribution? There is no other class who hitherto have been pensioned on a non-contributory system.
    I have a right, also, to intervene here, because this matter does not deal only with England. It affects also Scottish teachers very largely. Hitherto it has been the case that Scottish and English teachers were on an equal footing. The degrees in one country were recognised in the other. Service under one Department counted as service under the other. In all respects interchange of teachers between England and Scotland was perfectly open. This Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman does not permit that. If an English teacher goes to Scotland for a certain number of years he will lose the advantage which he has hitherto had. If a Scottish teacher, on the other hand, comes to an English school, his years of service will not count towards his pension. That is introducing a very serious breach in what has been a satisfactory arrangement hitherto between England and Scotland. No one can maintain that it is not a good thing that teachers in England and Scotland should exchange perfectly freely. There was a general standard maintained between them. Now you are digging a gulf between the two sets of teachers. A teacher cannot change from England to Scotland without dislocating entirely the scheme of pensions for which he stands. In Scotland we have, so far, only contributory pensions. I am quite aware that teachers are not a very reticent class in Scotland if they have any grievance, and they have not, so far as I am aware, asked that the contributory system should be entirely abolished. I have always insisted on liberal aid being given, but that it should be started on a principle of small contributions, and I do not see why you have suddenly started an entirely new scheme for England, which is to leave Scotland out altogether, and which is to exclude from the category for which provision is made one class of schools which do not come within the hard-and-fast official regulations. That is the centre of
    1844
    my doubts about your Bill, and it is not removed by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, though it is the only Amendment which has been introduced to alleviate this hardship. I do not think that it is sufficient to do away with very many of the objections which can be urged against this Bill.
    Sir W. COLLINS: I have not intervened in the Debate on this Bill, because I am anxious not to delay for one moment its successful passage into law. I rejoice that the work of the right hon. Gentleman, both in the improvement of the salaries of teachers, and in the provision of pensions will, as I hope, secure that the teaching profession, at any rate in public elementary and secondary schools and in these non-Grant-aided schools, will be a more remunerative, more honourable and a more attractive profession than in the past. As has been pointed out, in the matter of principle this Bill has made a most important change in the whole method of retirement legislation, and I think that that might be given as a reason for not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to go much further than he has done in the case of these non-Grant-aided schools. After all in 1912 a committee was appointed to consider the pensions of secondary school teachers, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he threw over the proposal of a federated university scheme on the contributory principle, and, under this Bill, pensions are being given out of moneys provided by Parliament to persons who are not in the employment of the State without any contribution either from the beneficiaries, or from those who employ them in the shape of local authorities or managers. These, indeed, may be described as revolutionary principles, and very generous principles, in the matter of pensions, but I think one can hardly press the right hon. Gentleman to go much further when we are dealing with these private schools which are still less, as it were, connected with any State organisation. If the teachers in them are to enjoy pension rates on the Civil Service scale without any contribution whatever, if that principle be conceded, I can hardly see where the development on these lines will stop. You must remember that the schemes of the police, the Poor Law, the Asylums officers, the Metropolitan borough councils are contributory schemes, and obviously in the case of the municipal employés and the borough and county councils, about whom

    1845
    a committee is sitting, the principle in this Bill will be cited as a model for future pension schemes I confess that to press the right hon. Gentleman further in the matter of these private schools than he has already gone or to widen the limitations he has prescribed in this Amendment is scarcely fair. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say—I am not sure I understood him—that the adoption of this Amendment would not involve additional cost. I think he put the estimate at £2,000,000 as the cost of working this scheme.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member is confusing two things. The Amendment in Committee will, of course, increase the cost. This is an amendment of that, and its effect will be to reduce the cost.
    Sir W. COLLINS: I am obliged, but I do not think even in Committee it was stated what would be the cost of embodying the private schools. I think the right hon. Gentleman said he was dealing with an area which had not been very fully explored and possibly he will find difficulty in giving us the final figure. I do not think in the Committee stage or now we have heard any estimate of the final cost out of the public revenue of pensioning these teachers in private schools. For these reasons I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should be pressed to go further. He has made generous provision for the private teacher and I hope this Bill will satisfactorily pass into law.
    Mr. DILLON: What the hon. and learned Member says is absolutely true of this Bill. It introduces a wholly novel procedure or principle as regards these retiring allowances. It is much more generous than any scheme I know of now in working. That may be right or may be wrong, and what the hon. and learned Member has said applies to the teachers in these State-aided schools. No doubt that principle will be quoted all over the country, and will be made the subject of application by other bodies to have similar principles applied to their case. That goes without saying. I do not think these principles which the hon. and learned Member dwelt on applied to the vitally important question, which raises in my mind a very great principle as regards the whole future of education of this country, whether this privilege should be confined to a specified class of teachers; not at all whether a pension is a good or
    1846
    a bad precedent, or what the consequences may be, but whether, when you apply it to the teaching profession, you should narrow it to a settled class of teachers. That undoubtedly is a very difficult question, which transcends in importance the question of mere finance, because the additional cost, although it may be considerable, would not be very considerable as compared with the cost of the whole scheme as it stands. Can there be any doubt that what the hon. Member for Glasgow University says is absolutely true, namely, that if you, under this very generous scheme, set up a privileged class of teachers who have a comfortable provision for their old age which all my life I have regarded as a sort of Utopia for teachers, who have been the most neglected of all classes, that if you set up that special privileged class in certain schools, the inevitable result will be to set up a great draw of all the best teachers to those schools and deserting the private schools? I think there can be no controversy. It is absolutely manifest, and therefore you are by this Bill setting up a system which will be bound to give a vast advantage to the new Grant-aided schools as against the private proprietary schools.
    They have the advantage already of getting aid from the rates, but that is counterbalanced to a large extent by the conditions to which they are subject. Nevertheless, I believe their competition has been very severe, but it is not so bad as the competition which tends to draw all the best and makes the position of teachers most unsatisfactory in secondary private schools, no matter how well off the secondary private school may be, as compared with the career of a teacher in one of the State-aided schools. I say in my opinion the effect of the arrangement will be to set up an irresistible drive towards turning all the schools of the country into State-aided schools. The Minister of Education ought really to take fully into consideration—I do not profess now to have the exact object of his Amendment; I have not carefully examined what its effect will be in minimising the Bill—he ought to take into consideration whether he will commit his Department to that policy, because it is a policy. I myself have always been strongly in favour of the other policy. I think it would be a great misfortune, or let me say I think it is a great advantage and I wish we had it more in our own country, that

    1847
    there should be different systems and that we should have public schools competing with private I have no doubt they have done great good to the private schools in developing in them all the latest developments of education, but is it the policy of the Minister of Education to crush out the privately owned school and have only one system? I would put to him this fact, that all experience in this matter goes to show that when you introduce measures of this character which set up a privileged class the results of the operation of these measures go far in excess of what their originators dreamed of. They set up a tendency which grows and becomes irresistible, and although it is only recently that he has got control of a Government Department he must know the inevitable law, like one of the great laws of science, that all the Government Departments are consumed with a desire to eat up everything that comes their way. I am not blaming them. It is of their essence and nature and Government Departments universally—I never knew an exception—imagine that their methods are the best, and their whole desire and tendency is to gather everything under the machine, run it all in accordance with the machine and get it under their control. You are committing into their hands an enormously powerful weapon, and I put it to the Minister of Education that he should consider whether he really does desire to set up a system which will tend to destroy the variety of schools and the rivalry between privately owned schools and the schools which are constituted and controlled by his Department. I hope he does not. I should be much surprised if he did, and I hope he will consider the whole situation from that point of view.
    He ought to look at this—as he has taken up this great problem and shows an amount of human sympathy with these unhappy teachers which I never saw displayed by any Minister before—he ought to look at it from the point of view of the profession rather than that of the individual school, because if he does not he puts a slur on the men who are teaching in the private schools. As the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) said, they become a boycotted class outside the profession. The idea ought not to go out that a man who teaches in a private school is a kind of inferior teacher not to be recognised in the profession to which he belongs. For years and years I have been
    1848
    advocating that this profession of teachers, if we are genuinely anxious to overtake the arrears of education in this country, ought to be put on the footing of an honourable profession. The idea of trusting our sons to teachers who have been oppressed and looked down upon and looked upon as a kind of, I do not know where to find a word to describe it, but rather scorned socially and in their pay, and standing in every way—that idea was one of the gravest fundamental mistakes made by this country. In conclusion, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman where I think this Amendment very grievously fails. It has already been pointed out by one hon. Member—and I entirely agree with him—that the two last Clauses (c) and (d), and especially Clause (d), are in the highest degree objectionable, because they play right into the hands of the official. Clause (d) provides that the school shall satisfy such other conditions as may be prescribed as necessary or desirable for securing the public interests. That is a direct invitation to the Board of Education to go on framing conditions which will entirely destroy the initiative and independence of private schools. There are some private schools in this country of which I think it would be a public misfortune if they were crushed, and I think it desirable that independence, new ideas, and private enterprise should be encouraged. That Clause is undoubtedly a direct incitement to the officials to go on framing regulation after regulation with the object of forcing all these private schools to become public schools. The first two Clauses are different. "Are not conducted for private profit." I take no objection to that, because the higher-class public schools are not conducted for private profit at all, but for reasons which I need not go into. Secondly, they must be open to inspection by the Board and be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be efficient. That also is a good condition. I do not see how we can bring this matter to an issue, but I hope the Minister for Education will consider it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Except in the last part of his speech the hon. Member travelled a long way beyond the Amendment before the House. The question is whether the words left in this Clause by the Committee shall stand or the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman be substituted? The other Debate should arise on the Third Reading.
    Major NEWMAN: I hope I may be within the limits allowed for debate in referring to the position of certificated teachers in Poor Law schools. The question has been raised as to whether these teachers will come under this Act. I have had a couple of letters asking me as to what their position is now under the Act when they had been, though not now, certificated teachers in Poor Law schools. One correspondent wrote to me as follows:
    "I was a certificated assistant-master in the North Surrey District Schools from April, 1892, to November, 1895. Will you please tell me exactly how I stand with regard to the superannuation benefits for those years of service? Will those years count as recorded service under the above-mentioned new scheme and, if not, shall I lose all superannuation benefits for those years or can I claim anything under the Poor Law scheme?"
    To that the National Union of Teachers replied:
    "The service referred to would hardly qualify for a pension under the Poor Law scheme because it consisted of little more than three years. Nor will those years count under the provision 'for teachers in other schools' embodied in the new superannuation scheme unless you have been unable to make up the minimum number of years of service."
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what is the position of these teachers. It is perfectly obvious that if they are excluded that an Amendment ought to be moved to bring them in. It may be they are in already, and therefore I will not move an Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me no assurance that these particular gentlemen will benefit under this Bill, and if I am told that those years of service are to be excluded, I should like to move an Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This question does not arise on the present Amendment, and the extension supported by the hon. Member could not be moved on the Report stage.
    Mr. DENNISS: I saw in the "Times" to-day that at a meeting of teachers they calculated that 15,000 new teachers would be required under the new Education Act. How many years it would take to get that number of teachers I do not know, but at all events the mere fact that those people are to have pensions must have a very great effect upon private schools, or any schools that do not come under this pension and superannuation scheme. What right has the Minister for Education or the Government to pick out
    1850
    one class of teacher and one class of officially conducted school, like the board schools in this country, and give them a system of pensions non-contributory, which must do a great deal of harm to and cripple very largely an enormous number of teachers in this country, when we are told that so enormous a number of teachers are to be added to those now engaged in those national board schools, with the result that other schools must be depleted? There is only one cure for this matter, and that is to treat all teachers on the same basis and not to exclude those in schools which are carried on for private profit, as this Amendment docs. No person ought to be allowed to be a teacher in this country unless he is efficient. If he is an efficient teacher, registered as such, and a member of the recognised teaching profession and has spent years of his life teaching in an efficient school, then he should be, entitled to a pension just as much as those who are engaged in teaching in board schools. Why the right hon. Gentleman has selected just those few I cannot understand. This Bill does not include all people connected with education. There was a good deal of controversy in Committee about the exclusion of inspectors, directors, and others, who were just as much a part of the system of education in this country as the teacher. I do not wish to go into that subject further than to say that every clerk in the Board of Education, and every higher official in the Board, has a pension. The right hon. Gentleman himself—I hope he will never want it—can have one if he pleases. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no"!] Yes, if he pleases.
    Mr. ROCH: There is only a limited number.
    Mr. DENNISS: I think I am right. Those officers have pensions, and this scheme does not provide to carry the thing out as it should. It does not include teachers in any schools except the board schools, and does not include administrative officials connected with the Board. In my opinion the scheme is a patchwork one, incomplete and founded on a wrong principle. I think it should be made universal by having the teaching profession in it with its inspectors and directors and other officials, and thus have one homogeneous scheme. It is now designed on a vicious principle, and I only accept it because teachers in this country have been hitherto so neglected and badly paid and with very poor pensions, that one

    1851
    accepts it because it is a move in the direction of justice for the teacher. But in principle it is absolutely illogical and wrong.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to express my gratitude to the President for this Amendment. I think many Members viewed with some alarm the provision in Clause 16 in its original form and regarded it as too vague, undefined, and as likely to lead to endless disputes in the profession with the Board. Therefore I am very glad that he has defined some of the conditions upon which schools outside the State-aided system are to receive recognition. I listened with very much respect, as I always do, to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I am sure we will all sympathise with the ideal he set forth of a unified profession, and with the appeal which he made to have regard to the nature of the profession, and the great dignity that should attend it. But I think that the President has gone a long way towards assisting in the realisation of the ideals so eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member, and I am glad to receive his confirmation of that. My hon. Friend took exception to paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Amendment. Paragraph (c) excludes those schools which are able out of their own resources to provide a satisfactory pension scheme. That is obviously aimed at those schools with wealthy foundations and endowments outside any State-aid and outside any measure of public control, and which are obviously under no need of assistance. No hardship can arise by the enforcement on such schools of paragraph (c). Paragraph (d) seems to me to be essential in order to protect the State against schools which are conducted under conditions which should preclude public assistance being given. May I give an example? There was a very great secondary school in London having great traditions behind it and established for a particular purpose and to provide in a religious atmosphere for a certain class of boys. This school was in the habit of receiving local aid, and in connection with that had a number of scholarships and gave a number of free places to boys sent by the local educational authority. That school under new management decided to reverse its traditions and its methods, and decided arbitrarily to expel all scholarship boys and to admit no scholarship boys in future and to have no
    1852
    places under their system for free education. It decided also only to admit boys to the school in future who came from a certain social class, which was to be judged by their ability to pay certain fees. It would be nothing less than a public scandal if a school like that were able to claim pensions for its staff out of public funds, without the President of the Board being able to say "as a condition of receiving these pensions I require you to fall in with the general public system of education and to receive those scholarship boys." That instance alone, I think, is sufficient to justify the President in bringing forth this part of his Amendment, which I respectfully and very cordially support.
    Mr. FISHER: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but there are one or two points in connection with this discussion to which I should like very briefly to advert. The discussion has ranged very far afield and, if I may say so, was more in the nature of a Second Reading Debate than a discussion on the Amendment. It has been assumed in the speeches of some hon. Members that this Bill makes provision for a privileged class of teachers, and the inference which I think was drawn by one hon. Member was that that privileged class was somewhat small. What are the facts? The facts are that this Bill provides superannuation allowance and disablement allowance upon a scheme which is admittedly very generous, for no less than 170,000 teachers in our elementary and our secondary schools, and it provides pensions for teachers in 1,050 secondary schools receiving Grant aid. Outside that very large number there are 105 schools, containing 2,600 teachers, which are secondary schools and on the Board's efficient list, and the object of this Amendment is to see whether we cannot provide pension aid to teachers in some of those 105 schools who are at present without any. I am referring to schools not conducted for private profit and on the Board's efficient list, and not Grant-aided.
    Sir C. HENRY: That includes, no doubt, schools like Eton and Harrow?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes. There are 105 of these schools. Here I may refer to a point raised by an hon. Member who asked me whether I could give an estimate of the cost of the Amendment. If all the 2,600 teachers came into our pension scheme—and, of course, that will not be

    1853
    the case—we calculate it would involve an annual cost of £90,000, say, in ten years' time. That is the size of the problem. When it is realised that this Bill does benefit—very materially benefit—the vast mass of teachers both in our elementary and secondary schools and that it is only a comparatively small number of teachers who are left outside its provisions, many of the objections which have been raised will disappear. The hon. Member for South Salford raised an objection to the Amendment on the ground of its vagueness. He would like a more specific Amendment. But here I must remind the House that it is impossible for the Board at the present moment with the knowledge at its disposal to indicate precisely what schools will be entitled to pension aid as distinct from Grant-aid. I think it is too much to ask us to come down to the House with a list of such schools. As I have pointed out, the Board has no official knowledge with regard to those schools. We have to explore the subject much more thoroughly before we can frame a satisfactory set of Regulations, but I would remind the House that under Clause 15, Sub-section (2), the Regulations of the Board with respect to the schools will be submitted to the House, so that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members, if they find anything they do not like in the Regulations, to comment upon them.
    I have been asked a question with respect to Poor Law schools. The teachers of Poor Law schools come under a separate pension scheme, consequently they are not included in this scheme; but I may point out that a teacher of three years' service in a Poor Law school or in a State-aided school will not come under the provisions of this Bill, because the minimum recognised service which is admitted as pensionable under the provisions of the Bill is a period of ten years. The hon. Member for South Salford criticised the third condition laid down in my Amendment—that is, the provision that a school should not receive pension aid which is able out of its own resources to maintain a satisfactory pensions scheme. Obviously we must have some provision which will exclude from the benefit of this subsidy from Parliamentary money schools which are richly endowed and which are perfectly able to provide for their own teachers. I do not see how that can be done more adequately than by a provision of this kind. I hope now that I have met
    1854
    the comments which have been made upon the Amendment, the House will find no difficulty in accepting it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not going into the substance of the Amendment, and only wish to say one thing, in part of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that is with regard to the financial results of the Amendment. I should be sorry if the idea were to go forth from this House that this Amendment would impose an extra charge upon the State. As a matter of fact, this Amendment and the Clause it supersedes will be a distinct economy to the State, because all those schools which benefit by this Amendment—for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman—would have had the opportunity of coming into the Government scheme in five years. Consequently, large numbers of them would have been forced into the scheme, in which case the Government would have had to find pensions for them on the full scale and Grant aid as well. Therefore, in that respect, this provision will be a distinct economy. A large number of the schools would probably have struggled on and not come in at the end of five years. As the pensions scheme is applied under this Bill, they would have been squeezed out altogether. The schools would have come to an end and places would have had to be found in secondary schools at an expense far in excess of the amount required for giving pensions to those in secondary schools. I only intervened to point out that it was a false idea that this involved a further draw on the Treasury. In the long run, it will mean economy rather than more expense.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the last paragraph ("average salary") to add the words,
    "Provided that rules under this Act may pre-scribe as respects teachers in schools which are not Grant-aided the maximum salary which may be taken into account in calculating the average salary."
    This is, in a sense, a consequential Amendment. It is introduced in consequence of the determination of the Government to extend pension aid to schools which are not in receipt of Grants. That extension of the Bill brings the Board into contact with a number of schools with respect to whose salaries it has at present no official knowledge. It would clearly be undesirable that the Board should take no power to limit the amount of salaries upon which pensions

    1855
    are calculated in the event of that amount being very considerable. Let us assume that a school pays its headmaster £5,000 per year. It seems to me that it would be undesirable that the Board should take no power to fix some amount lower than £5,000 as the amount upon which the pension is to be calculated. I feel that the extension of pension aid to schools not in receipt of Grant aid would be open to a considerable amount of very legitimate criticism, unless some such definite precautions were taken. With regard to the schools now in receipt of Grant aid, the position is different. The Board is already acquainted with the salaries paid in those schools and it knows that these salaries are on the modest side. Even if the Board were to take power to limit the pensionable salary in respect of the schools on the Grant list now, it is very improbable that that power would be acted upon. I speak at random, but I doubt whether there are any salaries now paid in those schools which would be sufficiently high to justify the course proposed. Consequently, I hope the House will see fit to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am exceedingly sorry to see this Amendment down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. It is totally different from the Amendment he moved in the Committee stage. He then moved a manuscript Amendment which had not the objection which may be argued against this Amendment, but he withdrew the Amendment then because it was a manuscript Amendment, and hon. Members said that they had not had time to consider it. Now he has put down this Amendment in another form. This Amendment really has the vice which so many hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon in discussing the Bill generally. It differentiates adversely between the State Grant-aided school and the schools coming under this Clause. If they are rightly admitted, there can be no reason for any such differentiation as to the maximum. The question of the maximum pensionable amount came up in the Committee stage owing to some hon. Member saying that there were large sums involved, and it would be well that the higher salaried officials should not be pensioned. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) was asked whether any of those he represented received salaries of more than £500 per year, and he said "No," and the question
    1856
    of 1500 per year was bandied about in the Committee stage. The principle is now introduced that there is to be no limit as regards Grant-aided schools, but there is to be a limit as regards schools which come in in this particular way. What defence is there for the alteration? If a limit is to be put on, why should there not be a limit in regard to Grant-aided schools as well as in regard to any form of school? There are Grant-aided schools now where the headmasters receive £2,000 a year. Under this Bill they will get a pension, and no doubt on a very liberal scale. I have not the slightest objection to that. If a headmaster is receiving £2,000 a year, he has probably taken that post without the idea of getting a State pension, as he will under this Bill, but he may feel it to be a hardship if the pensionable amount is reduced to £1,500.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is a fair number of State-aided schools who pay £2,000 a year without any prospect of pension at all. Now they are to have pensions. There are other schools who do their work with the aid of voluntary subscriptions or endowments. What is the defence of the President for putting on a limit in their case? The suggestion is that they are rich schools which can very well afford to pay the pensions. Under provision (c) in the Amendment we passed a few moments ago, pension-aid is only going to be extended to schools which are unable out of their own resources to maintain a satisfactory pensions scheme. Therefore, you are only going to extend it to poor schools and not to rich schools, which have been the green dragon in the Debate—Eton, Harrow, and so forth. Why should there be a limit placed upon all these schools and no limit placed upon the State-aided secondary schools? By this competition which is being set up you are seriously injuring the schools which are not State-aided. Whatever the school may be, Mill Hill, Leys, or any other, if a master is in receipt of £1,000 a year and you make your pension limit £500 a year, there is every reason why he should leave that school where he has worked for many years and go to a State-aided school so that he may enjoy a pension which will come to him under this Bill. It is introducing an unfair competition between two forms of schools, and for that reason I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this Amendment. I hope

    1857
    he will put his Amendment in some other form, if it is necessary to have it at all, or still better, withdraw the Amendment, leaving the Bill as it is at the present time. Then no harm would be done, because it is entirely discretionary in the Board of Education what pensions they grant, and they could treat all alike, instead of differentiating, to which I object very strongly.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I find myself in full agreement with the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend opposite. I wish very much that the President could see his way to withdraw this Amendment, and I do so not only in the interests of the schools for which I have pleaded, but also because, without this Amendment, there are invested in the Board all the powers that could be demanded. Under the powers of the Bill, it is quite possible for the Board to refuse as a pensionable school one in which teachers are receiving very high salaries. Therefore, there does not seem to me any reason to make this marked distinction between pensions in Grant-aided schools and in non-Grant-aided schools. Unless, therefore, some very strong reason can be given by the President, I really think he would be doing a graceful act in withdrawing this particular Amendment. But if he finds it impossible to withdraw it, which I hope he may not, will he give us some assurance that, at any rate, so long as he remains President of the Board of Education, the highest salary of a teacher in a Grant-aided school shall be regarded as the limit of pensionable salaries in non-provided schools, so that certainly no teacher in a non-Grant-aided school shall be refused a pension on the ground that his salary is £800 a year, when the salary of a teacher in some Grant-aided school who is receiving a pension was £1,200 or £1,400 a year? Will he in some way indicate that there is equality in this respect between the pensionable salaries of teachers in the one class and in the other class of schools? I appeal to the President to do one or the other, in order to make this satisfactory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.

  POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  1858
  The Bill has three purposes. One is to enable the police authority to grant a pension to the widow of a police officer. As the House knows, under the present law a pension to a widow is only granted when a police officer has received injuries in the execution of his duty, and the pension is limited in the case of a constable to £15 a year, of an inspector to £25, and of a superintendent to £30. We propose to authorise all police authorities to give to the widow of an officer who comes within the provisions of the Bill a pension of £26 per annum in the case of the widow of a constable, of £32 in the case of the widow of an inspector, and of £40 in the case of a higher rank. Those who are within the Bill include those who were serving in a police force on the 1st September, 1918, including re-engaged pensioners serving at that date; and members of a police force who have been called up in the Army. The cost of this will be heavy. It is estimated that over the whole country it will ultimately cost £550,000 a year, but for the next twenty years it will not reach more than half that amount. Where the man has an Army or Navy pension, that, of course, will be taken into account in fixing his pension, and where a gratuity has been given on retirement from the police force, we meet that by allowing the police authorities to fix a date when the new pensions shall begin. They will take into account the gratuity. That is the substance in effect of the first and second Clauses. The third Clause deals with a point which has given some difficulty. It is provided by the existing Pensions Act that where a person receiving a pension under the Act is entitled to remuneration out of money provided by Parliament or out of the county or borough funds, he shall not while holding that office receive more of the pension than together with the remuneration of that office is equal to 1½ times the remuneration of the office in respect of which the pension was awarded. That has been found to be a considerable hardship. It has been modified in the case of certain pensions under the Ministry of Munitions and other Departments. We propose to abolish it altogether, and to follow the principle now generally accepted, namely, that a pensioner who takes an appointment shall receive full pay for his employment without regard to the pension which he will draw. The fourth Clause deals with a small matter affecting a policeman who has joined the Army without the consent

  1859
  of the Chief Officer of Police. As the law stands, these men when they come back cannot count their war service as part of their service for pension. We think it rather hard that these men who have taken a patriotic course shall suffer, and we are proposing in this Clause to provide that the service in naval, military, or air forces shall be taken as approved service. That is the effect of the Bill.
  Mr. GILBERT: Those of us who are London Members, and who are taking special interest in the London police, are very pleased to hear the Home Secretary move the Second Reading of this Bill today, carrying out as it does the pledge which was given to the men during the recent strike in London. There are, however, one or two points that I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage. One is in Clause 1, where, it seems, he is going to leave it very much to the option of the police authorities, because he uses the words "may, if they think fit"; and some of us who are interested in the police think it would be of very great advantage to the Bill if, instead of these words, the word "shall" were inserted. The same thing applies to Clause 4, where the word "may" is used instead of "shall." I hope between this and the Report stage the Home Secretary will consider that point, and see if he cannot make the Bill mandatory, instead of leaving it, as we think it is at present, absolutely optional to the police authorities, whether they allow this pension or not, particularly to the widow. There is one other point about which I should like to plead with the Home Secretary, and that is whether he can make the date of this Bill retrospective in regard to the Police Emergency Act of 1915. If he does that he will be doing a great kindness, and I think justice, not to a large number of men, but to a certain number of men with whom, I think, the House will have a great deal of sympathy. When the War started, policemen who were entitled to retire on a pension were forbidden to retire from the police force, and by the Police Emergency Act of 1915 were compelled to remain in the police force, and were not allowed to take their pension unless incapacitated.
  The effect of that has been that a very great hardship has been inflicted in certain cases, because a number of the men, who have served for twenty-six years in the police force, looked forward to the
  1860
  time when, having completed their service, they could leave the force and enjoy their pensions, or obtain some other kind of employment which would add considerably to the pension. During the War no man has been allowed to retire, and the men who are stopping on now will get the advantage of the new pension arrangement. There are, however, a certain number of men who have been invalided out of the service since 1914 and 1915. I have a case in a letter in front of me of a man who was invalided out as recently as August, and that man will not get the benefit of the new pensions scale. I do appeal to the Home Secretary, therefore, to reconsider this matter between now and the Committee stage, and see if something cannot be done. I think it can be done by ante-dating the Bill to 1915. In any case, the men are not going to get a very large pension, because this particular man whose case I have mentioned gets under the old system £81 15s. a year. He has done practically thirty years' service, and he goes out practically a month before the new terms were made. I am certain I shall have the sympathy of the Home Secretary and the heads of the police force in a case of this kind. There are very few such cases. I asked the Home Secretary a question about this last week, and he said their pensions were decided by Statute and nothing could be done in the matter. But I think something can be done in this Bill by altering the date. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.
  Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: There is one point I should like to raise, more for the purpose of getting information than anything else. The title of this Bill is, "A Bill to make further provision with respect to pensions payable to police-constables and their widows." I wish to ask whether the word "constables" is limited to the ordinary constables. The word is used throughout the Bill, with the exception that there is a difference in the wording in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1. Paragraph (a) speaks of "a constable who was serving in a police force," and paragraph (b) speaks of a "member of a police force, who having been called out as a reservist." There is evidently a difference between those two, and my question is whether this Bill applies to the other grades of the police force in addition to the ordinary police constable.
  Mr. COTTON: Before the Home Secretary replies, I should be very glad if he could give me some information in regard to Clause 3. I observe in Clause 3 that Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act of 1890 is repealed, and that is a piece of news that will be received with the greatest satisfaction by members of the police force, who have felt it a very serious grievance. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform me whether that is to have any retrospective sort of effect. For instance, there have been cases in which a police constable has retired; he has had to retire on account of injury received in the execution of his duty, and upon retirement he has received a small pension, £26, or something of that sort; but when, after an interval, he has recovered health and obtains employment, say, as a special officer under an education authority, at once the Home Office have stepped in, have brought into play Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890, and have cut off his pension. I need hardly point out to the Home Secretary that if this Bill is going to create two classes of cases, namely, those who have been brought under the operation of the Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890, and those who are going to be relieved of the, operation of it, it will create a feeling of soreness among those who are not so fortunate, and it does seem to me that if an attempt is going to be made to remove what has undoubtedly been a grievance which has affected the financial prospects of the police constable very seriously in the past, it would be the handsome thing to make the measure thoroughly retrospective in order to bring in all the cases, which cannot be very many, which have come up in the past.
  Then, with regard to Clause 1, I see that the phraseology in Sub-section (1) goes: "The police authority may, if they think fit." I hope the Home Secretary will be inclined to alter that phrase "may" to "shall." I cannot myself see why the grant of these pensions should be contingent on anybody's discretion. I say that either the policeman's widow is entitled to this pension or she is not, and the words, "may if they think fit," would merely create a feeling of doubt in the minds of the police force. I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that "may" there is the same as "shall," but I should like to point out that the House
  1862
  of Lords decided that the word "shall" shall be "shall," and the word "may" shall be "may," and I hope he will accept that definition now. But what I really am anxious about is with regard to Subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890. I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should give some sort of assurance that all cases in which this very unfair section has been brought into operation shall receive attention. The unfairness of it will be at once evident when I point out that the operation of this Section in the Police Act of 1890 does not apply to the City of London Police Force, or the Police Force of Scotland or of Ireland, but solely to the constables of the Metropolitan Police Force, and to the constables only. It was not brought into operation with regard to higher officers. That being so, I would ask him if he can see his way to give an assurance with regard to the matter.
  Mr. ALDEN: I agree with my hon. Friend, with the exception of the fact that it does not apply to higher officers. It does not apply in actual facts to higher officers, because they are higher paid men, and, receiving a higher salary, are able to obtain the whole of their pension as well as any remuneration they may receive out of the public funds. I do ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this whole question of the pension of these lower-paid men. The Act to which reference has been made lays it down that no constable may receive more of his pension than, together with the remuneration of his office, is equal to one and a half times the pay of the office. I have gone into a great number of cases, and I do not think I have discovered one single case of a man, of an inspector or a sub-inspector who has any deduction whatever from his pension. He is receiving a much larger salary; he is in a better position and is better able to meet the heavy demands of the increased cost of living and gets no deduction from his pension, but the constable, and especially the constable who retired some considerable time ago, and received then a smaller salary than he receives now, is in a most unfortunate position, and there is regularly deducted from his salary so much for his pension as would exceed one and a half times. I would like to give one illustration. It is not a very exceptional case, but it seems to me a very hard case. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman

  1863
  if he can take into account a case of that sort. Here is a man, an ex-police constable, who received his pension on 13th July, 1901. Since that date he has been in and out of hospital on account of injuries he received, and has had several severe operations and cannot walk properly. He received his injuries in 1900 and he still suffers from them. They prevent him from doing his work as efficiently as he otherwise would. His pay was comparatively small as compared with the present time, and yet, notwithstanding that fact, when he gets a situation and is able greatly to improve his position he receives a notice to say that, quarter by quarter, so much will be deducted from his pension because he is now exceeding the one and a half times. This is a man injured in the service. He does his very best to earn a livelihood afterwards and to improve his position. The smaller his salary the more certain it is that something will be deducted from his pension. If that is the fact, I think the Home Secretary ought to take it into account.
  Sir G. CAVE: We are repealing it.
  Mr. ALDEN: You are repealing it so far as those who are paid out of public funds are concerned, but not in the case of those who are in an ordinary occupation in civil life. I know of one case. A man applied to his employer for an increase in salary. The employer happened to know his position and said, "What is the use of my increasing your salary, it will only be deducted from your pension?" which is the case. It is a fact that if a man increases his salary over a certain amount, however small that salary may be, if he was paid on the low scale he thereby reduces his pension. There is no justice whatever in that position. There is no reason why these men who happen to be working outside public authorities for the naval and military services should be penalised in this fashion. It was not the intention of the Home Secretary. It does not apply to the City, to Scotland and to Ireland. The very least we can do now that we are reviewing this position is to see that these lower-paid men are assisted. I will give you another case. It is that of a man—not in my Constituency; I am not pressing these people because they happen to live in my Constituency, because they do not—it is the case of a man who took a position
  1864
  under a private employer. He has had deducted from his salary since he retired in 1906 £274 7s. 4d. from his pension. That man paid 11d. a week towards his superannuation. I think that ought to be taken into account. Yet there are many of these men now who are not entitled to any pension at all. Why? They contributed 11d. a week. It was deducted from their pay originally, but because they receive up to this amount they are not entitled to any pension whatever. I can see no justice in that. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that where we are dealing with these lower-paid men, especially men who retired some time ago, that their case is worthy of consideration, and I hope that he will see his way to make some concession in this direction. I should like to have a Return of the police pensioners under the Act of 1890 who are suffering deductions from their pension under Section 13. I believe I would be contented with that. I believe if we had that Return and that if the right hon. Gentleman saw that Return he would be satisfied that there is a case made out. He would note that no inspector or sub-inspector had anything deducted, because they do not come under that Regulation. It just hits the smaller-paid men. I am sure he understands the case and that he sympathises with it; but I do urge upon him the necessity of helping these men at the present time. They are not earning any too much money. I have examined the wages and incomes of a great many of these men, and they are not really getting enough to live on just now, and although these pensioners are as a rule better paid than other men, yet these men who retired some considerable time ago are suffering very much because their emoluments then were smaller. They are in a very much worse position than the man who gets £l a week more. It is a matter which ought to be taken into account. I hope I have made myself clear; if I have not, I shall be glad to bring to see the right hon. Gentleman a small deputation of men who are really suffering great hardship, and I trust he will be willing to receive them.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to a rather curious point in the drafting of this Bill. I know perfectly well that it is proposed only to apply this Bill to England, but I have read the Bill very carefully—and if the right hon. Gentleman looks at it

  1865
  again I think he will agree with me—I think it is clear that, as the Bill stands, it applies to Ireland, because there is no exemption Clause. It is true that in Clause 5 it says that "this Act shall apply to Scotland," with the substitution of references to the Police Act of 1890; but the governing Clause in the Bill is Clause 1, which only deals with constables or other members of a police force. We have in Ireland two police forces—the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police—and it seems to me that, as the Bill stands, it would certainly apply to those two bodies. The Chief Secretary for Ireland to-day introduced a Bill—the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill
  "to amend the law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes in connection with those forces."
  That Bill has not yet been printed. I want to say to the Home Secretary that I hope he will allow this Bill to stand as it stands now until we see what are the proposals in the Irish Bill. If they do not cover the cases parallel to those covered in this Bill, the matter will be one for further consideration; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow this to stand permanently. At the present time I can tell him that the widows of policemen in Ireland, under the existing law, are only eligible for a pension of £10 a year. This is wholly inadequate. As this present Bill gives £26 as a minimum, I hope that, as the conditions in the cost of living, and so on, do not vary very greatly in Ireland to here, that the provisions of this Bill, unless the Irish Bill provides equally good pensions for the widows of Irish policemen, will be allowed to stand, and that the right hon. Gentleman will extend the Bill to Ireland.
  Sir G. CAVE: I shall in a few words reply to the points raised by the various speakers. In regard to the point raised by the last speaker my impression is that the Bill does not apply to Ireland, because it amends an Act which itself did not apply to Ireland. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Alden) is under a misapprehension in regard to the point he put forward. We propose to repeal altogether the Section of the Act of 1890, not only as regards the amount of the officer's remuneration out of the moneys provided by Parliament, but in other respects. If I am right in that, there is nothing left for me to argue,
  1866
  but if the hon. Member differs from me I hope he will carry out the suggestion he makes, which I will accept, and that he will come to see me about the matter so that it may be cleared up.
  Mr. ALDEN: Do I understand that practically my observation does not apply, and that this Clause is worded in a way that no constable is left out and no pension deducted?
  Sir G. CAVE: None at all under Clause 13. I do not know what other my hon. Friend has in mind.
  Mr. COTTON: Clause 3—"out of public funds "—Section 13.
  Sir G. CAVE: It is a general term that covers both money provided by Parliament and out of the county or borough rate.
  Mr. COTTON: But there are two distinct references in Section 13 of the Police Act of 1890 which differentiates between the county and the borough rate funds.
  Sir G. CAVE: I disagree. The Act of 1890 has two references. "Money provided by Parliament or the county or borough rate or fund." In my view both these funds are public funds; therefore the effect of this Clause is to apply in that sense. However, I will look into the matter. In regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras as to whether the Bill applies to police officers of all grades, I think it does. It is true the word "constable" is used, but so it is in the Act of 1890. It is used as a general term which I think covers police officers of all grades.
  Sir W. DICKINSON: What is the difference between the two terms in (a) and (b) of Clause1?
  Sir G. CAVE: None. It may be a drafting point though, which I will look into. With respect to other points I can only say that I propose to consider the various arguments put forward, though I cannot give any promise to accept the proposals.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Cave].

  PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not rise, I need hardly say, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he will not consider the further extension of the scope of this Bill in order that it may apply to both Houses of Parliament? A very simple alteration will effect this. The operative Clause might read
  "A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected to or sitting or voting as a Member of either House of Parliament."
  If the word "either" be put in, that will do it. If the principle is admitted in regard to the House of Commons on what grounds are we to deny the application of this principle to the House of Peers? It will also be equally relevant to keep in the words "by election to either House," because some peers are elected. I need not remind the hon. Gentlemen of the Scottish and Irish Peers. I, therefore, rise to express the earnest hope that the Noble Lord has not closed his mind to this aspect of the question, but will consider an Amendment in Committee designed to make this Bill apply to both Houses of Parliament.
  Sir C. HENRY: Although I was a persistent and consistent antagonist of the franchise of women I shall support this Bill, because I have always argued that once you give the franchise you must give legislative functions to women. I think that is the only logical deduction to be arrived at. I am, however, rather interested to know why this Bill is under the auspices of the Foreign Office? Has there been some secret diplomacy between our Allies or something in the contemplated League of Nations to the effect that women shall be admitted to the different Senates and Houses of Deputies in the Allied countries? I notice that the Assistant-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is a sponsor for this Bill; as is also the Minister of Blockade. That the Minister of Blockade should be responsible for this Bill is rather astounding, for this is not a Bill for blockade, but rather for entry; and therefore it will be of interest to the House to know why these two right hon. Gentlemen are sponsors for the
  1868
  Bill. One would have imagined that this Bill would have been under the auspices, either of the Home Secretary, who, if I may say so, so ably piloted through the Franchise Bill, or, otherwise, the President of the Local Government Board. It would, therefore, be of interest if the Noble Lord would say why he has taken this position. I shall support this Bill. I also propose to move an Amendment, for I do not see why the House of Lords should at this time be excluded from the operation of this Bill. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Whitehouse). Perhaps the words "being elected to or summoned to" would help to meet the case. Surely the Noble Lord has not got an idea that if the other House were included this Bill might be rejected by them! There is only one other remark, but that, I think, relates to a point of some substance. The Representation Act says that women should not vote until they attain the age of thirty. If they can only exercise the franchise at thirty they should only be eligible to become Members of this or the other House when they arrive at that age. I hope very much that the Noble Lord will say why he has differentiated in the Bills as to the age.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I rise to say a few words in support of the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). As a matter of fact, I raised, as the Noble Lord will remember, the very point on the discussion of the Resolution in this House the other day. If I interpreted the Noble Lord aright on that occasion, he agreed that the form in which the Resolution was passed by the House of Commons was a mandate to the Government to bring in a Bill to make women eligible as Members of both Houses of Parliament. So far as I took him on that occasion, he semed to give his approval and support to that idea. I hope before this Debate concludes that we shall hear something from him on this point, because he agreed, at any rate—whether he approved of the suggestion or not—that the form of the Resolution was a direction to the Government to include eligibility to both Houses of Parliament. My hon. Friend, who made the suggestion a few moments ago, said that a very simple alteration in the Bill would give effect to that. There are two or three ways, it seems to me, in which effect could be given to a provision of this kind, because we are dealing in the case of the

  1869
  other House with a very different condition of affairs from that which obtains in this House. It has been pointed out that in Scotland and Ireland there are elected Peers who sit as representing the Peers of those countries. It has also been said that now would be a good time to remove the sex barrier in case the other House came to be an elected House. There is a short way, I venture to press on the attention of the Government and the Minister in charge of this Bill. Why should not Peeresses in their own right sit as members of the House of Lords? So long as you have got an hereditary Chamber across the Lobby, even under the existing system, and before that House comes to be reformed in any way, the sex barrier should, and could be, removed. If you give the right to Peeresses to sit in the House of Lords in their own right I think you would be, until measures are taken to reform the Upper Chamber, placing them on an equality, such as you propose in connection with the House of Commons. I do not, of course, know how many Peeresses this would apply to at present, but I would ask the Noble Lord why should this privilege—if you call it so—which some supporters of the Government enjoy at the present time in reward for their services—being sent up to the other House—be confined to one sex, if you have women sitting in this House? I suppose that you will also have them sitting on the Treasury Bench, and if they have a record of faithful service to the Government who wish to reward them, why should they not have the right to be sent to the House of Lords if they get tired of sitting in this assembly. These are two or three points I wish to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will reply to them.
  Major H. TERRELL: There was one question raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cleveland which was not dealt with either in the course of the former Debate or outside the House so far as I know, and it is, what right has this House to make a grave constitutional change in the government of this country? This House, we have been told over and over again, has long since exhausted any mandate it received. It has extended its life on several occasions, on the express understanding that its extended life should be used only for the purpose of the prosecution of the War. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with the prosecution of the
  1870
  War, but it makes a very grave constitutional change in our government, and I ask whoever replies to this Debate on behalf of the Government to explain how it is that this House is thought to be competent to-day to make this grave constitutional change. We are never tired of professing profound faith in democratic government. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who has not at some time or other expressed that view. I remember a good many years ago one of those astute gentlemen who coin phrases started the phrase, "Government of the people by the people." If that is a true definition of democratic government, I ask, Is this Bill government by the people? Why, the people have never had a chance of expressing their opinion upon it, and it has never been raised at an election. Nobody can tell to-day how a referendum on the question would result. Even if you included the women voters to-day, nobody can tell how they would determine if they were asked, Shall women be eligible for seats in the House of Commons? I venture to say if a referendum were taken on this subject you would find a majority of women against this Bill.
  It is not a question of whether you would find a majority one way or the other. The question is, that you do not give the people of this country a chance of expressing their view. Is that democratic government? Many hon. Members may think if the question were put that there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of this Bill. I do not know what reason they have for thinking so, or whether they have any reason at all except that they desire it. If we are really a democratic country, and if we are ruled by democratic principles, you should before you make a change in the constitution of the country submit the question to the country and give the country a chance of deciding. There was an enormous number of Members who voted for the Resolution who had on all previous occasions voted against woman franchise, and I know that many of them did so because women have got the vote and they thought to themselves, "If we vote against this Bill the women will vote against us at the coming election, and although they were profoundly opposed to the principle of this Bill they voted for the Resolution in the hope thereby of saving their seats. That sort of thing is contrary to true democratic principles. Hon. Members of this House are elected as representatives on the basis that they

  1871
  will in the exercise of their votes in this House do that which they believe in their hearts to be the right course. If hon. Members are opposed in principle to this Bill and yet fear the consequences of voting for it, then they are introducing a system which I think is a negation of democratic principles.
  We have given votes to certain sections of women, and before we did that in my humble opinion we should have submitted the matter to the country. We did that without taking that course, and to-day we are taking a far greater step, for we are proposing to introduce women into this House, and if the Amendment which has been foreshadowed is carried we may be introducing them into the other House. I urge hon. Members to consider whether before we take this step we should not allow the country at the coming election, which is not far off, to express its view and to determine this question. I do not believe that women will be elected to this House. I do not believe that you will get for many years to come any women elected to this House. We had an illustration only last week of the feeling of the country on the question of the election of women in Swansea. I do not think there is a more democratic town in Great Britain than Swansea, and you had there a municipal election. There is a great deal to be said for women serving on municipal bodies, but at Swansea you had fifteen women candidates for twenty-eight seats, and not one of them was returned. Do you think that if constituencies will not return women to municipal bodies they will return them to this House? I do not think you will get a single woman returned to this House in the next Parliament. If you believe in democracy and do not merely pay lip-service to it, then appeal to the people on this question and do not make this great change without their approval.
  Major HILLS: I heartly support this Bill, but I would like it to go much further than it does. It removes one disqualification, but there are many more which call for removal, such as their disqualification for acting as solicitors. I believe it would be just as easy for my Noble Friend to remove all these professional disqualifications, and it is ridiculous when the citadel is open to women that the outposts should continue to resist. With regard to the admission to the legal profession there is very strong reason for—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the solicitors' question upon this Bill.
  Major HILLS: I merely wished to make my protest and I have now finished.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: I think it is rather late to raise this particular question, and it should have been raised when the House discussed the whole question of admitting women to the vote. In passing this Bill we are really doing the very best we can in order to give the people of this country a chance of recording their opinions. We are giving to the electors the right of saying whether or not they wish to have a woman in preference to a man, and can any exception be taken to that proposal? Up to the present the people of this country have had no chance of selecting a female as a Parliamentary candidate, however much she might be suitable, or however much they desired to have her services. The hon. Gentleman said that certain Members voted the other day for the Resolution because they were afraid of the votes that might be recorded against them by the women or the men of this country. But I do not believe that sentiment actuated the minds of a very large number of the Members of this House. I may say at once that so far as I am concerned, I desire to see women in this House because I believe they will be of immense service. I have had the advantage for many years of serving with ladies on local government bodies and other committees, and I can say that they have been able to supply a long-felt want in all municipal work, and which I think is also felt in legislative work. We shall find when we do have, as I hope we shall have, some women elected to this House that their value on the Committees will be very great, and that is the reason why I wish to urge on the Government that they should extend this power both to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons. The Resolution put down in the name of myself and others was general, and I had hoped that we should find a Bill prepared which would allow women to sit in the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. At this very moment there is a Committee sitting upstairs which I believe would strengthened by the admission of women. I am sitting on a Joint Committee dealing with Criminal Law Amendment. There is a cognate subject affecting Regulation

  1873
  40D which has been referred to a Special Committee on which the Home Secretary has purposely invited ladies to serve. On the Committee on which I am sitting we are deprived of the great advantage we should have on that particular subject, because neither the House of Commons nor the House of Lords includes any female members. I hope we shall be able to induce the Government to insert or exclude the words which are necessary to indicate that ladies may sit in the House of Peers in precisely the same way as men who there sit on hereditary grounds or are elected as representative peers. If we put the necessary words in, it will enable the House of Lords to take them out should they think fit. If, on the other hand, we do not put them in, then the House of Lords will be able to insert them should it be so desired. I venture to submit to the Noble Lord in charge of this Bill that we who are representing the people of the country should express our views definitely on this point, whether or not the House of Lords should be open to women, and we should then leave it to the House of Lords to deal with the question as they think necessary. Amendments will no doubt be put down for Committee to effect that object, but meanwhile it is hoped the Government will announce that they are not unwilling to sympathetically consider the suggestion.
  Mr. ALDEN: May I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester that he quite forgot apparently there are very large bodies of women in this country who are organised. There are hundreds of thousands of women organised in trade unions who have their women representatives on various public bodies. They have very strong and powerful organisations. Does the hon. Member mean to say that these women, who have over and over again protested against the exclusion of women from Parliament, should now be prevented sending their own representatives to Parliament, seeing that the Vote has been granted to them? I imagine he would say, at any rate, that in their case they should have that light. We must not forget there are throughout the length and breadth of this land not merely hundreds of thousands but millions of women who have repeatedly expressed their desire that their sex should not be excluded from Parliament. You have only to look at resolutions passed by the Women's Co-operative Guild and other organisations of that nature to realise
  1874
  that, and I hope the hon. Member will not at this stage offer any opposition to this Bill.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I think I was almost the last person on this bench to offer opposition to the extension of the franchise to women. But I always held the opinion that the moment the franchise was conferred on women it became impossible to refuse them the right to sit in this House if their fellow citizens desired that they should occupy places here in preference to male candidates. That was a logical proceeding which could rot be denied either to the elector or to the woman who desired to stand as a candidate. My opposition to the Franchise Bill was always based upon one ground and one ground only, not that you were denying to women an opportunity for work in co-operation with men, or denying to women something which you were allowing to men, but my opposition was on entirely different ground—it was that by opening up to every woman inducement to take part in public life you were giving opportunities to perhaps the most gifted of their sex to take part in public affairs, and that participation in public affairs would have the almost certain consequence that they would neglect what is the primary obligation and duty of women, the creation, management, and control of the home. My right hon. Friend opposite who has just spoken and another hon. Member both spoke of their desire to co-operate with women on national affairs. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that there were two Committees sitting side by side, one a Parliamentary Committee and the other an extra Parliamentary Committee, in the latter of which women are included, while from the former they are excluded. I wonder whether cither of these two Gentlemen ever inquired into the statistics of the Post Office, which has long been the greatest employer of woman labour, and in which that employment has so long existed that certain statistics are available with regard to the female labour so employed. I speak merely from recollection, but I think it will be found by those who study the statistics that there has been a great reduction—a steadily increasing reduction in the percentage of those women who are employed in the Post Office who leave that occupation in order to marry, notwithstanding the fact that so far as the Civil Service is concerned there is the excep-

  1875
  tional advantage that a substantial bonus on marriage is granted to women employed in the Post Office. The proportion of ladies who get married is being reduced every year and the argument that I adduce from that fact is that by the opening of public life to women you automatically increase the disinclination which women have for the cares, duties and worries of domestic life. There is this other aspect of the question, namely, that whereas you get gifted men employed in private life transmitting their qualities to their descendants, unless I am strangely misinformed, the number of ladies who have distinguished themselves in public and who marry and have descendants is extremely limited. If that is not so I am open to correction, but I would ask hon. Members who disagree with me to look at the number of ladies occupying positions in public life who marry and have descendants. I think it will be found that the number is extremely small as compared with the number of men. You can test this in almost every branch of public life. It was on these grounds I opposed the Women's Franchise Bill, but the moment the vote was given to women it became impossible, logically, to oppose their admission into this House, and if this Bill demands that they shall be admitted to the other House as well it will equally have my support.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I only wish to take up one moment to protest against the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, that because a woman takes part in public life her value to the State as a potential wife and mother automatically declines. That statement is unsupported by any data and I think it ought not to have been made unless it was supported by conclusive data. The plain fact is that in this old country the entrance of women into public life is within the memory of nearly every one of us here. Every Member of this House can remember that event, and to draw conclusions—
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely incorrect.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD:—to draw conclusions from the comparatively few women who have had the opportunity—to whom the opportunity has been given—is to my mind to take a very narrow and unreasonable view of the capacity of womanhood in this country. I myself believe that
  1876
  those women who shine most as wives and mothers are likely to be the most effective as administrators and legislators if the opportunity is given them. I protest against the idea that there is anything unwomanly or unmatronly in a woman doing her share in carrying on the affairs of a democratic country, and I will say in conclusion I hope the Noble Lord in charge of this Bill will make some statement I resently to reassure us that when opening the House of Commons, as we gladly do to women, to secure the suffrages of the electors, we are not going to debar them from becoming members of another House, for it would be a reflection if we were to say that we opened the doors to them in the House of Commons but bar to them the doors of the House of Lords.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: I should like the Noble Lord when he makes his statement presently to explain one or two matters, if he will kindly do so. I want to refer to the un-suitability of this House for women. We are all aware that when a big speech is about to be made, say, on one of the rather rare occasions when the Prime Minister comes down here, it is quite impossible for Members to find sitting accommodation. They are packed on the benches like herrings, and I have seen right hon. Gentlemen so crowded on the Front Benches that they have had their arms round one another's waists. I should like to know whether since the Franchise Bill was passed the Noble Lord has taken any steps to enlarge this House. He must have known it was quite certain that women would have the right of entry here, and in all probability several will be elected at the next election. Has the Noble Lord taken into consideration the fact that they will require a great deal of extra accommodation in the House? Are they going during the Recess to alter the House to give reasonable accommodation for the ladies? I see the Noble Lord shakes his head, which confirms me in my belief that he really does not hope to see them in this House at all, and I believe that there are very few Members who do. Perhaps he will explain what class of women he wants. He certainly does not want the noblest class of women, the women who are producing children. It is just as well to speak plainly in these matters. We want as many children in this country as we can get? Why was Belgium destroyed? Why was Serbia overrun? Because there were not enough men to resist the invaders. Therefore, that

  1877
  class of women—and the ambition of every right-minded woman when she is married is to produce a beautiful child, a boy more beautiful than her husband or a girl more beautiful than herself—cannot possibly come into this House.
  I have had a few communications from unknown correspondents since I made a few remarks upon this subject a few days ago. One gallant gentleman wrote to me from Bath—I have forgotten his name—and said, "Do you remember what Lord Palmerston said about this?" I cannot find the reference and I do not know where it is, but there was some discussion on this matter, and Lord Palmerston said, "Obviously, if you bring women into the House, there is no earthly reason why you should not allow them to be Ministers." Suppose you have a female Prime Minister, and suppose she is in a state which every woman who loves her husband ought to be, what is going to happen? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry to hear these exclamations. It shows me that this business is not really straight. If there are to be women in this House, I hope to see the really nice ones, women around whom we shall see Members swarming like bees, women something of the noble character of the charming heroines of whom we read, like Rosalind, Imogene, or Portia. I should love to see Portia here, and to see her talking with the First Commissioner of Works. Supposing he refused to give her proper accommodation, I can imagine Portia saying
  "Now, I have thee on the hip."
  The House of Lords is a totally different proposition. They have very reasonable and leisurely hours, and I believe they nearly always go home to dinner. I can see no reason why the women should not sit there. As I have said before, I am afraid that I have not a very high opinion of people who say one thing and vote another. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a little piece of poetry, English poetry, by Pope, from his translation of the Iliad. He uttered these words about one whom we recognise as one of the greatest warriors, and whose bronze statue is in Hyde Park—
  "Who dares think one thing, and another tell, My heart detests him as the gates of hell."
  The ASSISTANT SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): My hon. and gallant Friend has made a speech of the kind with which the House is becoming, perhaps, rather too familiar. I do not think
  1878
  that it would be really respectful of me to pretend that he has presented any serious argument on the subject. Possibly he forgot that Queen Victoria was a woman, and a woman who had a large family.
  Sir H. MEUX: She reigned, but did not rule.
  Lord R. CECIL: With regard to the other speeches which have been made, I think practically no opposition has been raised to the Bill. It has been suggested by a great number of Members that the Bill is too narrow. The first hon. Member who spoke raised the point, and said that it ought, at any rate, to include membership of the House of Lords. A number of other Members have said the same thing. I say, frankly, that my own sympathies are undoubtedly with that criticism of the Bill, but I do not think it would be fair to say that there are not certain difficulties in the way of the proposition, which no doubt will be considered when the matter is raised in Committee. In the first place, there is certainly some doubt whether, as a matter of constitutional propriety, this House ought to settle who is to be a member of the other House. At any rate, it has been represented to me that there would be a very strong feeling in the other House that it is a matter which ought to be left to the decision of the other House itself.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMS: They interfere in our functions.
  Lord R. CECIL: On the other hand, there is a more substantial and serious point. The whole purpose of this Bill is to make women eligible for this House. It is not to implant them in this House unless they can secure election from their fellow citizens. The effect of inserting women in this Bill in the way that has been suggested for the House of Lords, I am afraid would be immediately to place a certain number of women in that House without anything further being done. That, perhaps, is open to some objection, because it means when they receive, either by succession of creation, the dignity of a peerage, that they receive one thing which is now going to be turned into a different thing by an Act of Parliament. That is an aspect of the matter that ought to be considered, and before we come to the Committee stage I trust that those who are in favour of this change will consider, first, whether on the whole it is desirable to insert such an Amendment and not leave the other House to say whether or not they

  1879
  desire women to be Members of their House; and, secondly, whether they ought to make it retrospective or only operative for the future. My own personal sympathies, as I say—it would not be fair to deny it—are in favour of both House? being open to women, and therefore, speaking only for myself, and not as a Member of the Government, I shall look upon any Amendment of that kind without any undue prejudice.
  One word was said by my hon. Friend as to the age. The whole thing is whether you will allow the electors of this country to choose women to be their representatives. It is not quite the same thing as giving the franchise, a thing which they can exercise straight off. They have got to secure election. The question is whether there is really any sense in cutting down the class of women from whom they may choose their representatives. Surely, if women are to be eligible for this House the right thing is to give them free choice, providing the woman is of age. You would not make a difference in that respect. It is clear, if women are to be eligible at all that women over twenty-one should be eligible by the same rule. There was a point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham (Major Hills) raised which Mr. Speaker pointed out could not be dealt with. I have great sympathy with what he says, but with a view of getting this measure through it seemed advisable to follow the Resolution which the House had itself passed, and it therefore did not include the subject which he has raised. No one would be a warmer supporter than myself if he succeeded in getting those other measures brought before the House. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) wants to know why the Foreign Office was put in charge of this Bill. I should have thought it was quite obvious. Because it is the most enlightened office in the State. Beyond that I do not know that there is any special reason which connects it with the measure, though perhaps the Leader of the House asked me to take charge of it because I had taken a great interest in the subject from the first.
  I must say one word in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Major Terrell), who was almost the only opponent of the Bill. He had a great objection to it on the ground which was put forward the other night, that this was a moribund Parliament which ought not to undertake a
  1880
  stupendous change in the Constitution of this country. I am afraid I cannot pretend to improve upon the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) to that objection, namely, that having passed a measure enfranchising I do not know exactly how many millions of women—six or seven millions—it was a ridiculous thing to say that this was so great a change that this Parliament was incapable of carrying it out. My hon. Friend supplied me himself with an answer to his arguments, because he went on to say that he was quite sure that no woman would be elected to this House. If that is so—I do not think it will be so—then, surely, this does not amount to a great and far-reaching constitutional change! He said a. Bill of this kind ought not to be passed without a referendum, and he went on to explain that the reason so many Members voted for the Resolution was that they were certain that a very large majority, if not the majority, were in favour of the Bill. These arguments show the real difficulty in which genuine opponents of the measure find themselves. The truth is that this is the logical conclusion of the enfranchisement of women, and it would be absurd of this House not to carry that measure to its logical conclusion. In point of fact, there is much less to be said, even from the point of view of the most vigorous opponent, against opening this House to women than to the enfranchisement of women, because you are only empowering the electors to choose women and not compelling them to do so. I venture to think that the whole reason of the House and of the country is in favour of this measure, and I trust that the House will now give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to join in the protest which was made by the Noble Lord against the character and the tone of the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Meux), who will forgive me for saying that it was of a kind which was distasteful to very many Members of this House. We have had already, on the Resolution that was moved a few days ago, what was in effect a Second Reading Debate on the principle of this measure. The House will not wish to cover again the same ground. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Terrell), who has been the only serious opponent of the Bill today, spoke in the name of democracy. He said we had not given the people a chance

  1881
  of expressing their view whether women should be elected to this House or not. The whole purpose of the Bill is to give the people a chance of expressing their view whether they wish to see women returned to this House or not. How can we best elicit their opinion? By allowing women to stand. If the electorate does not wish to see women as legislators, they will not vote for them, and the matter will have been decided by their own voice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman urged also that if the nation polled it would be found that the great majority was against a measure of this character. But at the same time he told us that in his view many Members voted last week against their convictions in order to save their seats. Surely if the majority of the electorate was opposed to this measure they would have been more likely to save their seats by voting against it than by voting in its favour. But I will not pursue further this argument on the main principle of the Bill. That has been decided emphatically by a majority of eleven to one only a few days ago.
  Two or three comparatively subsidiary points have been raised. The first is whether the Bill should apply to the other House as well as to this. This Bill, by making women eligible, does not seek itself to decide whether women shall sit in this House or not. We do not say women shall be elected to the House of Commons. We only say the people may elect them if they so desire. If, on the other hand, you extend the Bill to the House of Lords, we do, in fact, say: Women shall sit in the House of Lords. This is an illustration of the absurdity of the principle by which the great majority of the Peers are recruited—the principle of heredity—and if the sex distinction were abolished, and women were made eligible to become Members of the House of Lords, and if the first woman peer took her seat by virtue purely of heredity right, some Noble Lord would at last, for the first time, be convinced of the absurdity of the principle by which legislators are recruited for Membership of the other House of Parliament. However that may be, it seems to me that if the sex barrier is to be abolished for the one House, it ought to be abolished also for the other. That, however, is a matter which we can discuss when we come to the Committee stage. I am very glad the Bill does not limit the age eligible to this House to the age at which
  1882
  they can exercise the franchise, for reasons which I expressed the other day. It would be most desirable that a law should be passed by Parliament as speedily as possible throwing open all the professions to women on equal terms with men.
  Sir H. MEUX: The Army and Navy?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I was not referring to the Army and Navy, although the Army, the Navy, and the Air Service has been thrown open to women with regard to those services for which they are specially qualified, namely, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Auxiliary Services, which employ very large numbers of women. I was refering to the removal of the sex discrimination with regard to the medical profession, and it ought to be speedily removed with regard to the law and many other professions. But I think, from a Parliamentary point of view, the Noble Lord is well advised in not complicating this Bill with that issue. It might rouse an antagonism which would hinder the passage of the Bill; and, as the time may be short before a Dissolution takes place, and for practical reasons it is important that this point should be settled, we cannot complain that he has not on this occasion cast his Bill in a larger mould. As for the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) as to why the representative of the Foreign Office should have charge of the Bill, the Noble Lord has replied that the Foreign Office is one of the most enlightened Departments of the State. That may be disputed; but we shall all agree that, in some matters at least, the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill is undoubtedly one of the most enlightened Members of the House, and we all welcome his conduct of it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In dealing with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Terrell), my Noble Friend said this was a revolutionary measure, because probably women would not be elected to the House. I do not follow that argument at all. It does not matter whether women will or will not be elected. It is a revolutionary thing to give them a power of being elected. It is something which has never occurred during the eight hundred years this House has sat, and therefore, although I admit that he is a most enlightened Member of a most enlightened Department of the Government, in this particular argument I think he has

  1883
  gone a little astray. The question of admitting women to all professions is rather a large order besides being out of order, but it is probably the natural sequence of what we are doing to-day. I rise because my Noble Friend said there was no opposition. But we had an opposition only two or three days ago. We had what was really a Second Reading Debate on the Motion.
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not wish my right hon. Friend to misrepresent me. What I meant was that as far as this Debate was concerned, with the exception of one or two speeches there was no opposition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is no use saying anything more. We made our protest and divided, and there is an end of it. We were beaten, and like good Englishmen we have taken a good beating, and there is no unpleasantness after it. But what would the result have been if the voting had been by ballot instead of open voting? It would undoubtedly have been that we should have won.
  Major CHAPPLE: The right hon. Baronet says this Bill confers upon women the power to be elected. I take it that it confers upon the electors the power to elect women. It is a concession not so much to women as to the electors. It is a little matter, however. The great matter to women was to secure the vote. With the vote they can be represented and their representatives can be turned out if they do not fully and adquately represent them. The essential thing was done when we conferred the vote upon women. This is quite a secondary change. But it gives the electors a wider choice. The evil that exists to-day is that the electors do not get a sufficiently wide choice, because the parties choose the candidates. This Bill is going to accentuate the evil which has prevailed in this respect for, while the choice of the elector is going to be widened by the admission of women to this House they are not going to be selected by parties but they will stand in addition to those Members who are selected by parties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] At first at least there is no doubt the parties will not select women, but women will not be content with that choice and will stand in any case. Consequently we shall have a greater multiplicity of candidates and we shall increase the danger of minority representation. I am not opposing the Bill.
  1884
  I think it ought to be passed. I am pointing out the increasing danger and the complexity which will arise from the fact that we have not the alternative vote. We are going to give a wider choice to the electors, there will be a greater number of candidates, and we will, therefore, greatly increase the danger of having minority representation by the admission of women to the House. It will be all the more essential that the country set itself to a consideration of the urgent necessity of bringing in the alternative vote and establishing that form of election in order that the evils which arise from minority representation may not be accentuated by the passing of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday.—[Lord R. Cecil.]

  BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR F. BANBURY in the Chair].

  BASTARDY LAWS AMENDMENT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Maximum Payment under Affiliation Orders.)
    (1) Section four of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (which provides for the making of an Order on the putative father for the maintenance, etc., of a bastard child), shall have effect as though "ten shillings a week" were therein substituted for "five shillings a week."
    (2) Where an Order under the said Section four for the payment of a weekly sum is in force at the date of the commencement of this Act, either the Court which made the Order or a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the Order to receive the payment resides may, on the application of the person so entitled, by order vary the existing Order by increasing the amount payable thereunder to such a sum not exceeding ten shillings a week as the. Court, having regard to-all the circumstances of the case, thinks proper.
    In the foregoing provision the expression "the person who is entitled under the Order to receive the payment" does not include the collecting officer of the Court to whom or any officer of the Court or other person through whom the payment under the Order is to be made.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "ten" ["as though 'ten shillings a week'"], and to insert instead thereof the word word "twelve."
    This Amendment has nothing compulsory about it. It merely proposes to enlarge the discretionary power of the

    1885
    justices in dealing with these cases, and when we remember that in 1872 the justices had discretionary powers of calling upon the father of an illegitimate child to contribute 5s. a week, it certainly appears to me to be not unreasonable to fix the sum now at 12s., because when we compare the expenses of the maintenance of a child in 1872 and at the present time, 12s. is by no means extravagant. In nine cases out of ten, in 1872 the father against whom an order was made was probably earning a very much lower wage than he would be at present, and in the same way as wages have been going up so have the expenses of living. Of course the Home Secretary may say it is rather splitting straws to substitute 12s. for 10s., but I take up the stand that 12s. is a minimum, and not a maximum by any means, not in in all cases, but in some cases, where the father is certainly in a position to pay 12s. The Act of 1872 lays down the responsibility of the father to find the money not only for the maintenance, but also for the education of the child. When we think of the education laws of 1872 and the education laws now, we shall see a very great difference. The age of compulsory attendance at school has been raised, and the restriction on child labour has become much stricter. Under these conditions the position of the mother is far more difficult and responsible than it was thirty or forty years ago. In addition to that, I should like to point out that when you are dealing with these illegitimate children the mother is also placed in a very great difficulty. She has to provide practically a home. It is not like the maintenance for an extra child in a family. It very often means the provision of a home. If the mother has to work for her own living and to maintain herself there would be cases in which people would think that 12s. for the maintenance and the education of a child would be by no means an extravagant sum to find. This Amendment does not say that in every case the magistrates should compel the payment of an order for 12s., but it gives the power to the magistrates, if they think proper, to raise the amount to 12s. when they have taken into consideration the expense of living and the educational responsibilities at the present time. Of course, if the father has a grievance, he has the right of appeal to the Sessions. I think the giving of this extra discretionary power to the magistrates would meet some hard cases.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I support this Amendment with the greatest pleasure. The case really has been accepted by the introduction of this Bill. The limit of 5s. has proved to be a very narrow limit and one which the Government evidently feel must be enlarged. Since this Amendment was put down I have been approached by the representatives of the National Council for the unmarried mother and her child, and ask to put forward a rather different Amendment, which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, namely, that, instead of having any limit he should accept the words "such sums as the justices consider reasonable having regard to the circumstances of both parents." I believe that is pretty much the practice which they have adoptel in Norway for the last few years, and it would be a very much fairer system than that which holds good at the present moment. There ought to be some discretion in the Court to allow the circumstances both of the father and the mother to be taken into account in fixing the bastardy payments. I do not know what line the Home Secretary is going to take upon my hon. Friend's Amendment, but if he feels at all inclined to consider this point, I would hand in the other Amendment when this has been disposed of. It would be quite in order to do so because we are discussing the question whether 10s. should stand part. If the Home Secretary is willing to consider the elimination of 10s. we could take the opportunity of discussing whether we should insert 12s. or the words which I have read out to him, and which I suggest would provide a more reasonable method of dealing with these cases. This question of the bastardy law has been left untouched for a very long time, and I think it is time to consider this larger question as to what ought to be the just treatment of the women who find themselves in this position.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree that there is a case for an increased maximum sum, and it is because we hold that view that this Bill is introduced. But at the same time I think there ought to be a maximum limit, and it ought to be a reasonable sum. If you put it too high the magistrates are rather apt to give the full amount in every case. This charge might fall very heavily upon the weekly earnings of a working man. These cases mostly refer to working men. We propose to double the sum from 5s. to 10s. No doubt the cost of living has increased

    1887
    and the cost of keeping a child is greater than it was, and I do not think it is unreasonable to increase the amount to 10s. I will not argue the principle as to whether it should be 10s. or 12s., but you must select a sum which you hold to be reasonable, and after consulting a number of people of great experience in these matters. I have come to the conclusion that 10s. is a reasonable maximum. I agree with much that has been said by the hon. Members, but I take the view that if we double the maximum it will be sufficient, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CARADOC REES: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words
    "Either the Court which made the Order or a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the Order to receive the payment resides may, on the application of the person so entitled, by Order vary the existing Order by increasing the amount payable thereunder to such a sum not exceeding ten shillings a week as the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, thinks proper,"
    and to insert instead thereof words
    "Such Order is hereby varied and increased by adding to such weekly sum an amount equal to one-half of such weekly sum."
    I do not object to 10s. being fixed instead of 5s. I agree that 5s. is far too low, but os most members of the Committee will know, these orders are made for weekly payments to cover periods up to sixteen years of age, so that this will affect orders right back for the last sixteen years. What this Bill proposes is that everybody who was entitled to an order of 5s. a week or less during the last sixteen years and has obtained such orders, may go to the Court and rais the question as to an increase of those amounts up to a maximum of 10s. There are many thousands of these cases, and they are not savoury cases. It is not a good thing for the country to have thousands of these cases brought up in the Court. In many of the cases, in regard to the woman, she may or may not have married. The last thing she wants the public to know is that she has had a chance child, and she will not come to Court. It is only the hardened person who will go there. In many cases the man may have been married eight or ten years, and all these circumstances are going to be raked
    1888
    up against him in the Police Court—as to what his earnings are and how he stands in regard to the child. The child may be seven, eight, or nine years of age and just beginning to know things; just at an age when the schoolboys are beginning to talk, and if the case of this child is to be brought again before the magistrate perhaps everybody in the village or the town would be able to point to that child as an illegitimate.
    My suggestion is, that instead of having orders and instead of having all the expense of the magistrate hearing these cases that automatically the past orders should be increased by 50 per cent., so that a person receiving now under any order 5s. would get 7s. 6d. automatically. If they receive 4s. they would get 6s., and if they receive 2s. 6d. they would get 3s. 9d. The basis of this Bill is that the cost of living has gone up and that, therefore, the orders should be increased, because they are not sufficient now. The magistrates, when they made the orders for 4s. or less in the past, did not give the maximum because they thought there was some little fault on both sides, and they may have allowed 4s. to the mother. That, under my Amendment, would be increased to 6s. By doing this automatically it would save the time of hundreds of magistrates and would save the raking up of unsavoury cases of years past. We are now by Act of Parliament increasing amounts which have been fixed by magistrates in the past. That is a novel and rather dangerous thing to do, but we are doing it. Seeing that we are doing it I think it would be best that the increases should be at the rate of 50 per cent. automatically. Everybody would straightaway get 50 per cent. increase, and the public would not be any the wiser.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised this question. With a great deal of what he said and with his main object I heartily sympathise, but as I have studied this question a very long time with considerable attention, I cannot say that I think his solution of the difficulty is the right one. My general feeling is one of sympathy with the poor, and I am all for increasing the amount, but to increase all orders automatically by 50 per cent. is not a practical proposal. There are some cases of men who are now in a position of invalided incapacity, or there are certain cases where facts have to be taken into account which the magis-

    1889
    trates ought to be allowed to take into account. Therefore, to increase all the orders automatically by 50 per cent., while it might be wide generosity, is hardly practical justice in the administration of the law. I should like to point out to the hon. Member and the Home Secretary an Amendment which I have on the Paper later, to omit the word "not" ["does not include"]. I do not know whether my Amendment is good in form, but the effect of it is quite clear. I realise with the hon. Member that there are many women receiving these amounts who may not want to go again into open Courts. That is an infliction of a trial which is unnecessary, and I want to get out of that somehow or other. To have the rehearing of a matter which may be years old brought up again into Court is really undesirable. I think the Home Secretary must realise that. It is undesirable, too, because in many cases the child, instead of being an infant will be a child at school known to the teachers and so on. If you could get out of a public hearing it would be a good thing, and in some cases you might allow the collecting officer of the Court, who generally knows all the circumstances of the case, and is a disinterested person, to apply for an increase, and that might be made a condition of the Bill. But I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend though I think that there is a case to be met, and if it is met the Bill will be more just and satisfactory.
    Sir G. CAVE: No doubt the proposal would be welcomed if it were practicable, because it would relieve the Courts of summary jurisdiction of a great deal of work, and make it unnecessary for a number of women benefiting by these orders to come into a public Court. On the other hand, the proposal of my hon. Friend limits the increases in each case to 50 per cent., which would put the past cases on a worse footing than future cases. I think that is a defect of the proposal. Apart from that, I take the view that each case should be dealt with on its merits, as it may well be that since the order was made conditions have altered greatly. A woman who was then poor may have become well off, or a man who was well off may have become poor. Those are facts which the magistrate ought to know and consider in dealing with this question. For that reason as well as others. I think it better not to accept this Amendment. I will deal
    1890
    with the view of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. King) when his proposal comes up.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after the word "order" ["order of a Court"], to insert the words
    "or any other Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the same Petty Sessional division."
    This is a formal Amendment. The point is this: The magistrates who made the order may no longer be sitting or they may object to adjudicate, and therefore we want to enable the same Court, though not necessarily the same Justices, to make an order.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "entitled" ["so entitled"], to insert the words
    "or on the application of the child's guardian or representative."
    There are cases in which orders are made payable to certain persons and then lapse. A woman gets an order for a child's maintenance and receives the money for a time. Then she goes away for some reason or other, as women who have been unfortunate in this way often do, leaving the child. The father is known, but the woman is away, and you cannot have the money paid to her. I want to be sure that the child's representatives or guardians in such cases as that will have the benefit of this money. If the point has been considered by the Home Secretary and the draftsman, perhaps he would say so. Otherwise, I think that the words proposed do make the Bill more complete, and will make it work more harmoniously with all the possible facts.
    Mr. REES: If the object of this Bill is to get sufficient to maintain the child and the child is being brought up by the guardians, they ought to have a right to apply for an increase. Does the Bill intend to exclude guardians from getting an increase in these cases?
    Sir G. CAVE: This point has been considered. As things are to-day the order is made in most cases for payment to the mother. If the mother is not capable of receiving the payment, then a person is appointed to have the custody of the child and the money is made payable to that person. If that person should disappear somebody else is appointed, but always the money is paid to the person

    1891
    having custody, whether it is the mother or somebody else. If that person is the guardians or somewhere representing them the guardians would be the persons to make application. If the Amendment were accepted, you would have a state of affairs in which two persons might be entitled to apply, the person having custody and the guardian. They might apply to different Courts and make different applications and you would have a difficult situation. The right thing is to leave the Bill as it stands. This applies to both of my hon. Friend's Amendments.
    Mr. KING: I am sorry that the Amendment is not accepted, but I know that it is a difficult administrative and legal point, and therefore I will not press it. But I am not quite satisfied, because a legal friend of mine, who takes a great interest in the matter, writes to me that on this point there seems to be something to be said. I would ask the Home Secretary to consider the matter again with the draftsman before the Bill goes to another place, and on those terms I withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, to add the words
    "Any Order made under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or this Act may be varied at any time either by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which made the Order or by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the Order to receive the payments resides."
    The Home Secretary himself has supported this Amendment when he said that one of the great arguments in favour of reviewing cases at the present time, was because the positions of so many persons had become greatly altered with regard to income, some fathers or mothers having become poorer, and others having become better off. It is the object of my Amendment to deal with this. It seems to me to be impossible for a bench of magistrates to give an order say to-day, and to say that that would be a proper order in fifteen years. An order for 10s. a week now when a child is three or four years of age would be inadequate when a child is eleven or twelve. Circumstances vary, and under this Amendment, suppose the justices made an order which was perfectly fair, it would be open to the mother in the event of a serious alteration in circumstances taking place, to apply to a
    1892
    bench of magistrates for a new order, varying that which was made several years previously.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is a provision in the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, Section 30, which enables a bench of magistrates to vary an order, and that I am advised covers affiliation orders. Therefore the power exists already. The difficulty in this form of Amendment is that it gives power to one Court to vary the order of another Court, which would not be right.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: It is proposed in this Bill that the variation of the old order should be in the discretion of another Court, in the place where the person is residing, and the Court which knows the conditions of the mother. Therefore it seems to me that the same considerations apply to the variation of an order. It is a great concession under this Bill to allow the Court which has jurisdiction in the place where the girl is to make the new order and I do not see any disadvantage in it at all. In all probability the Home Secretary is right when he says that these orders can be varied, but I was not aware of it. I believe that it is very rarely they are varied. I do not think that people know that they can get them varied.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is a new Statute.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I doubt very much whether many of these poor girls know they can get the orders varied. On the merits of the case I know that sometimes these poor girls find it very hard to make both ends meet. The order is generally made in view of the amount the man can spare. If a man can only give 2s. 6d. that is all that is awarded. Afterwards, if he gets good wages and is able to afford a great deal more, it is essential that the woman should have the opportunity of getting the payment increased; and although I am glad to know from the Home Secretary that they will have this opportunity I cannot help thinking that it would be better to put it definitely into this Bill as suggested. Perhaps the Home Secretary will consider that point between now and Report stage?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will do so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "does

    1893
    not, and to insert instead thereof the words "shall to." I come now to another Amendment to which I have already referred in the course of this discussion. The only alteration in the bastardy law which has been made during the last few years is, I think, when in the year 1913 the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for South St. Pancras (Colonel Sir H. Jessel) was passed, by which payments of the putative father which previously were made direct to the mother or other person entitled to receive them, are now to be made to an officer of the Court. The obvious reason for that beneficent change is this. It was obviously a good thing to break the personal relationship between father and mother, and that the legal association ought not to be perpetuated by a constant interchange of personal relations, payments, letters, receipts, and so forth. Since that time these payments are to be made through an officer of the Court, who receives them from the father who has to pay and transmits them to the mother or other person entitled to receive. Now this Clause says that the only person who does not make an application to the Court for an increase of the amount is to be this collecting officer. The collecting officer seems to me to be just the person who very well might apply for an increase. He knows the circumstances, he is very often a clerk of the Court, and is connected with judicial administration. He is accessible to persons from both sides, both the father's and the mother's side, and I should have thought that he would have been the very person who would best know the circumstances and who, without causing any difficulty or bringing the different parties into Court, might make the application to the Bench and get it put through. I was therefore surprised and disappointed to find that this collecting officer is not a person who might apply. I propose, therefore, to alter that by moving to omit the word "not." I hope I have made my point clear, and I hope that I have not so misjudged the usual relation of these officers to the other parties as to suggest a solution of this question which is not practicable or not possible.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am impressed by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I think there is something in allowing the application to be made by someone other than the person who came to the Court in the first instance. I should like the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment now, and before the Report stage is
    1894
    reached I will see whether there is any practical objection to effect being given to what he says.
    Mr. KING: I am very much obliged to the Home Secretary for having met me in this way. Allow me, however, before I withdraw the Amendment, to say that I do not think the London magistrates are always right on this sort of thing. London magistrates have a particular and definite point of view rather different from that of ordinary magistrates. I do not want to say it offensively, but they represent officialism, and naturally officials at a time like this take a somewhat different view of these applications I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title and commencement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals.)
    Section nine of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872 (which provides for an appeal against an Order made pursuant to the provisions of that Act), shall have effect as though the words "increase or reduce" were substituted for the word "reduce."—[Sir R. Newman.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." The Home Secretary has most sympathetically considered all our Amendments this evening, and I venture to think that he will see the fairness of this one. It is quite simple. As I understand it, the law at the present time is that if a bench of magistrates fixes a certain sum against the father he has the right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions to have that amount reduced. On the other hand, if the justices grant an order against the father which the mother considers inadequate she has no appeal to the Quarter Sessions to have the amount increased. This Amendment simply aims to place the father and the mother on the same footing—that is to say, that if the magistrates have made an order the father has the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions to have the amount reduced, and also if the mother considers the amount insufficient she should have the right to appeal to have it increased. It really means, in the usual homely old phrase, "That what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

    1895
    Therefore I submit that the father and mother should be placed on a fair and equal footing.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that this Amendment is required, nor do I think it will have the effect desired. Under the Act of 1872 the only person who could appeal was the father, and therefore by merely amending that Act the hon. Member would not attain his object. Luckily the law has been amended since, for by the Act of 1914 either party may appeal from the order. That being so, I am advised that this Amendment is not required.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I must admit that I did not understand that that was so. I understand, however, now from the Home Secretary that an appeal can be made by the mother on both heads.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; I am told so.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I do not like to differ from the Home Secretary, but I cannot help thinking that he is not well advised, because although it is quite true that either party may appeal they have to appeal, I should think, under Section 9 of the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872. This says
    "The Court of Quarter Sessions, on appeal to them against any order made pursuant to the provisions of this Act, may, if they think fit, reduce the amount directed to be paid for the maintenance and education or on account of the relief of the child named in such order, and they shall thereupon alter the order accordingly."
    Under this Act they have only power to reduce, and unless the other Act has given specific power to increase, I should rather doubt that the Home Secretary is quite correct.
    Sir G. CAVE: The provision to which I have referred overrides the section which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Major CHAPPLE: What objection is there to allowing the Act to come into operation as soon as it passes, instead of in 1919?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member can raise that question on Third Heading. He cannot do so now.
    Major CHAPPLE: May I not move an Amendment to Clause 2?
    The CHAIRMAN: That was passed some minutes ago.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

  LOANS (INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  SUPPLY [24TH OCTOBER].
    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

      CLASS III.
      Resolutions reported,
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution-towards the Expenses of the-Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure."
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Grants in respect of Police Expenditure."
      Resolutions agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      Resolution reported,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenses under the Representation of the People Act, 1918."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. KING: I think we ought to have some explanation of this Vote. Is this going to be an annual Vote, or is it brought forward now because the representation of the People Act has been passed and because a General Election is imminent? There will always he by-elections, and, therefore, there will be some expenses each year falling upon the public funds to meet returning officers

      1897
      charges. May I ask, also, whether there is any particular constitutional difficulty in making this Vote effective, as I suppose it is, for a General Election? It is quite possible, though not likely, that a General Election might not come within the financial year.
      The JOINT FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The whole of the Supplementary Estimate is due to the cost of preparing the voters' lists under the Representation of the People Act. At the time of the passage of that Act it was quite impossible to estimate accurately what the cost of printing the registers would be, for the very simple reason that no exact estimate could be given of the number of names which would be required to go down on the lists. As a matter of fact, the rough estimate, on that totally insufficient data that was prepared, proved to be insufficient, because the names have been enormously in excess, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, and especially of women voters, than what we could have had any idea of. Then, again, the cost of printing has constantly increased, and the difficulties of the printers have been very much greater, while the preparation of the absent voters' list was a very much more serious matter than was contemplated. At the time the Act was passed, so far as the preparation of the registers was concerned, it was very much a leap in the dark. Now, I think, we have put in quite a sufficient Estimate to cover the whole of the expenses we shall have to meet. I should think, as far one can see, that we must have touched the high-water mark in this Estimate, because it is always more expensive when you have got to work under the difficulties of printing and constantly increasing prices, which we have had to face, and also when we have had to begin the work without seeing clearly when we began it, to what extent it would lead. These are circumstances peculiar to this occasion, as the hon. Member recognises, and I hope with that explanation he will rest satisfied, and that the House will agree to the Resolution.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS II.
      Resolution reported,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £405,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Expense of providing Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
      Resolution agreed to.

    ARMY.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1917."
    Resolution agreed to.

    NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1916–17.
    Resolved, "That this House will Tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy and Army Grants, for 1916–17, and the application of surpluses, to meet expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.—[Colonel Sanders.]
    Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments which were presented upon the 4th March and 25th February last, be referred to the Committee.—[Colonel Sanders.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  SPIRITS (PATENT-STILL).
  SPIRITS (PATENT-STILL).
  PENSIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  PENSIONS (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  GRAIN RESTRICTION ORDER.
  GRAIN RESTRICTION ORDER.
  FLOUR.
  FLOUR.
  IRISH BANKS (DEPOSITS AND CASH BALANCES).
  IRISH BANKS (DEPOSITS AND CASH BALANCES).
  ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES (OFFICERS' PAY).
  ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES (OFFICERS' PAY).
  FISHING (SOUTH-WEST COAST OF IRELAND).
  FISHING (SOUTH-WEST COAST OF IRELAND).
  MENTALLY-DERANGED SOLDIERS.
  MENTALLY-DERANGED SOLDIERS.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL (FORM).
  MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL (FORM).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (LUGGAGE).
  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (LUGGAGE).
  ARMY OFFICERS (BILLETING ALLOWANCE).
  ARMY OFFICERS (BILLETING ALLOWANCE).
  OFFICERS ON HALF-PAY (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  OFFICERS ON HALF-PAY (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  MASSAGE NURSES.
  MASSAGE NURSES.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
  ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
  NATURALISED GERMAN (A. E. MEYER).
  NATURALISED GERMAN (A. E. MEYER).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  PUBLIC LIGHTING.
  PUBLIC LIGHTING.
GENERAL ELECTION.
  RETURNING OFFICERS.
  RETURNING OFFICERS.
  ABSENT VOTERS.
  ABSENT VOTERS.
  Coroner's Inquest (Letters).
  Coroner's Inquest (Letters).
  Public Expenditure.
  Public Expenditure.
  Telegram (Failure in Transmission).
  Telegram (Failure in Transmission).