Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 110: debated on Thursday 24 October 1918

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday, 24th October, 1918.

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

Public Records (Ireland)

Copy presented of Fiftieth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland for 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Intermediate Education (Ireland)

Copy presented of Rule prescribing an alternative work in English, Junior Grade, 1919, made under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Shops Act, 1912

Copy presented of Closing Order made under the Act by the Council of the under-mentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:—

  • Urban District of Newtownards

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  • 1. Irish Land Commission (Accounts)—Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1918, and from 22nd August, 1881 to 31st March, 1918, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 124];
  • 2. Church Temporalities (Ireland)—Copy of Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland from 1st April, 1917, and from 26th July, 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March, 1918, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed [No. 125];
  • 3. County Courts Act, 1888—Copy of Order made by the Lord Chancellor, dated 12th October, 1918, under Section 45 of the County Courts Act, 1888, directing that Albert Howe, Registrar of the County Court of Yorkshire held at Sheffield, shall not practise as a solicitor [by Act].
  • Oral Answers To Questions

    War

    Russia

    Arrest Of Mr Lockhart

    1.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the circumstances under which Mr. Lockhart came to be arrested by the Bolshevik Government; where he was imprisoned, and the length of time he was kept there?

    I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 22nd instant.

    Surrender Of Baku (Armenian Force)

    7.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to furnish any information as to the friendliness or otherwise of the action of the local Armenian force during the recent evacuation of Baku by the force of General Dunsterville?

    It would appear that a certain amount of misapprehension exists in the public mind as to the action of the local Armenian force in entering into negotiations with the enemy relative to the surrender of Baku. His Majesty's Government have now been informed that these negotiations were undertaken by the Armenians on the advice of General Dunsterville when he saw that the fall of the town was imminent, and therefore no blame attaches to the action of the Armenians in this respect.

    How did the report which was sent out in this country come to be sent out on that occasion, blaming the Armenians in this matter?

    I am afraid that I could not answer that without notice. I am very glad to have this opportunity of making the matter absolutely clear.

    Is it not a fact that the Armenians rendered gallant service in aid of the Allied cause during the Turkish campaign?

    I should not care to say offhand, but I believe that to be true. Certainly the Allied cause owes a, considerable debt to the action of the Armenians.

    Can the Noble Lord give us any information as to the safety of the Baku force?

    Allied Assistance

    9.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can report how much has been accomplished in sending to Russia, along with the American aid, assistance of a sanitary, medical, Red Cross, and Young Men's Christian Association character, as promised when the Allied expeditions went to Murmansk and Archangel; and whether this aid is being given to Russians irrespective of political party or social class?

    Joint arrangements have been made both by the British and American Red Cross and the British and American Y.M.C.A. for ministering to the needs of Russia, and contingents have already been sent out to Archangel, Murmansk and Vladivostok. Medical supplies have already been sent from this country to Northern Russia sufficient to meet the needs of the districts to which it is possible to send relief for the whole of the winter, and a British Red Cross unit with supplies will leave this country shortly for Vladivostock. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    War Aims

    2.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to make any public reply to President Wilson's request of 27th September last that the statesmen of the Allies should state whether they were in agreement with his war aims?

    The hon. Gentleman need be under no anxiety as to the harmony which exists between the United States of America and the other associated Governments. If a public reply is made to President Wilson's speech he may be assured that the House will be made acquainted with it at the earliest possible date.

    Is the Noble Lord aware that President Wilson's fourteen points are undoubtedly endorsed by public opinion in this country and the refusal—

    League Of Nations

    French Commission (Report)

    3 and 4.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it is proposed that the Report of the French Commission on the organisation of a League of Free Nations should form the basis of discussion of an Inter-Allied Commission; and whether he can state the names of the representatives to be appointed on this Commission by the British Government; and (2) whether he has approached the French Government with a view to the publication of the Report of the Commission, presided over by M. Leon Bourgeois, on the organisation of a League of Free Nations; and whether he can state the results of his inquiry?

    The answer to both questions is in the negative. Our policy and I believe that of the French Government also, has been to submit the Reports of our expert Committees to the Governments of the chief European Allies and of the United States for examination. The next step is to reach such a measure of definite agreement with these Governments as will furnish a basis and terms of reference on which our respective experts may meet and draft a detailed scheme. Such a definite agreement we are now trying to reach, and we hope to discuss the matter fully with the United States in the immediate future. Pending this discussion we have reason to believe that the publication of the French and British Reports might be regarded as premature and inopportune.

    Has any approach been made, or is it contemplated, to the neutral Governments, so as to get—

    Military Service

    Greeks (Exemptions)

    5.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to how many Greeks resident in Great Britain has the Greek Minister in London granted exemption from military service under Article 3 of the recent agreement; and can he say what were the reasons assigned for such exemptions?

    The first part of the question should be addressed to the Minister of National Service. With regard to the second part, I would remind the hon. Member that the Greek Minister has power to exempt from military service any Greek subject in Great Britain, and that His Majesty's Government have no right to inquire the reasons for which such exemptions are granted.

    Is it according to precedent to make a treaty of this sort, giving one man power to exempt as many men as he likes from military service?

    6.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Greeks resident in Ireland are exempt from military service under the recent agreement with Greece, although Greeks resident in Great Britain are liable to military service; and, if so, will he state the reason for such exemption?

    Greek subjects resident in Ireland are not liable to military service because the agreement of 8th August applies to Greek subjects in Great Britain only.

    Conscientious Objectors

    40.

    asked the Home Secretary whether, on Tuesday, 1st October, W. A. Thiel, a conscientious objector in Wandsworth Civil Prison, was kicked by the principal warder, who afterwards ordered four other warders to carry him to the top of the stairs and then instructed them to drop him; that he was then taken by the feet and pulled down two flights of iron stairs to the basement, and that at the top of the basement stairs the principal warder again ordered his assistants to drop him, after which he was further kicked and pulled down another flight of sixteen stone steps to a punishment cell; that, upon the prisoner complaining to the governor, he was referred to a visiting magistrate, who declined to allow him to call a witness, and stated that he had decided to go no further into the case as the prisoner had brought it on himself by refusing to obey orders; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held and give Mr. Thiel an opportunity of calling witnesses?

    This prisoner's complaint has already been the subject of an inquiry in regular course by one of the visiting magistrates. The prisoner on the occasion referred to refused to leave his cell when required to attend before the governor, and had to be carried by the warders; but the magistrate was satisfied that his allegations as to his treatment were untrue. I cannot find any sufficient reason for ordering a further inquiry in the matter.

    Has not the right hon. Gentleman observed in the question that it is stated that the magistrate refused to allow the prisoner to call witnesses?

    War Work Volunteers

    85.

    asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men over forty-five years of age, when medically graded, are allowed to volunteer as war work volunteers; if he will say under what conditions the Ministry of Labour supply these volunteers to employers; whether he is aware that some of these men are sent to work for firms for 7d. an hour; and whether, under the existing cost of living, he will see that men are not supplied on this low scale of wages?

    Men over forty-five are eligible for enrolment as war work volunteers for certain classes of work. The conditions upon which these men are supplied to employers by the Employment Exchanges on behalf of the Ministry of National Service provide that the employer will pay wages and allowances in accordance with the terms of the men's enrolment, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend. I am not aware of any of these volunteers being sent to work for 7d. an hour, but if particulars are supplied I shall be happy to have inquiry made, with a view to ascertaining whether or not the conditions applicable to the employment of war work volunteers are being fulfilled.

    Czecho-Slovaks

    8.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the congress of Czecho-Slovaks at Prague at which independence was demanded and the wish expressed that the Duke of Connaught should be invited to the throne; and whether these desires of the Czechoslovaks are in agreement with our national policy?

    I have no information on the subject beyond that which has appeared in the Press.

    International Opium Convention

    10.

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the issue of the White Paper, No. 4, 1915 [Cd. 7813], the following Powers (in addition to Great Britain and the eleven Powers mentioned in that Paper) have ratified the International Opium Convention of 1912, namely, the Netherlands, Norway, Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Uruguay; whether the United States, China, the Netherlands, Norway, and Honduras have also signed the Special Protocol opened at the Hague in July, 1914, with a view to putting the Convention into force without waiting for ratification of the Convention by all the signatory Powers; and whether His. Majesty's Government are now prepared to support the putting into force of some or all of the articles of the Convention?

    The answer to the two first parts of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are still considering the question of putting into force some or all of the Articles of the International Opium Convention without waiting for its ratification by all the signatory Powers.

    Great Britain And Italy

    11.

    asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is responsible for the appointment of Mr. Victor Fisher, the secretary of an organisation which is called the British Workers' League, as a missioner in Italy in connection with the promotion of future industrial and commercial unity in Great Britain and Italy; whether he is authorised, as the representative of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, to confer with the leaders of Italian industry and to confer, as a British missioner with the Prime Minister of Italy; whether the appointment is temporary or for a period of years; and what are the previous experiences of Mr. Fisher and his special qualifications for this work?

    The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the remaining parts, therefore, do not appear to arise.

    Does my right hon. Friend know that statements appeared in the Press the day before yesterday giving categorical information on the lines of my question?

    I am afraid I did not know that. I admit I ought to have known it. I can only say my answer stands as I am informed.

    Will the Noble Lord make inquiries? He will find something very interesting.

    Ireland

    Coal Development

    12.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that recently a mining expert from this country visited various coal areas in Ireland; if he will say for what purpose; was the visit a purely personal one or taken at the instance of the Irish Government; will the name of the expert be given; is he in any way associated with the English or Welsh colliery proprietors; has he made any Report as the result of his visit; and, if so, will it be made public?

    Mr. Philip Kirkup, a well-known mining expert, recently visited various coal areas in Ireland. His visit was entirely unofficial and unconnected with any English or Welsh colliery proprietors. He came at my personal invitation to give me the benefit of his great knowledge and experience, and to make to me any suggestions as to development and methods of working which he thought desirable. His visit was welcomed by all the proprietors of the collieries he visited, and I believe will have valuable results.

    Housing

    13.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what steps, if any, are being taken with a view to the securing for Ireland a portion of the Grants to be provided for the building of houses, etc., in towns and villages after the War; is he aware that the Irish Convention made a special recommendation in its Report on this vital question; will he consider the advisability of setting up a small Irish Committee to look into the matter; and will he press the Irish claim in the proper quarters at once in view of the fact that Ireland had no representative on the Reconstruction Committee which considered the whole question; (2) if, in the event of money being allocated for the building of houses in towns and cities, he will see that the claims of rural workers who are still living in hovels will be safeguarded, and that money will be advanced to the local authorities to enable them to carry out to the end the erection of houses under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts?

    I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. As I have already stated, it is intended that Ireland shall participate in any measures submitted to Parliament for the improvement of housing conditions.

    Potatoes

    14.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that hardship is being caused to the poor throughout Ireland by reason of their being compelled to pay in one instalment the price laid down for seed potatoes given them last year through rural councils; if he is aware that practically all the latter bodies were and are anxious that this money should be paid in three separate instalments for three years but are precluded from doing so by reason of some clause in what is known as the Seed Act; and whether, in view of the cost of living and the inclemency of the weather as well as the shortage of coal and other things, which makes it practically impossible for the poor to live, he will amend this Seed Act in some way so that this money can be paid by instalments over three years?

    I am not aware that hardship has been caused as suggested in the question, or that there is any such general demand for the extension of time referred to. I do not, therefore, at present see any necessity for making any alterations in the conditions on which these loans are granted.

    Peat Fuel

    16.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in many parts of Ireland large bogs are in the sole possession of individuals who will not allow fuel to be obtained from them at any price; and, in view of the shortage of coal and fuel in general, will some steps be taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to compel such owners to let these turbaries to the poor at a reasonable and fixed rate?

    Royal Irish Constabulary

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has made any promise to ameliorate the pay and conditions of service of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he proposes to initiate legislation; and whether he has consulted or will consult the county councils with a view to place the relations of the Irish police force with the local authorities on a new basis?

    Ameliorations in pay and conditions of service have been promised to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and are now under consideration. Legislation will be introduced to give effect to them. The county councils have not been consulted, and it is not proposed to consult them as suggested.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of pensioners, and the inadequate pensions received in the past; and will he take into consideration that they should be compensated in manner equivalent to the real expense of living at present?

    29.

    asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the total number of men in the Royal Irish Constabulary who have married without permission and the number of such men having less than ten years' service; how many men have married without permission since the commencement of the War, and whether any of these men have resigned; if he is aware that some men were married without permission shortly after joining the force and are subject to an establishment penalty of £7 16s. per annum for a period of ten years, as well as an incidental and regularly recurring penalty by reason of not being allowed transfer expenses, cost of carriage of furniture, and separation allowances for absence on duty, and that the average of this latter penalty is in some cases greater than the established penalty; whether he is aware that the officers of the force are not in favour of all these penal disablities, that they consider these men should be exempt from the deduction of 1s. per week for barrack accommodation, as they pay rent for a private house, receiving no lodging allowance, and do not live in barracks: and whether, in view of assisting married men to maintain their families, he will consult the officers of the force, and, in the interests of the public service as well as of the wives and families of the men concerned, remove some of these disabilities?

    The information in the first two parts of the question is not on record and could only be obtained by investigations which would take considerable time. Since 1st July, 1914, seventy-two men have been reported for marrying without leave. I have no information as to whether any of these men have resigned. When men who have married without permission complete ten years' service in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force their marriages can, with the special sanction of the Inspector-General, be officially recognised and registered, and the disabilities previously attaching to them are in consequence removed. This Regulation was made on the recommendation of a Committee of Inquiry in 1914, and the Inspector-General does not recommend that any alteration should be made now.

    21.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give the date on which he will introduce the promised measure dealing with the pay, pensions, and other matters of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

    26.

    School Teachers (Superannuation)

    23.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether he proposes to introduce a Bill proposing superannuation for Irish teachers on the lines of the Bill proposed for England?

    The hon. Member must await the Report of the Committee recently appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

    Will he consider the question of giving the men who have resigned on very small pensions a larger pension?

    "Lynch's Brigade"

    18.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether, without disclosing information of value to the enemy, he will state the present strength of a unit which is being recruited under the Irish Government's scheme of voluntary enlistment and known as "Lynch's Brigade"; is the brigade clothed as a kilted regiment; and what are its distinguishing marks and insignia?

    My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I do not think it would be desirable to disclose the information asked for in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The formation will be clothed as ordinary Infantry, but there will be a sergeant-piper and five pipers who will wear the Irish kilt. The headdress will be of colonial type, with a green band and with a green and white hackle representing the plume of the Royal Munster Fusiliers. The hat badge will be a representation of an Irish wolfhound.

    Will the units of Lynch's Brigade be of the Munster Fusiliers or will they be affiliated?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of clothing all units of British Infantry in tunics of the Australian type?

    No. I think the British troops are proud to wear the uniform they have.

    19.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether the appointment of officers to a unit known as "Lynch's Brigade" rests with the Irish Government, the War Office, or with the officer who has given his name to the unit; and are commissioned in the brigade confined to men of South Irish or American birth and of one religious denomination?

    My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Officers for the formation mentioned will be appointed by the War Office. They will be Irishmen who have served in the present War but not necessarily of South Irish or American birth. There is no question of religious denomination.

    Voluntary Enlistment

    20.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether he can give the actual or approximate total cost incurred by the Irish Government or the War Office from 1st June to date or to latest date available in connection with the scheme of voluntary enlistment in Ireland?

    My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The costs from 1st June to 21st October, 1918, of recruiting in Ireland were £30,575, exclusive of costs for premises, stationery, etc. Propaganda undertaken by the Irish Recruiting Council between 1st June and 30th September cost £21,898.

    Is the Department of the hon. Gentleman responsible for this expenditure, or the War Office or the Irish Government?

    I think if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the reply he will see that I have answered his point.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his figures work out at £5 per head for each recruit, and is that not rather extravagant?

    I am not aware of it, and we do not know how many recruits are going to be obtained.

    asked the Chief Secretary whether he will give the number of men who have been attested and passed for service in the Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry, Air Force, and non-combatant units of the Service, respectively, from 1st June to 15th October, 1918, under the Irish Government's scheme of voluntary enlistment; and will he say whether those recruited for the Air Force were men to be instructed in actual flying or to perform ground service only?

    My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The enlistments in Ireland from 1st June to 15th October were

    Royal Navy626
    Army4,712
    Royal Air Force4,438
    exclusive of absentees from Britain and exclusive of men who volunteered but were found unfit or who for one reason or another were not posted. The disposal of the recruits between the corps in the Army is not known to my Department.

    Mineral Resources

    24.

    asked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the announcement made by His Excellency at the Belfast Harbour Board on the 5th of August dealing with the developing of the mineral and other resources of Ireland; if he will say whether any programme has been approved of by the Government for the carrying out of these proposals; and, if so, when are they likely to be started?

    The Lord Lieutenant made his speech after consultation with me, and the matter is having our careful attention.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to when they are likely to be started?

    Mountjoy Prison

    28.

    asked if at present the evening duty of Nos. 1, 3, and 4 at Mountjoy Male Prison is being performed by about one-third of the entire staff, which means the bringing on duty of the same three officers almost every third or fourth evening; if he will state why the remaining officers on the staff are exempt from performing this duty in turn, seeing that they can be spared for other duties; and whether, seeing that this system constitutes a grievance to these officers performing this duty and is the cause of discontent amongst them, he will take the necessary steps to have this grievance remedied by causing the officers who are at present exempt to perform this duty in turn and thereby allay the discontent at present prevailing?

    The facts are as stated. The number of officers required for evening duty at Mountjoy Prison is seven, the total number of officers being fifty-one. The performance of this evening duty by the remaining officers of the staff who are either superintending officers or holders of special posts such as tradesmen and schoolmasters instructors would not be practicable, as it would involve a cessation of the special and essential duties performed by these officers during the period of the day for which they would have to be off duty as an equivalent for the extra hours of evening duty. All officers at Mountjoy Prison perform duty the same number of working hours, those employed in the evening being given a corresponding period off duty during ordinary working hours of the day.

    Arrest And Imprisonment

    33.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Press Censor for Ireland prohibited the "Dublin Evening Telegraph" newspaper in the beginning of August last from inserting a letter signed by W. Ignatius Bradshaw protesting against the arrest and imprisonment without trial of Irish men and Irish women; if he is aware that indignation exists in Ireland at the method employed by the Government agents who try to discredit Ireland in the eyes of other nations by making charges that they know cannot be sustained, and refusing either an opportunity of refuting the charges at a public trial, or even allowing a public protest in the Press against this conduct; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

    The Press Censor informs me that the "Dublin Evening Telegraph" was advised that the letter from the gentleman named should not be published. All matter is censored which is a clear breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

    Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a grave hardship that people should be imprisoned and have no opportunity of a trial and that no protests should be allowed to be published?

    The hon. Member must know perfectly well that reports of meetings of protest are constantly being published.

    Here is a letter signed and sent to the public Press and its publication is prohibited.

    I have not seen the letter. The Irish Press Censor is a very experienced gentleman.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    34.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has been compulsorily retired within the last six months; if he is aware that it was the result of a charge which was brought against the retired superintendent by Superintendent Flynn, that five respectable men of long service and good records in the Dublin Metropolitan Police were dismissed on charges organised by the two superintendents referred to, and that the Chief Commissioner, Colonel Johnston, has consistently opposed either reinstatement of the men or an inquiry into the charges made against the dismissed constables; that irregularities in connection with the disappearance of property from Store Street police station, Dublin, was exposed in this House, and that an offer was made to give sworn evidence in support of these charges, and also the record of the police station book, and that no attempt was made to hold an inquiry; that memorials have been signed repeatedly by over 600 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police complaining of the treatment meted out to their comrades; and if he will take steps to hold an inquiry as to the reinstatement of the men?

    A superintendent of the Dublin Metropolitan Police was directed to resign within the past six months, but it was not the result of a charge brought by Superintendent Flynn. Five constables were dismised in November, 1916, four of them for offences of a very serious character. The suggestions as to superintendents organising charges is without foundation. With regard to the irregularities referred to, if the hon. Member will formulate any definite charge upon which action could be taken, I will consider the matter. Memorials, including a request for the reinstatement of the five dismissed constables have been received, signed by approximately 600 members of the force. Any representations that have hitherto been made were fully considered by the Chief Commissioner and by the Irish Government, and I am not aware of any reason for reopening this case.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made giving the name and address of the person from whom the stolen goods were obtained, the day it was lodged at Store Street police station, and the name of the officer in charge, with an intimation that the records would prove this and that absolutely no notice has been taken of it; and is he aware of the superintendent's own written statement to the effect that the dismissal of these men were the result of a conference in a public-house?

    I cannot deal with all these details in answer to a question without notice.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already supplied this information about a dozen times and that absolutely no notice has been taken of it owing to the bigotry of the officer?

    If that is so, I am sure that it has been thoroughly investigated and found to be unfounded.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office were so far convinced that he asked me to interview the Commissioner of Police and ask him to reopen the case, and I did so?

    Irish Convention

    36.

    asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many members of the Irish Convention have objected to the repeal of the Defence of the Realm Regulation prohibiting the publication of certain documents connected with the proceedings of the Convention; whether such members have also expressed a desire that their names should not be published in connection with their objections; and what are the reasons of the Government for not acceding to the views of the majority?

    Eight members of the Irish Convention objected to the repeal of the Regulation referred to. I cannot give their names without their permission, and, as it has been suggested to me that the Convention might be called together again, it would be undesirable that the Regulation should be repealed for the present.

    Are eight members of the Convention to be allowed to overrule the opinion of the balance of ninety?

    No, Sir, they are not; but it must be obvious, if there is any chance of the Convention sitting again, that it would be undesirable to mention any names.

    Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that there is any chance of the Convention sitting again? It is most preposterous.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the eight members to whom he has referred whether they will consent?

    Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to call the Convention together?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman say who suggested to him that the Convention might be called together again?

    Is the Chairman of the Convention the principal stumbling-block?

    That is quite incorrect. The Chairman has pressed for this more than anyone else.

    Voluntary Recruiting Campaign

    58.

    asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the intentions of the Government, in view of the inadequate results of the voluntary recruiting campaign in Ireland?

    I am not in a position to make any statement.

    Food Supplies

    Feeding-Stuffs

    25.

    asked what is the percentage of cattle in Ireland to the whole of the United Kingdom, and what is the percentage as regards pigs; can he state what is the amount of feeding-stuffs actually delivered in Ireland for each of the four completed months since June, and how much has been delivered in Ireland during October; and can he say what percentage this total bears to the total amount of feeding-stuffs actually delivered in the United Kingdom during the same period?

    The percentage of cattle in Ireland to the number in the United Kingdom is approximately forty, and the corresponding figure for pigs is approximately thirty-five. The figures asked for in respect of feeding-stuffs delivered in Ireland are as follows:

    1918.Tons.
    June1,569
    July1,133
    August2,560
    September4,630
    Total9,892
    The figure for the month of October is not yet available. The Department have no information as to the quantity of feeding-stuffs imported into the United Kingdom during the same period.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this allocation of about 10,000 tons really represents the proportion to which Ireland is entitled?

    I can hardly say that I am quite satisfied. Representations have been made and inquiries have taken place about it.

    Has the Department of Agriculture in Ireland charge of the distribution of feeding-stuffs in Ireland?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information which reaches us is that the feeding-stuffs sent to Ireland are distributed amongst about four large breeders, and that there is a complete boycott of the small breeders?

    Bread Subsidy (Weekly Expenditure)

    64.

    asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present weekly rate of expenditure on the bread subsidy; whether it is now expected that the original estimate of £40,000,000 for the current financial year will be exceeded; and, if so, to what extent?

    I have been asked to reply. It is impossible to state weekly figures of the bread subsidy, but based on the latest estimate of the cost for the Wheat Commission's year to 31st August, 1919, it is put by the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies at a weekly average of from £1,040,000 to £1,150,000, after allowing for savings to be effected by use of potatoes and payments for licences for use of flour for precluded purposes. The amount of the subsidy depends largely upon the sources from which import requirements will be filled, and these in turn depend upon the amount of tonnage available for transport of bread-stuffs for ourselves and our Allies. These governing factors are subject to constant change, hence the estimate given may at any moment have to be substantially amended. For the same reason it is impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy the amount of subsidy likely to fall on the present financial year, but it will probably exceed £50,000,000, though it is hoped not to any great extent.

    Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the present expenditure is continued, it is not more likely to exceed £65,000,000 than the figure he has named?

    Rates of expenditure, as my reply indicates, vary, but my advice is that the estimate may not be higher than £50,000,000.

    Have any steps been taken by the Ministry of Food or the Wheat Commission to give effect to the economies recommended by the National Expenditure Committee?

    That is scarcely a question which can be answered in a supplementary reply, but I may say that the matter has been constantly under our consideration and some effective steps have been taken.

    Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of reducing this amount very largely by utilising for bread the barley which is used for beer and spirits?

    Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of having a better quality of bread at a higher price, thereby reducing the amount of subsidy falling upon the rates?

    That is a larger question of policy than is even raised in the original question.

    Issue Of Forms

    asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that application forms (L. F. S. I) for concentrated feeding-stuffs under the Cattle Feeding-stuffs (Distribution) Order, 1918, made on the 14th instant, which forbids the purchase of any feeding-stuffs whatever after the 17th November next, unless application is lodged by the 1st November, have been so distributed that whilst the private traders and manufacturers have received abundant supplies of such forms the farmers' co-operative societies have received utterly inadequate supplies, so that their members have been obliged to leave them and register with private traders; and whether he can state approximately how many were printed, and how many were sent to the agricultural co-operative societies, and why a step so prejudicial to agricultural co-operation has been taken by the Ministry, and whether farmers who, under the above circumstances have registered with traders, and desire to transfer their registration to a co-operative society; will be allowed to do so?

    The points raised in the question came too late to my hands to take personal action before reaching the House. I understand that everything possible is being done by the Department to get the forms circulated, but owing to printing and other difficulties there undoubtedly has been some delay in some cases. I can only give my personal assurance that I will attend to the matter without delay, with a view to expediting the issue of forms.

    asked the Food Controller whether he can give any explanation of the statements in the following telegram received by the Agricultural Organisation Society to-day from the Preston Farmers' Society:

    "We have only received twenty L.F.S.L. forms. We require at least 2,000. Have made repeated applications to Commissioner at Chester without result. It is most disgraceful and should be investigated. Our members are registering with competitors who have unlimited supply of forms."

    Is it not a fact that private firms are really running the Ministry of Food?

    Members' Gallery (Admission Of Women)

    With regard to the Second Resolution passed yesterday for the admission of ladies to the Members' Gallery, it is stated in the papers this morning that you, Mr. Speaker, are making arrangements for the admission of ladies to the Strangers' Gallery, On the terms of the Motion, will it be open to men to have admission to the Ladies' Gallery?

    I confine myself to carrying out the Order of the House, which is that the Members' Gallery should be open to ladies as well as to men.

    As from Monday next. Some structural alterations are required, but they will have to be postponed until the next Recess. The Gallery, under present conditions, will be open to ladies on and after Monday next.

    May I ask whether the same orders for admission to the Gallery will be issued to men as to women?

    Exactly; that is what will be done, but, in the case of ladies, instead of putting "Mr.," hon. Members can put "Miss."

    Old Age Pensions

    30.

    asked whether, in the case of Patrick Collum, of Kilty-creevagh, Ballinamuck, county Longford, who was granted an old age pension of 2s. weekly in 1914, which he declined to accept on the grounds of inadequacy, whether there is any machinery at the disposal of the Local Government Board to enable them to review this decision; and, if it is found that Collum was wrongfully deprived of his full pension for four years, will an order be given for payment to him of the total sum which he now claims?

    The Local Government Board do not appear to have any papers in connection with the claim of Patrick Collum, of Kiltycreevagh, Ballinamuck, county Longford, for an old age pension. If the hon. Member would be good enough to obtain further details, I will have inquiries made.

    Do I understand that in case the inquiries result in establishing this claim an order for payment will be made?

    31.

    asked the Chief Secretary if he will inquire into the circumstances under which Bridget Walker, of Coolorty, county Longford, was deprived of her old age pension two years ago, when, because of her committal to Mullingar Lunatic Asylum, from which she has since been discharged, her pension was stopped after enjoying it for two years; whether he is aware that she is the wife of a labourer who is old and poor, and the loss of this pension is a hardship on both these poor people; and will the case be considered with a view to the renewal of the pension?

    Bridget Walker's claim for an old age pension was refused by the Local Government Board on the ground that she had not attained the age of seventy years. It appears this woman was in receipt of a pension for some years and was disqualified after having been sent to the Mullingar Asylum. Her name is not on the list of the family in the Census taken in 1851, and the record of her marriage shows that she was married in 1869, at the age of eighteen years. This would make her now sixty-six and half years of age, and she is therefore not entitled to an old age pension.

    72.

    asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that instructions have been issued to Inland Revenue superintendents that all positions of old age pensions officers are to be filled with women, their salary to be £2 10s. per week, thus preventing the possible employment of discharged soldiers and sailors who might be suited for such work; and will he see that this disability to such men is removed in future?

    No such instructions as those mentioned in the first part of the question have been issued. A certain number of temporary women pensions officers have for some time past been appointed to replace officers of Customs and Excise released for military service. The Treasury has now under consideration a scheme, which has been submitted by the Board of Customs and Excise, for employing discharged sailors and soldiers as officers of Customs and Excise on pension and other duties.

    60.

    asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the miners of Durham and Northumberland at the assessment of aged miners' homes when pension officers account the resources of applicants for pensions; whether he is aware that, such homes being built and paid for by the miners, they resent their free-will offerings for the help of the aged being used as contributions to the Treasury, such assessments depriving aged people of a portion of pension and in some instances entirely; and what steps can be taken to prevent this diversion of public help to purposes foreign to the intentions of the contributors?

    The exclusion of the benefits derived from residence in the aged miners' homes from the means of old age pensioners and old age pension claimants could only be secured by an amendment of the law, which His Majesty's Government cannot undertake in present circumstances.

    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to whom the question is addressed, as it is likely to be considered by a Committee, will he give opportunities for the whole of the anomalies of the Old Age Pensions Act to be considered, with a view to removing them?

    I believe there are anomalies in connection with the Act which ought to be removed. I should no like to give any promise of setting up a Committee, but that will be considered.

    Venereal Disease

    37.

    asked the Home Secretary whether any provision is to be made by which women who are arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act, Regulation 40D, and against whom no conviction is obtained, are to receive compensation for undergoing the special medical examination for venereal disease?

    Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that, according to the "Times" last week, of the prosecutions under this Regulation, almost half the women are found to be not guilty, but, although not guilty, they are subjected to this examination, which is a terrible penalty in itself; and will he either give them compensation or withdraw the Regulation?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though innocent of this crime, women are committed to prison for seven days as well as being examined?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to his statement that this examination is made by consent, that the prosecutor for the Government stated that if women refused to undergo the examination it would be taken as proof against them?

    If consent is not given in writing, how do the public know that consent is given at all?

    38.

    asked the Home Secretary whether he will now issue instructions that the consent of women to undergo the special medical examination for venereal disease provided for in the Defence of the Realm Act, Regulation 40D, shall in all cases be obtained in writing?

    This question is under the consideration of the Committee recently appointed.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that there is now evidence that women who give their consent to this examination do so because they are unaware that they have the right to refuse?

    Would the hon. Member give himself the trouble to put down some of these numerous questions so that they may be considered? They do not arise out of the questions upon the Paper.

    Household Fuel And Lighting Order

    39.

    asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the premises of the Four Hundred Club, in Bond Street, will be shortly reopened and that permission has been given to keep open till 12.30; if so, by whom this permission has been granted; and on what grounds this favour is conceded to a dancing establishment when churches are asked to discontinue their evening services?

    Under an Order made by my predecessor in 1915, clubs in London must close at midnight on Saturdays and Sundays and at 12.30 a.m. on other nights. No special permission to keep open till that time is required. So far as the latter part of the question relates to matters of heating and lighting, it is for the Board of Trade and not for my Department.

    Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is consistent with the advice given about the heating and lighting of churches that this permission should be given to new clubs?

    General Gough (Marshal Haig's Dispatch)

    3.

    asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reference to General Gough in the dispatch of the Commander-in-Chief, he is prepared to make any statement with regard to the position of this officer?

    I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject.

    Does my right hon. Friend not think the Government is in a sufficiently strong position to institute a close time for scapegoats?

    When will my right hon. Friend be prepared to make a statement as to the position of this officer, who is now under a serious stigma?

    I do not know exactly when it will be possible for me to make a statement, but I will do it as soon as I can.

    Prisoners Of War

    Germans In China

    42.

    asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the precise grounds on which negotiations with the German authorities for an exchange of prisoners broke down?

    The German Government have refused to ratify the agreement concluded at the Hague in July last unless His Majesty's Government are prepared to guarantee that the Germans in China will be neither interned nor removed from that country against their will.

    65, 66, 67, and 68.

    asked the Home Secretary (1) when the German delegates at the Hague first raised the question of the Germans in China; whether Lord Newton and General Belfield expressed any opinion upon the demand; and why they assented to the addition of the German reservation to the treaty;

    (2) whether he will publish the correspondence with the German government in regard to the ratification of the Hague treaty;

    (3) how many Germans there are in China; and what is involved in the German claim regarding them; and

    (4) whether Clause 1 of the Hague treaty closing Holzminden and Clausthal camps was agreed to because it was admitted by the German delegates that these camps were unfit for officers prisons; and whether the Government has since made any demand for the closing of these camps?

    The answers to these questions were published in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT.

    I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, what one is to do? I postponed these questions yesterday and mentioned it to the Clerk at the Table, and at his suggestion I also mentioned it to my hon. Friend's private secretary, which is the usual way of communicating with Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time. I did all I could to postpone these questions, and I simply saw the record of them in to-day's "Times." The action of the right hon. Gentleman has prevented any supplementary questions being put.

    My secretary did not get the notice until after the replies had been sent out.

    Is it not a fact that whereas the French representatives arranged satisfactorily in regard to their prisoners, Lord Newton and General Belfield seem to have failed? Ought not this important question to have been entrusted to men of known and marked ability?

    I think that is an unfair reflection upon the two gentlemen concerned, but I will deal with it in the Debate.

    I am sorry to have to press this matter, Mr. Speaker, but it is important as other Members may want to postpone questions in similar circumstances. I postponed these questions before quarter to four, and, at the request of the Clerk at the Table, I told the private secretary of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not responsible that by a mistake of a Minister these answers were circulated.

    If the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) received an intimation before a quarter to four he ought not to have handed in the answers at the Table.

    I did not get notice of the postponement of the questions until after the replies had been dealt with. I saw the hon. Member in the Lobby during the Debate after questions, and he then told me. That was the first time I heard of it.

    French And German Prisoners (Exchange)

    43.

    asked the Home Secretary whether an agreement for an exchange of prisoners has been arranged between the French and German authorities?

    The reply is in the affirmative. The execution of the agreement commenced in July last. The French Government, however, found it necessary to suspend action almost immediately owing to the irregularities committed by the German Government. These irregularities have now been rectified, and the operation of the agreement is believed to have been resumed.

    Was a similar demand made by the French Government such as caused a breakdown of the negotiations between our Government and Germany?

    Day For Discussion

    45.

    asked the Prime Minister whether an early date can be granted to discuss the whole question of British prisoners of war in Germany?

    51.

    asked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to give a day for the discussion of the whole position of prisoners in enemy hands?

    I propose that an opportunity for this discussion should be given on Tuesday.

    Will the opportunity be of such a character that a Resolution may be put down and not merely the Adjournment of the House?

    I propose the Adjournment of the House. I fancy that will be the way most acceptable to the House, but I am not wedded to one method rather than another.

    If the Unionist and Liberal War Committees should request my right hon. Friend to allow a Resolution, will he allow it?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are some cognate subjects which might be ruled out if there were a Resolution, and as the discussion will presumably not take all day it would be desirable in some respects to have the Adjournment?

    I am strongly inclined to think the Adjournment would be the most suitable method. I should be glad if my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) and those with whom he is working will consider and discuss it.

    Ill-Treatment By Germans

    asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued brutality to British prisoners, he will immediately inform the German Government that at the close of the War all those responsible for the ill-treatment of our men shall be handed over to justice?

    A communication on the lines of my hon. Friend's question has already been sent to the German Government, and published in the Press.

    Civil Service Pensioners

    62.

    asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if it is not convenient to amend the Superannuation Acts so as to give Civil Service pensioners of £1 a week a bonus during the period of the War, he can see his way to grant these bonuses out of the War Credits?

    63.

    asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of augmenting the pensions of retired Civil servants whose pensions do not exceed £1 per week by introducing legislation amending the Superannuation Acts, so as to allow of these men receiving for the period of the War a bonus to enable them to meet the increased cost of living?

    I have nothing to add to the numerous answers given to similar questions in this House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by myself in the course of last Session.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these persons, especially dockyard pensioners, are in very severe straits, and will he explain why he cannot deal with them?

    Economic Policy After War

    46.

    asked the Prime Minister when the statement on the economic policy after the War will be made?

    56.

    asked the Prime Minister whether the commercial treaties until recently in force between foreign countries and the United Kingdom have been denounced in order to eliminate the Most-Favoured-Nation clauses; if so, how many of the treaties have been denounced and when will they cease to be operative?

    The Prime Minister intends himself to make the economic statement which I have promised on behalf of the Government. I had hoped to-day to give a definite date, but in present circumstances it is impossible to do so.

    Does my right hon. Friend think it would be possible to give a day next week?

    I have discussed it this morning with the Prime Minister, who takes the view—and I am sure the House will share it—that in present circumstances it is impossible to pledge him to any definite date.

    Before a discussion takes place, will the information for which I asked in my question be given, namely, how many commercial treaties have, in fact, been denounced?

    If the right hon. Gentleman will leave it in this way I will consider it.

    League Of Nations

    47.

    asked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates that the Czecho-Slovak nation will be invited to take part in forming and controlling the League of Nations as defined in the last clause of President Wilson's fourteen points; and whether, in that event, the Irish nation will receive at least equal representation in the formation and control of the League?

    As regards the first part of the question, I can say nothing. The answer to the last part is in the negative.

    Peace Terms

    48.

    asked the Prime Minister whether he unreservedly endorses President Wilson's declarations in favour of full and complete publicity in hearing, discussing, and deciding upon the claims of all small nationalities, such as Poland, Bohemia, Albania, and Ireland in connection with the reconstruction of Europe at the Peace settlement; and if he can now assure the House that the British Government will not exert any influence, secret or otherwise, to prevent the claims of Ireland receiving full consideration?

    49.

    asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to constitute an Inter-Allied Council for the purpose of drawing up the terms of a victorious peace and the reconstruction of international relationships after the War, and thus to achieve the policy of unity of purpose and counsel declared by President Wilson to be as imperatively necessary as unity of command in the battlefield.

    I am sorry I can make no statement on this subject beyond saying that, of course, constant communication is taking place between the Allied Governments.

    asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the fact that British peace terms are now being freely discussed at Washington Inn, and by Ministers of the Crown outside the House, and whether he is still of opinion that the House of Commons is the only place in Great Britain where these peace terms are not to be allowed to be discussed?

    I am not aware of the fact, as stated by the hon. Member, and I have not in the least changed my view, which I hope the House of Commons will share, that nothing would be more foolish than to have a discussion of these terms in the House of Commons at the present moment.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman prevent his colleagues from discussing them freely outside; and will he also use his great influence with Lord Northcliffe to prevent him from discussing them as he did the other day?

    I did not know that I possessed the honour which the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me of having great influence with Lord Northcliffe. I am not aware of it. So far as I know, no Minister has done what the hon. Member has said.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Lord Northcliffe holds an influential position under the Government as Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries, and in these circumstances, and in view of Lord Northcliffe's statement yesterday, is it not advisable that an official statement should be made by the British Government?

    No; I cannot add anything to what I have already said. Lord Northcliffe is helping the Government, but, as the House knows, he is not a Minister.

    Is it the Government view that the House of Commons should know nothing at all about peace terms?

    No; the Government view is that the House of Commons should know a great deal about which it does not speak.

    General Election

    Soldiers' And Sailors' Votes

    50.

    asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of giving to every naval and military voter the fullest opportunity of recording his vote at the next election and of the evident difficulties of achieving this under circumstances of warfare, he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for North St. Pancras, asking that this House should be fully informed of the steps that the Government will take so as to ensure to the sailors and soldiers their rights in this respect?

    I do not think that it will be possible to give a day for this discussion, which could take place on the Vote of Credit.

    Armistice

    52.

    asked the Prime Minister whether it will be a condition of any armistice that Germany shall supply France and Belgium at once with sufficient coal to replace what would have been available from the mines the Germans have destroyed?

    It is not possible to indicate in answer to a question what are likely to be the terms of an armistice.

    May this point be referred to the military authorities, as it is rather a civil than a military question and might be overlooked?

    I shall not answer the last question, which I think is obvious. The point raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Warner) has, I know, already been considered.

    Will the House of Commons have a chance of giving their opinion before the terms of the armistice are finally agreed upon?

    Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean to suggest that before the terms are decided upon they shall be discussed in the House of Commons?

    My right hon. Friend does not understand me. My question was before terms are agreed upon will there be a discussion about armistice in this House?

    I think I did understand the question. The terms must be submitted to our Allies. I should not consider it at all possible before that step is taken that it should be discussed in this or any other House.

    Munitions

    Demobilisation (Women Workers)

    59.

    asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have settled upon the policy to be adopted at the conclusion of the War regarding the demobilisation of women workers in munition factories; and, if so, whether it is possible to make any statement?

    I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham on Thursday last.

    Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

    Separation Allowances (Debate)

    61.

    asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that no flat rate increase in allowances is yet awarded to wives of any class, and other anomalies in the new scale of allowances, such as prospective instead of retrospective increases, he is now prepared to give the House an early opportunity of discussing the whole question of separation allowances on which the House has never yet been consulted until after they have been determined?

    I propose that an opportunity for this discussion should be given on Thursday.

    Local Committees (Constitution)

    69.

    asked the Pensions Minister, seeing that in some instances dissatisfaction exists at the composition of the local war pensions committees, more especially in regard to the qualifications of the secretaries to carry out their duties, he proposes to take steps to replace unsatisfactory officials?

    I am well aware of the dissatisfaction referred to by the hon. Member, and am satisfied that in some instances it is justified. I hope that the Bill, the Second Reading of which took place on Tuesday, will assist to remedy this state of affairs.

    Mercantile Making (King's Fund)

    70.

    asked whether the trustees of the King's Fund have arrived at any decision as to the eligibility of the Mercantile Marine for the benefits of the fund?

    Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea when this matter is likely to receive consideration?

    My right hon. Friend has called a meeting at an early date to consider this matter.

    Steamship "Longerty" (Fireman Dobbing)

    71.

    asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Fireman W. S. Dobbing, of steamship "Longerty," C.T. 57, employed on Government service, was taken ill with pneumonia on board and died shortly after being taken to a London hospital on 21st July, 1917, leaving a widow and four young children under eleven years of age in exceedingly straitened circumstances; whether he is aware that all attempts to secure some allowance, pension, or gratuity for the widow during the past twelve months have proved entirely fruitless; and whether this case should receive the special consideration of his Department?

    My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The case referred to in the question has been fully investigated, but, as the death was not caused or contributed to by war perils, it does not come within the scope of the War Risks Compensation scheme, and it is not possible to grant any pension.

    Seeing that this ship was on Government charter, cannot compensation be given?

    I am sorry, but I am advised that it does not come within the compensation scheme.

    West Riding Regiment (Private Hodgson)

    73.

    asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the mother of Private A. Hodgson, No. 16213, West Riding Regiment, Mrs. Bolland, 105, Ventnor Street, Bradford, has been refused a pension on the ground that she is not eligible under Article 21 (1a) of the Royal Warrant, which states that a pension shall not be granted to the mother of a soldier under Sub-section 1a of this Article if she marries or remarries after his death; if he is further aware that the late soldier's mother has not remarried since the soldier's death, the remarriage having taken place on 6th February, 1916, and the late soldier was not reported missing until 25th April, 1917, and that, furthermore, the mother of the late soldier was in receipt of dependant's separation allowance after her remarriage and before the son was reported missing for the period of fifteen months; and whether having regard to the fact that Mrs. Bolland was officially admitted to be dependent on the late soldier to the amount of 9s. 7d. per week after her remarriage, and that her claim for pension comes within the terms of the Royal Warrant, he will grant her the pension to which she is entitled?

    The Warrant is not clearly expressed upon the point which the hon. Member raises and is noted for amendment, but the intention was that the widowed mother of a soldier should upon remarriage no longer be considered dependent upon the son.

    Discharged Soldiers

    74.

    asked the Pensions Minister whether, as there is often delay in forwarding case papers respecting a discharged soldier who has moved from the area of one local committee to the committee of his new area, and as local committees sometimes refuse to assist such discharged soldiers until they have received the case papers from the committee of the soldier's old area, he will issue instructions to local committees that these case papers must be dispatched without delay, and also inform local committees that, in accordance with the spirit of Circular 37, they are justified in making advances to discharged soldiers who produce reasonable proof that they are discharged disabled men without waiting for the receipt of their case papers?

    I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that I have, at the present moment, under consideration the issue of instructions to local committees which should go far to meet the difficulty to which he refers.

    Medical Officers (Ireland)

    75.

    asked the Pensions Minister whether he has refused applications for employment under Government by medical officers who had previously served in any capacity under the National Health Insurance Commissioners in Ireland, irrespective of previous long or active service; and, if so, whether he will explain why this course has been adopted, in view of the promise given by the Prime Minister?

    I am not aware for any ground for this suggestion. The selection of doctors to act as referees in Ireland was entrusted by the Minister of Pensions to a Committee specially appointed for the purpose, consisting of representatives of the Irish Local Government Board, Irish Insurance Commission, Ministry of Pensions, Ministry of National Service, Irish Medical War Committee, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Irish Medical Committee. The Report received from the Committee shows that great care was exercised in the discharge of the duty entrusted to them, and that the doctors selected were unanimously agreed to.

    Soldiers' Widows (Gratuity On Remarriage)

    76.

    asked whether, if the widow of a soldier remarries within six months of her husband's death, she is ineligible for the gratuity provided under Article 16 of the Warrant; and, if so, will he give the Regulation governing the procedure?

    A soldier's widow who remarries within six months of her husband's death is eligible for the gratuity under Article 16 of the Royal Warrant of the 17th April, 1918, provided that the man died in circumstances which would have entitled her to a pension under Article 11.

    Class W Reserve

    77.

    asked under which Article of the Pay Warrant a man who on transfer to Class W of the Reserve meets with an accident admittedly due to the disability which occasioned his transfer to Class W of the Reserve is regarded as being ineligible for pension?

    The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. A soldier is not transferred to Class W of the Reserve on account of disability, but because he is deemed to be of more value in a civil than a military capacity. It is open to him to appeal to the officer in charge of records as to whether his condition warrants discharge or transfer to Class P, and if the Medical Board decide in the affirmative the question of pension would arise. There is no provision in the Royal Warrant for compensation in respect of consequential injury, but each case is considered on its merits.

    West Yorks Regiment (Mr L Smith)

    78.

    asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Second-Lieutenant Lincoln A. Smith, late 2nd West Yorks Regiment, discharged from hospital 4th April, 1917, suffering from shell-shock, was ordered six months complete change, rest, and special diet, whereby he incurred expenses to the amount of £143 16s.; whether this officer has made a claim for this amount under Article 6, Clause 6, of the Royal Warrant, which authorises payment of medical and other expenses incidental to treatment; and whether that claim has been set aside on the ground that the Ministry cannot pay for or contribute towards maintenance during illness?

    Second-Lieutenant Lincoln A. Smith has not yet submitted evidence that the course of convalescent treatment was recommended by a responsible medical practitioner for the disability for which he was invalided. If he will do this, I am prepared to reconsider the case with a view to ascertaining whether any contribution can be made towards his expenses under the terms of the Royal Warrant.

    Bolshevist Government

    War Aims Committee

    55.

    asked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken to give wide publicity to the documents published by the Committee of Public Information at Washington, establishing the fact that Lenin, Trotsky, and their Bolshevist associates have been the agents and accomplices of the German Government?

    80.

    asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what steps are being taken by the War Aims Committee to bring home to the people the real nature of the Bolshevist Government in Russia, as proved by the documents published in Washington and reproduced here on Friday last, 18th October, under the title of "Bolshevism Unmasked—Lenin and Trotsky German Agents"?

    The War Aims Committee is having the information published in pamphlet form and extensively distributed.

    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of these documents were published in the public Press six months ago and were found to be obvious forgeries, and will he reconsider the matter further before publishing them under the auspices of the War Aims Committee?

    The War Aims Committee have satisfied themselves that they are documents that ought to be published.

    Is the War Aims Committee aware that the documents were submitted to the Foreign Office and were rejected by the Foriegn Office because they were not authentic?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire at the Foreign Office, where he will get some really good information?

    Customs And Excise

    81.

    asked whether a discharged and disabled sailor or soldier who before enlistment was a Customs and Excise officer is eligible for reappointment, although physically and mentally capable, unless and until he received a pension in respect of the disability for which he was discharged from the Service?

    The general Regulations for the Civil Service provide that the posts of Civil servants who enlist with the permission of the heads of their Department shall be kept open for them on their discharge from the Army. No condition as to pension has been imposed.

    82.

    asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise are offering to war pensioners positions as Customs watchers at, apart from present temporary bonuses, a standing wage of 24s. per week, rising in twelve years, by good conduct allowances, to 27s. per week; and what is the object in restricting these positions to persons in receipt of life pensions?

    The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reason why appointments as Customs watchers have been confined to pensioners is that exactly the same type of man is required as for pensioner messengers, to whom the same rule applies, namely, elderly men of good character who are past their physical prime, have spent their best years in the public service, and will have their pensions to fall back on when leaving their non-pensionable civil employment.

    Employment Exchanges (Scotland)

    84.

    asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the discouragement meted out by Employment Exchanges in Scotland in the way of refusing and delaying railway warrants and otherwise to volunteering workers for farms for potato gathering and other harvesting; is he aware that several bodies of workers have, on account of this treatment by employment exchanges, returned to their homes without getting to the farms in need of them; and will he take action in the way of seeing this remedied in these exchanges?

    I am having inquiry made and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend. If he could supply me with particulars as to the cases and Exchanges to which he refers it would greatly assist me in the investigation.

    Salt (Export)

    86.

    asked whether it is the fact that salt is used as ballast for vessels sailing light from the United Kingdom; and whether it is possible to allow export whenever the salt can be carried as ballast?

    I am not aware of any prevalent practice of shipping salt as ballast. The object of the control over the exportation of salt is to ensure adequate supplies for home consumption and to maintain so far as possible the exports to British Possessions. This object would be defeated if salt could be carried as ballast without any restriction.

    87.

    asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government recognises the importance of taking every possible step to preserve for British industry after the War all available markets abroad for our export trade; whether he is aware that the Scandinavian countries are important markets for British salt, but that German competition there was always very keen, and that Germany has just sold to Norway, free from all restrictions, 60,000 tons of salt with the direct object of making a post-war market; and whether, in view of the certainty that the present veto on any export of salt from the United Kingdom will be disastrous to our salt export trade after the War, the present restrictions can be removed, or at least substantially relaxed?

    Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of the importance of preserving our overseas market so far as possible. The imports of German salt into Norway have greatly increased during the War, and I understand that a largo quantity is now being sold free from any condition as to its use or destination. The recent prohibition of exportation of salt from the United Kingdom except under licence was made in view of the anticipated reduction of the output of salt following upon diminished supplies of coal. Exportation will be regulated by licence, so as to ensure adequate supplies for home consumption; but I hope that the output of salt will be sufficient to obviate the necessity of any material reduction in the exports to other parts of the British Empire, whilst leaving a margin for exports on a restricted scale to neutral and Allied countries.

    Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)

    asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is yet in a position to say when the Statement of Accounts of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) will be published?

    The statement of assets and liabilities of the acquisition and direct control of licensed premises by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) will, I hope, be laid on the Table early next week.

    Will full particulars of the profit and loss account of each individual enterprise be given?

    Hindenburg Line

    Broken By British Troops

    asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether British troops were the first to break through the Hindenburg line?

    I am glad to have the privilege of informing my hon. Friend and the House that this proud distinction belongs to the British Army.

    Workmen's Compensation Act

    41.

    asked the Home Secretary whether any steps have yet been taken towards the appointment of a Committee to consider the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

    I regret that, for the reasons which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 18th July, I have not yet been able to appoint this Committee, but I hope it may be possible shortly to proceed to the appointment.

    Women In Parliament

    54.

    asked the Prime Minister whether, having ascertained the view of the House, he proposes to introduce immediate legislation to allow women to sit in Parliament?

    Industrial Disputes

    57.

    asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the growing opinion amongst employers and trade unions in favour of the adoption of some national, but voluntary, system for dealing with all questions common to industry as a whole, with a view to securing the promotion of goodwill between employers and workpeople, and to minimising the dislocation of industry involved in trade disputes; and whether the Government are prepared to take practical steps to encourage this movement and provide facilities for translating this feeling into practice?

    I have been asked to reply to this question; the Minister of Labour is not sure that he knows to what system my hon. Friend refers, but if he would give particulars of any scheme which he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider it.

    Elementary Schools (Physical Training)

    79.

    asked the President of the Board of Education if he will say what instructions have been issued to the local education authorities for the improvement and proper supervision of physical training in elementary schools?

    I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of a circular and Regulations which were issued in February, 1917, urging the importance of increased attention to physical training in elementary schools. Reference has also constantly been made to the subject in the annual reports of the Chief Medical Officer. In particular, the Board have encouraged the appointment of organisers, and have offered grants in aid of their salaries. Notwithstanding difficulties arising out of the War, the number of organisers has doubled since the issue of the Regulations.

    Have any inspectors been appointed to inspect and report on that physical training?

    I do not think that any inspectors have been appointed since the Regulation of 1917 for that special purpose.

    New Member Sworn

    Neville Paul Jodrell, Esquire, for the County of Norfolk (Mid Division).

    Private Business

    Ipswich Dock Bill [ Lords], reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

    Message From The Lords

    That they have agreed to—

    Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

    Orders Of The Day

    Business Of The House

    Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the business for next week?

    On Monday, the Housing Bill (Second Reading), and the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill (Committee).

    On Tuesday, as already announced, there will be a discussion on prisoners of war, and, if time permit, there will be a continuation of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and other Bills may be taken.

    On Wednesday, the Tithes Bill (Committee).

    On Thursday, there will be a discussion on pensions, and, if possible, other Bills will be taken.

    Though we are giving a second day for these discussions, I hope that the whole time will not be taken, unless it be absolutely necessary.

    Will there be an opportunity for discussing the circular of the Local Government Board in reference to one-man businesses? This is a new departure in policy.

    The Vote of Credit will give an opportunity for that kind of discussion.

    I cannot state the exact time when the next Vote of Credit will be taken. It may be in the next two or three weeks.

    Will my right hon. Friend give an answer to the question I put yesterday as to a day for the discussion of my resolution on Federal Devolution?

    I understand it is not possible to give a day next week, in view of other Debates previously promised. I think a day must be given for the purpose, and if the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will try to arrange a time suitable to those interested in the subject.

    Supply

    Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1918–19

    Considered in Committee.

    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    Police, England And Wales

    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    "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.

    4.0 P.M.

    The purpose of this Vote is to authorise the Treasury to make an additional Grant to the Police authorities to bring up the existing Grants-in-Aid to the Police Fund to a sum equal to one-half of the total expenditure. The Vote is directly connected with the increase of pay recently granted to the Metropolitan Police, and I hope that the Committee will allow me, in connection with the Vote, to make a statement which shall be as brief as possible on the subject of the London Police strike. That strike was of course an event of very grave importance, and I have felt that the House required a more detailed statement that I could make in answer to Parliamentary questions. To begin with I should like to remove an impression which is widespread but quite unfounded; it has been generally assumed and repeatedly stated that the strike of the Metropolitan Police had been preceded by many applications from the men for an increase of their pay, and that the Commissioner of Police and the Home Office had either refused to entertain those applications, or had neglected to reply to them. That is not the case. In December, 1917, the war bonus to the Metropolitan Police Force, which then stood at 8s. per week, was raised to 12s., and the allowance for each child was raised from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per week. These sums were of course in addition to the fixed pensionable pay which ranged from 30s. upwards, and amounted on an average to 37s. 2d., and to the pension rights which are estimated to be of the value of 25 per cent. of the pay, to which the constable only contributed 2 per cent. The new grant in December last brought the total amount of pay and allowances, including full pension rights, to 68s. 9d. per week in lieu of 47s., their value before the War. The increase of the bonus to 12s. was accepted by the police as entirely satisfactory, as appears from a letter addressed to all Members of Parliament by the editor of the "Police Review," the journal which usually represents the least contented part of the police, and in which the following statement occurred:

    "On behalf of the Metropolitan Police we can testify to the general feeling of satisfaction which this substantial rise in their wages has give to the men, and perhaps even more so, to their wives."
    That was in December, 1917. In February, 1918, the executive of the Police Union addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, thanking him on behalf of all ranks for his successful efforts to increase the bonus and appealing to him to advocate a further increase of wages in order to bring the remuneration of the London Police up to the level of certain other forces. With the exception of that letter there was not, so far as I can ascertain, a single application to the Commissioner for an increase of pay between December, 1917, and the eve of the strike in August last, and I may add with certainty that during that period no such application was made to the Home Office. I want to repeat, emphatically, that so far from there having been repeated applications for increased pay, which had either been refused or neglected, the fact is that from December, 1917, when the increased war bonuses were granted and accepted as most satisfactory, until the day before the strike no word or line was received at the Home Office asking for a reconsideration of the pay of the London police. It is true that in consequence of the decision of some of the provincial police to increase the pay of their men—increases which had been submitted to me, and which I had sanctioned, the Commissioner was considering a scheme for an increase of pay to the London police, and in answers to questions put to me in this House towards the end of July, I stated that fact. But the Commissioner was most anxious to combine with this increase of pay a scheme of widows' pensions which had long been in his mind. This particular scheme, which required Parliamentary authority involves certain calculations in regard to its effect on the Pension Fund, and accordingly it had been submitted to two well-known actuaries, Mr. F. B. Wyatt and Sir Gerald Ryan, and their Report was expected just at the time when the strike occurred. It is a piece of extraordinary ill-fortune that the main cause of the delay in announcing the increase of pay, a delay which if not the cause of the strike was at least used as an instrument in bringing it about, was the anxiety of the Commissioner, with which I fully sympathised, that the improvement in the conditions of the men's service should be accompanied by a provision for their widows. I must add this that, putting aside this question of pay, no information reached the Home Office showing there was discontent among the Metropolitan Police or any risk whatever of their leaving their duty. The Police Union then represented a fraction only of the police. One of its fundamental rules, which turned out to be of no value, required the union to rigidly maintain a true sense of obligation to the public by permanently guarding against any possibility of the members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress. Since February, so far as I can ascertain, they had had no communication of any importance, either with the Commissioner or the Home Office. As we now know, there must have been much agitation beneath the surface, but this seems to have escaped attention. So little was the outbreak expected that the Commissioner himself was absent in Ireland on his annual holiday. The strike occurred, as the House knows, at very short notice.

    On the 28th August the Home Office received from the Police Union a letter demanding a large increase of permanent pay, a war bonus of 12½ per cent. on all wages and allowances, the reinstatement of a constable who had been dismissed, and complete official recognition of the Police Union. These demands could not be granted, and on the 29th August and early on the 30th the greater part of the constables, without giving the month's notice required by the terms of their engagement, left their duty, although some policemen, to their honour, refused to take that course. The event was, I think, a surprise to everyone. No doubt a small minority of the men, prompted by outside influences, were anxious, at any cost, to involve the police force in a strike, but I believe that the great majority were misled by the statement which was diligently circulated that the Commissioner and the Home Office had refused to listen to repeated requests for an increase of pay or had neglected to reply. That statement, as I have shown, was wholly untrue, but even if it had been true it would not have justified the strike. The ordinary workman, when he strikes, risks his place and pay by striking; the policeman risks much more; he deserts his duty and puts the lives and property under his charge in a position of serious peril. The London police, by the action which they took, forfeited for the time being that public confidence which they had long and deservedly enjoyed. I am persuaded that the best of the men feel this to be the case, and regret the action which they took; and I am convinced that if an attempt should be made, for whatever motive, to induce them to repeat the strike, the result would be very different.

    I should like to add one word with regard to the Special Constabulary. The London special constables, a body which I helped to form in the autumn of 1914, have since that date and throughout the War rendered admirable service to the public. On the occasion of the strike most of those who were called out responded readily to the call which was made upon then to assist in the protection of life and property. It is deeply to be regretted that in a few instances a conflict occurred between the special constables and the strikers, but I believe that the resolution of regret with regard to these occurrences which was very properly adopted at a meeting of the police expresses the sincere feeling of the police force as a whole.

    There is one personal reference which I must make. When, by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the strike had been brought to an end—and I believe that when the men returned to their duties no class felt more relieved than the policemen themselves—the Commissioner of Police, Sir Edward Henry, resigned his office and his resignation was accepted with regret. During fifteen difficult years Sir Edward had filled with distinction and success an office which is one of the most troublesome any man can be called upon to hold. As Commissioner he had rendered conspicuous service, and had developed and perfected the system of identification by finger prints, which is now an indispensable part of the machinery for the detection of crime. He had, whilst preserving discipline, been always ready and anxious to improve the pay and conditions of the men under his command and to redress any grievances brought to his notice. He was indefatigable in helping the many institutions for the benefit of the police and their families. When the crisis had passed he thought it right, with characteristic self-forgetfulness, to facilitate the reorganisation of the police force, which was obviously required, by retiring from office. I would gladly have retired with him, or in his place, if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had permitted me to do so. I believe Sir Edward Henry carries with him into his retirement the respect and affection of the mass of the force which he commanded so long, and that he will be remembered as one of the best of our Commissioners of Police.

    One word as to the future. Sir Neville Macready, the new Commissioner, has applied himself to his difficult task with admirable judgment and energy. The pay has been increased up to a sum which makes the average weekly pay and allowances of a constable £3 13s. 4d. per week, or, with the value of the increased pension rights, £4 6s. 10d. per week. A representative board, elected by ballot, has been formed for the purpose of providing machinery for representations from the force with regard to their conditions of service and general welfare, and this body has already met, its first sitting having been opened by the Commissioner of Police. The Police Union cannot be recognised, but on the advice of the new Commissioner the men have been informed that they will not be prevented from joining the union or any other lawful society so long as it does not claim or attempt to interfere with the police regulations or discipline, or to induce members of the force to withhold their services, but that, if any such event should occur, the members of the force will be called upon to sever their connection with it. It is obvious, for the reasons which I have stated, that we cannot for a moment admit the right of the police to enforce their demands by deserting their duty and leaving the public unprotected, and the condition which I have stated will, at all costs, be enforced. The Senior Assistant Commissioner, Sir Frederick Wodehouse, has retired after long and faithful service and General Horwood has been appointed Assistant Commissioner in his place. Superintendent Olive, who joined the force as a constable in 1872, has been appointed a Chief Constable. Other changes have been made which I need not mention in detail. No doubt there are still difficult times before us, but I believe that the great bulk of the officers and men of the Metropolitan Police Force are doing their best to pull the force together, and that before many years have passed the London constable will have regained his old place in the regard and confidence of the public.

    With regard to the Vote now before the House, I can only add that the police authorities outside London have been encouraged to raise their scale of pay so as to bring it where necessary into accord with present circumstances. The increased Treasury Grant for which this Vote provides will facilitate that process, and will be made contingent in the case of each authority on the conditions of service of the police under the control of the authority having been approved by the Home Office. It is proposed by this means to effect a change which has long been required, and which has been urged upon us by the chief local police authorities throughout the country, namely, the standardisation of police pay throughout the country. With that statement, I hope that the House will consent to pass this Vote.

    The story of the London police strike is, I think, one of the saddest of the domestic troubles which we have had during the War. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has not given us much light on it. He has given us a very brief statement about it, but he has not explained to us what, I think, the public consider the weak and inefficient manner and the culpable delay which occurred in dealing with the grievances of the force, which is rightly popular throughout the Metropolis. My right hon. Friend stated that there was no grumbling, and that he had not received any applications for increase in pay. I think if he will look up the records of the House he will find that on several occasions, in July and again in August, I put questions down to him, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newington (Mr. Gilbert) also, with reference to police pay, and I rather think I also put a question in May. His excuse for not giving an increase of pay was that he was having an actuarial valuation made. It does seem to me that at a time when war is going on and when things are rising in price, and when the police are having tremendous work put upon them in connection with the War, arduous and extra work, long hours, with the day of rest often taken away from them, that any ordinary business man dealing with the police force would have found it no difficult task to find out that they were unsatisfied, and that it was impossible for them to live decently and properly on their pay at a time when goods were so dear. I do not think it was a time to get actuarial matters gone into when men could not make both ends meet, for at such a time they do not want actuarial details, but money to buy food and to get on with. I protest, and I think the Committee will agree with me that it was the duty of the authorities to give the men a rise of pay if they were not getting sufficient, and not go into details of an actuarial kind which could be settled at any time.

    The right hon. Gentleman then said he had no knowledge that there was discontent in the ranks. I do not say it is the Home Secretary's fault, but he is the man chargeable to Parliament and he is the person between me and the police and he is responsible. I say that it is impossible for him not to know that the police desired better conditions and the opportunity of discussing their hours of labour and of work. I have been looking up in my records and I find that as far back as 1914 I raised on the Police Vote the question that the police desired the right to confer. I have never argued in this House that the police should have an ordinary trade union federated with trade unions. They did not ask for that. They originally asked for the right to confer, and that the same power should be given to them as was given, I think, by Lord Gladstone when he was Home Secretary, to the prison warders, who were allowed a room once a week in the prison where they could meet together and talk about their hours of labour, their pay, and so on. The Member for South St. Pancras (Colonel Sir H. Jessell) raised the same question in that Debate. We were told that it was impossible and that it never could be allowed that the police should have the right to combine. The matter was again raised by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) in 1910. It was still going on, this discontent, at being placed in this military position and at not being treated as an ordinary civilian force, able to discuss and talk over matters that concerned them. Then I find that in 1917 the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir G. Touche) pressed the point again.

    Not only did I know that there was so much discontent, but I considered it was so important that early in December, 1917, I took a deputation from the Police and Citizens Association to Sir Edward Henry who received us with his usual kind courtesy. He had every sympathy with us as to the wages question which was dealt with later. He admitted there was discontent amongst the men, that they could not have some of the privileges of the workers earning higher wages had. We put it to him that they might have within certain areas collective representation. I believe I talked to my right hon. Friend the Home. Secretary about it, and at all events I did so to the Under-Secretary, and asked that certain concessions might be given to the men to meet this discontent. It went on further and nothing was done, though it is true there was an increase in wages in December. But my right hon. Friend cannot say he had no warning because the same society issued to all Members of Parliament in January, 1917, a letter, and this was the point of it.
    "At the same time we wish to draw your attention to the importance of meeting the grievance which is common in the minds of all seriously minded policemen and which, if not remedied without delay, may become a grave national peril"
    That came to happen, and the Home Secretary and his officials were warned. They took no notice of the warning and they say practically that they had no warning. The letter proceeds
    "namely, the right of conference and the right to confer with the authorities by means of collective representation."
    That was not an unreasonable thing to ask. Policemen are not very good speakers and do not want to go on a platform. When they are called into the Chief Commissioner's room they feel very nervous and do not know what to say. Is is an unreasonable thing that a policeman should ask that a man who can talk a little better and is not quite so nervous should put his case for him. The letter went on:
    "The police are at present undoubtedly loyal to their oath, and we are glad they wish to retain their complete independence of organised industrial associations, but we cannot refrain from warning you that should these rights be denied them they very reluctantly may be compelled to throw in their lot with the existing associations of organised labour."
    If that was not a warning, and I am advised it was sent to every Member of Parliament, then I do not know that there could be a warning. May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to a letter that was sent to him by the editor of "Police Review" on 19th February, in which he
    "calls his respectful attention and expresses the hope that in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police, whom we know to be moderately sympathetic, you may be able to see your way immediately to grant the right to confer."
    It may be that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his letters and this may have been put into the waste-paper basket, but I have got a copy of the letter, and the editor points out to him how important it is that the police should have the right to confer. The letter was also sent to the Under-Secretary, it being felt that as he was a trade unionist he would understand the matter better than the Home Secretary, and it was pointed out to him the need of the police being allowed to have something other than the ordinary cast-iron conditions under which the police were brought up. The Home Secretary led us to believe that the police, at the time of the strike, forfeited the confidence of the people of London. I was in the country, and I came up to London when the police strike was on. I found that all the sympathy was with the police.

    That might be the Noble Lord's opinion, but it was not my view, which was that, especially in the City of London, sympathy was with the police, because the people believed that they were not sufficiently paid. They saw munition people, miners, and other men and women working much shorter hours and getting much higher pay than the police, and I think the Press of the time strongly supported the police. Only to-day I looked at the "Daily Telegraph," and found a eulogy of the police:

    "The faithfulness of the police to the community of which they are the guardians must be preserved, if possible, at any cost."
    There would have been no cost at all if the Home Secretary had listened to the warnings given to him by people who knew what the police wanted. It was always postponement; it could not be considered now; it was not safe to grant them these small things which they asked. The "Daily Telegraph" goes on to say:
    "It is not a matter of pay and allowances, though these figured largely both at London and at Manchester."
    To show the feeling of the Press, this is what the same paper says:
    "Doubtless the Home Secretary, when he speaks on the subject to-day, will give the complete version of what occurred, and state the real explanation of the delay which caused so much exasperation."
    If that is not sympathy from the Press, I do not know what is. The same paper adds:
    "It may also be taken for granted that the police have a right to form their own associations, and that every facility should be afforded them of bringing their grievances before the notice of the authorities, with the assurance that they will receive prompt attention."
    They want an association in order that they may get prompt attention, and not these continual delays, which nearly caused a disaster of no small importance. I do not think the Home Secretary is quite correct when he says that the public lost their confidence, for I have found the confidence of the public in the London police to be very strong, because they have done their duty, and they are a patriotic body of men. No men have enlisted more rapidly, they are ready to do anything for the public, and yet they are put off and put off because they do not strike and do not make a fuss. Two or three of us in the House have raised questions about them, and I suppose we did not make enough fuss about them. If we had made as much fuss as some of the workers who are earning much more, I guarantee to say that they would have been dealt with much earlier. These requests were wiped aside, payment of an extra amount was delayed, the right of conference was delayed—until what happened? I think it was at midnight, on 29th August, that the bomb burst and London was astonished to find that the long-suffering policeman had struck. It was a novelty such as had never been heard of before, that policemen, who were always there when there was any trouble, ready to work almost any hours, and to do any work they were asked to do by the Home Secretary, should strike.

    We must remember that the police of London are under the Home Secretary, and not under a local body. I have noticed that the police in the City generally get 2s. a week more than his police do, and I do not know why that is. The Home Secretary is astonished because the London police have struck. I hoped that we should have some detailed information to-day from the Home Secretary about the strike, but, perhaps wisely, he has cast a veil over the details. We are told that the next day the Home Secretary is left out of it, and the police have dashed off to the Prime Minister. My view is that the Prime Minister has got too much to do in carrying on the War to deal with things which ought to be dealt with by the Home Secretary, and I find that the Prime Minister is reported as having said at Downing Street, directly he saw them, that they should get their money immediately, and not only that, but he said,
    "You shall have collective representations; you shall have committees in divisions to deal with grievances and forward them directly through the executive of the union"—
    more than they asked for before. This is my information. I do not think exactly what the Prime Minister said was ever published, but I have gathered this from various sources.

    I have not got the information. I hoped the Home Secretary would make an apology to the House for this miserable affair and would tell us exactly what had happened. He has not given us the details, and therefore we do not know what they are. That was my information, but if he says that is not so, I am only too glad to be corrected. I have before me the agreement which was signed by him and by James Marston, vice-president of the union, and that agreement says this:

    "Referring to General Orders, page 51 paragraphs 60 and 62, it is notified that there will be no objection to a member of the force joining the National Union of Police and Prison Officials, so long as such union does not claim to interfere with the regulations and discipline of the service or to induce men of the force to withhold their services, but in the event of a breach of this condition members of the force may be called upon to sever their connection with such union."
    That it is quite a different story. To my questions the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible, and that it was not safe to give to a body of men in charge of the safety of London these rights. I venture to say that if he had only listened to our humble applications to him, or if we had been more persistent or made more noise in the House, the policemen would have got what they wanted without striking; but instead of that, the police were driven to take this action, which was very very sad indeed and very serious, and I think it is an absolute disgrace to the management of the Home Office. The Prime Minister seems to have given the police all that they asked for, and all that we have been asking for for the last three years. Then, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Chief Commissioner resigned and was made a baronet, and now a general in the Army remains in his stead. It is not for me to say what will be the future of the London police under a general from the Army, but what I should like to know from the Home Secretary is what is going to happen to the men who were dismissed from the service because they joined the union. I am not referring to men like Sime, because the right hon. Gentleman knows I never supported Sime, or what he asked for. Indeed, I believe I was one of the people that Sime tried to condemn in the London parks as not being strong enough. I have no sympathy with him, but I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to reinstate those men who a year ago joined this association and now are only obeying orders?

    The Commissioner has considered each of these cases, and many of these men have been reinstated.

    May I point out that it is rather hard if he is going to pick out some of these men who are virtuous and—

    Everyone has been reinstated unless there was some special reason, quite apart from the circumstance of the dismissal, why he could not again join—for instance, men in the Army or who for other reasons are unable to be in the force.

    That is the most satisfactory part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am very glad that at last, after we have been pointing these things out to various Home Secretaries, and not the least the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he has not only given way but that he has given way so suddenly. If I may humbly point out to him, I should like to point out what a bad effect that has on people generally. Here is the great Home Department. It waits till the very last moment when the London police, the last men in the world to strike, are driven to strike, in order to get decent pay and decent conditions; and what a very bad example it is for other people all over the country that these men, who are supposed to keep order, and who have kept order in very difficult circumstances, should be treated in this way. I regret very much that this should happen, and I hope that the new Commissioner will be able to carry on the London police with success in every way; but as long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office I hope he will not allow things to drift again in the way in which they were allowed to drift last summer and very nearly brought London into a very unfortunate predicament.

    I confess I have listened with astonishment to some of the remarks addressed to the House by the last speaker, whom we all know as a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. If his arguments were carried to their Logical conclusion there would be no discipline left either in the Metropolitan Police or in any body of police throughout the country. The right hop. Gentleman stated that the grievances of the police, such as they were, were well known in the House and in London. I have been commandant of special constabulary since the breaking out of the War. I am in perpetual communication with the police, both with the heads, the rank and file, and the sergeants, and during the whole of that period, since 1914, I have never once heard, either at Scotland House or in my own Constituency, which is South Kensington, one word of discontent on the part of the police or any request, if they had grievances, that I should assist in redressing them. It is well known in this House that ever since the first Coalition Government was formed the Metropolitan Members of Parliament, who number some sixty-two have thrown aside, in dealing with London questions, all their political views and antipathies, and have acted together whenever necessary as one man to endeavour to remedy any grievances of a reasonable character which have been brought before them. Nobody can suppose for one moment that the Metropolitan Police were unaware of this ready action of the London Members, whose services would have been placed readily at their disposal had they requested them to do so.

    But the Home Secretary—and I am sure I thank him for his lucid and clear statement with regard to what led up to the strike—has not, I think—perhaps he is not aware of it—told the whole truth to the House of Commons. The grievances, or the alleged grievances, of the Metropolitan Police were only used by the executive committee of the Police and Prison Officers' Union as a pretext for a strike at a time most inconvenient to the police authorities and to the Government, and they chose a moment which coincided with the meeting of the Trade Union Congress, at a moment when they knew the Home Secretary, the head of the police, and all the leading members of the Government were away enjoying a necessary and well-earned holiday. It appears that in 1917 the Chief Commissioner of Police received a letter from three hon. Members of this House, namely, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. C. Duncan). That was dated May 22nd, 1917. Sir Edward Henry in due course, on 4th June, sent a reasoned reply to that letter, and I would ask the Home Secretary to be good enough, in the public interest, to allow those two letters to be printed in a White Paper and circulated amongst Members of this House, for it would explain—and, I think, explain in a satisfactory manner—the view which Sir Edward Henry held in what he believed to be the public interest, namely, that in a force like that of the Metropolitan Police recognition of a union, however desirable it might be in other cases, was quite inadmissible, and to that opinion, as expressed in that letter, he steadfastly adhered.

    I think the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman on the Home Secretary are really undeserved. His statement, as far as I followed it, was absolutely clear, and entered fully into details, and all that led up to this unfortunate occurrence, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have ignored the statement of the Home Secretary and he declares, in contradiction to what he said, that there was a demand for more money, the demand had been refused on many occasions, and the Home Secretary was waiting for an actuarial report. The actuarial report, which was very necessary, was in regard to the pensions' scheme for widows. It had nothing to do with the pay of the Metropolitan Police, and the right hon. Gentleman himself settled it in conjunction with the police authorities. Therefore, I think the strictures of the right hon Gentleman were too severe on the Home Secretary, and I do trust that, after what has passed, under the new Commissioner of Police we can never have a recurrence of this terrible and saddening spectacle, and that the police will once more earn the esteem and regard, and almost the affection, of the people of London.

    I am quite sure that everyone will at least agree that the London police have earned the reputation of being a very splendid body of men from the standpoint of public service, courtesy, and so on, and I do not believe there is a single member of the London police who wishes to go on strike. Indeed, let me assure the Home Secretary that the purpose of having an organisation is not to create strikes but to prevent the grievances that lead to strikes, and time and again, where workers are unorganised, where there is no kind of organisation at all, you get more spasmodic and erratic stoppages of work than where there is some responsible organisation through which grievances can be expressed and settled. It is quite clear that for many years the police in London and in other parts of the country felt they had no proper vehicle through which to express opinion about their conditions, about wages, and so on, and it was from that standpoint that the Police and Prison Officers' Union was formed. I believe that it was formed about two years ago. Since that time all sorts of things have happened to that organisation. The offices had been raided once, or more titan once, and men have been dismissed from the service for no reason at all except that they were members of this organisation. Some of those why were taking part in the organisation lost their employment for that reason, and for that reason alone. That will no longer happen now. But why? Why is there a difference now from what there was three months ago? It seems to me that the responsibility for the forcing of men into strikes devolves far more upon the authorities than any other quarter. If the men are taught that this is the only way in which their various discontents will be listened to, then you are teaching them a lesson that they will not readily forget.

    I have only heard about these controversies since this strike actually occurred, because, like many others, I was desirous to know how this thing could have occurred. I believe that to all of us the question of a complete stoppage of the London police was almost inconceivable. It was inconceivable that such a thing could happen, and therefore I have inquired since that time into the facts of the matter as they are represented to me by those who say that they knew what actually took place. First of all, despite the ban of the authorities, organisation did quietly go on, and men did join this organisation. For example, in Manchester—and I am not quite sure the starting-point in this controversy was not Manchester rather than London itself—about 400 men joined this organisation. The Chief Constable in Manchester called all the men before him and addressed them, and demanded to know who were members of this organisation, which anybody now, apparently can join without any censure at all. But the Chief Constable of Manchester held a great meeting of his men, spoke to them, I believe, in rather a peremptory way, and demanded to know who were members of the organisation, and I believe hundreds of them made no bones about the matter that they were members of this particular organisation. That action forced other organised workers to come to the help of the police. The Manchester Trades and Labour Council took up the matter, and entered a protest against the action of the Chief Constable in Manchester.

    What was the next stage in the proceedings? There was, I believe, an acting sergeant in Manchester, who was also an officer of this organisation. What happens? This man is promoted to a special position in the police force, and he hands over, apparently, correspondence that he has received from men in London who are members of the police force. That correspondence, although it is private correspondence, is then sent from Manchester to London, either to Scotland Yard or to the Home Office. One man involved in that correspondence was a constable of the name of Thiel, and when the correspondence reached London he was called before his superiors, who demanded to know if he were a member of this organisation. He was then taken to Scotland Yard. He was left downstairs in Scotland Yard whilst a consultation took place above, and he asked, "What have I done? What crime have I committed? What is the offence that you are charging against me?" He was told that the offence alleged against him was that he was a member of this organisation, which now anybody can join, and on that ground alone he was suspended from the London police force. That was the starting point undoubtedly of the trouble in London. Other matters came along, but the starting point of the trouble was that a man was a member of this organisation, asking, along with others, the right peaceably to express grievances, and because of that he was dismissed from the police force. The Home Secretary has not told us any of that inner history, but I am quite certain that he knows it very well indeed, although his resposibility is a nominal responsibility.

    I do not know all the facts the hon. Gentleman has just stated. I know this man was dismissed.

    I am now giving the actual facts of the case, and the Home Secretary will realise that these facts ought to be presented publicly if a true appreciation of all the circumstances is to be obtained. Apart from this, there were, of course, grievances about wages and about conditions. I think that our payment of the police in London is not a matter about which we can congratulate ourselves very much. They are men who are guarding the whole city, who are maintaining public order in the city, and yet the ordinary pre-war payment of a policeman in London was 30s. a week, rising ultimately, after years of service, to 40s. a week, and since the war there has been, I believe, a war bonus of 12s. 6d. per week granted to the men. The police formulated certain requests. One was, I think, for an increase in wages, not so much a war bonus, but a permanent increase in wages, so long as the cost of living remained high, of 20s. a week. Another was the question of the reinstatement of the man dismissed from the force, and the third point was that the union should be recognised officially.

    5.0 P.M.

    That is perfectly right. In addition to the increase of wages, there was a request also for a bonus of 12½ per cent. The Police Union had ruled that there should be no strike in the police service, and I believe— although the Home Secretary may doubt this—that they desired that genuinely to be observed, although circumstances were such that these rules were suspended. I believe the police do realise that they are in a special position, and that if there is any give and take between the police on the one side, and the authorities on the other, the last thing they would desire would be a stoppage of the labour in the ordinary way and a withholding of their service. The result was that these requests were made, and a letter was sent either to the Home Office or to Sir Edward Henry—I do not know which—about Tuesday of the week in which the trouble broke out, asking that these grievances be considered. No reply to that letter was received in any shape or form. No notice was taken of it. No answer of any kind was returned. I do not think that was a very wise way of dealing with the matter, if the Home Secretary will allow me to say so. What was the result of this? There were not many members, possibly, of the Police Union at that particular time. I do not think a very large number of them were organised. On the Thursday, 1,000 men in London joined this organisation. Next day there were 10,000 members of this organisation, and I am told that there are now throughout the country over 41,000 members of this organisation. That is the whole story. Once you try to suppress something; when you try to persecute people and dismiss them from the service, the one sure result that you will build up is that you have persecuted or tried to suppress! There is now a membership of over 41,000. No answer of any kind was received to the letter, and it had been stated to the authorities that the men would expect some answer to the letter by Thursday night, I think. No answer was returned. On Friday, to everybody's amazement, the trouble began in London. The men left from Kings Cross Road, Grays Inn Road, Bow Street, Hyde Park, and so on, and by ten o'clock on Saturday about 12,000 London police were out. Does the Home Secretary wish us to believe that that result could have come about except there was a real and serious feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction amongst these men? They are not wild men. They are not men holding extreme opinions. They are far from that. If 12,000 come out under these conditions it shows that there is something wrong, and that there was in this case a lack of contact and some lack of sympathy between the management of this great body of men; something wrong, or what happened would not have happened at all. I am not now using this opportunity to attack at all the Home Secretary. I think the Home Secretary was unfairly attacked in some newspapers. I think they used this particular incident in order to carry out a vendetta against him, started for other reasons than the police trouble. But I am now trying to explain what I understand to be the facts of the case. I am not putting this case forward for the purpose of some personal attack or personal vendetta.

    The next stage, after all this actually occurred, was that it was given to General Smuts to meet representatives from these men who had stopped work. Still the point was that the executive members, and those who were officials of the organisation, would not be received, but two men from each division would be received by General Smuts. That proposal was refused, and it was asked that the men who knew the circumstances and enjoyed the confidence of the men should be the spokesmen in regard to their grievances. Various things followed, and the extraordinary spectacle, for London, was witnessed of an army of about 6,000 policemen marching to Tower Hill. On that day, too, the detectives, members of the Criminal Investigation Department, to the number of about 700, also came out with the others. Apparently, from this stage of resisting everything, we arrive at the stage of practically a complete collapse. The Prime Minister calls for whom? For the members of the executive, for the men who had been banned and refused to be heard only a few hours before. The Prime Minister not only conceded the terms, but he conceded better terms than those that were contemplated by the authorities. Possibly owing to a slight inaccuracy, one of those little inaccuracies which sometimes characterise the Prime Minister, I am not sure that he did not grant the men 5s. more than was intended in the concession put forward by the authorities themselves.

    That is not right. What happened was that the right hon. Gentleman transferred 5s. from the bonus to the pay; the amount was not altered.

    The men would far rather have the extra pay than 5s. war bonus, and the Prime Minister did rather give them something more than was in- tended. What is the point emerging from all this? Because all this unfortunately happened the men got concessions in regard to pay, generous concessions, and the man Thiel, who was banned and black listed, was taken back to work. There was no longer any veto on men belonging to the union as such, no longer any bar on the men who belonged to the organisation, and, lastly, there is a board. I do not know whether this board is on the lines of the Whitley Report, but some kind of a board is going to be set up, and if the men so desire they can elect their own officers, and there is no bar as to the men who can be elected to represent the men upon that board, provided they are in the service The mere fact that the men elect the officers of the organisation will not in any way debar the man elected from serving on the board, and so representing the men. Therefore all these points have boon conceded. I only want to say this in conclusion: Could not something of this have been done by wise concessions without the experience through which London passed? Why did we require this experience to get these things done? What is the lesson that you leave in the minds of the people? All this was wrong before the strike took place, and it has all been changed since the strike, and it is no longer wrong at all to be a member of an organisation. The lesson is that the most foolish thing that any Government can do is to refuse wise action up to the point that you drive men into taking some extreme course, and then almost going down on your hands and knees to them to the point of conceding anything and every- thing they ask. Yon are teaching the men the one thing—that physical force is necessary to force you to do this, that, or the other! Surely that is not wise from the standpoint of a great responsible organisation like the police force! I am sure of this, that if there is a spirit of give-and-take as between the authorities and the rank and file of the police force that the experience we have had will not occur again. There may be a spirit of good will and full recognition—for I am sure the Home Secretary does recognise the splendid services that these men have rendered. If that is done, I believe that this lesson will not have been learned in vain.

    I do not propose to discuss the whole question this afternoon, because I want to raise one specific point which has arisen out of this police strike. At the same time may I say that everybody who knows the police of London knows with what reluctance the men took the step they did take. Everybody who reads the "Police Review"—which is sometimes sent to Members of this House—must recognise the reasonableness of the demand put forward, and the reasonable way in which it was put forward, and realise that only the constant irritation arising out of the long delay and deferred hope could possibly have brought about a spectacle which in London ought not to have taken place. Arising out of the strike, a day or two ago I put a question to the Home Secretary about a matter which came up in my Constituency and in which one of my Constituents was interested. I put this question to the Home Secretary:

    "Whether any provision has been or will be made to replace in whole or in part losses proved to have been inflicted on private citizens through burglary in the absence of police during the strike?"
    As drafted, I had another question added to that, in which I desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman
    "If in any way he considers it fair that individuals who pay rates for and are entitled to police protection, for which the authorities are responsible, are to be made to bear the whole of the loss due to such a state of affairs?"
    The question, I suppose, in its complete form did not reach the right hon. Gentleman, the second portion of it being struck out either by the Clerks at the Table or Mr. Speaker. I am sorry at the moment I am not addressing Mr. Speaker, for I wanted to make a strong protest against that second part of the question being struck out. It seems to me that our opportunities in this House for criticising Ministers and getting answers from them are limited enough in all conscience, and if we are not able to ask a Minister, by means of a question, whether he is in sympathy with the policy of the Department which he is carrying out or has declined to alter that policy, I think it is time we made our protest against such limitation of our liberties!

    I want to put the point. The police authorities are supposed to provide protection for the property of the citizens of the country. The citizens are rated and taxed in order that they may be so provided. Here is an occasion on which, in consequence of a dispute between the authorities and their employés, the protection is not accorded which in normal times would be accorded, and men have lost their property. In the particular case to which I desire to refer the shopkeeper's shop was immediately under a public light, was at the meeting-place of two beats, I think, and was never, in normal times, out of sight of a policeman for more than five minutes or so during day or night. On this occasion he had no protection whatever. Advantage was taken of the fact for someone to break into the shop and steal about £200 worth of goods. On his pressing a request for a consideration of the circumstances, and that the loss should at any rate be made good, or partly made good, he was informed that no allowance whatever could be made. The right hon. Gentleman answers my question in the negative. This is a great wrong to the individual citizen. Why should any individual have to bear this loss? It may be said that he ought to have been insured. Why should an insurance company bear this loss? The conditions were abnormal and were such that the private citizen had no control over them. Because the police authorities and their men could not settle their differences this man has to suffer.

    I desire to ask whether, in burglaries which take place under these abnormal conditions, the matter is to be so treated that the individual suffers the whole loss, or whether the Home Secretary will endeavour to make some provision whereby out of public funds the whole of the citizens should join in bearing, at all events, a portion of the loss inflicted on the individual? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the reasonableness of my request. In normal times a man can be insured against burglars, for then only occasionally are the companies called upon to pay; but there was an epidemic here on the withdrawal of the police protection, which epidemic was due to the inability of the right hon. Gentleman and his subordinates to settle their differences with the police. The fact of such failure to settle is that certain individuals are called upon to bear a loss which to some of them might be ruinous, which to most of them is serious, and which would not be serious if public funds could be provided whereby at any rate a portion of the loss might be met. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will, when replying on this matter, give me a reply—not a direct negative such as he gave me the other day, but something a little more sympathetic to suffering citizens who did nothing to bring this about.

    The occasion of a Supplementary Estimate does not provide the House of Commons, the general public, the ratepayers, or the police themselves such a full and free opportunity for discussing the circumstances which led up to this police strike, and many things that will arise from it, as one would wish such an occasion as this to give, and I do not propose, on the rather narrow Supplementary Estimate, to go into the comparatively small matters, but vital to the constables, and interesting though they have been, that have been raised by the previous speakers. I only rise now to tell the Home Secretary, in a way perhaps to give him a mild warning, that on some other occasion, and not very late, I intend to raise and challenge the whole management and control of the London Police Force by the Home Office, Scotland Yard, the Chief Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners, and the five Chief Constables (on behalf of the ratepayers of London, who provide the chief portion of the maintenance) who were mainly responsible for the unfortunate police strike which took place on the 29th August. It is a regretable occurrence that we should have had the Home Office, Scotland Yard, and the various officers I have named so destitute of knowledge, so ignorant of information as not to be in a position to know, what lots of people suspected and many people did know before the actual strike took place, that there was a probability of the London police expressing their dissatisfaction with their treatment by drastic and very serious action, culminating in a strike. Into these matters I intend to go at considerable length, not so much in the interests of the constables, or even of the Home Office or of Scotland Yard, as on behalf of the ratepayers of London, who were not consulted by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary or the Chief Commissioner before sums of money were given to the constables that involved London ratepayers in an addition of anything from 4d. to 6d. in the £1 on their rates or taxes without their being either directly consulted or in any way asked as to whether the 4d. should be 5d. or the 5d. 6d.; but behind the back of the London ratepayers, who contribute a considerable amount of the money necessary to grant these increases.

    This was in a holiday of Parliament, without Parliament being consulted, behind the backs of the local authorities, the ratepayers and the House itself. We are now confronted, not for the first time, with the disability there is in having a police force not in the hands of the municipal authorities in the Metropolis of the British Empire. The City of London, an ancient institution, conservative in its traditions, reactionary in its view, manages its police force in a more excellent way. It has a Watch Committee, and there are the members of the Common Council of the City Corporation who are really and daily in communication with the way in which the City Police, some 1,500 in number, do their duty. I am convinced that, whatever the result of the strike may be, whatever lessons may be deducible from it, we shall never have a permanently contented police force in the Metropolis until the principle of the municipal administration and control of the police force which applies in the City is also applied, not only to the county council area, but to what is known as the postal area and the larger police area over which the Home Office has control of the police. The question that has been raised this afternoon is really a question that did not bring about the strike to the extent that has been alleged. It was not wages only, it was not delay, it was not the insolence of office and the Yard's delay that provoked this dispute. Underlying wages, underlying delay in answering letters, underlying the ignoring of the representations of the men there are other grievances that I do not intend, and on this Supplementary Estimate would not be permitted, to raise. There are the questions of status, of promotion, of the right of a police constable to look forward to joining the ranks as a recruit and then working himself up from a constable to a sergeant, inspector, station inspector, chief inspector, superintendent, chief constable, and even to the high office of the Commissioner itself. It is questions like this that affect the psychology of the London police force more than the difference between a 6s., 8s., 10s., or 12s bonus, and I intend, on the occasion of which I have given notice, to raise the broader, the wider, municipal and real grievance that all ranks of the police have in the present management of the Metropolitan Police by a body that is quasi-Imperial.

    When it wants money, it comes to the House of Commons, and when the House of Commons does not give it enough it falls back on the ratepayers, who have no voice, part or lot in determining the amount of money they may have to pay, or how the men shall be treated who receive their money. In a word, I propose to raise the broader and higher question of the municipal control of London police through the lack of which you had your strike, and through the lack of which you will continue to have small grievances, petty persecutions, favouritism, domination of certain officers by certain other officers, all resulting in dissatisfaction spreading through a body that was regarded, up to 29th August, 1918, as a model and exemplar, as it was, for the police force of the whole of the world. The police constables, the sergeants, the inspectors, the men at the criminal investigation branch of Scotland Yard, almost in the twinkling of an eye resorted to a manifestation of indignation unequalled, not only in the history of police forces, but unequalled, in my judgment, in the history of modern labour movements. There must be some deep underlying reason or reasons for such a manifestation, and, what is more, this manifestation expressed itself in the throes of the greatest war of all time. Supposing this dispute had happened in Berlin? What would the "Times" have said, which, oddly enough—not that I attach any importance to what the "Times" does in these matters—took the side of the striking police constables against the Home Secretary and Chief Commissioner, but rather more against the Home Secretary, for reasons which I do not intend to go into, but which every gentleman can understand? It is a serious thing that in the throes of the greatest war of all time you have 22,000 men at least joined by another 1,500 men of the City Corporation Police, both of them combined equal to the total number of British troops that Wellington had under him to defeat Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo 103 years ago.

    Twenty-four thousand men who were supposed to be the guardians of law and order, and the pink of official propriety and restraint, suddenly leave their beats. They are not to be found in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, nor in nor outside Buckingham Palace. Mr. Home Secretary! Scotland Yard! It was not the difference between what you were prepared to give them in wages and what they demanded that made the difference. There is no connection between the presentation of the grievances of the London police as suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Kensington (Lord C. Hamilton) and the meeting of the Trade Union Congress somewhere in the north of England at the same time. There was no conspiracy, there was no German money, there was no reason why this wonderful manifestation should occur, but it did take place, and I propose on a more proper occasion to give some reasons, to dilate upon the underlying principles that should govern the administration of the Metropolitan Police, which, under the narrow rules of the Chair, on this particular Vote I should be unable to go into.

    I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is bringing in all these points, which more than once he has informed me he knows to be out of order.

    Nothing confirms my prescience in not raising the broader points than when you do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what I knew you would do, pull me up when I get to the verge of what might have been out of order if I had not suspected what your ruling was going to be. You, having given your ruling, remind me of the fact, and I am going to conclude, you having called me very properly to the proper subject of this Supplementary Estimate, by telling the Home Secretary this, that this half-and-half union that he has given the men, this association, this power to confer and power to meet under limited and restricted conditions will not satisfy the men. It will not bring the harmony and peace that ought to prevail in the Metropolitan Police Force. You will either have to do less or you will have to do more, and unless Scotland Yard and the Home Office combined make up their mind to give to the police more than what the Home Office have conceded you are going to have a renewal of the trouble. What is more, unless the Home Secretary takes my warning in the friendly way in which I give it, there are other forces upon whom the police force may have to rely if serious trouble occurs who might pick up the infection that the London police got from the Manchester police, which the City picked up from the Metropolitan police and which, if the four forces combined were to express their indignation at the action of Scotland Yard and the Home Office, as they probably will, you may be confronted with a renewal of the police strike, plus others with them, which all of us would deplore and regret. I respectfully suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should call as soon as possible a superintendents' meeting some Wednesday afternoon at Scotland Yard, and that he should not attach too much importance to what the five chief constables say; and, above all, I appeal to him to realise that the police are a civilian force that should be administered in a judicial way by men who are not dominated either by military or naval ideas as to what a police force should submit to. The policeman is only a uniformed civilian and he ought to have civilian heads.

    My final suggestion is that when you appoint Chief Commissioners you should see that you do not always go to India for some sun-baked Indian official, and in the case of your five chief constables let them come from the ranks of your promoted inspectors or your promoted superintendents. If you really want to know how to manage a civilian police force without provoking them to strike then you must pick up some of the temper, the atmosphere, the knowledge, traditions, and experience that during the centuries the City of London by its Watch Committee and its municipally controlled police has secured by civilian methods, judicial temper and municipal control of a civilian force, for in this way they have produced unmistakeably the finest police force in the world, which is a model and exerepla to all the police forces that I have seen in any country that I have ever visited. For reasons that I do not want to hamper the Government and that I do not want to throw any difficulty in the way of the Home Secretary, who during this War has had tremendous duties thrust upon him, who has had an awful responsibility and great liabilities, and who in the discharge of those duties has received the most loathsome and contemptible criticism from certain newspapers sufficient to make any man nervous, I ask him not to attach too much importance to things that he ought to be entirely free from in carrying out those great duties which have been imposed upon the Home Secretary.

    My last word to the right hon. Gentleman, and I have always been friendly to him in my personal and official relationship with him, is that I warn him that he has not settled the police grievance. He has not removed the probability of another perhaps imminent police strike. He has not settled the thing by coming down to this House in that persuasive, ingenious, ministerial way with which up to now he has tided over nearly all his difficulties. If another police strike takes place through not accepting the advice and suggestions made this afternoon, and greater difficulties than a police strike should occur, then I shall have it off my conscience that I did my best as a London Member of Parliament to tell the Home Secretary and Scotland Yard that they have not been as fair, as clear, as honest, and as direct with the police constables as for the moment the police constables thought they were in the way they have been treated, and there is a suspicion rankling in the minds of the police constables now that, wages, bonus, widows' pensions apart, what matters to them most is the right to have a union and an organisation, as other sections of workmen have.

    If you think the policeman should be differently treated to other workmen, tell him boldly and frankly, like you tell the soldier and the sailor—stand upon your responsibility, and do not budge from it. Do not lead the police to believe that they have the right of conference and accessibility to the chief, and so forth, all of which is frittered away and qualified as clever lawyers, especially if they are Celtic lawyers, know how to meet innocent constables when confronted with a difficulty. You can try that on the London police once, but not a second time. I address this warning to the Home Secretary, and I tell him if it happens a second time, the third time will not only be serious for the police force as an organised body, but it will be more serious for London, and it will be tragically serious for the House of Commons, who nominally are responsible for the administration of the police, and it is that nominal responsibility that has confronted us with nine-tenths of the difficulty. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the time has arrived, and the next London County Council will assist him to make up his mind, for him to decide whether or not he shall have a 2,000 or 3,000 Imperial Police Force for Government buildings, and that the remainder of the police necessary, numbering from 18,000 to 20,000, shall be, as in the City of London, a municipally controlled police under the local authority, who pay for their maintenance, who ought to have a Watch Committee to look after the administration and the expenditure, and if that is not done trouble will inevitably ensue.

    I hope that the Home Secretary is going to take to heart the very striking speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns). He has spoken very bravely and clearly what I have felt. He has spoken what many others have been feeling, and what we believe the Home Secretary must take to heart. We can sum up the right hon. Gentleman's speech which has just been delivered with the remark that there is still a difficulty and danger with the Metropolitan Police, because they have not been dealt with as fairly, as clearly as directly and honestly as they ought to nave been. During my association with London and public affairs during the last twenty or thirty years I have constantly known policemen well. I have talked with them and understood their point of view. I may say that I was not a bit surprised at the police strike, and why the Home Secretary should have told us this afternoon that he was surprised I cannot say. If he really was surprised, then it must have been because he was too occupied with other work to be able to understand the position, and he was too ill-informed by his officials, who ought to have known and who ought to have told the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of this he was misled by them, with the result that he has been led into an unfortunate position. In my opinion the police strike might have been averted if the men in control of the Metropolitan Police Force had been from the start men who had real sympathy, and were in touch with the constables and the sergeants. If you look through the list of the officials of the Metropolitan Police Force you will see titled men, men with C.B., C.V.O., O.B.E., and other decorations after their names, and you have the officials mainly from a class and type who cannot command the sympathy of the men, My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea says that this is continuing, and unless it is altered there will be difficulties and dangers ahead.

    I am going to ask one or two questions. In his treatment of this Vote the right hon. Gentleman so exclusively dealt with the police strike that he has not explained the figures. Will he please give us a little information about this enormous sum of £1,200,000. The original estimate was only £108,000, and the sum now required is nearly ten times as much. Does all that go to the Metropolitan Police? How much of it actually goes to them and how much to the other police authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what I think there is certainly a confusion in the minds of the public about, and that is, will this increase of pay for the Metropolitan Police mean any difference in the police rate? I understand that will not be so, but a certain number of ratepayers think that somehow sooner or later there must be a large increase in the police rate. Another point which he ought to make clear is, what is the total cost of the Metropolitan Police to the taxpayers? How much does the taxpayer contribute to keep up the Metropolitan Police? How much of the increased charge upon the taxpayer is due to the increase in pay arising out of the strike, and how much of this amount will go to other parts of the country?

    I do not in the least complain of the way in which this matter has been dealt with. With regard to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Wiles), who is 30 closely identified with the Police Union—

    —who so often voices the views of the Police Union, I will not deal with his speech so far as it was directed to criticism of myself, because I do not want to spend time on that particular topic, but I will deal with his main point. He says that we were warned by the Police Union.

    I do not think that I said the Police Union. I said that you were warned by Members of Parliament, and by a letter from the Editor of the "Police Review." I do not think that I mentioned the Police Union at all. I must protest. I have no connection with the union. I have nothing whatever to do with it.

    The right hon. Gentleman said that I was warned first by a letter from the Police Union.

    I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that I received a letter from the executive of the Police Union. If I misunderstood him I am sorry.

    I only want to make it clear. I said you were warned by letter from the "Police Review."

    And by a question by himself in the House of Commons. Although we knew from those sources that there was a desire to have what is called a right to associate, we did not receive from those sources or any other source any application for further pay. It is that point that I wanted to make clear to the House.

    No, it was after February. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question on 24th July and another in August about pay.

    I mentioned that myself. I said that we had no application from the police for an increase of pay, and, when the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about pay, I told him what was true, that the Commissioner at the moment was going into the question and was framing a scheme. I have made my point good that we had no application for an increase of pay either from the Police Union or the men between December and the day before the strike. The right hon Gentleman added that the police had the sympathy of the public. I think they had. They had a good deal of sympathy from the public and the Press, but I believe that sympathy was given because the public and the Press were told that the men had been asking for further pay and had been refused or had received no answer. I believe that the sympathy was given under that misapprehension. I feel strongly that the sympathy was for the men in their wish for further pay, and not with them in the action that they took. That was the public view, or at all events the view of the great majority.

    The Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington (Lord G. Hamilton) asked me whether I would make public the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) and the Chief Commissioner of Police. If the late Commissioner desires it, I will with pleasure send his letter to the Press. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor) raised a point as to the payment of compensation to those whose property suffered at the time of the strike. He really cannot expect the Government to pay compensation in those cases. I regret as much as anybody the loss which these people have suffered, but it is to the authors of the strike that they must apply. They cannot possibly expect us to provide compensation for the loss.

    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) treated the subject, if I may say so, in a way which I very much appreciated, and I want to give him a perfectly frank and clear answer. The point he raised was that these men ought to have a right to associate for the purpose of bringing their grievances before the authorities, and that the mistake that was made throughout was that no such right was given. I say, frankly, that is the view taken by the present Chief Commissioner of Police, and I have entirely accepted the recommendation that he has made. We have given the men a double right. We have given them the right to form a body of their own consisting entirely of members of the force elected by ballot by the members of the force. That is the new representative body of the Metropolitan Police. That body has already been elected. It includes, I believe, many members of the Police Union, against whom no kind of ban exists. They have met and they have already had a conference with the Commissioner. I say, most emphatically, that we desire in every way to give that body a fair chance. We are ready to listen to anything that they may have to say, and to endeavour to meet reasonably any representations that they may make. We have not the least desire to hamper or minimise or interfere with the work of that body. The second point we have conceded, at the desire of the Commissioner, is that the men shall be entitled to join any lawful body which they may wish to join, including a Police Union. We do not desire to prevent or hamper them from becoming members of that body. The only condition we make is that neither that body nor any other to which they may belong shall interfere with the discipline of the force or endeavour to induce men to leave their duty. I am sure my hon. Friend in his heart will agree that is a reasonable view to take. I believe that he and others who are associated with the trade union movement will support us in that attitude.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), in his very interesting speech, to every word of which I listened with attention, raised another point. He said that the men ought to have a chance of rising, if need be, to the top of the tree. I sympathise with that view to a great extent. It is a great incentive to any man in any position to see before him the chance of rising by steps to a high position in the career which he has chosen. I think that appeals as much to a policeman as to any man in any walk of life. It is a mere instance, but I may mention as affording evidence that others take the same view: That the only appointment of a chief constable made by the present Commissioner has been the appointmnet of a very much esteemed member of the force, who began as a constable and who has risen rank by rank to the post of superintendent, and who has now become a chief constable. It would not be right for me to go into the wider question which my right hon. Friend raised, as to whether the strike might have been avoided if the police had been under some other jurisdiction. He instanced the City of London Police organisation as the kind of thing that might have saved us this controversy. I have great respect for the authorities of the City of London, but I must point out that the City of London Police joined in the strike, so that the admirable constitution of the police authorities in the City of London did not protect their force against the strike. I assure my right hon. Friend that I have listened to his warning, but I am not quite sure what more he asks me to do to-day. When he comes to raise his wider question, if I am here to listen to him, I am sure that we shall all consider with an open mind what he has to say on the subject. I earnestly hope, after the events which have happened, that we are beginning a new era for our London police. We wish to work and to pull together, and I hope that there will be no more controversy between the police authorities and those whom they control, but that we shall each and all of us set out to do the best we can to bring harmony into the ranks of the force. I must answer a question of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), so far as I have the figures. I am afraid I cannot give him to-day either the total sum which is paid by the taxpayer towards the Metropolitan Police or the proportion of the sum included in this Vote which will go to that force. I have the figures at the Home Office, and I will send them to him to-morrow.

    I think they ought to be published, and I will ask for them when we come to the Report stage.

    Would it not be better if these figures both with regard to the county council area and wider police area were made available in a short White Paper, circulated with the Votes? A few lines would do it.

    6.0 P.M.

    I will see whether that can be done. The figures are very few. This Vote is not only for the Metropolitan Police, but for the police throughout the country. It arose in this way. As soon as these troubles were over, we saw that there would be a movement throughout the country for an increase in police pay. I thought that there would be good ground in some places for such an increase. Accordingly, I represented to the Treasury that, instead of contributing one-half the pay and clothing of the police, they should contribute half the total expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer after consideration, agreed to that view, and this sum represents in substance, with certain additions, the difference between the Grant for pay and clothing and half the total expenditure. The result is that in London there will, I think, be no increase of the rate, and I hope in other places also the new Grant by the Treasury may cover the additional expense.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Police (Scotland)

    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    "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."

    Perhaps it would be convenient that I should explain the circumstances under which Parliamentary sanction is sought for this Vote. The total amount of the Grant out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account to the Scottish police for its pay and clothing at present is £180,000, and the total annual Grant for pensions at present is £40,000. The first of these Grants represents, today, only about a third of the actual expenditure—only about 6s. in the £—instead of representing, as it did in 1898, when it was fixed, 10s. in the £. The second Grant represents, I am informed, about 10s. in the £. There has been no addition since 1898, but there has been a constand demand in Scotland to bring up the Grant to a contribution of a half, and that question has been constantly brought before successive Secretaries for Scotland both by the Convention of Royal Boroughs and by the County Councils Asociation. The matter was under consideration and was realty in course of adjustment in the Finance Bill of 1914, when the War intervened and it was found impossible to reach the adjustment which had been anticipated. There has been a great increase in police work during the War. New duties have been imposed upon the police rather of an Imperial than of a local character. Hundreds of circulars have gone out from the Scottish Office alone to the police force, to say nothing of circulars which have gone out from other Departments in connection with war work. There has been, of course, a great increase in the cost of living, and there has been a great rise in wages given in various other employments, and so it seemed reasonable and legitimate that the demand which had been so long pressed by the Scottish police should be gratified.

    It was accordingly my duty to approach the Treasury in the matter, and I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the response which my request received there. The net result of the negotiations between the Treasury and my Department was the adjustment of the Grant for which Parliamentary sanction is now sought. The conduct of the Scottish police in war-time has really been beyond all praise, and has, indeed, received praise from every quarter. About 2,000 members of the force, which totals 6,000, have actually enlisted and are serving to-day in His Majesty's Forces. The depleted force which has been left behind is carrying on in the most excellent way under circumstances of great difficulty and performing duties of considerable complexity which are increased by reason of war conditions. I do not want to forget either, when speaking of the police, the services which have been rendered by the special constabulary in Scotland, who have afforded most efficient help to the regular force at a time when it was much required. The increased contribution which the Government has made towards the police force involves a correlative duty upon local authorities to see that the police in the districts receive proper pay, and I trust that the police force will receive due consideration from the authorities in the light of this increased Grant. I have this week sent out a circular to all the police authorities in Scotland suggesting material increases in the pay of the police, such as are already given, or proposed to be given, in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, Lanarkshire, and other parts of Scotland. In these circumstances, I think the Committee will probably have no difficulty in agreeing that the Grant for which sanction is sought is a reasonable and a proper one.

    I am sure there is no Scottish Member who will not have hoard with great satisfaction the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Ever since the Act of 1889 was passed we have had this difficulty about the police Grant in Scotland, and though, perhaps, at one time there was no real claim on the Treasury to grant this 50 per cent., undoubtedly circumstances have so greatly changed since that the claim has been made more insistently than ever each year, and at last we are able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily on the success which has attended the effort in his case. The Grant is, of course, a very large one, but the obligations which are placed on the local authorities by the new scale of pay are very considerable, and I do not suppose there will be any actual saving of money in that way at all, but, of course, it is an enormous advantage that they should have this 50 per cent. granted. I do not presume it will ever be altered again.

    I should like to join in expressing congratulation to my right hon. Friend on remedying this long-standing grievance. Those who have had to face our friends in our constituencies year after year felt this to be a very great grievance to the police, and certainly their loyal-hearted work in every way during the War, not only in enlisting but in doing the extra work thrown upon them in such an admirable way, would well entitle them to the consideration which has at last been bestowed upon them.

    In adding my congratulations to those of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, I hope all local authorities in Scotland to whom the remark applies will lay to heart the hint which they have just received from the Secretary for Scotland as regards the rectification in their pay, and that they will not be lacking in courage, but will take the necessary steps. A great deal lies in their hands.

    No Scottish Member would dream of calling in question the advisability of passing this Resolution. The Scottish police are well worthy of advancement. The conduct that has characterised them, with depleted numbers during the War, has been beyond all praise. I did not quite grasp the exact use to which this £200,000 is to be put. I understand this now brings up the sum which comes from the State to the police of Scotland to half of their cost. That remedies a very long standing grievance which Scotland has suffered as compared with England, because the sum which was granted by the State to the Scottish police has fallen below the half, which was the original, whereas the English police have all through retained 50 per cent. of the whole. The items which the State pays for have grown in Scotland and have not so grown in England. As far as I understand, this sum is passed now in order to remedy that grievance and to bring the State's contribution to the total expenditure of the police up to a half. But at the same time my right hon. Friend indicated that he had sent out a circular to local authorities advising them to raise the pay of all the police throughout Scotland. That is a very wise suggestion. But little of this £200,000 will go to the raised pay. Part will necessarily go to the raised pay, but there will remain a balance which will be put on the ratepayers if the pay of the police is raised. We have just learned from the Home Secretary that he is passing the immense sum of £1,200,000 for England and Wales for the same purpose, and there will be nothing put upon the rates. If my inference is right that there will be something put on the rates for this raised pay in Scotland and nothing in England and Wales, it is another injustice to Scotland. It was my right hon. Friend's duty to see that Scotland should not have suffered under this disadvantage as compared with other parts of the Realm. I have no doubt if it is so he will see it remedied before the matter leaves the House. In any case, I will, on the Report stage, bring the matter up again, so that our nation and the police of Scotland, of whom we think so highly, and the ratepayers shall not be put under this disadvantage as compared with other parts of the Kingdom.

    I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. According to my information local authorities in Scotland and in England are in precisely the same position. Half the cost is contributed from the rates.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Expenses Under The Representation Of The People Act

    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    "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."

    On this Vote I have no doubt several questions will be raised with reference to the preparation of the register, and also as to the arrangements which will have to be made in the event of a General Election occurring during the War. I wish to ask the attention of the Committee to the methods which will be adopted in order to enable sailors and soldiers to exercise their vote and to obtain the information necessary at every election in order to enable them to exercise it with full knowledge of the issues at stake. I do not know how many naval and military voters there are, but there is no doubt the number is very large. In London there are no fewer than 430,000 on the absent voters' list, and as London has about one-eighth or one-ninth of the population of the United Kingdom, that would mean between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 electors who will come under whatever provisions are made to enable soldiers and sailors to vote. It is important that the President of the Local Government Board, who is as anxious as any of us that the fullest opportunity shall be secured for sailors and soldiers, should tell us pretty clearly, if he possibly can, or at any rate before any election takes place, what are the arrangements which it is proposed to make. I had the honour of serving on Mr. Speaker's Conference, and the hon. Member for Devizes and another hon. Member co-operated with me in order to elaborate a system whereby we thought the soldiers and sailors would be enabled to record their votes. The actual dates were not actually settled by the Conference, but they were settled on the floor of the House. I think it is perfectly clear that if the statutory dates are strictly adhered to it will be almost impossible for the great mass of sailors and soldiers to record their votes properly at this election. They are all of them practically on what is called the absent voters' list. On these lists the men have against their names a description entered in the third column, but that description or address is in the great majority of cases quite insufficient. I am informed by someone who has gone carefully into this matter, and who knows a great deal about the system on which the sailors and soldiers are enumerated or defined by their regiment and regimental number, that 80 per cent. of these entries are such that if a letter were simply addressed to the man by that description it would not reach him. In most cases the description is simply the regiment and number and the position and rank. In some cases it extends to the battalion, but in very many cases that is not given. Moreover, this description is a description which was obtained in the month of June. Since then, as the Committee is well aware, the changes have been innumerable. There have been deaths and discharges, and it will be very difficult to find a discharged soldier. There have also been a very large number of transfers from one regiment to another.

    I think my right hon. Friend will admit, from his investigations on the subject, that the whole of this absent voters' list will have to undergo a process of correction, and an extremely detailed correction, before it is possible either to send the ballot papers to the naval and military voters or to give any information to the candidates as to how they are to approach these electors. These corrections will have to be made, and they will have to be made at a date not very long before the polling day. Changes are taking place in the course of this War so continuously and so rapidly that it is necessary to wait until the latest possible moment before the corrections are made in the addresses on this list. On the other hand, it is most important that these corrections should be made in time not only for the returning officer to make use of them, but to make use of them satisfactorily when he sends out the ballot paper—I think that is two days after the nomination—and also in time for the candidates themselves to be able to use this information and have it at their disposal and use it early enough to allow of the Post Office ensuring delivery of any letters sent by them to the electors.

    The statutory time at the disposal of the authorities is, I believe, quite inadequate. If the Royal Proclamation was made, say, on the 1st of the month, the 1st November or the 1st December, the date of nomination would be the 8th, and the date of the polling would be the 17th. The ballot papers have to be sent out two days after the date of nomination, and therefore, in order to ensure that the soldiers and sailors will have the election addresses sent to them before they have to vote on their ballot papers, there is only, so far as the statutory dates are concerned, about ten days between the Proclamation and the date at which these papers must be delivered to the electors. I believe, and my right hon. Friend will admit, that these dates are quite inadequate. We have to remember that the lists have to be corrected. They have then to be sent to the returning officer and the returning officer has to see that the lists are put in such a form that they can be used; and I submit that it ought to be his duty also to see that they are put into such a form that they can be used effectually by the agents of the candidates in sending out the addresses. I submit that at least a week ought to elapse between the time when the returning officer has these lists presented to him, and a week earlier than that ought to be allowed for the candidates to have the information provided for them. Therefore my calculations show that if the sailors and soldiers are to be ensured delivery of the election addresses of candidates before they have to vote, the correct lists ought to be in the hands of the candidates at least one full month before the polling day. I think that in itself is allowing the very smallest period that is compatible not only with the ordinary necessities of the case, but certainly with the extraordinary position in regard to printing and labour that exists at the present moment.

    I should like to say something in regard to the actual process of correcting the lists. I think the House ought to know exactly how far the process of correcting these lists, to make them really useful, will be effective. The present position is, as I understand it, that no one knows the real place at which a soldier is except the record office. There are fifty or sixty record offices in the country, and each record office deals with certain books of regiments. The returning officers will have to send to these record offices their lists of absent voters. The number in my Constituency is about 7,000, and in other constituencies there may be even more. They will have to distribute these lists among the fifty or sixty record offices. Therefore the record offices will be receiving batches of papers, either cards or letters, for correction from 500 or 600 different constituencies. That thing in itself will be a very considerable task, and I do not know how long the record offices are going to take in order to secure that these corrections are really satisfactory. We assume that they can give satisfactory corrections in regard to all the soldiers who have remained in their regiments and whose situation is known to them, but there will be a very large number of men who will have been transferred from one regiment to another or discharged, and the record office to whom the request comes in the first instance will not be in a position to give full information about the man without further inquiry. It will probably be necessary for some other steps to be taken by the record office in order to trace a man through one, two, or three transfers, or who perhaps is at home discharged. These cases will undoubtedly be very numerous, and it must be perfectly evident to the Committee that it will take some days of investigation in order to ensure that the whole lists are correct.

    I am afraid they will never be entirely correct. At the same time, they can be made more correct if sufficient time is allowed. The reason for my raising this question is to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what is the time that is going to be allowed for these steps to be taken, without which it is perfectly clear that the great majority of sailors and soldiers will find that they have not got their votes. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is only too anxious to do justice to this very difficult problem. At the same time, if by any chance an election came suddenly upon us, I think what I have said has shown that the present arrangements would undoubtedly result in the disfranchisement of a great number of sailors and soldiers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us such full information that we shall not only be satisfied that our soldiers and sailors shall have the rights which Parliament has given them, but that our own agents will be able to see, when they read what he says, how their efforts should be directed in order to ensure that the voters will receive the addresses from candidates in proper time, so that they will be able, really, to appreciate their views.

    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras is much concerned with the date, which he thinks may require some alteration, at which election addresses should reach absent voters. I am still more anxious as to the date after the actual polling at which these absent votes should be counted. The period at present, I think, is eight days, but the question is whether that is sufficiently long. When the Speaker's Conference met and the proposal came before the House with regard to absent voters, the opinion here spread very rapidly that the proposals in reference to absent voters were not sufficient to cover the whole question of the Army, Navy, and Mercantile Marine, voting now under war conditions, and therefore proxy voting was introduced. Then areas were defined, including France and Flanders, where absent voting would be the rule, while other more distant areas would be governed by the proxy vote. And we made a further step. It was clear that the Post Office could not possibly, even from France and Flanders, get these absent votes in in time to be counted with the votes of those registered at home and the Government, after consultation with the Post Office, I think, decided on eight days, of what I may call cold storage, of the votes polled at home so as to give a sufficient period for the Post Office to be able to deal with the matter of voting papers coming from France and Flanders on the double journey. I would like to be quite sure that the eight days are really sufficient, and that the time will be sufficient, not only to allow the papers to reach the vast majority of voters in France and Flanders, but also to enable them to get back here in time to be counted.

    As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) has said, we are dealing with a very large number of voters. I saw the figures the other day for the sixty-one Metropolitan constituencies. They are just under 2,000,000 voters, and 431,000 are on the absent voter's list, that means that between one-fifth and one-fourth of the voters are absent voters, and therefore they are a very large section of the whole electorate. I think that a longer period than eight days was suggested in Committee, but was rejected by the Government, who said at that time that eight days was sufficient. I would like to be assured that, after the working arrangements have been gone into thoroughly, as I have no doubt they have been by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General (Mr. Illingworth) and the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), the result of their deliberations is still to make them confident that eight days are enough because I am assured that in practice they are not likely to be enough if an election takes place while the bulk of our soldiers are on the Continent, and I am quite sure that the House would readily grant any extension of the eight days that may be necessary in the exceptional circumstances through which we are passing at present to ensure that the absent votes will really be in the main recorded and will be effective.

    The total estimate for printing and stationery has risen to the astonishing amount of over £1,500,000. We know how much dearer paper is and how much dearer printing is, but still this is a very enormous increase. I desire to ask my right hon. Friend as to the charges to be made to Parliamentary candidates for copies of the electoral register. I asked the other day for a copy of the now register for my Constituency with 31,000 electors, and though I anticipated a considerable increase in the price of the register, yet I was greatly surprised when I was required to pay £6 13s. 3d. for one copy of my list of voters. A few days later I learned that in a neighbouring Yorkshire constituency, with 1,000 more voters than I had in mine, only £3 7s. 6d. was charged for a complete register. My astonishment increased the day after when a anny Scot came along and told me that he had got four copies of his register, covering a large county in Scotland and with about the same number of votes, for £6 10s., which was less than I paid for one copy. He had been charged only £1 12s. 6d. per copy. In the old days we had two copies supplied to each candidate at a nominal charge, I think, of about 10s. per copy. I do not know in the financial exigencies of the country to-day whether the Treasury is going to allow me a free copy. I understand that it decided the other day not to allow any candidate a free copy, but I am not certain that that decision is final, and I would invite the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very heavy cost of these registers, and ask his consideration as to whether each candidate should not have a copy at a more reasonable price than some of us have been charged. Apart altogether from the question whether candidates get free copies or copies at lower prices, I desire to ask that there should be a uniform charge throughout the whole country, and that those great variations to which I have drawn attention should not be continued. Another question that comes on this particular Vote for Stationery—

    It is quite obvious that the point which the hon. Baronet desires to raise comes on the next Vote—Stationery and Printing. The subject to which he has just been referring was not very far away from that of expenses under the Representation of the People Act, but I cannot allow him to go any further into the question of stationery and printing, as that is not the Vote with which we are dealing.

    I thought that we were dealing with the Stationery and Printing Vote, but I consulted the Chairman of Commitees, and he agreed, as expenses under the Representation of the People Act were included in Class 6 and also in Class 2, that under either Vote reference could be made to expenses incurred under the Representation of the People Act.

    If I were to allow that we should be talking on a Vote which is not before the Committee. I have allowed the hon. Baronet to make a statement which seemed to me not far away from the Vote before the Committee, but I cannot allow it to go any further.

    Are we now on expenses under the Representation of the People Act, Class 6?

    Then I desire to return to the expenses of returning officers at a General Election, which appear to me to be likely to amount to over £1,000,000. It seems to me that in the present state of our national finances the enormous expenditure incurred by a General Election might bear on the question of when we are to have a General Election. If the returning officers are going to involve a charge of over £1,000,000—and we know what the expenses of conducting an election would be, with advanced prices for everything required—it is not too little to say that, including the voters' lists, for which we are passing a Supplementary Vote to-day, an expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 would have to be incurred whenever an election takes place. I think that the House of Commons at a time like this, when people are being asked to take War Bonds, ought not to hinder this by increasing the expenditure of the taxpayers. Personally, I should be glad to vote against this increase of payment for returning officers' expenses, and to defer a General Election to some more convenient and suitable date. I wonder whether we can be told what date is contemplated! We are asked to pass a Supplementary Vote for the year ending 31st of March next. Are the Government really certain that a General Election will take place between now and the 31st of March next? It would be convenient and interesting for the House to have early information as to when the country is to be thrown into the turmoil of a General Election, which will undoubtedly lessen the unity of the country and hamper and hinder us in the successful prosecution of the War. As it is out of order to refer to the Stationery Vote, I confine myself absolutely to the expenditure under the Representation of the People Act, and therefore I will leave the other question until we get the proper Vote.

    I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board a few particulars as to the way in which the cost has been estimated. I observe that it is put down at something over £1,000 for each constituency, and there are 700 constituencies. It cannot be suggested that every constituency is going to be contested, and there should be some discount under that head. It seems to me that such a sum is a good deal more than anyone contemplated. Something over £1,000 for each constituency is too much for an expenditure of that kind. I think it would be to the advantage of the Committee if the President of the Local Government Board could tell us what the average cost of the election has been, and what will be the increased estimated cost by reason of the special circumstances connected with the absent voters, which would make a very considerable difference to the cost, and the Committee ought to know to what extent the cost is likely to be increased. We should have some assurance from the President of the Local Government Board that proper care will be taken against extortionate charges, such as the candidates have had to pay in the past, and we should be glad to know whether the Local Government Board have made satisfactory arrangements, so that the election may be conducted on fair and reasonable terms. I should like the Government to make a clear statement to this Committee of what is to be the constitutional effect of passing this Estimate. This, after all, is virtually a new service, and we are entitled to ask for a full explanation in connection with it. Under ordinary circumstances, when the Government make a proposal to the House for certain purposes, the Estimate indicates to the House the purpose for which it is proposed, and that it has to be executed during the time stated in the Estimate. It is with that knowledge that the Committee give the Estimate their approval. Are we to understand that the Government, in proposing this Vote to the House, undertake to hold a General Election before the 31st March, 1919, and ask the House to approve that policy? It is quite clear, I think, that this would be the constitutional effect of the House approving the Estimate. It is a very important point, and I think we are entitled to know whether we are to be asked to pass a similar Estimate every year, and that in the normal course the Government will present in the Estimates a demand for a sufficient sum for the holding of a General Election. Is the Government always to have money for the holding of a General Election, or is the Government only coming to the House and asking for money to hold a General Election when in their opinion one is likely to be held? The House voting this money will be regarded as some indication that the Government wish to have a General Election, and that the House approve of it, or is the Government to be in the position of being provided with funds to hold a General Election whenever it thinks fit to do so. This question is of rather interesting constitutional value. You will find that the way in which this House has gained control over various matters financial within the prerogative of the Crown has arisen from the fact that the Crown had to look to this House for money. The whole Diplomatic Service is only under the control of the House because it has to pay for it. Is it the view of the Government, in making the General Election a matter paid for by the State, the prerogative of dissolution is transferred from the Crown to this House? I think the House is entitled to a fair exposition of the policy of His Majesty's Government.

    I think the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) has raised an extremely interesting constitutional point. This Vote is for the purpose of the expenses of returning officers at the General Election, and if that be the fact, and a General Election does not take place before the 31st of March, then the money must be paid back. We are entitled to know whether the House, by voting this money, is to be taken as placing on record that in its judgment there ought to be a General Election within the financial year. Does our voting this Estimate carry any such indication? I must say I think it docs, constitutionally, because if the House of Commons votes the Estimate for this particular service, it means that the House of Commons votes approves of that service being put into effect during the financial year, or otherwise it would not vote the money. That is a perfectly clear proposition. What we are being asked to do, apparently, in the case of this Vote, is to declare that, in our judgment, Parliament ought to be dissolved before the 31st March. That is a very unfair and certainly a novel way of dealing with the House of Commons. Certainly no one supposed, until the discussion arose on this Vote, that any such point was contained in it. I believe it is, and I believe the point raised by the hon. Member is a sound point, and the House is being led almost blindfold into a position of which it had not the slighest conception. There is another point raised by the hon. Member which appears to be well worthy of consideration, though I do not attach so much importance to it as to the first one, namely, whether the House of Commons has to interfere, or might be held to interfere, with the prerogative of the Crown. I do not attach much importance to that. Of course, it would always be open to the House of Commons to move a Resolution that in the opinion of the House Parliament ought to be dissolved. I think that has already been done, if I recollect aright. If it be open to the House of Commons to move such a Resolution, without being out of order, and without interfering with the prerogative of the Crown, I think this Vote might be regarded as going on the same lines. Certainly the House of Commons was never under the impression that in this Vote they were really invited to pass a Resolution that, in their judgment, a Dissolution ought to take place before the 31st March. I think the Minister in charge of the Vote ought to give some explanation. It is an enormous Vote, and I do not understand on what principle the Minister in charge of it is going to justify its size.

    So far as we can gather from the form of the Estimate, this Vote contains, in addition to the original Estimate of £300,000, making in all £1,050,000 for the expenses of the returning officers at the General Election. When the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) estimated over £1,000 for each constituency, I think he was very much under-estimating the amount, and before you arrive at the total cost of the General Election you have to take into account the Stationery Vote, which may be, to some extent, part of the expenses of carrying out the election, and the additional charge required under that head is £405,000. That, so far as I can judge, must be added to the cost of the General Election. Surely that seems an extraordinary sum, and at all events, we are entitled to some further explanation. We have all passed through this ordeal in our day, and certainly hon. Members have had to pay extravagant sums for ballot boxes, but I do not think an election carried out in the old way would cost as much as appears to be anticipated by this Estimate. Surely it might be thought the reverse would be the case, seeing that the Government take into their hands the conduct of the election and bear all the expenses, and one would have supposed that the election would be conducted much more cheaply than in the days when the Sheriff presented his Bill to private candidates.

    7.0 P.M.

    Another point is, what are the arrangements being made, and if proper arrangements are being made, for allowing soldiers and sailors who are absent from this country to vote, and what are the arrangements by which they will have a knowledge of the issues on which they are called to vote, and what opportunity they will have of obtaining a knowledge of the candidate whom they are called upon to support. Personally, I held, and I hold more strongly than ever, that of all the acts of insanity ever committed by the Government, this proposal to give votes to absent soldiers and sailors is the greatest. I think it is impossible. If you want to secure the votes of men who have risked their lives and endured suffering in defence of their country, the only possible way to do it is to wait until the soldiers and sailors come home, and then give them the opportunity of raising their voice in the election. The call to the soldiers to vote in the trenches in the intervals of battle, to my mind is a perfectly dumbfounding proposition. Rut it is the law. What we have got to do is to take the utmost precaution that the soldiers shall vote as free voters, and that full opportunity should be given them so that they may instruct themselves as to the issues on which they ate to vote. At present the soldier may have to rely on the Paris edition of the "Daily Mail," or some other newspapers. Is it to be tolerated that the men are to be led to cast their votes without any opportunity of having the truth of the great issues put before them? Look at what happened in the case of Canadian soldiers. I had a letter the other day from a member of the Canadian Legislature. There was a debate there, and a copy of the report was sent to me marked. Charges of the most horrible character were advanced; it was said that literature opposed to the Government never reached the soldiers at all, but was intercepted, and the only literature which was allowed to be circulated to the soldiers was that supporting the Government. Furthermore, it was alleged that in some cases the votes of men were actually falsified and were counted for the party candidates against whom they were inclined to vote. There were still other charges, such as interference by officers. I say it is a terribly grave thing to introduce party politics into the fighting line. We know what the result of such action was in Russia, when the Revolutionary Government there turned all the soldiers into politicians. Russia could have been saved from the hideous misery in which she is now plunged if politics had been kept out of the ranks of the Army. But they introduced politics, and immediately the spirit of the Army was dissolved, it ceased to be organised, and became a disorganised mob. To introduce party and contentious politics into the Army is like injecting poison into the veins of a living creature. The Army is an organisation now face to face with an enemy, and you are introducing an evil poison, and thereby running the risk of terrible disaster. Under what conditions will soldiers on the field of battle and in front of the enemy be called on to vote on party-issues? It is perfectly possible that in some regiments the vast majority of the officers may be hot on one side, and the great majority of the soldiers strongly on the other. Can you imagine anything more dangerous or more likely to injure the moral of an Army which has been such a fine example to the whole world than to thus thrust party politics into it? I hope that the rapid progress of events may spare us this risk, but I think we are bound to ask the Government in this Debate, in the unfortunate event of a General Election coming on while the soldiers are still in face of the enemy, what precautions they intend to take—what machinery they propose to set up to secure that the men will obtain the literature sent to them by the different candidates and party organisations. We ask for an assurance that they will be allowed to vote freely, and that their votes will be protected.

    I apologise to the Committee for raising a matter which is somewhat of local interest, but I will be as brief as I can, as I do not wish to prejudice in any way the important points which have been advanced this afternoon. I feel it my duty to call public attention to the somewhat extraordinary position in which the inhabitants of the municipal borough into which my Constituency is divided find themselves at the present time with regard to the existing register, the expenses of preparing which we are voting. In these boroughs it appears to me these inhabitants will be placed in a position of very great difficulty owing to the manner in which the register has been prepared, and as a result of the preparations made by the returning officer for making up the register. I am aware the facts I am about to narrate have been laid before the President of the Local Government Board, but I venture to suggest the objects of the Act so recently passed have not been obtained in the case of this borough. Owing to the fear that the register would not be properly prepared, all the political agents in the two constituencies into which the borough is divided, jointly offered their assistance to the town clerk, not only before the work started, but after it had actually been begun. It cannot be said with regard to them or anybody else that the town clerk did not get a fair offer of assistance and support. He had before him, too, the instructions issued by the right hon. Gentleman for the guidance of officials, and had the returning officer carried on his work on the lines laid down in those circulars there would, the agents say, have been no difficulty whatsoever. But owing to the method of registration actually adopted an attempt was made to check the register which has been produced, and I propose to give the Committee some of the results.

    Fifteen streets were chosen in different parts of the area for the purposes of the test, and in those fifteen streets it was found, after very careful canvass and after asking information at the doors of the houses, that 3,779 persons were qualified as electors. But on the actual list eventually produced by the Town Clerk there were only 2,238, there thus being 1,541 left out. Eleven hundred houses were actually canvassed in the borough and if one takes the number of persons put on the register by the town clerk for these houses and compares it with the number actually entitled, and then take an average for the whole borough on that basis, it would appear that no fewer than 26,000 persons have been left off the register. Now this checking work was done in the utmost good faith. It was no attempt to gain a party advantage. The object of the Act, as I understand it, was to get rid of outside agency in this registration work, and leave it to the overseers to see that the proper persons were placed on the register. The party agents who conducted the investigation say it would be quite impossible to get any party advantage at the present time, in view of the lack of party questions engaging the public mind, and their sole object was to see if the proper persons were put on the register. Further, it was found that most extraordinary mistakes had been made, and that there were serious discrepancies in the list. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has no doubt a list of them, but I think I am justified in saying that the number is far greater than an ordinary margin of error would justify even on a large register.

    It has been found in one street which was checked that in respect of the first eleven houses there are twenty names on the register, yet not one of those names has ever been heard of in that street at all, and the persons who actually live in the houses have not their names on the register, although some of them have been there for thirty years. Then there are cases of voters placed on the register whose names and streets are accurately given but who happen to be actually living in a neighbouring parish. There are also mistakes in connection with the wrong division of wards; the names of boys of seven and eleven years of age appear on the register. Women are included as voters, but not their husbands. In some cases the householder's name does not appear, whilst some of the residents do appear. It is, in fact, a most extra ordinary state of affairs.

    No doubt this is a purely local matter, and I apologise both to the President and to the Committee for bringing it forward, but I confess I felt I should be doing less than my duty if I did not take this opportunity of calling attention to the facts. I do so not so much for the purpose of correcting what has been done as for the purpose of asking the President to consider what is going to happen when the next register has to be prepared. Presumably the staff which prepared the present register will carry on the work in the future, and I want to know what improvements can be made in their methods, and what will be the position with regard to voters under the Act. In a case like this it is not perhaps easy to know where to ask for a remedy. The town clerks are the servants of the borough councils. We have laid the duty on the town clerks and we are responsible for seeing that the voters should get their votes. They did not get them in these cases, and whose fault is it? It is clearly our duty here as a Committee voting these expenses, to see that the persons for whose benefit we are giving these expenses do get the small benefit which it is intended they should have, namely, their votes, and that there shall be adopted a clear, straightforward method so than their names and addresses shall appear correctly. Those 26,000 persons estimated to be left off plus the great number, and I cannot give the exact number, whose names and addresses have been incorrectly entered, are entitled to request the consideration of their position by the President of the Local Government Board.

    I have no intention of following the hon. Member into constitutional questions, but I should like to put a few practical points to the right hon. Gentleman which have come under my notice from various parts of the country, and which I think are really of serious importance. There is the point already put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson), and I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a variety of questions. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if even now at this late hour it is the case that the military authorities are acquainting soldiers with the fact that they may vote by proxy or post? I am told that numbers of soldiers have no idea that they have such a right. Has any definite word been given to them? following out that point, I should like to ask, what proportion of proxies have already been received? Of those who are entitled to appoint proxies, have 50 or 20 or even 5 per cent. been received. I am told that in the four divisions of Islington only 100 proxies have been received, and in one division of Kent only eleven. The address on the register is quite insufficient in a very large number of cases for the purpose of reaching the soldier, and the addresses given and entered on the cards are really in a very large number of eases not sufficient for the record officer to identify the soldier. In that way a large number of soldiers are losing their votes. A very important point to all those who have to deal with carrying out the election is this. Will the address of the soldier be furnished by the record officer and what guarantee is there that it will be sufficiently up to date to find the soldier. That really is the crux of the matter. The House has decided that the soldiers are to have votes, and now we want to see that they get them. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the military authorities are making their plans in such a definite way that they will get their votes. I am quite aware there are so many departments concerned that it is very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to get them all in order. We have two right hon. Gentlemen present who are both interested in the matter. I know that they personally are working their hardest and have a very difficult job to deal with. We know also that some of the other Departments they have to deal with are hard nuts to crack.

    If an election should come during the next few months, will it be possible for the record officers to furnish the addresses in time and in sufficient detail to enable any communication to get to the soldier? As I understand, there are throughout the country about fifty or sixty record offices, and in each record office there will be an absent voters' list from each constituency, so that in each record office I suppose there will be about seven hundred on the absent voters' lists. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that all the necessary machinery will be in working order in sufficient time not only to enable the soldier to get his vote, but, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said, to enable the issues upon which the elections are being fought to be brought before him. We wish an assurance upon that point. I am bound to say from what I hear from different constituencies, the military authorities are saying "that will be all right, we can do that in a few hours," and so on. Such a casual way of treating the matter makes me a little doubtful as to whether they really will be able to do what they have undertaken to do. The present register contains a large number of duplicates particularly of soldiers whose names were supplied on Form A by their relatives as being members of the household, and who themselves in their cards stated that they would have been resident elsewhere, perhaps in lodgings, and who were away from their homes at the outbreak of war. In several cases the duplication is in the same constituency, and in those cases they may, perhaps, be efficiently dealt with. But where that is not so, the soldier will get two ballot papers by post, and I do not see that anything can prevent him from voting twice, and after he has voted that any means can be devised to stop such a vote. Has the right hon. Gentleman paid attention to that matter? On the other hand, there are thousands of soldiers who are left off the register, single men who were in service and in lodgings and whose names were forgotten by their masters or landlords. These men probably received cards to fill up, but perhaps they were fighting at the time or moving, and prevented from doing so. They are off. You cannot help them. They are not on the register, and they cannot get their vote now.

    There is another class, and I think there are thousands of them who appear in the ordinary part of the register as civilians, but who since the register was made up have joined the forces. I am told that in one area those men totalled 400. What arrangement is being made for those men to vote? I suppose they cannot be treated as absent voters, because they are not marked on the register in that way. On the other hand, it is rather hard that because men have joined the Colours they should lose their votes. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has devised any plan whereby such men can come under the heading of absent voters. Another case is that of men who are leaving this country and going away into France or elsewhere. Let me give an instance in which 200 men who were expecting to go to France were ordered the night before to a destination which was in the proxy area. Those men had no opportunity of getting proxies, and they had no idea as to going to a proxy area. They should have their votes. There are many cases like that, with which, however, I do not wish to weary the Committee. On the points which I have mentioned I should like a reply. I know that the President has worked very hard to ensure that the largest number of men possible should get their votes. The House wants to be reassured that those men will get their votes, and that the prospective election will not be an absolute farce, because if all those classes do not get their votes it really will not be at all a reflection of the national view.

    I should like to ask a question also as to the provision of paper by the Government for the use of candidates during an election. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, has stated that a scheme is being devised to allow candidates to have paper at a cost of about half the market price. He has not yet given the House the full details, and I would urge him, if he can, to do so tonight. I know there are many Members of Parliament and candidates who are buying paper, and who have bought envelopes, and who have even had envelopes addressed in anticipation of an election, and I believe, in some cases, envelopes of a larger size than the Postmaster-General will convey. Seeing the shortage of labour that there is at present, it would I suggest, be desirable that we should know, as early as possible, the details on this point of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. There follows along with that the regulations that are proposed by the Postmaster-General for the election. I am sure we should all like to know what is to happen with regard to sending of election literature to the troops, and also what is the specific regulation with regard to the carriage by the Post Office of matter in this country during the election, and the security of delivery we shall have, both at home and abroad. We know how tremendously hard worked the Post Office Department is, and how the right hon. Gentleman does his best in very arduous circumstances. I am sure we should all like to know what security he will give us that the literature from every side will reach those for whom it is intended. There is another question which I think comas under the Board of Trade, and perhaps we can be told what arrangements are being made about the supply of petrol. There, again, a vague answer has been given to the question. I think we should all like to know, not only from words to-night, but in black and white, the exact details on all these points, so that we can know where we are and make our arrangements accordingly.

    There is only one other question I desire to touch, and it really concerns the second Vote, but I understand that you, Sir, have ruled that the two Votes should be discussed together. The general verdict is, that where there was a proper house-to-house survey as was promised, the register is satisfactory, but where there was not that proper house-to-house survey the register is most unsatisfactory. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangement he is making for the second register. We may regard this first register as a preliminary, but the second ought to be perfect. I think the House is entitled to know details as to how the new register is to be made and of the preparations of the right hon. Gentleman for that purpose. With regard to the question of the cost of the registers, brought up by the hon. Baronet opposite, may I ask whether the Treasury could not see its way to sell these registers at a cheaper price than is now allowed to be done? There was issued an Order in Council some months ago, and, while I forget the exact details, I think it works out that in a constituency with 32,000 electors a register for the constituency would cost £2 13s. 6d., for 35,000 electors £2 18s. 6d., for 40,000 electors £3 6s. 10d., and for 45,000 electors £3 15s. 2d. In the old days, when we were fighting elections with almost unlimited money in some cases, we could get a register for any constituency for 10s., while I think in some cases they were provided free. I do not ask for that, but I think the jump from 10s. to £3 or £4 is a very hard proposition for the poor candidate, who now has his maximum expenses greatly reduced and will have to buy two copies of the register as a rule, and in some cases five or six copies. In any case, it is a very substantial addition to the election expenses of every candidate, and I think a larger proportion of the extra cost of the register, which is due to the War, and not through any fault of the candidate, should be borne on the public charge. The candidate has all his charges raised against him, and I think when Mr. Speaker's Conference fixed the original charges prices were very much lower than they are to-day, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to press the Treasury to give us these registers at a lower price than he has now fixed.

    I would like to join in some of the appeals that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I would like to speak more particularly from a London point of view, because I happen to be a London Member, and I have followed this question of registration with great enthusiasm. I want to agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, that when the Representation of the People Bill was going through Parliament last year the London Members certainly understood that the register was to be prepared by a house-to-house canvass, and although that may not be necessary in some country or county constituencies, I think anybody who knows anything about registration must admit that in London it is absolutely necessary, in order to get the nearest perfect register that you can, that a house-to-house canvass should have been carried out. The President of the Local Government Board knows very well that this has not been carried out in all the divisions of London, but at any rate in one division in London, where I believe they carried out an effective house-to-house canvass, the register is as near perfection as you can possibly get it. I understand that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm) gave some instances of the way the register had been prepared in his district, and I believe that that complaint could be multiplied from several other districts in London. Even the registration officers, who have tried to do their best under the most difficult circumstances, will admit, I think, that the registers to-day are far from perfect and that a great many names are left off, and I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board that it is necessary for the Board to make one standard of work for preparing registers to apply all over London.

    Owing to the operation of a Bill by which we have twenty-eight separate registration officers in London, each of them has prepared his register more or less on his own lines, with the result that while in one district, which I know personally, you have an excellent register, in a great many other districts you have a register which has given a very great deal of dissatisfaction. I think the remedy will be for the President of the Local Government Board to insist that the rules which the Board laid down for preparing the registers shall in future be absolutely carried out by each registration officer in London and that a particular registration officer in one district shall not be allowed to run the register very much as he thinks fit, and another registration officer to do the same thing in another part of London. We in London contend that we all belong to one place, and it is necessary that a register for a borough in North London should be quite as well prepared as that for a borough in South London. I wish to raise a point, in regard to the preparation of the new register, on the question of what has been done as regards printing the absent voters' names on the general register. The general register has been prepared with the names of the total electorate upon it. The absent voters are marked a on that register, and each one receives a voting number according to the position in which his name falls on that register. In addition to that, under the Local Government Board Regulations a separate absent voters' register has also been published, and all the voters upon it are numbered quite differently from what they are on the original register. They commence from No. 1 and go up to the maximum number on the register. I am sure the President will appreciate the point, because he has had a good deal of electioneering experience, that nothing could be more confusing than that you should have two lists, with the same names printed on both, and that on the main register the absent voter should have one number and on the special absent voters' list he should have quite a different number. When the checking of the voter at the poll comes to be made I think it will lead to very great confusion, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if you are going to print a separate register of absent voters, with special numbers for them, you should not include their names on the general register with all the other voters.

    I want to endorse what my right hon Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) said as regards the postal directions. It would be very helpful to all Members of Parliament if we could have early exactly what the Post Office is going to do. We understand that the Post Office are going to issue Regulations, and that postal packets or envelopes are only to be of a certain size. I think it will be the greatest kindness to all concerned if the Post Office issue these Regulations at once, so that those who are preparing for an election will be able to work according to the Regulations, and will also have time to make any recommendations in regard to them. It would also be of very great assistance if they would let us know the number of postal packets which are to be sent through the post, and if they are going to be franked by the Post Office instead of having them stamped. I understand the Post Office people require these documents to be stamped—that is, if postage is to be paid by the candidate. I presume that the free postage, will be franked in some way by the Post Office, but I think it would help not only the postal authorities but the candidates all over the country if we could know that the Post Office have considered all these points, and if they would issue all the Regulations they have decided upon at once. I also want to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries said with regard to the cost of the election registers. To us in London, where there are very large registers, some of them varying from 25,000 up to about 45,000, the cost of the register is going to mean a very great deal. It would be of great assistance, particularly in a large single-member borough, covering a great extent of ground, and where registers must be bought for the particular wards or districts, if the right hon. Gentleman could reduce the present cost of these registers. It would also be a very great convenience if he could allow registers to be split up into wards and the registers for wards to be sold separately by themselves.

    As regards the next register, I would like to point out that although we have got a new register the qualifying time was last April. The register came into force in October this year. No new register is coming into force until May next year, so that if you have an election between now and next May, the existing register is practically going to be what you might term an old register. In certain districts in London where information has been obtained, even on the existing register you will have an enormous number of removals already, and every month that goes on from now before an election takes place the number of removals will still further increase. When I asked my right hon. Friend the other day what date he was going to fix for the new register I was hopeful that he would fix October as the qualifying period, being six months from April, and that we should have the next register made out early in next year. I was hopeful that if he did that we should get a very much more up-to-date register, if an election took place early next year. Another reason why I was anxious that he should do that was that the registration officers in London, who have already put up a staff and started an organisation in order to make the first register, were anxious to keep that organisation in hand in order to prepare the second register. Now the qualifying period has been made January next. I am afraid a good deal of the staff that has been employed on preparing the first register will disappear, and that we shall not get the advantage of that staff in preparing the second register. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot on the next register try to give us a better type of paper. The paper on which some of the registers have been printed is very bad, and the names are printed very close, and from the point of view of marking a register it is almost impossible, owing to the closeness of the names and the quality of the paper on which it is printed. Further, I would suggest that on the new register the form that is sent out to the voter to fill up in order to get his name put on the register should be of a much simpler character than the form sent out for the first register. We have discussed this matter in the House before, and I think it is the unanimous opinion of all Members who have looked at the circular that was sent out for the first register that it was very complicated, that it was not simple, that it did not draw answers from many of the people to whom it was sent, and that there can be a very much simpler and better circular sent out to the householder or resident in order to obtain his name with the details to be placed on the register.

    There is one other point which I would specially like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and that is whether he can do anything in view of the great number of names that appear on the municipal register for London, because the municipal register is a larger register than the Parliamentary register, and, owing to the great number of names, and owing to the incidence of the cost of printing and other election materials due to the War, the effect will be enormously to increase the cost of elections for municipal candidates in London. The President of the Local Government Board has a special knowledge of London. He served on the largest municipal body which we have in London, and he knows, I think, how desirable it is that we should get men of moderate means of all parties to serve on these municipal bodies. I would, therefore, ask him favourably to consider if anything can be done on those lines. But I do appeal to him, especially as a London Member, in view of our experience with the first register, that in the preparation of the second register he will make it absolutely a condition to all registration officers in London that they shall carry out a proper house-to-house canvass, so that the next register for London will be a proper register, and we shall not have the same complaints as we have at the present time.

    There are a number of questions affecting the preparation of the voters' lists in Ireland which can only be answered by the Chief Secretary, who is not now in the House, and there is nobody on the Treasury Bench in a position to answer the points I wish to raise in regard to Ireland under this Vote, because I assume Ireland comes under this Vote the same as any other part of the Kingdom. Therefore, in order to call attention to the absence of the Chief Secretary, and in order to give an opportunity to some person able to answer the points to be present, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    Has the hon. Member sent notice to the Chief Secretary of his intention to raise these points?

    Certainly not. I do not think I am bound to do so, or any other hon. Member. I think it is the duty of the Chief Secretary to be in his place. He is not here when he is wanted. I do not know whether you intend to rule my Motion out of order or not, but I am perfectly within my right in moving it.

    I think my hon. Friend is referring to the wrong Note. The printing, as I understand, comes under Class II. This relates to the expenses of election, and not to the printing of the new register.

    That is so, certainly. The particular point will arise on the second Vote. All I was going to say with regard to the Motion was that it does not appear to be a case for interrupting the discussion at the present moment. Later on, before the Vote is taken the hon. Member will be entitled to move, and I shall accept, the Motion if necessary.

    Does not that mean that no Irish Member can take part in this discussion until English, Scottish, and Welsh Members have finished the debate, and is not that a discrimination against Irish Members which we are bound to resent?

    Certainly not. It is only a question of how the discussion should proceed. Hon. Members are entitled to their share of discussion as it affects them. It is only a question of when it should take place.

    What is the use of Irish Members making speeches on matters affecting Ireland if there is no one on the Government Bench to answer them?

    With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin), may I point out that you have allowed a full range of discussion on both Votes to take place this evening, and it was understood from the beginning that both Votes were to be discussed? I submit, therefore, that my Motion is in order, and that you should not rule it out of order. I was the only Member to rise, and if I give way now I may lose my right to speak, which I do not intend to do.

    I do not think the hon. Member would lose his right anyhow. It was only a matter of observing the usual courtesies of the House. If a Minister who has some share in a Vote is not present, he should be informed that a question is going to be raised. That is the only point I have in my mind. If the hon. Member wishes the Motion to be put, I will put it.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ Mr. Farrell.]

    Can we have any explanation from the Government? As it affects the business of the House, it is usual, I think, for the Government to give us their views on the matter.

    There are an enormous number of questions raised on the English side, and it is quite customary in this House to deal with one part of the subject first, and then to take another portion of the subject. It is for the general convenience of the House that one portion of the subject should be well exhausted before another is raised.

    That is impossible for me to say, but I know he has already been sent for.

    I quite sympathise with the President of the Local Government Board in the difficulty in which he finds himself. No Irish Member wishes to inconvenience the House or the Government, and we understand, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reply to the various matters which have been raised in this Debate. But I hope if we appreciate his situation, he, as a representative of the Government, will appreciate ours, and really it is time that something was done with the most incompetent Chief Secretary Ireland has ever witnessed. He is never here when he is wanted, and when speeches are made from these benches he has never the courtesy or decency to reply. There is another Irish Minister in the person of the Law Officer who is never here either. This thing has gone on so long, and particulary this week we have had such extraordinary illustrations of it, that the patience of Irish Members is well nigh exhausted, and it is only due to ourselves and the position we occupy here, that a protest ought to be made against it and this is the only form of protest open to Irish Members. Therefore, while we do not wish to interrupt the English side of this discussion, as a protest against the way in which the Chief Secretary is not only treating the Irish Members but the House of Commons, I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

    May I ask one question which may interest Irish Members as well as English ones? Will the President of the Local Government Board inform the Committee whether it is proposed that the addresses of candidates can be sent to the front, and, if so, will they be subjected to the censorship? Is that in order?

    I should like to submit to my hon. Friends below the Gangway that it would be for the convenience of the House that they should withdraw their Motion for the moment, and allow the President of the Local Government Board to reply, because it is quite evident that no English Members can go to a Division at the present juncture of the proceedings. When the right hon. Gentleman has replied, if it turns out there is no representative of the Irish Office present to deal with the Irish part of the case, they will then have the sympathy of the House. Therefore, I would earnestly suggest they should withdraw the Motion for the present and allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply first.

    I am very unwilling to do anything that would clash with the interests of other Members, but I must strongly protest—and if I do withdraw, I withdraw most reluctantly—against the conduct of the Chief Secretary who, as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Hazleton) has just said, is never here when he is wanted, and when he is here he is most flippant and impertinent towards Irish Members.

    May I ask the representative of the Government if we agree to withdraw this Motion, which we are anxious and willing to do, whether he will move to report Progress if, after his speech, the Chief Secretary is not here to deal with the Irish case?

    I do not think I could move to report Progress, but my sympathies would be with hon. Members opposite. We have had a good and full opportunity of discussing questions relating to England and Wales, and Irish Members should certainly have a full opportunity of discussing questions relating to Ireland. It is perhaps a misfortune, but I feel pretty sure that no hon. Members from Ireland could have informed the Chief Secretary or Attorney-General that they were likely to raise questions on this subject.

    I was informed at seven o'clock last night that there were several hon. Members anxious to interrogate me. As I have expressed my sympathy with hon. Members perhaps they will allow me to reply as best I can to the many and somewhat difficult, intricate, and practical questions addressed to me.

    Motion to report Progress, by leave withdrawn.

    Question again proposed,

    "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."

    Before I give a detailed reply to the many difficult and practical questions which have been addressed to me, I will make one or two general remarks in answer to more general questions which have been raised in the speeches of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). They said, in effect, "Does your putting down the £750,000 as a Vote for a General Election mean that we are to have an immediate election?" Or, as the hon. Member for Hexham put it in another way, "Will the Government give an undertaking that they will hold a General Election before 31st March?" I can answer that question at once by saying that the Government will give no such undertaking that they will bring about a General Election—so far as they can bring about a General Election—before 31st March. As to the date at which an election is likely to be held, if the Prime Minister were here himself, I am confident he could not answer that question. It would not be possible for him to say at what particular time it would be for him to advise His Majesty to dissolve Parliament.

    8.0 P.M.

    That is quite possible. I am going to put the case in this way: Is this House going to assume that its existence terminates by the end of January? Is it going to assume that it is going to prolong its life for another period? If it is not going to assume that, then any Government is bound to take all precautions to have the money that is necessary to have an election before this Parliament terminates at the end of January. Ought it to put it off to such a date, say, as the first week in January, or, indeed, ought it to put it off at all? Ought not the Government to have the opportunity, so far as money goes, of holding an election, particularly when we consider the times in which we live and the extraordinary rapidity with which great movements are taking place—naval, military, and political. The great changes which might arise at any moment in the War situation might necessitate the Prime Minister seeking an audience of His Majesty, and advising His Majesty that it was in the interests of the nation that Parliament should immediately be dissolved. When hon. Members come to think, after all, the situation is entirely changed in all respects, and considering that we have a new register containing practically double the number of electors. That new register has only just been made up and contains practically the manhood and womanhood of the country. This comes at a time at which Parliament is about exhausted. Undoubtedly the fact that it can no longer be said that we have not got a new register thoroughly representative of the country, when all the enormous changes are considered that have taken place in the War and the political situation, surely would not the Government be most unwise if it did not take an early opportunity of, at all events, coming down to this House, and taking a Vote that will enable us to hold an election, assuming that the House is unwilling that Parliament should prolong its existence beyond the time specified.

    Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it makes no difference constitutionally whether we pass this Vote or reject it?

    It undoubtedly makes a difference constitutionally. If this House passes the Vote, then we can hold an election, so far as money is concerned, at any time. If this House should defeat the Vote, it defeats the Government. Possibly that might also be the cause of bringing about an election. I have never yet known a House which, when it has defeated a Government, did not provide the money by which that party that was victorious might go to the country and secure for itself the fruits of its victory, if it thought it possibly could. The hon. Member for Hexham says, "Are we to take it that this will be a precedent?" It will be a precedent in most unprecedented circumstances. I hope such are never likely to exist again. But obviously when Parliament is about to terminate its existence any Government would come forward with some such Vote as this and put it down, so that it will be able to hold an election at the termination of the period for which that Parliament was elected. I do not think the Prime Minister could say more if he had been here. The mere fact that this Vote has been put down must not be taken as in any regard that we are going to have an election next week, or the week after, or—indeed, at any time; but it is an indication on the part of the Government to procure not only the documents, but the means—that you are going to have the means given to the country of giving effect to an appeal to the country. The particular amount put down is £750,000. The hon. Member for Hexham has asked why. The hon. Member for Barnsley also inquired on this point.

    Let me point out that if any hon. Member will look at the Supplementary Vote that is put down he will see that the expenses of the returning officers at a General Election—that is to say, all the expenses incurred by returning officers at a. General Election—are put down, as an estimate, at £750,000. To that the hon. Member for Barnsley added the total original estimate under the Representation of the People Act of £300,000. But this latter money was for registration purposes. The sum at present taken is actually the cost at a General Election, whenever it takes place, of the expenses incurred by the returning officers. The amount is an estimate. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury is here, and will be able to go into more detail in this matter than I can, but let me say that, after all, this is a very rough and broad estimate. It is very difficult to esitimate at all closely what the expenses of the next election will be. First of all, what we have to go by are the expenses of the last few elections; but then we must allow for double the number of the electors. We must look at this: that all such matters as printing, materials—such as ballot boxes, compartments, stationery, and so on—have enormously increased—printing especially. Therefore, when making the estimate, we start with a very large allowance for increase on each item as it stood at the last General Election, quite beyond the increase attained by the mere fact that we have doubled the number of the electorate. I doubt very much whether we gain anything by pursuing this matter further and going into details of the expenditure. Let us hope we shall not spend all the money—but I am not at all sure about that!

    I think that will be the only point raised on the actual estimate of the expenses of the returning officers of £750,000. The hon. Member for Barnsley mentioned a figure with which I had better deal. He complained that he was charged for a register £6 13s. 3d., whereas a neighbour for a similar register, containing just as many names, was charged £3 7s. 6d.; and it was also stated that some canny Scot got his register at about, or under, £2. That is where the Scotsman gets the advantage of the Englishman.

    I should like to know that member of the Government, because I want to control him. But I want to say quite frankly that I have very great sympathy with those who have expressed the view that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury might see his way to let them have copies of the register a good deal cheaper. What, after all, was the practice before the Representation of the People Act, and what was under the Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1843? There the charges for copies of the register were prescribed. The payment for every thousand names not exceeding 3,000 was 2s. 6d. For 3,000 and not exceeding 6,000 we paid 5s. For 6,000 and not exceeding 9,000 we—that is, the candidate—paid 7s. 6d. Above 9,000 names we paid 10s., which was the maximum. I do not say 10s. should be the maximum, or that we ought not to have a maximum higher than 10s. But certainly I do think that the Treasury might look at it from this point of view, that it is adding a very large expense to the candidates if they are charged for each copy of the register £3 10s. It is very difficult to carry on an election unless we have several copies of the register, and we all know that when we passed the Representation of the People Act we all desired to cheapen elections. Therefore I think the Treasury might bear that in mind, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend beside me will listen with a certain amount of sympathy to the plea that has been put forward—first, that the charge should be uniform for everybody; that, though Scotsmen may be able to get the better of me, say, in a bargain, the charge should be uniform, and that it should be made as small as is consistent with the spirit of the Representation of the People Act, which undoubtedly was intended to cheapen elections, and not multiply or increase expenses to which candidates were put. I believe when we fixed the price, after consultation with the Stationery Department, it was fixed at cost price, the Treasury making no profit, while at the same time incurring no loss. That I believe was the basis on which these charges were fixed. I do not understand how the hon. Member for Barnsley was charged £6 13s. 3d. whilst the other Member was charged £3 7s. 6d. I cannot help thinking that there is something amiss. At all events, I will make inquiries to see how it is that this has been incurred.

    I think I have answered all the financial questions. I come now to that main stream of questions which has been directed to me, and which I think I may sum up in this way: What steps have you taken and are taking, not only to enable the soldiers and sailors to vote, but to enable them to, at all events, receive addresses from candidates which will inform them of the issues on which they are going to vote? I think that is the main stream of questions directed towards me. We have to take our minds back to what happened in this House when the Act was being passed. There was an almost feverish desire to enfranchise all those who were fighting for us. The expression was constantly being used, "If a man is good enough to fight for me he is good enough to vote," and the whole spirit of the House was directed towards putting sailors and soldiers on the register, even though they were only nineteen years of age. I can say this for the Local Government Board, we were thoroughly imbued with that spirit, we caught it from the House, and we have done everything that was known to us to procure the greatest possible number of sailors and soldiers getting on the register and, being on the register, being able to vote, and I believe that, after all, although I quite admit there will probably be some millions of sailors and soldiers, there will be some thousands of names which will not appear on the register. But every single thing that could be done was done to get as many sailors and soldiers on the register, and we may fairly assume that the great majority of those in any way entitled to a vote have found themselves on the register. At all events the bulk of the men will be there. I cannot tell exactly the numbers that will be on the register, but I should figure that it will be just on 20,000,000, and it will be impossible to say, I hope, that that register does not contain the great majority of soldiers and sailors who are in any way entitled to be registered as voters in this country.

    Then we come to a much more difficult question, which was to devise machinery that while they were on the register they should be able to vote and should be able to vote after they had been duly instructed by the various candidates on the issues and the opinions the candidates held. What machinery have we devised for that? Soldiers may be said to be divided as being voters into two categories—those able to vote by proxy and those who must vote by post. So far as the proxies are concerned the House did not take very kindly to the proxy, and certainly the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were very anxious that the proxy vote should be confined to other soldiers than those who could vote by post. An Order in Council was issued confining the proxy vote to areas other than France and Belgium. Now I am going to say quite frankly I am disappointed, with such information as reaches me, as to the few Service men who have availed themselves of this proxy vote. Our information is very scanty, but I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries is right in thinking that, on the whole, very few of our sailors and soldiers have availed themselves of the proxy vote, but we do not know what time there is between now and the General Election. It will depend very much on how much time there is as to how many proxy voters will have succeeded in obtaining proxy papers, and instructing those who are to vote for them. Every day, every week is bringing a considerable number of proxy voters into the different constituencies, but for all that, from what scanty information reaches me, the right hon. Gentleman is right and the proxy forms have not been very largely availed of. I do not think it has been the fault of my Department. We did every thing we could to inform Army officers in distant parts, such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Salonika that soldiers in these distant places could apply for proxy forms, and to duly instruct the soldiers how to apply for them—for this particular form of proxy form or that particular form. I believe commanding officers in many cases took a very active interest in it, but I am informed that commanding officers in Palestine, where there was much movement going on, did not find very much time to deal with electioneering matters. That is not surprising. I hope, if any commanding officer has to choose between pushing the Turk or the Hun out of countries they never ought to have been in he will put that first and consider it a very secondary matter to help a man to push somebody out of Parliament.

    But the greatest number of naval and military voters will be on the absent voters' list. What is going to happen when you come to an election? What we want to get are the correct addresses up to date of all those absent soldiers. We want them for two purposes. We want the addresses correct, first for the returning officer in order that he may know to whom to send the ballot paper, and in the second place for the agent of the candidate in order that he may know to whom he is to send an election address of the candidate whom he represents. In an election there is first the Proclamation, and eight days after the Proclamation is the nomination. Not until the nomination can the returning officer send out his ballot-papers to anybody. He cannot send them out to the absent voter; he must wait until he has got his nomination. Then he must provide himself, as early as possible, with the number of ballot-papers to be sent out to the absent voter. When he has got them, to what address is he to send them? If he looks at his absent voters' list he will get very little help there. Therefore, he has to rely on the record offices, of which there are something like sixty. The record offices will be expected, and are quite willing, to supply the returning officer with the latest up-to-date address of each soldier on the absent list. How are the record offices going to get those latest up-to-date addresses of each soldier on the absent voters' list? This is the machinery devised for that purpose: A card was sent containing this information to each record office: "John Baxter, regimental number 202046, rank private, corps 6th Royal Lancashire."

    On this card the constituency is Warrington, his polling district "A," number "3," qualifying address 13, Allen Street, and it is very important that the number is the number on the absent voters' list. Cards similar to that are sent to the record office, and that office takes them, and from them they form an index card register of every soldier. With those cards will go to the record office two copies of the absent voters' list. During the interval between receiving those cards the record office will be making up its correct index record of every soldier voting in Warrington, for example, or any other particular place. In this case it will have 689 absent voters' lists with 689 constituencies. When the election comes the record office will set itself to work and will look through its record of all the voters that vote, say in Warrington. When the record office knows that the election is coming, then it will go through its card index. It will take one of the absent voters' lists supplied for Warrington and transfer to that list the most correct addresses that it has of that particular voter, and it will send that list to the returning officer made up with all the up-to-date addresses of every voter who is entitled to vote for Warrington. There will be two copies of each absent voters' list at each record office, and that office will take one of these, look at its index cards, and transfer the information on the index cards to the absent voters' list, and return it as soon as possible to the returning officer.

    In many cases the addresses of soldiers are so long that there will not be room to write them in.

    The right hon. Gentleman is explaining a very complicated matter, and I think he ought to be allowed to make his statement with as little interruption as possible.

    On the returns I have seen there is plenty of room to record the information. Take note that the number is important because if the record office have not the number on the absent voters' list, and if it had to find the names of forty men, they might have to go through a perfectly enormous list, say, for Warrington. The record office in order to do this work satisfactorily must have adequate notice of the time when an election is coming. I have already approached the Prime Minister, and have supplied him with some dates and figures, and I have informed him that if we really desire the returning officers to have the most correct addresses of the absent soldier, and if the candidates are to have those addresses in time to send their election addresses to them, adequate notice must be given by the Prime Minister of His Majesty's intention to dissolve Parliament. It will not do to wait until the Proclamation. Those who are at all experts in these matters, and I claim to have had some little experience, think that, in order that the record offices may have an adequate opportunity of correcting the addresses and sending them to each returning officer, there ought to be at least eight day's notice before the Proclamation. As to how many correct addresses are supplied to the returning officer and the candidates, that really must depend to a large extent not only on the intelligence of those employed in the record office, but it must also depend on the time they have to do this very difficult and complex transfer of information on their cards to the information either on the absent voters' list, or else invent some other method of sending to the returning officer a list of the soldiers voting for a certain constituency with their addresses and the most up-to-date addresses.

    It is of extreme importance that the candidate or the agent of the candidate should have the addresses, although it is not quite so important as that the returning officer should have them. Obviously you could hold an election if the returning officer merely sent out the ballot papers and they got to the voters. I agree that the absent soldier ought to know who are the candidates and their opinions and the issues, and the only way in which he can know that is by giving facilities to all the candidates to send to the voter at least their election address. What I want to warn candidates about is this: Inasmuch as the ballot papers must have precedence in the Post Office, the election addresses will have to be written and posted two days after the Proclamation, and the sooner they go the better. There is one little obstacle in the way. The House will recollect that every candidate is allowed one free postage, and every candidate will use that for the sending of his election address. Under the Act it is not permissible to make use of the free postage until the candidate has been nominated, but there is a proviso by which that can be got over by offering security to the Postmaster-General. I have consulted my right hon. Friend on that point, and he thinks £50 will satisfy him. I want to warn all those who are going to be candidates that they had better not wait till the day of nomination to send out their addresses, for if they do they may find that the addresses are held up for the ballot papers and the addresses may be delivered, but not until long after the ballot papers have been filled up, when they will have no effect.

    The record offices will have full notice of the Proclamation which means, of course, that there will be an election and they will be able to supply the up-to-date addresses in such a form to the returning officers that the agents of the candidates will be able to obtain them and so will be able to send the addresses of the candidates to the correct addresses of the absent voters. Everything turns upon the dates. We may devise the best machinery that we possibly can, but it all depends if the record office have sufficient time. The record office inform me that if they receive notice on a Monday that a Proclamation is about to be issued they think they could supply this information in something like seventy-two hours. At all events, the question of giving the record offices ample time in which to get to work to review their index cards and to take off the correct addresses, so far as they know them, and put them on to the absent voters' list and return them to the returning officers is very important. That is the best machinery that we have been able to devise, but, provide what machinery you will, there will still be a number of men who will have been transferred after the latest information has been given to the record office. We are always finding that ourselves. It has happened to me, and obviously to every Member in this House. One knows of the arrival of a wounded man from his friends long before the record office supplies the information. There will therefore undoubtedly be a very great number of men who will have changed their addresses in France or who very likely will have come over here. The ballot paper will go out to the address given to the record office and will be practically of no use.

    It comes to this: Unless the soldiers can be stabilised for a time an enormous number of them will never be able to give an effective vote. If the whole of your big line is in a constant state of mobility, if Marshal Foch is ever pushing forward and thrusting the Germans back and ever taking our troops further away from this country, and if all the changes are constantly being made which are made when you are fighting on a 200-mile front, then obviously if you conduct your election at that time you can only expect to get a proportion, and perhaps not a very large proportion, of the votes of the absent soldiers. That must be so. All that I think that the House will expect of me as President of the Local Government Board, and therefore more or less charged under the Representation of the People Act with seeing that as many soldiers and sailors are able to record their votes as possible, is that I shall devise the best machinery that is possible, after consultation with those who are best able to give me advice. I have not relied upon myself. I have had a very helpful conference with some of the principal party agents. All the principal parties in England and Wales have been helping me in this matter, and their advice has been most useful. There is very little in the way of circular or suggestion that I have submitted to them on which they have not been practically unanimous.

    A great many points have been raised during the Debate, and I will deal with them one by one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) raised the question of the soldiers who have been called up since the list was published, and who, if they had been called up before, would have been on the absent voters' list. They are now soldiers, and they are not on the absent voters' list. They have been called up, and they may go anywhere at very short notice, in which case they will lose their vote. That was one of the questions which was put to the Conference. They decided that the registration officer should put them on the absent voters' list if the application were received before August, 1917, but they were unanimous that the absent voters' list could not be altered when it was once published. I am, however, going again to consider the question with some of my friends to see whether we can devise any way by which these men who were called up on a date too late to be put on the absent voters' list can be added to the list of voters to whom ballot papers will be sent, and who therefore will be able to vote by post. I think what I have said practically answers the questions addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) as to the measures to be adopted to enable soldiers and sailors to exercise their votes with knowledge. I have said that if the statutory dates were adhered to and no notice were given of the Proclamation, then their chance of being able to see the addresses of the candidates, and possibly receiving their ballot papers would undoubtedly be very much diminished.

    My hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) addressed to me a very important question. He said that when considering the Representation of the People Act we foresaw these difficulties about the soldiers in France and Belgium, and that unless we arranged for the counting of the votes many days after the actual polling their ballot papers would not be returned in time. The Act therefore provided that we might enact by Order in Council that the counting of the votes might take place on any date not exceeding eight days after the poll. His recollection was quite right. Other and longer dates were proposed, and the Government did want Governments very often do. They compromised between two or three Amendments and fixed on eight days. I have been seriously considering whether it would be advisable to pass just a one-Clause Bill extending those eight days to something like eleven or twelve. After all, when we settled upon the eight days our soldiers were very much nearer to England than they are now. And let us hope they will be much further from England when the election takes place than they were when the Representation of the People Act was passed. We can hardly fix the date, but demobilisation will take a very long time. There is one argument for extending the number of days. At all events I think it is well worth considering, and I recommend it to the attention of my right hon. Friend who has paid such enormous attention to all the details of the Act. It is only my own personal view—I have not had an opportunity of consulting any of my colleagues—but I know that it would help the Post Office enormously if we could extend the date from eight days to twelve. The difficulties that the Post Office will have are very great indeed. There are something like 2,000,000 soldiers in France and Belgium, and let us take 2½ candidates on the average to each constituency. That means 5,000,000 election addresses and 2,000,000 ballot papers to be carried, and each ballot paper has to have three envelopes, an inner envelope in which the ballot paper is placed, the envelope in which it is to be returned to the returning officer, and the envelope which contains them all. The Post Office is going to be tried to the utmost to do this work. I have had considerable assistance from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Illingworth) and the Permanent Secretary to the Post Office, but it would undoubtedly very much ease their task if more days still could be allowed between the actual poll and the counting of the votes. I know the inconvenience. All hon. Members want to know their fate after they have gone through a contest. After all if we cannot know our fate at once possibly we should not care much this year if we had to wait twelve days instead of eight before our anxiety was relieved. At all events it is worth considering whether by extending the time to twelve days you would not make it much more possible for the soldiers to receive their election addresses before they actually put their cross upon the ballot paper.

    That also is an important matter. Questions have been addressed to me as to paper and petrol. I am not sure that that actually comes within this Vote, because it is a question of the expenses of the candidate, and not of the returning officer. At all events, it does not come in any way under my control. It is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, who is very carefully considering the rationing of petrol and paper for every candidate. He is very anxious that there should be a perfectly fair arrangement between the candidates. The regulations are not yet completed, and it would be better to address questions to him at a later period, so that he can give details as to what would and could be allowed in the way of paper and petrol. So far as my information goes, I believe we shall have quite sufficient paper for our election addresses, and, on the whole, the prices charged by the Government for paper and envelopes are not going to be excessive, and are not going to make it difficult for us to keep within our election expenses. At all events, that is my belief and my hope.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman make representation to the Stationery Office with regard to the printing difficulties?

    The Stationery Office has been helping in every possible way, and has been of the greatest service to all the Departments, and I doubt not they will continue their good efforts with the printers. The hon. Member (Mr. Gilbert) raised the question of the next register and asked whether we could not insist on a house-to-house canvass, so that the registers may be more complete. I am looking into the case of the register of Bermondsey. The town clerk was to have seen me this morning. I was unable to see him, but I am going carefully into that question. We cannot remedy now a register which is imperfect, but I am as anxious as the hon. Member for a regular house-to-house canvass. There were very great difficulties in the matter of composing the first register. Let us hope some of the difficulties, at all events, will disappear before the next register. In the next register we keep to the qualifications mentioned in the Representation of the People Act, but we are not going to bring it into force until the 15th May of next year instead of 15th April. That will give one more month, and that month, I think, will be of very great value, and by giving it we shall be able to obtain a much more perfect register. All the work done upon it will undoubtedly very greatly help the overseers and those who have the task of preparing the first register. I am bound to say, in defence of the registration officers and overseers, that the work was extraordinarily difficult to perform, partly because of the very peculiar franchise—a hypothetical franchise—and partly, perhaps, because the pink paper was not the very best form we could have devised. However, we took very good advice on that. But, at all events, we think we can improve upon it on the next occasion. Possibly we shall have the great advantage of the polishing character of the party machinery, because, say what we may about the party machinery keeping people off the register, as undoubtedly it did, it also put a great number of people on the register that the registration officer never heard of at all. It was by the sharp friction of the parties acting not together but oppositely that the stone was polished and the register became the perfect register it was. Possibly we may get more help in that way from the party machinery than we shall get this time, when we are all anxious that there should be no objections at all and everyone should get on.

    I have to add one word of very deep regret which I am sure the House will share with me. On every occasion on winch I have stood at this Box in connection with the passage of the Representation of the People Act, I had as my principal adviser, under the Gallery, Sir Walter Jerred. He acted as secretary to the Speaker's Conference and to the Boundary Commission. The piles of circulars and instructions to the various registration and returning officers were all due to his great knowledge of the subject and to the extraordinary interest which he took in its practical fulfilment. He was a most faithful and devoted public servant. He came to an almost tragic and untimely end. It was entirely due to my having listened to the urgent plea of the Secretary of State for India and having lent Sir Walter to the Indian Government in order that he might help them to map out constituencies if so desired in India, and to assist the right hon. Gentleman to perform the great task which he has undertaken, that he was on the way to India when a much exhausted man from the work he had done, he was taken suddenly ill, an operation followed, and he died. We found him one of the most faithful servants we ever possessed, and this House and this country owe a great debt of gratitude for the splendid work he did. His death is a great loss, not only to the Local Government Board, but also to this House and the country.

    I should like to join in the tribute just paid by the President of the Local Government Board to Sir Walter Jerred. As one who has previously occupied the position of President of the Local Government Board and as one who took a very close interest in all matters relating to the Representation of the People Act, I am perhaps qualified to bear testimony to the great service which Sir Walter Jerred rendered to the State. How often has it been that a great architect who has seen the building which he has planned rise from the ground, has died before the roof has been completed and the house has been inhabited! So it is in this instance. We all deeply regret that Sir Walter Jerred has been taken away in the prime of his life and before he was able to see the final coping stone put upon the work in which he played such a great part.

    The Committee will be grateful to the President of the Local Government Board for a most interesting statement and the very full information which he has given us on many important matters relating to the Representation of the People Act. We appreciate the assiduous care which he and his Department have given and the efforts they have made to render the machinery of this Act workable for the next General Election. The greatest difficulty really belongs to the soldiers' vote. I was much interested to learn from him that with respect to the proxy vote it promises not to be a very great success. That was fully anticipated by many of us in the Debates on the Bill, and we were anxious to confine the proxy vote to the smallest possible limit and to secure that the soldiers should have an opportunity whenever practicable of voting by post. What my right hon. Friend has told me to-day has been somewhat gratifying to those of us who resisted the attempt made in some powerful quarters of the House to require all the soldiers to vote by proxy and not to have any postal vote at all. We resisted that, and I think what my right hon. Friend has said to-day has fully justified our action. I hope he will be able to secure from the Prime Minister, when the time for the General Election comes, a sufficient notice of the intention of dissolving Parliament, which, as he has pointed out, is absolutely essential if large numbers of soldiers and sailors are not to be disfranchised. It is necessary that a sufficient number of days should be given in order that the ballot papers may reach them. Not only that, but I submit that if it is not as important it is very nearly as important that the candidates should have sufficient time to secure the addresses of their voters in order to send them their election addresses and other election material. It is not enough that the voter should have before him merely the names of the persons who are soliciting his suffrage, without any knowledge of their opinions. It is essential, if the election is to be a reality, that the candidates should have the fullest opportunity of presenting their opinions to those whose votes they are seeking.

    9.0 P.M.

    Whether it will be possible, as the President of the Local Government Board has suggested, to stabilise the Army must depend, of course, upon military circumstances, altogether apart from election considerations. We cannot say to our enemies, if the War is still, unhappily, in progress, "Please abstain from attacking our forces, because our soldiers are for the next few days going to be engaged in voting." I do not know what Sir Douglas Haig and the generals in the Army would say if it were proposed in this particular week, in which we now are, to take the votes of the soldiers who happen to be occupying positions, let us say, in the neighbourhood of Le Cateau. Whether it will be possible to allow some extra days after the polling day in addition to the eight provided in the Act is a matter that will require much consideration. The whole election process from first to last will in any case be a very long one owing to the special circumstances of the time. We are to have at least eight days before the Proclamation, possibly more. I think it may be very desirable to have more, but taking eight days as the minimum, from the Proclamation to the poll is, I think, seventeen days, and from the poll to the counting of the votes is to be another eight days, in order to allow the soldiers' votes to be returned. This is a total already of thirty-three days, not counting Sundays. You must add at least four Sundays, making a total of thirty-seven days from the time that notice is first given of the election until the time the country knows what kind of Parliament it is to have. I have made a rough computation, and if notice was given to-morrow—I hope it will not be so—of a Dissolution of Parliament it would not be until the 1st of December next that the result of the election would be declared, and during the whole of that long time, during the months of October and November until the 1st of December—which happens to be on a Sunday, so that it would have to be on the 2nd of December—the country would not know under what regime it was likely to live. That would be a very great disturbance of the life of the country, and if negotiations were pending of any delicacy it would mean a very long interval before the bearing of the General Election could be fully ascertained. Therefore I hope it will only be from absolute necessity that other days will be added to this process. I think the Post Office, which, as I know, is a very efficient Department, ought to strain all its energies for the completion of the work which will be thrown upon it within the given time. It ought to have precedence almost over everything else. The sending out of the ballot papers and the return of the ballot papers ought to be conducted, if necessary, by means of special trains and, if necessary, by special boats. Every effort ought to be made in order that it may be done with the utmost possible rapidity.

    There was one point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) to which the President of the Local Government Board did not allude among the crowd of matters pressed upon his notice. It is the case of the soldier who has been registered twice in two constituencies, which must have occurred in a very large number of cases, because the information has been obtained from two quarters. Information has been obtained—first, from the man's home, and, secondly, from the man himself, and in a very large number of cases the soldier has been registered in two constituencies. He will consequently receive two ballot papers by post from two returning officers, and he will consider that having been invited officially to vote twice the law entitles him to vote twice. The law, of course, does not entitle him to vote twice, and if my memory serves me rightly he is liable to penalties if he does. No question can be addressed to him as you can address a question to a voter who presents himself on the polling day, "Have you already voted at this election?" That safeguard is obviously, from the nature of the case, impossible. Therefore you may find that a very large number of soldiers will be rendering themselves liable to penalties which, probably as a matter of fact, will not be enforced, and will be voting twice when the law does not intend that they should vote twice. I would suggest, therefore, for the consideration of my right hon. Friend, whether it would not be advisable to enclose with the ballot-papers to the soldier a short slip pointing out that no soldier is entitled to vote more than once, even if he receives two ballot-papers, except in the cases provided for in the Act, namely, if he has a university qualification or a separate business qualification. It ought not to be difficult, because the slip would be a uniform slip; exactly the same slip would be put into every envelope that went out, and therefore it should not cause any particular difficulty.

    I come last to the very important constitutional point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). The President of the Local Government Board was not able to satisfy the very natural curiosity which exists in all quarters of the House as to when an election is coming, but he did negatively give us one important piece of information—that no date or period had yet been fixed for it—which disposes of many newspaper statements that have been made for some time back, and which apparently rest on no better foundation than the many prophecies made during the last four years as to the date on which the War was likely to end. But he says that the election must come—and, indeed, obviously, that may be so—before the 31st March next. Therefore, the Government must make the necessary financial provision for that event. That is so reasonable a view to take that I feel sure the House will readily grant the money, not assuming necessarily that an election will come before the 31st March, but that an election may come, and that if it does the money must be at hand. But is the procedure which has been adopted by the Government, and which will, I have no doubt, be endorsed by the House, to be taken as a precedent for the future? What is to be the case in future years in the House of Commons in voting money for a General Election? This is a new problem, because hitherto returning officers' expenses have been paid by candidates themselves. It was a most iniquitous provision that the individual who presents himself as a candidate should have to pay for printing the ballot papers and also to provide the polling stations and the remuneration of the returning officer and of all the officials throughout the constituency. A more unreasonable state of things could not be conceived. Now for the first time we are to have in Parliament a financial Vote whenever there is to be a General Election. What is to be the procedure of Governments in future in respect to elections? Obviously they ought not to go to a General Election and spend the money without a Vote for the expenditure having been passed by Parliament. Spending the money illegally, or taking money out of the Civil Contingencies Fund—I do not know whether there is sufficient money in the Fund for that purpose; I believe not—are very undesirable processes. They ought to get a Vote of Parliament. Some observations by the President of the Local Government Board suggested that he thought that in future years the Government would present an Estimate for the sum required whenever a General Election was in prospect. That might cause very great inconvenience. What is meant by "in prospect"?

    When Parliament was approaching its natural decease. I rather indicated that in future Parliaments, when we were approaching the end of the fifth year, we should make provision for an election unless the life of Parliament was prolonged.

    But many Parliaments die prematurely. In fact, in the days of the Septennial Act Parliament never reached its full term. Is the Government of the day to present, say, in the fourth year of a Parliament an Estimate for a General Election? If so, is not that an indication that that Government is about to proceed to a Dissolution, and might not it cause great anxiety and inconvenience not only to the administration itself, but to the House and to the country, to have this threat held over them? Is not it rather like the position when between two countries there are somewhat strained relations, and one of them suddenly proposes a very large expenditure upon its army or fleet? It may be taken as an immediate indication that aggressive measures are in prospect, and diplomatic relations may be impaired by the fact. The moment the Government comes to the House for a Vote for £500,000, or whatever sum it may be, for a General Election we enter almost immediately upon an electoral period, with all the consequences that follow. Suppose after the second or third year it is thought desirable to have a Dissolution, or that a defeat of the Government involves immediate Dissolution, then, apparently, an Estimate will have to be presented in those conditions at once for the sum necessary for a General Election. What if the House rejects that Estimate? That is really the point that occurs to the ingenious mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. For the first time we are making an election depend upon a Financial Vote. We are making a Financial Vote depend upon the action of the House. Consequently the power of the purse, which has always been constitutionally vested in Parliament, may be used in future as a means of securing a postponement of its own dissolution. That is a very serious constitutional change, and to some extent also it impairs the rights of the people who may wish to have an election. The more unpopular the House of Commons of the day may be, the more unwilling it may be to vote for a reference back to its constituents.

    Another alternative plan would be to put down every year an Estimate for the sum that a General Election would cost and not to use the money unless the General Election actually took place. That is an alternative which would have its disadvantages. If a General Election did not take place you would have a surplus at the end of the year by the amount voted and not spent. Consequently every year you would have an artificial surplus except in the year in which a General Election occurred. That is a position which would offend the mind of a financial purist like my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baldwin). The last alternative that occurs to me, in the hurried examination of the problem which I have made since my hon. Friend raised his point, is that it might be thought advisable to pass a general Statute authorising the expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of such money as was required for a General Election in any year in which that General Election took place by the Dissolution of Parliament by the King on the advice of his Ministers or of his own motion, and that a sum sufficient to defray the expenses of by-elections should be included in the annual Estimates. These are constitutional points, not without their importance, which deserve the consideration both of the Government And of the House, and I commend these various problems and their possible solution to their consideration accordingly.

    There are one or two points which I would like to emphasise which are of grave importance to many of us. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would approach the Treasury to look with some amount of consideration on the question of the price of the register. There is a very large number of constituencies, most of them industrial in character, that have 45,000 electors. Those of us who may have to fight in some of these constituencies are in the position that, first, we are face to face with an enormously increased price for each register, and also that we require many more registers than are required at present when we fight, say, a constituency of 25,000 voters or a smaller number. In the interests of all concerned I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be as emphatic as he possibly can with the Treasury, and see whether he cannot get them to make some concession to those who have to face this difficulty. Another point, which I do not think was dealt with in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, is one of great importance in connection with the election that may take place at the expiration of this Parliament under the existing Act. Every person concerned in these contests wants to know from the Post Office, as soon as possible, what are the dimensions and what are the conditions under which circulars and newspapers can go through the post. I see no reason why the Post Office authorities at an early date should not give to the public, candidates, or agents, and others employed in the conduct of elections, information as to the size of circulars, and the conditions under which they are to be posted. The candidates and their agents want to know these conditions as soon as possible. There are candidates who believe that their personal appearance may appeal to the electors and cause them to win the contest. They think, perhaps, that the lady voters on seeing the portrait of the candidate will be induced to vote for him, so that it would be useful for candidates, who rely upon that method of winning the suffrages of the electors, to know what size the block presenting a portrait should be, and what should be the dimensions of the documents on which it appears. I earnestly hope that these practical points will receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

    Another matter, also of great importance, is what provision is to be made—I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has given it a good deal of thought, but it is one of which we want to impress upon him the necessity—for having a sufficient number of voting places with the names and number of the electors. The places provided for the recording of votes should offer every facility for entering and leaving the buildings. As a man of very large practical experience of elections, I would point out that in the early morning, or in the meal hour, or at night, large numbers of electors are found trying it may be, to get into some schoolroom with only one means of ingress and exit, with the result that you have a crowd trying to stream in while another is trying to stream out, so that the whole machinery of the election, for that reason, breaks down. I am not going into all the details of the constitutional question connected with the voting of this money; that will have to be considered by Parliament in the time to come. I listened with the utmost attention to the very elaborate description which the President of the Local Government Board gave of the machinery he is trying to create for the purpose of soldiers and sailors recording their votes. We are all most anxious that they should be able, as far as possible, to record their votes. I do not think anyone would criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not having given the matter a vast amount of thought, but when one listened to all his account of the elaborate machinery to be put in force, before the absent voters' list is sent to the returning officer, and other steps taken, one asks oneself how the candidate is going to meet the difficulties that will present themselves, unless time is given after the returning officer passes the lists to the agents. The record office has its staff, and the returning officer has his staff but how is a candidate to despatch, address, and pack these lists in time? I think that is a question well worthy of consideration, and even more than the right hon. Gentleman has given to it. We look aghast at the difficulty in which the soldier or sailor will be to record his vote, and many of us wish, if it were possible that the vote of the soldier or sailor should be given under conditions different from what they are at the present time. If the soldiers' votes are to be taken in the trenches while the War is going on, then I think it will require all the ingenuity which is possible to be brought to bear by the Local Government Board to get 20 per cent. of the absent votes, or a much smaller number than that. I do not think, however, you will get anything approaching 20 per cent. under the existing circumstances to record their votes. There are other practical points which I could mention, but I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee longer.

    This legislation is common both to England and Ireland, and the complaint made in Ireland is that the necessary forms have not been circulated in that country, nor have they ever been published in the "Dublin Gazette" or in any other quarter. There are entire localities in Ireland where the Local Government officials have never circulated the forms, and the officials did not seem to carry out their duties No information whatever was given in the "Dublin Gazette," and therefore no one could get a copy of the forms, which they might have caused to be printed by some private printer, and in that way overcome the difficulty. There was no possibility of remedying the defects. Then there were no forms of claim to be had, and the person had to make application to the Clerk of the Crown. Then, again, the forms of objection could only be had on personal application to the Clerk of the Peace. We have the complaint that under this Act, which was to simplify elections, there were as many as nine forms of claim, which is perfectly preposterous—nine forms before a voter could decide which one of the nine forms was the appropriate one in his case. The time was so short after the lists were published that persons who were wrongly described or omitted altogether had no opportunity of effecting a remedy, so that the registers are not accurate. These forms of claim were never published in the "Gazette" or anywhere else, nor were the dates given at which forms of claim were to be obtained, and all this has really prevented the work from being done in Ireland as it ought to be done. Forms of objection could not be had unless on application to the Clerk of the Peace, and all this led to a great number of complaints in all parts of the country that persons who were disqualified remained upon the register, and that the first register prepared is not at all a perfect or true register as regards the people in Ireland who are qualified to vote at the next election.

    Again, there has been no uniformity in the work as carried out by Clerks of the Crown and Peace. Some of them were experienced registration officials in their previous careers. In a number of cases claims were put in in Irish. In some of the cases of Clerk of the Peace, understanding Irish, was able to deal with them. In the other cases the claims were thrown aside in bulk, and were not dealt with at all. There ought to have been more direction from headquarters. But my principal complaint is that there was no publication of the dates of sittings of the Court, and no opportunity given to persons to correct the defects of the Local Government officials. It is preposterous and monstrous that the charge for the register should be put at so high a figure. Under the Act of 1885 the uniform charge for the register of voters was 10s. in Ireland, with a proportionately smaller charge where only sections of the register were required. The charges now range from £4 to £7 or £8, and this is being done under an Act which we were informed was intended to simplify registration and reduce the cost to candidates. In my opinion it is a most monstrous charge to be imposed upon anyone who has to carry through a contested election. In most constituencies it is necessary for a candidate to supply himself with at least twenty copies of the register, and that will mean a charge of £100 to start with, a figure which will cut a long way into the limited amount allowed for election costs. It will make the conduct of many elections quite impossible under the circumstances. Another complaint I have to make is that there is no check whatever upon the charges which may be made by the Clerk of the Peace. We say that the amount is too large, and that the present system of registration is inefficient. I hope more attention will be given to the publication of notices in regard to the register, and that due time will be allowed to enable the examination of the register by experienced party agents.

    I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General will be able to enlighten me on the points I wish to raise, points which are mainly concerned with procedure in the preparation of these lists. The first point I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is the manner in which the Stationery Office in Dublin was allowed to interfere with the county councils in Ireland in this matter. Hitherto, under the old Acts, the county councils of Ireland were the sole authority responsible for the preparation of the lists as well as for the printing, but now that the cost is to be defrayed by the Treasury they have appointed the Stationery Office in Dublin to receive tenders and allot the printing contract, advised no doubt by the county council as to whom in their opinion the contract should go. But the result of this procedure has been, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of this point, that in many cases the Stationery Office proceeded to overrule the recommendations of the county council. I do not know whether they were entitled by law so to do, but as a matter of fact, they did it, and the result has been that a considerable number of Irish voters registration lists have been printed in England. Having regard to what we hear about the difficulty of the Stationery Office in London in getting printing done in England, and bearing in mind, too, that we have good printing offices in Ireland, I say that the course adopted was a perfect scandal.

    My second complaint is as to the procedure. The Local Government Board issued a number of Circulars, some of which were entirely contradictory. I regret I have not copies of them with me. But take the Circulars which dealt with the preparation of the present voters' lists. They first instructed the printing contractor to insert the names of the absent voters in the body of the general list. Then came another Circular stating that the absent voters' names should be printed in a separate list, and finally they compromised the situation by saying that it should be a little of one and a little of the other—that the names should be printed in the general list, and subsequently, in a separate list by themselves. That is but a small specimen of the bungling which went on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that under the old Acts the Revision Courts in Ireland were open. They were held by the County Court judges in each county, and at their Courts the official and personal objections were considered. But under the new Act very-grave irregularities have occurred. Clerks of the Crown and Peace have interpreted the instructions according to their own particular fancies. Let me take the case of the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Roscommon. He was an experienced election agent in Tyrone before he was appointed to this position. What did he do? He gave notice in the Press that he would hold Revision Courts in all parts of the constituencies no matter how small, and I believe it is the fact that he went into every Parliamentary polling district, even into the little village of Keadue in the extreme north of the county, and held a Court. Thus everybody had an opportunity to prove their claims or objection. But the Clerk of the Peace for the adjoining county took quite a different course. He only sat in three centres, and inasmuch as most of the people concerned received no notice of the sitting they did not attend, and the whole business of the Court was practically concluded within a few hours. I hold most strongly that public notice should be given in the Press of the date, time, and place of holding these Revision Courts, and that it should be the duty of the Clerk to the Crown and Peace to go into every polling district so that every man should have an opportunity of making and proving his claim or objection. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these rural districts in Ireland differ very greatly from places like, say, the City of London, where a voter may only have to go a few steps to reach the Court in which his claim is considered. The Irish voter may have to walk three, four or six miles to attend a Court. He is less well trained in election procedure, and therefore is entitled to greater facilities in this matter. No doubt the same sort of thing occurred in other counties. In the North of Ireland, I believe, the work was done in different counties in a different manner. In the South of Ireland it was done in the haphazard manner of which my hon. Friend has complained. As to the publication of the forms, I have still another complaint. On the first form, I believe, there were five schedules to be filled in, and they were of a most confusing character. The instructions were by no means clear, and I do suggest that they should have been more simple and far more direct. Then I have a complaint to make with regard to the preparations of the lists. There, again, the procedure has been most unsatisfactory, and I know of one case in which the rate collector himself sat down and wrote out the list instead of having the proper inquiries made. There was no question of examination at all.

    These are matters which I think we are entitled to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. This is the first year's list of electors and we will have another in a year's time. I suggest that in future the forms under the Act should be entirely simplified and not all grouped together. A very simple method would be to have one form for men and another for women and not mix them up together as is done now. The second point I submit is that direct and personal instructions, all of the same kind, should be given to the registration officers and that they should be, if necessary, called up to the Local Government Board to receive a lesson in the procedure, and that I think would do some of them no harm. I am sure it would prevent that confusion in administration of which we now complain. Over and above that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the county councils, who are called upon to pay half the cost of this work, to be set aside altogether by the Government Stationery Office. I make no complaint against the office as I know nothing against it. I think that the local authorities which hitherto were trusted with the preparation of these lists should be allowed to continue that function, since no complaint has been made against them as to the manner in which they performed the duty. I understand that the present arrangement is to stand for three years and that the first, second and third lists are to be prepared under this system of dual control. I assume that after the next election we will have, perhaps, a more democratic administration, but whether we have or not, I urge that this matter of the preparation of the lists should not be taken out of the hands of the county councils. I especially ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of that objection, which is much deeper than perhaps he thinks, and which affects us industrially in Ireland just as well as politically or in the local Government sense. If it can be shown that the county councils are incompetent in doing this work, or have proved themselves to be so in the past, then by all means make other arrangements. I think it is entirely unfair and improper to deprive them of the opportunity of the preparation of these lists, and I think that we are entitled to complain that that has been done.

    Under the new franchise there has been an enormous increase of voters all over the country. In my county of Longford there were two constituences with a total of 9,000 votes, and under the recent Act there will be only one Parliamentary seat for which the electorate under the new franchise will be 21,450. The Postmaster-General has been asked to give facilities for approaching the electors at the proper time, and I assume those given in Great Britain will also apply to Ireland. But I think that during the Debate on this subject while the Bill was going through, it was stated that the postal authorities would only be responsible as to one-third of the literature being sent through the post, or that it would be limited in some sense, and that a certain proportion would have to be paid by the candidate and another proportion franked by the Post Office. If that is so, and I put the matter hypothetically, then I claim that we should have the facilities accorded to us to approach the electorate which you are according, say, as to the soldiers at the Front or the people of this country, and that the election address of each candidate and any other literature he likes to enclose, provided it is not too bulky, should be franked by the Post Office. We have nothing to do with the great question of settling the time of the General Election, and I believe there is only one statesman in this country, in or out of Parliament, able to settle this question. What he intends to do nobody knows and probably at present he does not know himself. When the General Election does come, I sincerely hope that after it when the next list is being prepared that the Local Government Board in Ireland will devise some better rules than were in force for the preparation of the first lists. No doubt this matter was very technical and it was very hard to have everything right in so short a time. We are all anxious, I am sure my colleagues are all anxious, that every person who is entitled to be on the electorate no matter who he is, friend or enemy, should be there provided he is there lawfully. But if in the preparation of the lists any step has not been taken which should have been taken as to minors being on the list, and I am afraid a large number are on our electorate who would have been excluded under the old system of open revision, that that point will not be neglected in the preparation of the second list.

    There is the point as to what is to happen in the case of the soldiers who are on leave at the time of the election, and who will probably number about 60,000. They may be in this country from France, and of course some provision ought to be made by which they can exercise the franchise. I am now given to understand that this point has been dealt with already, and therefore I do not propose to refer to it further.

    I join with my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. Farrell) in entering a protest that we have here in this House to move the Adjournment in order to induce one of the representatives of the Irish Government to come in and be present during this discussion. We are treated occasionally to many insults from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whenever there is anything of importance on which we want to obtain information he is conspicuous by his absence. I do not know that the Attorney-General knows very much about the administration of local government in Ireland, but as he is here and as there is no other opportunity of putting any of these points before the officer who is responsible to this House, namely, the Chief Secretary, I would venture to put them before him. In the first place, as we have heard, not from one, but from several Members on these benches, there was absolutely no uniformity in the preparation of the lists in Ireland. In one constituency no form whatever was delivered to any residents in the district. In fact, the officer responsible made it clear that no forms would be delivered and that it was entirely unnecessary. In Ireland we have more acute political differences than there are in this country. It went so far that in certain constituencies the officer actually warned the people where the forms were delivered that it would be very dangerous to fill them up and that if they were returned they might be used for Conscription in Ireland. We have other cases where people signed their names in Irish, and the responsible officer threw the forms aside and would not recognise them. After all, a person is entitled to write his name as he chooses, and if he chooses to have his name in Irish he has got as much right and liberty to have it so published in the register as any other person. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman definitely whether it was necessary that the forms should be delivered? In the city of Dublin we have no complaints, because the officer went round to every single house and investigated closely and delivered the forms.

    The next point is that of objections. There was absolutely no opportunity given to anyone to lodge objections to those who were not qualified. We have, it is suggested, a very large number of people claiming to be on the register who are under age. Could there not have been some machinery devised to secure that those who were under the age could not get on the register? The objection forms were not delivered, and, in fact, I was informed that in one constituency, when they wrote asking for objection forms, one of the party agents replied that they must apply individually to lodge objections. It has been suggested in the discussion that there should be something in the nature of a permanent and adequate staff to deal with the register the whole year through. If a register is to be permanent and efficient, some notice should be taken of deaths, and for this purpose you should have an efficient staff, and not be taking on casuals to do the work for two or three months who, just at the very time when they have learned something, are dispensed with altogether. In reference to absent voters, we have a lively recollection of the scandals which took place in connection with absent voters so far as Canada is concerned, and we do not want a repetition of that in Ireland. I therefore hope we shall have something clear and definite from the right hon. Gentleman as to the manner in which the names of the absent voters will be taken. Can a number nominate some person, or must each individual nominate only one? The suggestion is made, which I think is a clumsy suggestion, that whenever a Proclamation proclaiming the election takes place within a certain period all the addresses of candidates should be circulated, and this before the nomination takes place at all, and that the candidate should lodge a sum with the Postmaster-General to indemnify him, and as a sort of guarantee of good faith that he is going to be nominated at the election Nothing more clumsy or more ridiculous was ever suggested, because how does a candidate know beforehand that he will be opposed at all? Doubtless some will be returned unopposed. I trust that these points will be answered by the Attorney-General, and that he will be in a position to give us some idea, although he has no connection with the Local Government Board, and, I suppose, has no power in reference to it, as to what is in the mind of this extraordinary and capable Chief Secretary, who never comes here except to insult Members on these benches.

    I have no wish to detain the House for more than a few moments, but there are several points I would like to raise. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General knows that I have been connected with registration practically all my lifetime, and I put it to him, as an expert in law, that the machinery which is provided under this Act with regard to the preparation of the voting lists is not adequate. It is absurd to think that, if you get registration agents, and only employ them during a very limited period before the election or at a certain time during the course of the year, these men will take an interest in their work, or that they will be qualified for the work which they undertake. I know the right hon. Gentleman has had connection with the Conservative Registration Association in Dublin, and it is the practice of that association to keep men constantly at the job. Therefore I put it to him as a business politician, because he has made politics his business more or less, that if he wants registration properly carried out he must have an adequate machinery to do it. He knows how lists can be gerrymandered and how dead men can be brought to vote. I have known cases in South Dublin, where I have been connected with registration for the last thirty years, where men who have been dead for twenty years voted at an election. Talk about resurrections! Very frequently dead men have voted several times at one election. I want to know as an honest politician—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman is one himself—what steps he is going to take to purify the register and whether he will take adequate means, so that the men and the women who are entitled to vote shall have the vote. I happen to have been the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin for the last twenty-six years, and since my first election I never had a contest. I do not want a contest, and I do not suppose that any Member of this House does want a contest, so that my position in that respect is not peculiar, but we have not all got the good luck of being able to avoid a contest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman naturally does not take the same trouble as if he were what I might call a genuine democratic representative. Therefore I do think—and I may say it in all seriousness with the greatest possible respect for the Attorney-General, because he and I have been in conflict several times about various matters, and I have always found him a strong opponent—there was really no opportunity on this last register for raising objections. Only a few days were given for objections and there was practically no tribunal provided. I do not want to object to anybody. If I had my way, every man and woman over twenty-one would have a vote. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that in the olden days Rathmines had more lodgers than all the rest of Ireland. It had them from the perambulator up to ninety years of age, so that at that time the Revision Court was a lively place. But now there is no Revision Court, and anyone who makes a claim there has practically no place to which he can go to have it examined into. I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take note of these two points particularly—one is that an adequate staff should be provided—not at extraordinary expense—to do the work all the year round, and the other is the provision of a Court—I do not know about a Court; there are too many Courts in Ireland, unfortunately, and not half enough work for them, and they are better paid than the people who do the work in the country—but you want some tribunal where the register can be cleared of those who really have no right to vote. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of this, because I think he knows I have had some experience of the subject.

    10.0 P.M.

    I must apologise to my hon. Friends on the opposite side, on my own behalf and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, for not having been here when this matter was first raised in this House. I do so most sincerely, and I may say I was surprised to receive a message that these questions were to be raised on this Vote. I certainly had no notice that they would be brought forward, and I am sure my right hon. Friend, who is very urgently occupied, or undoubtedly he would have been here, is in exactly the same position. I think I should be paying a very poor compliment indeed to the very constructive criticism which has come from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork and other hon. Members if I were to attempt to reply here in debate to these different criticisms. All I can undertake to do is to take particular care that their complaints are inquired into, and on the Report stage I shall take the opportunity of answering them as fully as I can. I would ask the hon. Member for the College Green Division (Mr. Nugent) kindly to furnish me with the name of the revising officer who, as I gather, is asserted to have declared that no forms were to be returned. That is a very serious matter. The hon. Member also stated that in sending round these forms it was intimated that they might be used for Conscription purposes. It is a very serious matter if such a thing has been done. I am sure the hon. Member has not made this assertion without having very good grounds, and if he will kindly furnish me with the names I will certainly have particular inquiry made.

    The idea prevails very largely in Dublin, to my own personal knowledge, that the fact of signing these papers renders these men liable to Conscription.

    I know myself that there was some such idea but, as I understand the statement of the hon. Member for the College Green Division, it was that certain men, whose business it was to see that this register was properly compiled and that these forms reached the proper persons, in sending round these forms intimated that they might be used for purposes of Conscription. I do not know whether I am correct in my interpretation?

    If the hon. Member will kindly let us have the names of those persons, I will certainly have inquiry made into the matter, and will see what answer, if there is an answer, there is to be made. As I said before, I do not think I ought to pretend to answer these complaints that have been made to-night, because I have not had any apportunity of looking into them. There is one matter which, I think, has been mentioned by the hon. Member for the College Green Division with regard to petrol supply. That would not, I think, come up on this Vote. As to the forms which have been provided, so far as I know they are almost identical with the forms used in England, but if there is anything requiring reconsideration I am sure the gentlemen connected with the Local Government Board who deal with this will be happy to add any such instructions, and will try in every way possible to facilitate the compilation of the register in the future.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the gravest complaint was that these forms were not published.

    These particular charges will be inquired into, and, I hope, will be dealt with in a satisfactory way on the Report stage.

    Could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us some definite information as to whether these forms have been delivered or not?

    I would rather not make any statement before the matter is inquired into. I think it would be fairer to those gentlemen who might possibly be charged with derogation of duty. In regard to the post office facilities I myself was a member of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Local Government Board, and we went into this question considerably. Hon. Members opposite may take it that whatever facilities are given in England will be similarly granted to Ireland. There is the one other matter commented upon by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division (Mr. Field). I am sure that whatever the result of the contest may be, everyone in the House will hope that he will come back here victorious. There is one thing I may say. It is a very remarkable thing that in the whole of Ireland, though the registration officers work under exceptional difficulties, they have certainly achieved an amount of success that is gratifying, for in former times we should have had a great number of appeals, and there has not been a single appeal from the whole of Ireland this year. All that I can do in connection with the general complaints that have been put forward is to promise my very best to have the cases inquired into. Whatever suggestions may be made as to the future of registration, I am sure they will receive our very best consideration.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Stationery And Printing—(Class 2)

    Resolved,

    "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 and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

    Army

    Resolved,

    "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."

    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    The remaining Order was read, and postponed

    Viscount Milner (Interview)

    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

    I desire to call attention to a question of which I have given notice, and in consequence of questions put to the Leader of the House yesterday with reference to the interview granted by Lord Milner last week to a representative of the "Evening Standard." It appears to me that Members of this House ought to draw attention to these matters, otherwise we shall be deprived of discussing blunders on the part of members of the Government which they commit from time to time. The statement of Lord Milner, I believe, has really caused profound misgiving in the minds of a great many people in this country, and not only here, but in the minds of our Allies across the water. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not Allies!"] I put certain questions to the Government yesterday to which no attempt was made to reply. The first point I want to ask is whether Lord Milner, in making the declaration he did, merely spoke on his own behalf, or was he speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government? In the second place, I want to draw attention to the peculiar circumstances surrounding the interview. It was given to one paper alone; it did not appear, at any rate for some days, in other organs of the Press. I do not understand, if a member of the Government is to make a statement on a very grave matter of public policy, why he does not come down to this House, or if he is a member of the House of Lords, why he should not go there and make his declaration so that it could be read the next morning by every elector throughout the country.

    Another question I asked was whether this declaration was censored before, it was allowed to go abroad. To that question I received no reply. Another question was: Was the Foreign Office consulted before this declaration of policy was made? I have yet to learn why the head of the War Office should assume the duties that are intimately connected with the Foreign Office; why the Minister for War should take upon himself to perform functions which are usually allocated to the Foreign Secretary? I submit we have had no adequate explanation and no replies to these questions. I am not going to go into the contents of this interview. What I want to lay particular stress upon is the effect which an interview of this kind would have upon the mass of the German people, and especially upon those who are responsible for the German Government. Lord Milner tells us that the German people are not in love with militarism. It is a rather unfortunate instance which he quoted, the occurrence at Zabern, in 1913. He also said that the Allies demanded drastic changes in the Government, both as regards the constitution and personnel of the German Government. He might have made some distinction between the autocracy in Germany and the German people. He might have said that the terms offered to the German people would be softer than the terms which would be offered if they insisted upon retaining the House of Hohenzollern. He said nothing of the kind. He said nothing of the kind, and I feel certain that the people of this country and the people throughout the world regard the Hohenzollerns as the embodiment of that Prussian militarism we are out to destroy in this War. The people of this country will never believe the German Government are really sincere until the House of Hohenzollern ceases to exist as the rulers of Germany. Now, Sir, there was one other important omission in this declaration, and that is that from beginning to end there was no reference whatever to the Notes of President Wilson. The President has pleaded and is pleading for unity of purpose and counsel in Allied policy. He has told us without this unity of purpose and counsel victory cannot be achieved. He has told us it is as imperatively necessary as unity of command in the battlefield, and therefore it is a very serious matter when, at the moment we were waiting the German reply to the last Note of President Wilson, the Secretary of State for War should butt in on his own account and make the declaration which he did on that occasion. I think this is a grave blunder, and we ought to know, the Government ought to tell us with the least delay, what their policy is and to assure us that unity of purpose and counsel is henceforward to be the watchword of the Allies.

    I think it is really a most extraordinary, a scandalous state of things that no representative of the Government is here—

    —to answer the very important speech just delivered. I have been a long time in this House, and I do not remember in all my long experience any Government carrying out a policy so extraordinary and so indefensible as that of the Government during the last ten days. We had, in response to repeated questions since the opening of this sitting of the House of Commons, solemn warnings, repeated over and over again by the Leader of the House, in these words, in reply to my questions:

    "It is against the public interest to discuss these matters at the present time."
    and while the Leader of the House in the House of Commons meets every attempt to obtain any information by these repeated warnings that it is against the public interest to discuss these matters, his own colleagues outside the House continue to discuss them, in my mind, in the most stupid and mischievous manner. Could anything be imagined more grotesque than that? This House of Commons has been subjected for the last two or three years, during the continuance of this War, to continued insults of that description, and no wonder people outside have no respect for the House of Commons, thanks to the War Cabinet, and its proceedings, and it has come to be, under this regime, that the one spot and the one body in the whole of the United Kingdom where these enormously important and vital interests are not to be discussed is the House of Commons.

    Yes, that is the way to make the world safe for democracy, to discredit, insult, and snub the House of Commons, and the House of Commons is kept in a state of ignorance. At last the Government arrive! [Sir George Cave and Mr. Hayes Fisher hero entered the House.] I was saying the House of Commons has been systematically snubbed and insulted in these matters, while the right hon. Gentleman who has just entered—I thought it was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; I did not see. While the House is kept in that state of ignorance this matter is dismissed, not only by colleagues of the Leader of the House, but by everybody and by subordinate members or employés of the Ministry like Lord Northcliffe. And yet we are told it is against public interest to discuss it in the House of Commons, but Lord Northcliffe, whose courage I admire, came down to the Washington Inn and addressing a crowd of American officers, what did he do? He read from a carefully prepared manuscript and he said: "As nobody else appears to be able or to have the courage to state the British terms of peace, I shall do it." That was thoroughly characteristic of Lord Northcliffe, and I have no doubt what he said the Cabinet will say next week. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] At all events, is it not a public scandal that whilst the British House of Commons is denied all information because we are told it is against public interest, Lord Northcliffe, in the Washington Inn, declares that as nobody has the courage—I need not point the moral and say who he refers to—I will. Lord Northcliffe went on to make a complete detailed, elaborate, and I am bound to say a very rational, statement of what the British peace terms are. No doubt after a fortnight of silence we shall be informed that Lord Northcliffe's terms are the terms of the British Cabinet. Lord Milner also has his view. He did not go into details, but he is concerned that we should not disturb the personnel of the German Government. Is that the policy of the British Government? When we put that question to the Leader of the House what was his answer the other day, and it was a very marked and important reply. The Leader of the House, in reply to a question of mine, said:

    "The hon. Member is perfectly well aware, from his long experience of this House, what is the custom and practice of this country. Ministers frequently speak without consulting their colleagues on matters of public policy, and he has no right to assume that Lord Milner's policy is repudiated by his colleagues."
    Then I put the question whether that policy was repudiated or not. Lord Milner is the Minister for War, and that gives peculiar weight to his words, and if he had a proper conception of his position, he would not have expressed an opinion of that kind. It is wholly improper for him to step in to the province of the Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister to declare the policy of the country at a crisis like this. Until quite recently Lord Milner was a member of the War Cabinet. What was the result of his declaration? In the first place, it was the one topic of comment in the whole of the American Press. The American Press undoubtedly took it as a slap in the face for President Wilson, who throughout the whole of his great historic utterances during the year has laid special stress—he has repeated it in that magnificent document published in the evening papers to-day and it occurs in every single one of his great utterances—upon the fact that the main and most fundamental and important matter in this controversy is that the German people must give an assurance of their good faith by changing their Government, and, if possible, the personnel of their Government. That is President Wilson's fundamental principle, and, while the House of Commons is silenced and public opinion in this country is silenced—I believe very soon it will break loose from the bond of silence—one of the Ministers—with what powerful influences at his back I cannot profess to say, but does anyone doubt that he had powerful influences at his back when he published that interview?—counters President Wilson's fundamental condition and says he thinks it will be unwise for this country to make any condition that Germany should change the personnel or the form of her government. What was the result? All the German Press immediately took note of it, and, as far as as we can judge from what occurred, the German Note was held back for several days and re-edited. Of course, the American Press and public took it as a counterblast to President Wilson's chief condition, and Lord Northcliffe, who was the creator of Lord Milner, and forced Lord Milner into the Cabinet.

    Of course, I have always believed that Lord Milner was a Prussian at heart. He may be a loyal Englishman, but the Prussian system he has loved and has attempted to practise all throughout his life. I admire him. There is a great deal to be said for the Prussian system from the point of view of efficiency. Lord Northcliffe, who was the creator of Lord Milner, and who pushed him into the Cabinet and into English public life, much to the misfortune of the country, gets up at the Washington Inn, and, as a specimen of the mischief which the interview has done in America, reads a cablegram from one of his most important correspondents in America, saying, "What is the matter with Lord Milner? His interview has puzzled and bewildered the whole of the American public." That is a nice condition of things. The Leader of the House of Commons is able to muzzle us to the shame and disgrace of the House of Commons. No wonder we are met at every turn in the Press with contempt. No wonder I read in one of the leading democratic organs the other day that "England would not drop a tear if another Cromwell appeared at the door of the House of Commons, and turned us all out." We are held back by the leash put upon us by the Leader of the House, but to muzzle Lord Northcliffe is even beyond his capacity, and, as no one else has the courage, Lord Northcliffe undertakes the task of laying down the English terms.

    One after the other Ministers are breaking silence outside. None of them can be got to break silence here. Surely the House of Commons has something to hear on these important matters. Mr. Gladstone himself would never have flared to make any great anouncement of policy at a critical hour at some luncheon table or dinner in the City. But the Foreign Minister, not to be outdone by Lord Northcliffe, went to a lunch yesterday and delivered a speech. The only point he brought forward was that we would never give back the German Colonies. It may be right or wrong, but for England to put forward in the face of America and the world as the only, official expression of her policy at this moment that we will not give back the German Colonies is to render this country absolutely contemptible in the face of our Allies. No other word on this great issue! This is the response to the appeal of President Wilson in his great speech of 27th September, in which he made a most solemn appeal to the statesmen of the Allied Powers to speak at once as frankly and as openly as I have spoken. To that appeal to this hour no response has been given except that of Lord Milner to save the Hohenzollerns and the autocratic powers of Germany—[Interruption]—it is the truth, and I defy contradiction—and that of the Foreign Minister that we will hold on to the German Colonies.

    On a question of this kind the House of Commons, in spite of all the humiliation to which it has been subjected in the recent past, is entitled to enter a protest against its treatment this evening. My hon. and gallant Friend gave notice that he was going to raise this question of the statement made by Lord Milner. When he introduced the subject there were only two minor officials on the Front Bench, and since then they have been reinforced by the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board. That is obviously a situation which ought not to be tolerated. It is due to this House and the country that when a question of this importance is raised the Leader of the House, who is a member of the War Cabinet, should come to the House, reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, and state clearly and definitely the view of the Government on the matter. It is probable, of course, that had he come he would simply have repeated the answer he has already so often given that it is not in the public interest to discuss these matters. But what does this mean? Is it only in the House of Commons that it is not in the public interest to discuss them? And who, precisely, are to be muzzled on this matter? Apparently subordinate members of the Government are entitled to say what they please outside this House. We have had Lord Milner, whose interview has been the main topic of discussion; we have had the Foreign Secretary, and we have had Lord Northcliffe. They have had apparently the utmost licence to speak on this question. It is surely due to the country that some authoritative voice should be heard. We know that there is to be an important function to morrow evening, at which representatives of the Parliaments of the Allied Powers are to be entertained by the British Government. We are also informed that the Prime Minister is not to speak. We are informed officially—what appears in his Press is always official—that the Prime Minister is not going to speak. There is also a further private whisper abroad in the Lobbies that no member of the War Cabinet is to be allowed to speak. It is a humiliating position for this great country and this great Empire that neither the Prime Minister nor any member of his War Cabinet are to speak at this critical period in the history of the world.

    Not the Prime Minister nor any member of the War Cabinet. The War Secretary is a subordinate official. The Foreign Secretary is a subordinate official, Lord Northcliffe is a subordinate official. No member of the Government outside the War Cabinet is entitled to speak with any authority for this country, and we are consequently in this position that at the present time when these great issues are hanging in the balance, no man with any authority can stand forth and say what is the view of this great Empire. I think that is a humiliating part for this country. We have had two years of the present Government. In the month that the present Government came into power the first overtures came from Germany. At that time Great Britain could speak with a predominant voice for the Allies. The authoritative note which was written then was a note written by the British Foreign Secretary. To-day, after two years of the win-the-war Government, the only voice which speaks on behalf of the powers arrayed against Germany is a voice which comes, not from 10, Downing Street, but from the White House at Washington.

    I quite agree. We have ground for thankfulness in the interests of the world that that is so. This is the position into which the present Government have reduced Great Britain. In the last week of September, 1916, the present Prime Minister, then Secretary of State for War, gave an interview to the American Press at the dictation of Lord Northcliffc, in which he said, "Hands off, President Wilson!" Two years and three months have passed, and the man who was then told to keep out of this conflict by the present Prime Minister is the man who alone has the most powerful voice in the settlement. What is the conclusion to be drawn from that? I believe the Government are perfectly right in not coming here and endeavouring to speak, because they know perfectly well that they have not power in this settlement. The authority has departed from them. The function which in the old days was performed by Great Britain in all the great conflicts of Europe, the function of preserving the balance for 300 years, has now gone. It has passed to the other side of the Atlantic. This is the work of two years of His Majesty's present Ministers. I regret it from the British point of view. I believe that in entering this War Britain was not only defending a righteous cause, but that she was upholding British interests, defending the traditional position of Great Britain in relation to the affairs of Europe. But we have gone through many strange vicissitudes in these four years, and we are now face to face with this situation, and it is well that the people of this country should not be blind to it, that the role which this country has endeavoured to play is no longer in her hands. It has passed to the other side of the Atlantic. From the point of view of the ultimate settlement, I believe that it may be well. Personally, I much prefer to see the settlement in this War determined on the principle and by the authority of President Wilson, rather than on the principles and by the authority of His Majesty's present Ministers. I am not sure that His Majesty's present Ministers are very keen and enthusiastic opponents of militarism. I have never discerned anti-militarist symptoms in their spirit, their declarations, or their action. On the other hand, during their tenure of office, many of their acts of internal administration in this country have been, as it seemed to me, inspired by that spirit of militarism which we entered this War to destroy.

    During these two years I have seen a suppression of freedom in this country which was not in force in the early days of the War. Freedom of speech and freedom of writing have been dealt with in a harsher way than ever was done before. Indeed, there has been a different spirit in the Administration, and I am not surprised to find the present Secretary of State for War putting in a plea for the established order in Germany. A fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind. It is the god which he himself has formerly worshipped. It is the spirit of "never again" in South Africa. And why should he, therefore, see this old order dethroned in Germany? And, indeed, he says, further, that if it is dethroned in Germany it means revolution. Yes, and if revolution begins in Germany you do not know how far revolution may go in Germany. If that begins in Germany we do not know that it will be confined to Germany. It may, like influenza, affect the whole civilised world. We can, therefore, understand the apprehension and the alarm of gentlemen reared in the school of Lord Milner. I cannot expect that tonight the Home Secretary will be able to say anything authoritative on this matter. The Government has nothing to say. If it had anything to say, it would not matter what it says, and it is probably well that it would not matter what it says, because if it said anything it is probable it would say something mischievous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Whip upon the Front Bench, seems to think that this is very amusing, but it is very serious. It is not a caricature, it is sound basic, bedrock fact which we are dealing with, that the determining voice in this War no longer is at 10, Downing Street, but in Washington, for the very simple reason that the only Power in this War, among those who are fighting Germany, which has reserves of men and money, is the United States of America.

    The suggestion of morality coming from Wales is an appropriate suggestion. These are the determining facts of the present situation, and while we Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen may regret that, from the national point of view, it is nevertheless a matter for congratulation from the point of view of the progress and welfare of the civilisation of the world. This peace, when it is settled will be on the basis and in accordance with the principles which have been so nobly laid down by President Wilson. His is the only voice coming from any Statesman among the Powers, endeavouring to maintain throught the whole of this struggle the ideals and the principles which were understood to be the ideals and principles for which the Allies fought. In these circumstances we may look to that country's interest and to the silence of the British Government for the settlement which is soon to shine from this terrible strife in the sure hope that it will "be a settlement which will promote the welfare and civilisation of the world."

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer only had notice late this afternoon that the hon. and gallant Member, who initiated this Debate, would refer to-night to Lord Milner's speech. He is unable to be present, and in his absence I have only a few words to say to the House. It was said by the hon. Member that the House of Commons is silenced to-night, but I think the great majority of the House of Commons are silenced only by their own common sense. I think all responsible Members must feel that this is not the moment at which we can, with any advantage to the country, carry on in this House a discussion on the terms of peace. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do not you muzzle Lord Milner?"] Lord Northcliffe spoke entirely on his own account. My Noble Friend (Lord Milner) has been, I think, incorrectly quoted, and indeed travestied by the speakers to whom I have listened. He, too, gave his own views, but to initiate a discussion in this House and to ask members of the War Cabinet to come down here and discuss the terms of peace is to invite them to a course which we all feel would be against the interests of this country. We are in most critical days, when any speech made may possibly affect the course of history. Communications of intense moment are passing between the Governments of our enemies and ourselves and for us to come down to-day to the House of Commons to discuss here the terms either of an armistice or of peace would be to commit a very great mistake. Our enemies are watching every word that we say. The hon. Member asks that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should come down here and answer his questions about the terms of peace. The Prime Minister himself said that he does not think it right at the present moment to speak on this matter. It has been announced that he himself does not intend to speak on an occasion on which he might have spoken tomorrow. The Foreign Minister has said also that to discuss the terms of peace at this moment would be wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has done so!'] He only referred to one matter.

    Which he thought it desirable in the public interest to refer to on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to-day and on previous occasions has said the same thing. He has appealed to the House of Commons not to attempt to discuss this matter at the present moment. I am confident that when the Prime Minister feels that he can with benefit to this country refer in any public manner to this important question, he will come to the House of Commons and give the House his views. I do suggest to hon. Members that it is a mistake for them to expect or to ask any member of the War Cabinet or of the Government to discuss the matter now. I hope I have not been guilty of disrespect to the hon. Members who have spoken. They are entitled, of course, to give their views, but I hope that after what I have said they will not press the matter. At any rate I must, with great respect, decline to enter into the matter any further.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Eleven o'clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.