Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 93: debated on Tuesday 22 May 1917

House of Commons

Tuesday, May 22, 1917

Private Business

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Land Drainage (Wistow) Provisional Order Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Water Bill,

Blackpool Improvement Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Lowestoft and the Bridport Joint Hospital District," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Brownies Taing and Kircubbin," presented by Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865

Copy presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 19th May, 1917, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Military Service Acts

Copy presented of Order in Council under the Acts, dated 19th May, 1917, entitled the Military Service (Professional Committees Regulations) Amendment Order, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions

War

Jews in Roumania

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the restrictions and sufferings of the Jewish population in Roumania; that these were severe and increasing before Roumania joined in the War, in August, 1916; that at the Congress of Berlin the late Lord salisbury stood out for assurances that the lot of Jews in Roumania would be ameliorated, and that these hopes have been disappointed; whether there is any understanding, agreement, or promise by the Allies or any of them that the restricted liberties of Roumanian Jews will be redressed in the manner in which the present Government of Russia has treated this question in Russia; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this connection?

:I have reason to believe that the question is engaging the attention of the King and Government of Roumania, and it would not therefore be desirable for me to make any further statement on the subject at present.

Government of Ireland

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Government have asked for an explanation of the discrepancy between the professions and the practice of the British Government on the equality of national rights and the restoration and independence of small nations; whether translations of the Government of Ireland Act, suspended under threat of mutilation, have been circulated among the small nations for which the Allies profess to be fighting; and whether any one of the small nations in question has expressed willingness to accept such a measure?

Military Service

Allied Subjects

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether agreements are in contemplation or in course of arrangement whereby the subjects of Japan, Portugal, the United States, Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Russia, respectively, shall become, when in England or Scotland, liable to compulsory military service in the British Army?

:I cannot say at present how many agreements of this nature it may be possible to conclude. His Majesty's Government are considering the question in connection with the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Bill.

:May we take it then that other Governments besides the Russian Government have been approached in this connection?

:No, Sir; you may take it that conversations have taken place with other Governments.

Army Reserve Munition Work

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a number of men of the Highland Light Infantry, who formed part of a military working party at Morecambe, and who, not being considered fit for heavy labouring work, were registered but not enrolled as Army Reserve munitions workers. have now been returned to Hipswell Camp; to what medical category do these men belong; on what work are they now employed; and if he will consider whether these men could be more usefully employed in the national interest on munitions or other work in the Clyde area?

:I understand that seven men of this regiment returned from Morecambe, as they did not wish to enrol as Army Reserve munition workers. They are classified as C 2. They are at present employed regimentally with their unit on military work, and are no longer available for the purposes suggested by my hon. Friend.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that these men did wish to enrol as Army Reserve munition workers, and they were distinctly refused in writing on the ground that they were not fit for heavy labouring work?

:Is my hon. Friend aware that they have made application as to why they were rejected, and they have been informed in writing that they were not allowed to enrol as munition workers because they were not fit for heavy labouring work? They were not fit for military service, and are being employed on light fatigue jobs.

:That has not been brought to my notice, but I will have inquiries made.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that skilled workmen have been sent from various towns in the United Kingdom to the Clyde and Clyde district to take the place of men who have been discharged to make room for these men, and that in connection with this matter the Government is paying 17s. 6d. a week subsistence allowance?

:I cannot answer a general case like that, but if my hon. Friend will give me any specific case I will have inquiry made.

Home Service Men (Leave)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that after many months of service without leave applicants are being refused on the ground that no leave is to be granted to Home service men; whether this is due to a general order or to any special regiments; or whether leave in the Home service is left to the decision of the officers on the spot.

:No orders to the effect that leave is not to be granted to Home Service men have been issued. Applications for leave under special circumstances would always receive consideration from the Commanding Officer of the unit to which the applicant belonged.

Conscientious Objectors

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that pressure is being put upon objectors to inoculation in the 2nd pontoon park, Royal Engineers, British Expeditionary Force, by marching them after duty night after night for miles to the medical officer, parading them for inoculation, and threatening them with transfer to other units, with denial of leave, and in other ways; and whether he will see that Ministerial pledges and the orders of the Army Council are observed by instructing officers to stop this form of persecution and punishment of men against whom no crime can be brought home except trusting to the word of honour of the War Office?

:It is necessary to make inquiries of the Commander-in-Chief in France. This has been done, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can now state whether the proper procedure was adopted with regard to certain conscientious objectors arrested in Glasgow of whom the civil authorities at Barlinnie Prison refused to accept custody and who were thereafter sent to Perth Prison; whether they completed their sentence at Perth and returned to Hawick early in April; whether they have yet been tried by court-martial, and, if so, with what result; and whether any opportunity has been or will be given them of engaging in work under the committee on the employment of conscientious objectors?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. They were treated as serving soldiers, as it had not then transpired that they claimed to be conscientious objectors, and were sentenced to twenty-eight days' detention for not complying with orders. They were sent under escort to Barlinnie Detention Barracks and may have been taken in the first instance to the civil prison in error, as there is only one gate. They were subsequently transferred from Barlinnie Detention Barracks to Perth to complete their sentence. After release from detention they again committed themselves. If they are now convicted by court-martial of an offence against discipline, committed on grounds of conscience, they will have an opportunity of appearing before the Central Tribunal, who will decide whether they shall be recommended for work of national importance under the Brace Committee.

:Will my hon. Friend take steps to have the facts put before the Committee for Conscientious Objectors?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any conscientious objectors have recently been taken over to France, one at least of them in handcuffs; and whether, in accordance with the pledge of the late Prime Minister, these men will be brought back from France and no others sent out?

:I have ascertained that recently five conscientious objectors accompanied their units to France. I have not yet been informed of all the circumstances, but when I receive the additional information necessary for a complete reply, I will inform my hon. Friend.

:No, I have not. I have asked the Director of Personal Service to be good enough to make the necessary inquiries, and then I hope my hon. Friend will put down his question again.

:In reference to these conscientious objectors is the Government bound by the pledge given by the late Prime Minister?

:I think there is some mistake. These men, as I understand it, were members of non-combatant units, and so far as I know, no pledge was given in regard to them, either by the late or the present Prime Minister.

:Is the present Government under any obligation to keep the pledges given by the late Government?

Motor Plough Drivers

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that all men from the Army who are well reported on as efficient drivers of motor ploughs or of steam ploughing tackle, and who have been engaged on this work this spring, shall be left to continue until the autumn sowing time and not recalled to the Army?

:As far as possible steam ploughmen will be allowed to remain until the autumn sowing season. No definite undertakings can, however, be given, as the permission depends on the military situation, and this is subject to sudden changes.

:Is he aware that since the Prime Minister's statement in the City there has been a diminution of labour on the land of at least 20,000 men, 18,000 Agricultural Furlough men were recalled from agriculture and 2,000 more were called up?

:My information is quite contrary to that which my hon. Friend gives. I understand that 15,000 men have been sent to Scotland alone, and not more than 5,600 were actually utilised.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the country generally there have been grave complaints as to the shortage and the utter inability to obtain labour; and will he take steps to provide that labour?

:I think the War Office has done everything in its power, and the President of the Board of Agriculture himself said in this House that during the last eight months that was the case. So far as I am personally concerned I have received very few complaints from farmers.

:Is the hon. Member aware that the 3,000,000 acre programme is an absolute mirage unless there is a supply of 100,000 men forthcoming from somewhere?

:That is a question being dealt with by the Director of Food Production.

Review of Exceptions

asked whether notices are being issued under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act to discharged men at addresses from which they have removed, and they are thereby compelled in many cases to take long railway journeys to comply with the terms of the notice; whether in these cases travelling expenses are refused by the recruiting officers; and, if so, whether he will give instructions either that these men should be examined in the areas to which they have removed, or that, if they are compelled to travel, they will be paid the travelling expenses which they incur?

:Railway warrants are sent with notices to men who have to travel more than five miles to the place of examination, as my hon. Friend will see from Appendix II. to Army Council Instruction 640 of 1917, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Instructions have already been issued that men are as far as possible to be examined at the headquarters of the area in which they are working.

:Will my hon. Friend see in case where a man is called up in an area where he is now residing that he will have his railway expenses refunded?

:I can only say that we have given definite instructions to the recruiting officers to see that these men get their railway expenses.

:In cases where that instruction is not observed, will the men have their expenses refunded?

:Is he aware that a considerable number of men who were called up do not really come within the scope of the Act, and will they have their expenses paid, and also their wages for lost time?

:For any man called up under this Act and who does not come under it there is a space on the form where he can say he is not under the Act.

:Will the hon. Gentleman state definitely now that where the recruiting officer does not observe the instruction these men will be refunded their railway fares?

:Yes, I think I can state that definitely. The Financial Secretary and myself will do our best to see that this instruction is carried out.

asked the Prime Minister whether many medically rejected men, including those who received the solemn pledge of the Government in the shape of the pink form, have, on the strength of their final rejection, undertaken financial responsibilities, including borrowing to subscribe to the War Loan; and whether, if such men are recalled under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, any special provision beyond an appeal to the Civil Liabilities Committee is being made to enable them to meet responsibilities incurred in the belief that the Government would keep its pledge?

:No case of borrowing to subscribe to War Loan has been brought to my knowledge, but I should be glad to have particulars of any case which has come to my hon. Friend's notice.

:What I want to know is what attitude the Government take in regard to these cases, of which there are a great many? Will the War Office, for instance, make provision for a man who has borrowed on War Loan and who is now called up for service and cannot pay the instalments?

:As I say, no case of this kind has been brought to my knowledge. I cannot give an answer dealing with a general problem of this kind without some examination

Medical Re-Examination

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that P. Swain, 66, Chester Road, Macclesfield, was enlisted in the Army on 29th January, 1916, and passed for general service but transferred to the Reserve; that on 28th October, 1916, he was reexamined and found unfit for military service; and that on 19th February, 1917, he was discharged from the Army as medically unfit; whether he is aware that Swain has received notice from the local recruiting officer requiring him to submit himself for medical re-examination on the 21st instant, and that the recruiting officer has been informed by Swain on several occasions that he is not liable for re-examination under the Act, but that the recruiting officer insists that he must be re-examined; and, if so, wheher he will instruct the recruiting officer to withdraw the notice, and issue a general instruction calling the attention of recruiting officers to the terms of the Act and ordering them to carry out its provisions with reference to discharged men?

:Inquiries are being made into the case referred to and I will write to my hon. Friend about it. A general instruction in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend was issued on the 19th April.

:Is the hon. Member aware that this general instruction is not being observed and in the circumstances will he see that it is carried out by the War Office?

:I will do my best to see that the instruction is observed, but I wish my hon. Friend would give me specific cases. It is very difficult to proceed in matters of this kind unless specific cases are given.

Medical Board (Stoke-On-Trent)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has yet obtained a report as to the conduct of the military medical board at Stoke-on-Trent as promised; what steps, disciplinary or otherwise, he proposes to take; (2), whether he will inquire into the conduct of the military medical board at Newcastle-under-Lyme as well as at Stoke-on-Trent, more particularly with reference to the language used by the board to the men under examination; and, for this inquiry, will he see that the evidence of some of the persons examined is taken on oath?

:The Reports asked for have not yet been received, but the authorities have been asked to expedite their reply.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the sort of language used by this medical board to the men under examination; and, if so, does he approve of it?

:I am not in a position to say that such language has been used, but if my hon. and gallant Friend's statement is true, to use such language is highly reprehensible.

Army Officers' Promotion

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the committee which was formed to inquire into the anomalies of promotion of officers in the Special Reserve, Reserve of Officers, Territorial Force, and new Army has issued its Report; and, if so, when will it be published?

Food Supplies

German Prisoners' Purchases

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the amount of eggs, vegetables, fruit, cheese, butter, and milk which German prisoners of war in this country are allowed to purchase per week from Army canteens and the amount of these articles, respectively, which commandants of internment camps permit to be bought in this country and to be sent to such prisoners per week by English or German sympathisers; what are the regulations on the subject, if any, for the guidance of Army canteens and commandants, or whether the matter is left to the discretion of the persons in charge of the canteens and the commandants; and whether, in view of the high prices and scarcity of such articles, the Government will, in the interests of the poorer classes of the population of this country, who are frequently unable to purchase these articles, forbid the purchase in This country of such articles by or for the German prisoners?

:I am afraid I have no statistics as to the amount of eggs, fruit, vegetables, cheese, butter and milk which German prisoners are allowed to purchase. The commandants are responsible for the amounts of supplies purchased and that permission to purchase is strictly regulated by the surplus over local needs of the commodities. The purchase of potatoes is of course prohibited. As my hon. and learned friend has already been informed, supplies sent by sympathisers are controlled by commandants in order to prevent supplies which are scarce or an undue amount of foodstuffs being sent. No articles containing meat, sugar or flour in any shape or form may be delivered. It is difficult, however desirable it may be, to lay down any hard and fast rules in such a matter, as my hon. and learned Friend will realise, but the commandants have been enjoined to keep a close watch over all camp supplies.

:In view of the undoubted scarcity and the very high prices which poor people have to pay for these articles, would it not be better to take the matter out of the discretion of the commandants, and forbid the supply of these scarce articles to German prisoners?

:As I have pointed out, it is extremely difficult, however anxious we might be to effect it, to lay down any hard and fast rules. After all, these men must live, and we have enjoined the commandants to be as strict as possible to limit the supplies to the camps.

:Have the commandants any special means of knowing what articles are scarce, and what articles ought to be preserved for the use of our own people?

:May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give a list of the sympathisers in this country who send food to German prisoners? Would he publish the names?

:Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible for matters of this kind to be in the discretion of the commandant, who has no special knowledge?

:As the House will find from the list of commodities available for these prisoners, not only are commodities limited, but the amount of the commodities is extremely limited.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing feeling of indignation throughout the country as to the generous treatment of these German prisoners as compared with British prisoners?

Labour and Equipment

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that there can be no early response to the demand made on owners and occupiers of land to break up grass land until the necessary supply of labour and equipment for carrying on the cultivation of such land when ploughed has been guaranteed to those who need help; whether, in view of the urgency of the question, he can give an official assurance that the labour and equipment for cultivation will be secured in addition to the provision of tractors and ploughs for the breaking up of the 3,000,000 of acres of grass land; and whether the whole of these essential needs will be supplied this year?

:I cannot say more at present than that the Board recognise fully that the programme of breaking up grass land cannot be carried out without the necessary labour and equipment, and that the needs in these directions have been placed before the Government.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received representations as to the necessity of taking steps to guarantee an adequate supply of labour for carrying out the Government scheme for increased production of food from the land, and as to the extension of the period of leave of men drawn from the land who are at present released from the Army; and whether, subject to military necessities, an early decision will be reached as to the supply from the Home forces of a sufficient number of men to complete at the required stages the agricultural programme of the Government for 1917–18, and, in view of the urgency of the question, an early and definite announcement will be made on the subject?

:All these matters are under consideration by the Government, and it is hoped that an announcement will be made very shortly.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the impression produced upon the minds of farmers generally, and particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, by the action of the War Office in withdrawing men lent to agriculture for the spring months, with the result that they are convinced that the Government are not serious in their announced policy of increased arable cultivation; whether he can say how many of these men have been recalled to the colours in the West Riding, and what proportion that number bears to the total of agricultural furlough men; and whether he will see that these men or efficient substitutes are returned or supplied at once?

:The Department have no figures which show the number of soldiers employed on agricultural work who have been recalled recently from the West Riding of Yorkshire. The total number of such men in England and Wales a month ago was about 40,000. They had been lent by the War Office on certain definite conditions as to return for military service; 16,000 Class A men were accordingly recalled on 10th May; 16,000 of the remaining 24,000 are not liable to recall before the 25th July, while it is expected that the remainder will be kept much longer. In reply to the last part of the question, I will refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I have just given to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Denbighshire.

:Has the hon. Gentleman received no protests and no figures regarding the recall of men on agricultural furlough from the Agricultural War Committee of the West Riding of Yorkshire?

:Yes, I think we have from most, or at any rate, several of the Agricultural War Committee.

:Does the hon. Gentleman say that he does not know at all how many are being recalled?

:No, we do not know the exact number in a particular district. All we know is that 16,000 altogether have been recalled.

:Can the hon. Gentleman say, in addition to those recalled, what number have been taken out of the 30,000 who were to be called up on 1st January?

:I am afraid I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that question.

:Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to replace these 16,000 "A" men by others of a lower category as early as possible?

:I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the President is making strong representations to the Government as to the necessity of finding more men for this purpose.

Potatoes

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how he accounts for the fact that, since his assurances that no more potatoes would be allowed to be exported from Ireland, Messrs. Warden and Stewart, of Belfast, have exported a large quantity of prime table potatoes to South Africa, and Messrs. Hunter and Company, of Dundalk, have exported 256 tons of best table potatoes per the steamship "Portadown" to Scotland; will he say who issued permits for these exports and on what grounds, in view of the danger of famine; whether permits have been or will be issued for the further cargoes being collected last week in several parts of Ireland; and will he specify any supplies of foodstuffs existing in Ireland deemed to be sufficient for the sustenance of the people until the new main crop is available?

:The Department of Agriculture are not aware of potatoes having been shipped from Ireland to South Africa. The consignment of potatoes shipped to Scotland was exported by the military authorities and not by Messrs. Hunter and Co., and a permit was not necessary. Permits are being issued only for potatoes of seed size not required in Ireland. Food supplies available in Ireland are not less likely to be sufficient than the like supplies in Great Britain.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that potatoes which are sent from Ireland as prime table potatoes are sold as seed potatoes?

:I think the hon. Member is misled. Whoever represents as seed potatoes prime table potatoes is evidently committing a fraud. Potatoes for which leave to export from Ireland has been given are seed potatoes for which there is no use in Ireland for the purpose of tillage, so that it is pretty obvious where the fraud applies.

Increased Tillage Order, Ireland

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the owner of the lands on which the Kilkenny golf links are situated has been obstructed by men of military age in giving effect to the increased tillage order, the leader of the obstructionists being Mr. P. C. Power, county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary for Kilkenny; whether he is aware that, on failing in his obstruction, Mr. Power severed his connection with the Kilkenny golf club, joined the Bagnalstown golf club, 15 miles from his office, and uses a motor car and petrol at the public expense for travelling to and from this amusement; and will he say what action it is proposed to take under the Defence of the Realm Act?

:I have inquired into these imputations against the county inspector, and am satisfied that they are unfounded in every particular.

Mesopotamia Expedition

asked whether in the course of the military advance in Mesopotamia any men previously reported missing have been recovered; and whether a list of them has been published or their recovery notified to their relatives?

:Two men who had only recently been missing have been reported recaptured from the enemy. This fact was at once notified to the relatives. The other prisoners of war had been removed from Bagdad prior to our entry.

Motor Cars (War Office)

asked whether any precaution, and, if so, what, is taken to prevent petrol got for War Office motor cars being utilised for private cars possessed by officers?

:Yes, Sir; every precaution is taken. Log-books are kept for vehicles in which all issues of petrol and records of the mileage run are entered daily. These log-books are carefully checked both as regards the consumption of petrol as well as the nature of the duty on which the cars are employed.

:Could not my hon. Friend supply these officers with little runabout cars instead of big cars?

Military Hospital Huts (Cromarty)

asked whether any of the military hospital huts at Cromarty are to be used as a hospital for the treatment of venereal disease; and, if so, will he have the matter fully inquired into and further considered before anything of the sort is allowed?

:Is my hon. Friend aware that practically all the local authorities are against the proposal to use hospital huts for the treatment of venereal disease, and has he consulted the Secretary for Scotland on the matter?

:This place being in my own Constituency, I am painfully aware of it. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, but the whole position is now being reconsidered.

Royal Flying Corps

asked whether an Army Order or any other Order has been issued by the authorities at home or abroad forbidding officers or men of the Royal Flying Corps or any other portion of the Army to criticise or comment upon the B E 8 biplane; if so, whether this Order refers to the B E 8's in use at home as well as abroad; whether this Order has been issued because the inherent defects of this type of aeroplane make it particularly liable to criticism; whether a Brigade Order has been issued to any brigade of the Royal Flying Corps in France forbidding officers to criticise the aeroplane on which they are mounted; and whether, in such an Order, officers have been warned that their remarks may be distorted by critics of the Royal Flying Corps through ignorance or malice?

:No Order has been given at home or abroad forbidding officers and men of the Royal Flying Corps or any other portion of the Army to criticise or comment upon aeroplanes. Criticism and gossip about new types of aeroplanes of which the critics have no real experience, is discouraged. This policy has been justified in the case of the R E 8, which was criticised on its introduction, but is now in much request by Artillery squadrons.

:With reference to the R.E. 8, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reply he gave recently that certain pilots in the Royal Flying Corps refused to fly this type of machine, and that the number is increasing; I understand that Captain Ball refused to fly this type of machine; and under these circumstances will he consider the advisability, of having an inquiry into the R E 8?

:No, Sir; there is absolutely no need for an inquiry. The R E 8 machine is being supplied, and directly officers get it they are delighted with it, and we are sending out this machine as fast as we can.

asked whether a civilian aviator, Mr. Roland Ding, recently killed in Yorkshire by the breaking of his machine in the air, was flying a B E biplane or an aeroplane of Government design; if it was a B E biplane or other machine of Government design, whether it was fitted with an engine of a higher power than the machine was originally designed to carry; whether the B E biplane was originally designed for a 100 horse-power engine; whether it was first sent on active service with only a 70 horse-power engine; whether it is still sent on active service with only a 90 horsepower engine; whether it has been found to be safe to fly with an engine of 150 horse-power; whether such power is being fitted to this type in order to attain a reputation for Government official design; and whether, in view of the recent fatality occasioned by this, he will now cause this practice to be discontinued?

:The aviator referred to was in the private employment of a firm of aeroplane constructors, but I understand that he was flying a B E 2 machine with a 90 horse-power R.A.F. engine, which is the type for which it was originally designed. The answer to the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the seventh part in the negative. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Michael Hurley, now No. 7160, A Company, 3rd Munster Fusiliers, now in training at Aghada, who has been his mother's sole support, enlisted without her consent, and by doing so induced upon her an attack of neuritis, from which she is not recovering; and, the Regulation allowance being wholly insufficient for her in these circumstances, whether the military authorities will save it all by releasing this boy and allowing him to return and support his mother?

:Inquiries are being made, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, considering that married warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men stationed in the London area and living with their families receive 6d. a day London allowance in addition to family allowance, he will consider the question of granting a similar London allowance in addition to family allowance to officers serving in the London area who now receive no special allowance to compensate them for the extra expenditure involved?

:I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 15th instant.

:May I ask the hon. Member whether, considering that the Government acknowledge it to be necessary to provide non-commissioned officers and men stationed in London with a London allowance in addition to the family allowance, he does not consider it equally necessary to give similar allowances to officers stationed in London, who equally with the men are unable to find residences near their offices and are compelled to incur much extra expense in consequence?

:My hon. and gallant Friend will surely remember that the Government have set up a special body to deal with cases of hardship. Officers who may be suffering should refer their cases to that authority and such financial assistance as may appear to be necessary will be forthcoming.

asked the Pensions Minister if Mrs. Mary Ward, 20, Clarence Place, Dublin, mother of Private Ward, No. 3784, Leinster Regiment, who was killed in action in France on the 18th July, 1915, was granted a pension of 5s. per week for life; if the pension ceased on 5th October, 1916, and that, in response to her letter to the War Office, she was informed that as she now was in receipt of an old age pension no further issue of pension from Army funds could be made; if the City of Dublin war pensions committee cannot make her a grant beyond a few shillings weekly, and Mrs. Ward is now in the same position as if she had never had a son in the Army who was killed in France; if he will say whether the old age pension is given to her in respect of her age and not as a substitute for a pension which was granted to her on account of the death of her support; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS
(Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen)

:The facts as stated in the question are generally correct except that the pension of 5s. a week was not granted for life. As a partially dependent parent, 5s. was the maximum which could have been awarded under the old Warrant, and this ceased when Mrs. Ward applied for an old age pension. Her case has been considered under the new Warrant and she has been granted a pension of 9s. a week, with effect from the 4th April last.

asked the Pensions Minister what is the address of the Appeal Court and what steps anyone appealing to it must take?

:Men desiring to appeal against the decision of the Ministry that their disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by their service should do so by letter, addressed to the Secretary to the Ministry at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.

Orkney (Steamship Service)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether; in view of the fact that lately our shipping losses have been materially lessened, and also that the advent of the American naval contingent is already exercising a beneficial effect, he will reconsider his decision to commandeer the steamship "Hebridian," taking also into consideration the great loss sustained by the agricultural and commercial community in Orkney by its withdrawal from commercial service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL
(Sir Leo Chiozza Money)

:The Ministry of Shipping fully recognise the importance to the Orcadian community of the service on which the vessel named is engaged, and I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that she will not be withdrawn unless circumstances render that course quite unavoidable.

Cargo Vessels Building

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller (1) whether the Ministry wrote to an East Coast shipowner, on or about the 9th of May, to say that, in view of the necessity for building Government standard ships, it was not possible to make arrangements for a supply of material to enable a cargo vessel then under construction to be completed at the present time; whether the Controller will give immediate instructions that no vessel under construction shall be delayed or her completion postponed by reason of material suitable for this vessel being taken for standard vessels in preference to one so near completion; (2) whether a firm of shipowners in Hull had under construction for their account at a Wear shipyard a cargo vessel of normal type with keel laid in January, 1917, and instalments paid in February, and early in March, when over half the material for this vessel had been delivered at the yard and cylinders were cast and forgings delivered ready for machining, the Ministry stopped this work in order to commandeer a berth for what is called a standard ship; whether the builders asserted in April that the vessel, the construction of which was thus suspended could be completed before any standard ship could be laid on the same-berth; whether two members of the Advisory Sub-Committee investigated the facts on the spot and decided that if the builders were allowed to proceed with the half-finished cargo vessel she could be-ready for use two months before the yard's first standard ship; whether this half-finished vessel remains half-finished; and whether the Ministry will remove the obstacles to her completion without further delay?

:It is assumed that the right hon. Member's questions refer to the same vessel. It is a fact that supplies of steel for a ship ordered at a Wear shipyard by a firm of shipowners in Hull has had to be postponed, although +he keel was laid, in order that a ship for a special purpose, designed in agreement with the Admiralty, could be proceeded with as quickly as possible. This action was necessary in the national interest. Arrangements are already in operation for the supply of steel to complete suitable cargo vessels under construction which can be completed in approximately the same time as standard ships.

:Was this vessel delayed or not in order to provide space for a standard vessel?

:Yes, she was deliberately delayed in the national interest; and I can assure my hon. Friend that the question would not have been put on the Paper if it had been understood that the vessel being proceeded with was one to be used in the anti-submarine campaign.

:I must ask my hon. Friend not to press me further. If he will be good enough to confer with me privately, I will give him full information.

College of Justice, Edinburgh

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether two petitions, dated 25th April and 17th May of this year, which were sent by the legal profession in Scotland to the Lord President of the Court of Session and the other members of the Court, praying that senators of the College of Justice in Edinburgh should be pressed to resign directorships in trading concerns, such as banks, insurance, and mercantile companies, have been forwarded to him for his consideration and opinion; if so, will he say what line of action he proposes to take?

:I have received two anonymous communications on this subject. If any petitions from the legal profession are addressed to the Lords of Session, I have no doubt they will receive due consideration from the Court. In regard to the last part of the question, my hon. and learned Friend is, of course, aware of the constitutional method of obtaining the opinion of the House in such a matter, and it would in my view be irregular for me to anticipate by answer to a question any views which it might be my duty to express in the course of debate.

:Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not been consulted in this matter by the Lord President; and, if not, will he take an opportunity of expressing his own opinions to the Lord President?

:I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the answer that I have given.

:Is my right hon. Friend in favour of the judges of the Court of Sessions retaining these directorships?

:My answer covered that. I do not think it would be proper for me to express my view on the subject.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to secure a discussion on the subject?

:That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the humblest member in the Civil Service is prohibited from holding any directorship.

:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not express an opinion as to cases among Civil servants in Scotland in which the regulation appears to have been infringed?

Federation of British Industries

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of firms included in the Federation of British Industries, their aggregate capital, and the number of employés?

:I am informed by the Federation of British Industries that it comprises in its membership 355 firms and fifty-eight associations, and there are also some 2,500 associate members. I regret that I cannot furnish any accurate statement of the aggregate capital and number of employés of the firms comprised in the association, but it may safely be stated that the figures in both cases would be very large.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Federation of British Industries, as being the largest representative body of employers, has been consulted in regard to recent legislation or actions affecting industry, with a view to solving difficulties between capital and labour and furthering the common interests of employers and employed; and, if this has not been done hitherto, will he consider the advisability of such consultation in the future?

:I have been asked to answer this question. In all matters affecting a particular industry it is the practice of the Department to consult the representative bodies both of employers and workmen connected with that industry. In the event of it becoming necessary to consult representative employers in regard to matters affecting the industry as a whole, the Federation of British Industries will not be overlooked, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is well aware of its importance.

:Would it not be greatly to the advantage of industry in this country if such consultations with a responsible and representative body were carried on in the same way as the Minister of Labour is able to conduct negotiations with labour organisations, and would the Board of Trade not put themselves in a position as regards the Federation of Industries similar to that of the Minister of Labour towards labour organisations?

:I cannot answer for the Board of Trade, but as far as the Ministry of Labour is concerned I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will consider very carefully the views of the hon. Gentleman.

General Smuts

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of the speech made in the Royal Gallery on Tuesday, 15th May, 1917, by the Right Hon. Lieutenant-General J. Smuts, he will see that it is duly reprinted, published, and distributed among the Allied nations and also in neutral countries?

:General Smuts' speech was sent out by cable verbatim throughout the Empire, and the main portion of it to Allies and neutrals. It has been reprinted in English as a pamphlet for the British Empire and America, and translations of it are being prepared for Allies and neutrals.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of consulting the Minister of Education, so that the speech might be circulated in our schools, as I think it would have a very good effect upon the young life of the nation?

:That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.

:As this implies a charge on the Exchequer, might I ask if an opportunity will be given in this House to debate that speech, so that the ridiculous arguments in support of Royalty may be refuted?

Royal Navy

Midshipmen

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any regulation as to the types of ships to which midshipmen are appointed; and whether he can state the types of ships in which they serve, having regard to the fact that no information is now afforded by the Navy Lists?

:Midshipmen are appointed to capital ships in accordance with quarter bill requirements, and there has been no alteration in this respect since hostilities broke out.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have taken into consideration the value of the war experience obtained by our destroyer flotillas in which junior officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, Midshipman Gyles and Midshipman Maud, have been mentioned in dispatches; and whether he can state why the midshipmen of the Royal Navy, who will in time be the commanding officers of our ships, are denied the most valuable of all forms of war training?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The suggestion in the second part of the question is not borne out by the experience of those competent to judge. It should be mentioned that part of the training of midshipmen was carried out in destroyers six or seven years ago, but was given up owing to strong representations from sea that service in destroyers seriously interfered with the professional training of the midshipmen.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman put before the Admiralty the fact that destroyer training seven years ago was not war training, and that now the most useful part of war training is in the destroyers?

:I will certainly put that forward before the Board. I understand that the Service view is this: These lads only get two years as midshipmen. They reach the rank of sub-lieutenant at eighteen. If this early and important part of their training is in small craft they fail to get that all round professional training so important to their future careers.

Submarine Hunting Craft

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board will consider a wide distribution of sub-lieutenants and midshipmen to the different classes of small craft employed in hunting submarines?

:The appointments of all officers are regulated by the requirements of the Service, and the employment of sub-lieutenants and midshipmen must be decided with regard to such requirements. The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has not escaped notice.

H.M.S. "Safeguard" (Religious Service)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many times during the past two years religious service, Church of England or Catholic, was read or given by Commander Hicks on the patrol cruiser "Safeguard," which operates on the South-west Coast of Ireland; whether the commander receives in addition to his naval pay any allowance or emolument for giving religious services on board; if so, how much; whether the men serving on board the "Safeguard" are allowed when in harbour the right to attend those religious services on land; and, if not, will he state the reason?

:I am having inquiries made as regards the first and last parts of the question, and will communicate with my hon. Friend. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Naval Reserve (Food and Clothing)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangement, if any, is made at Queenstown and other south-western stations in Ireland for the reception of, and giving food and necessary clothing to, Naval Reserve men who have been landed from merchant and other ships sunk either by mines or torpedoes; whether he will inquire whether recently any Naval Reserve men who were rescued from such ships were unable to get either a bed or even a blanket to sleep in on board the ship where they were kept for some days; and whether the necessary provision will be made in the future for the reasonable comfort of these men?

:I am having inquiries made into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend; but I cannot imagine that these men are not given every consideration that their condition demands.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shipowners at Queenstown and the local agents supply seamen of every nationality with food and clothing; and why are the men in the Naval Reserve, who risk their lives, not entitled to get food and clothing?

:I recognise the importance of the matter so seriously that, of course, local inquiry will be made, but in the absence of it, I repeat that I cannot believe that these men do not get every consideration that their condition demands.

Admiralty Motor Cars

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his, attention has been called to the number of motor cars connected with his Department that are used for entirely personal errands; is he aware of the number of Admiralty motor cars that leave London every Sunday morning, generally with ladies on board, and return in the evening; and, if not, will he make inquiry into this misuse of petrol in view of the fact that traders are being reduced in their quantity of petrol to the detriment of the trade of the country?

:The regulation in force stipulates that Service motor vehicles are to be used solely for His Majesty's Service, and that no persons who are not concerned in the immediate duty on which such vehicles are being used are to be conveyed in them. A log-book is kept for each vehicle, and in it are shown full particulars of each journey, the number and description a passengers carried, and the amount of petrol consumed. Apart from my hon. Friend's statement, there is no reason to suppose that the regulation is not strictly complied with. But if he will furnish definite details of the occasions referred to in his question which will enable the cars to be traced inquiries will at once be instituted.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman come for a walk with me next Sunday, and I will show him some of these cars?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prohibit the use of powerful six-cylinder cars, which consume petrol at the rate of one gallon per ten miles, and substitute less powerful cars in the public service?

:I took note of that suggestion earlier on, when it was made in connection with the War Office. I had already noted the fact myself.

Irish Prisoners (Visitors)

asked the Home Secretary, in view of the extra cost and danger of travelling at present and the wish of the Government to reduce travelling to a minimum, whether he will arrange that each visitor to the Irish political prisoners detained at Lewes under sentences of secret courts-martial shall be allowed the entire visiting time of the day in the prison, part with the particular friend whom the visitor comes to see and the remainder with some or all of the other prisoners together?

:If a person is visiting any particular prisoner, there is no objection to his visiting on the same day any other prisoner who wishes to see him and who is entitled to receive a visit. Visitors cannot see more than one prisoner at a time.

Dr. Barnardo's Homes

asked the Home Secretary whether the institution known as Dr. Barnardo's Homes has established a system of large workshops in Manchester and Salford whereby the employés are persuaded to consent to a stoppage of 1d. per month from their wages in aid of the institution; that a notice is exhibited in the works informing the employés that the stoppage will be made in every case unless objectors expressly declare that they object; that the stoppages has been made from the wages of some who have expressly stated their objection; and whether, having regard to the provisions of the Truck Acts, to the inadvisability of workers who cannot take advantage of a Protestant institution being placed in this position, of religious distinctions being drawn upon the pay- sheets of the firm, and seeing that the Salford Diocesan Catholic Federation has made representations upon the subject to Dr. Barnardo's Homes without success, he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

:The Superintending Inspector of Factories at Manchester reports that he has no knowledge of the existence of the practice referred to. If the hon. Member will furnish the names of the works where it is alleged that stoppages are made against the wishes of some of the workers, inquiries will be made and the results communicated to him.

British Trade Corporation

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in formulating the provisions of the British Trade Corporation, he was aware that an association with similar objects in view applied to the Treasury in August last for sanction to issue shares and raise capital; that this application was made prior to the application of the British Trade Corporation; and whether the granting of a charter to this corporation will, ipso facto, preclude the granting of Treasury consent to the other association.

:I cannot trace any application answering the description in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. Every application will be treated on its merits.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into this matter, or will he accept from me proof that this association did apply to the Treasury for their consent to an issue of further capital?

:I think the easier course would be for the hon. Gentleman to supply me with the proof.

:Is it intended that the decision of the Government in regard to the British Trade Corporation will be postponed till after the holidays?

:Yes. The whole question is being looked into, and will be raised again after the Recess.

Post Office, Ireland (Engineering Department)

asked the Postmaster-General how many officers of the following grades, apart from the members of the K Company, Royal Engineers, employed in the Post Office engineering department in Ireland, are on active service, namely, engineering officers, clerks, inspectors, and workmen?

:Up to the 1st May the figures were as follows:-Engineering officers, one; clerks, ten; inspectors, two; workmen, 195.

asked the Postmaster-General what was the amount of monthly expenditure under the following heads since August, 1914, of the Post Office engineering branch in Ireland, namely, cost of materials for maintenance and construction of all lines of every class in Ireland, salaries of civilian engineering officers, salaries and wages of clerical staff (exclusive of wages of men on military service and of war bonus), and salaries of civilian inspectors and wages of civilian workmen (exclusive of wages of men on military service and war bonus)?

:The information cannot be given in the form asked for without disproportionate cost, but I will send my hon. Friend certain Returns which perhaps will serve his purpose.

Dublin General Post Office (Rebuilding)

asked the Postmaster-General what steps, if any, have been taken with regard to the rebuilding of the General Post Office in Dublin?

:No definite steps have been taken at present in the way of actual rebuilding. I contemplate rearrangement, if possible, of some of the Post Office Departments in Dublin, which are now housed in various parts of the City, and the question, which is somewhat complicated, requires much consideration. I may say that before the fire the Post Office accommodation in Dublin and the possibility of improving it was before my predecessors more than once, but the difficulties in the way of a satisfactory settlement were then insuperable.

House of Lords (Constitution and Powers)

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have decided to take any steps to fulfil the pledge contained in the preamble to the Parliament Act of 1911 in reference to the constitution and powers of the Second Chamber; and, if so, when they will announce their decision to the House?

:I am not able to make a statement on this subject to-day, but I hope to be in a position to do so shortly.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman begin by expelling the traitor princes from the House of Lords?

Munitions

Workshop Rules

asked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to a case decided by the tribunal at Warrington on 7th May, in which a decision was given against five workmen who had been dismissed for alleged violation of workshop rules; whether the workmen's representative on the tribunal dissented from the decision; whether the chairman of the tribunal is a solicitor for the firm involved in the case; whether the rules in question were framed in 1908; whether such rules are in accordance with the provisions of the Munitions Acts; whether workmen can be dismissed with respect to rules other than those framed under these Acts; and whether, in the circumstances of such a case, the men have any other remedy which can now be stated?

:The tribunal refused compensation in the case of two men on the ground that the order was a lawful order and that, consequently, the employer had reasonable ground for dismissing the workmen without a week's notice owing to their misconduct. The law permits private rules to be displayed by a controlled establishment, but they have no statutory authority unless specifically approved by the Minister. The rule referred to in this question had not been so approved, and my right hon. Friend is, therefore, making further inquiries into this and the other points raised in the question and he will communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject as soon as possible.

:Will the hon. Baronet consult his colleague with the object of preventing men who are interested from acting as chairmen of these committees?

:I think the hon. Member must be content with the answer that inquiries are going to be made at once and he will be informed of the result.

Henbury (Glos.) Explosives Factory

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Munitions whether a final decision as to the abandonment of the Henbury (Glos.) Explosives Factory has been made; and, if so, what it is and the reason for it?

:I have only had notice of this question since I came into the House, and have not had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend. I know it is his intention to make a statement to-morrow, if possible, or, at any rate, very shortly.

Censorship (Ireland)

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a re solution from Cork County Council denouncing the abuse of the censorship in Ireland, as illustrated by the suppression of a recent letter from the Bishop of Limerick and the substitution for it of a false paragraph, and calling upon him to publish the original letter, abolish martial law, and abandon methods such as have caused the revolution in Russia; and what reply he has sent to the council?

Rebellion in Ireland

Public Bodies (Resolutions)

asked the Chief Secretary how many public bodies in Ireland have adopted resolutions denouncing the continued imprisonment of the Irish political prisoners under sentences of secret courts-martial, especially the exceptional punishment of the Countess Marckievicz; and whether all those prisoners will now be released?

:Five resolutions of the kind mentioned have been received. I have nothing to add to my previous answers on the main question.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious irritation caused all over Ireland by these continued imprisonments, especially that of the lady in question?

:I am aware that these persons are imprisoned under the sentence of competent Courts, and at present that is how the matter stands. If circumstances arise which make it a reasonable act to recommend that the clemency of the Crown shall be extended in these cases no doubt it will be done.

:The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question whether he is aware of the serious irritation caused all over Ireland by these imprisonments?

:No, I am not. I am aware that from time to time there are great outbreaks of one kind and another, and political activity in Ireland, but who or what is at the bottom of it is very often difficult to find out.

Distress in Donegal

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the reports of distress in Donegal, especially the Western seaboard, occasioned by shortage of food supplies, he will give an assurance that he will take every step which is necessary to supply the people with necessaries?

:The hon. Member and, I think, each of the Members for Donegal, in the House or privately, has directed attention to this matter, and it has occupied my personal attention day by day from the time it was first brought to my notice. I know there is not any ground for immediate apprehension, and I am satisfied that means are being taken day by day which render it, as far as possible, impossible that any such contingency as the hon. Member properly desires to guard against should arise

Defence of the Realm Act (Arrest in Ireland)

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the police at Ballaghaderrin on Monday, 7th May, sent a message to Nicholas O'Kelly that they wanted him at the barrack for a moment, when he went there imprisoned him without charge, and kept him imprisoned until the 12th, when he was taken by military escort to the Curragh, still uncharged; and if he will state what the charge against this young man is, specify the Statute under which he is imprisoned without charge, and say what is the intention of the English Government with regard to him?

:Nicholas Kelly was arrested under Regulation 55 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. His case is being considered by the competent military authority.

Post Office Thefts (Ireland)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of thefts have taken place from the staff cloak-rooms of various post offices in Ireland; whether this is due to the failure of the Department to supply suitable lockers for the use of the staffs; whether the Department refuses to admit its legal responsibility for these losses whilst compelling the staffs to remove their hats, overcoats, jewellery, etc., whilst on duty; and what steps it is proposed to take to afford proper protection to the staffs in future?

:Representations have been received with regard to this matter, and it is receiving careful consideration.

Old Age Pensions

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the fact that, in calculating the income of an applicant for an old age pension, the pension officer includes sums of 1s. or 1s. 6d. that are occasionally given to the applicant by poor working men; that the smallest sums given even by his children are included; and that if a friend pays for a meal that payment is reckoned as income and the pension withheld if the man's income is then found to be 13s. per week; and are these officers justified in such action?

:I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject on the 22nd February last to the hon. Member for Westmeath North, a copy of which I am sending him

:Will the hon. Gentleman make a plain public statement as to the exact position in relation to old age pensioners and the gifts which may be granted to them?

Government Employes' Wages (Ireland)

asked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) when it is proposed to grant to Irish Government employés the same treatment as regards salaries, wages, and bonuses as is paid to English employés doing similar work?

:I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 4th instant.

School Children (Medical Inspection)

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the increased financial assistance which local education authorities will get under the new grant system and the reports which they receive from their school medical officers, he will call their attention to the importance of extending and developing medical inspection, following up work, and treatment of school children, and of co-operating as fully as possible with child welfare and such like committees in their several areas?

:The expenditure of local education authorities upon the school medical service is not taken into account for the purpose of the new Supplementary Grant. Prior to the War the authorities were rapidly developing this service. The War has necessarily stopped this development, but I have no reason to anticipate that it will not be resumed as soon as normal conditions are restored. The need for co-operation between the school medical service and agencies for child welfare and similar organisations has been frequently emphasised in the reports of the Board's chief medical officer, and local education authorities have taken various steps in this direction.

Dublin Metropolitan Police

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 19th April, 1917, a number of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary attended a meeting in the Masonic Hall, Molesworth Street, Dublin, amongst those present being Sergeant Megahey, Brunswick Street Station, Sergeant M'Carthy, the Bridewell, Staff-Sergeant Cobbe, Kevin Street, Station-Sergeant Purcell, storekeeper, and also a number of the Royal Irish Constabulary in uniform, and that in addition there were also a number of military officers, including colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, sergeant-majors, and sergeants; and if he will say what was the object of the meeting and why the Commissioner of the Police did not mete out the same treatment to this meeting as was meted out to other members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who attended the Hibernian bazaar, which was organised for a war charity?

:The members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who attended the Masonic Lodge in Molesworth Street were entitled to do so, as they joined the force before the form of oath was amended. No disciplinary action was contemplated or taken in the case of the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who attended the bazaar referred to.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief superintendent and three superintendents attended at the Hibernian bazaar and warned men that they would be reported to this House and tried to prevent them from going in and contributing to the war charities?

:I cannot help thinking the hon. Member is entirely mistaken. I am not aware of any attempt to frighten these constables, and from my acquaintance with the constables of the Dublin constabulary I should think they are the last men in the world likely to be frightened by anyone.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief superintendent, the three superintendents and the inspectors formed a queue right opposite the door in the hall? What was the object of all the officers of the force being brought there at that moment?

:I have not heard of any formation of a queue by the superintendents.

If there was it seems a great waste of their time. If the hon. Members puts down a question as to whether they formed up in that way, I will give him an answer.

:I have already given the information. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the whole of the men I have named were there?

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

Billeting of Civilians Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Mansfield Railway Bill [ Lords ],

South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Bill [ Lords ],

Yorkshire Registries (North Riding) Bill [ Lords ], without Amendment.

Billeting of Civilians Bill

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day

Business of the House

:Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what arrangements have been made for the adjournment this week?

Representation of the People Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

:I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

This is a Bill of great importance, and although the House, so recently as 28th March, adopted the proposals which are embodied in the Bill by a majority of 341 to 62, I think it will be convenient if I state in rather more detail than was possible on the First Reading the principal changes which are proposed to be made in our electoral system, and add something as to the reasons why the House is asked to deal with these proposals at the present time. May I, by way of preface, make two observations? In the first place, I think this Bill which, in its thirty-three Clauses and six Schedules, embodies notonly the equivalent of the long series of enactments which are proposed to be repeated in Schedule 6, but also certain other provisions of novelty and importance, and constitutes, whatever its fate may be, a striking instance of the improvement in our drafting methods and the ability of our parliamentary draftsmen. In the second place, I should like to say that I owe a great debt to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, on the occasion of my being incapacitated by illness, undertook the very heavy burden of supervising the drafting of this Bill, which, as the Report of the Speaker's Conference shows, owes so much to his initiative.

I will first deal with the changes proposed to be made in the franchise, and ask the House to consider the effect of the Bill as regards men. At present, as the House knows, there are no less than seven alternative qualifications for the franchise. There is first the household franchise, by far the most important, which dates as regards the boroughs from 1867, and as regards the counties from 1884. Then there are the £10 occupiers of lands and tenements, the £50 rental class—a class which is rapidly dying out—the lodgers, the service voters, the owners, and the university voters. For these seven classes the Bill proposes to substitute three alternative qualifications only. The first is the qualification of residence, which obviously includes not only the householders, the lodgers, and the service voters, but also a certain number of residents qualified by age to vote, who are not in any existing class of voters. Secondly, the occupation of business premises of annual value of £10, and thirdly, the university vote, which is enlarged by the inclusion of all the graduates. The House would like to know the estimated number of men voters who would be added by this change. The present number of voters, according to the Home Office Return of 1915, is 8,357,000. The number of men to be added by the Bill, allowing something for the improvement in registration and the effect of the six months' qualification, will be about 2,000,000. As to these 2,000,000, I doubt whether there is anyone who, quite apart from any question of compromise, would desire to keep them off the register of voters. I do not believe that there is one. In the old days controversies about the value of the qualifying premises, whether it should be £50 or £20 or £10, or whether it should be ascertained by rental value or by rateable value, divided parties and destroyed Governments, and the addition of 2,000,000 electors to the register would have been referred to, I have no doubt, as a leap in the dark. To-day the proposed addition excites no emotion whatever, except a feeling of satisfaction that, by making this addition, we shall approach nearer to the ideal of representative Government, namely, to make Parliament a mirror of the nation. We have seen since 1832 that the addition of new classes of our fellow countrymen to a share in the government of their country makes for contentment and stability. It frees this country from the civil turmoil which we have seen during that period in almost every country in Europe, and adds strength to the throne. At the present moment I think this feeling has been strengthened by recent events. The spirit manifested in this War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men's eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period of so many of our population from the class of lectors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.

I pass to a much more thorny subject, which I must treat with more reserve, because it is a matter which, as had been announced, is to be left to the judgment of the House. I mean the extension of the franchise to women. The qualifications proposed for women are different from the qualifications for men. Following the recommendation of the majority of the Speaker's Conference the Bill imposes an age limit for women. Of the two ages which found favour with the Conference we have taken the age of thirty in preference to thirty-five, an age which would shut women out from the franchise for one half the allotted span of life. The other qualifications are: (1) The woman voter must be entitled to be registered as a local government elector, or (2) she must be the wife of a husband so entitled, or (3) she must be a university voter. It is estimated that this provision will add to the register about 6,000,000 voters, of whom 5,000,000 will come on as married women. On this question I have no palinode to write, for I have always been in favour of some measure of woman suffrage. I do not propose to argue the question now, because it is to be an open question, and because I hope that the main arguments on this point will be reserved until the time when we come to the clauses dealing with women. But perhaps I may be allowed to put this one question to Members who have held, and still hold, strong views on this matter, namely, whether it is possible for us, having called upon women for so large a contribution to the work of carrying on this War, and having received so splendid a response to that call, to refuse to women a voice in moulding the future of the country which their help and devoted self-sacrifice have done so much to save?

I pass to another subject—the question of the local government franchise. The Speaker's Conference necessarily dealt not only with the Parliamentary, but with the local government franchise. Under the present law the qualifications for voting at local government elections differ in London from the qualifications in other parts of the country. The qualification to vote for county and borough councils outside London is substantially a pure occupation franchise, and differs from the qualification for London county and borough councils and for district and parish councils, where you have not only the occupation qualification, but also the qualifications of owners and lodgers. The Speaker's Conference recommended a uniform occupation franchise, excluding, as I read their Report, the owners' and lodgers' vote in London and in the district and parish areas. That is, of course, a substantial change, though not on the figures a very serious one, because I believe that in the whole of England and Wades there are only 340,000 lodgers upon the local government list of voters.

:I cannot tell the hon. Member offhand; still, the figure is not a large one compared with the enormous register of local government voters. Again, I am not going to argue that now. I quite understand that it may give rise to discussion, but I will only make two observations. The first is, that it is important—I think essential—to have uniformity in the local government qualifications, especially now when you are going to make the women's Parliamentary vote depend upon this qualification for local government voting. The second is that hon. Members must consider the change not by itself, but as one term in a compromise which involves a great extension in the Parliamentary franchise. With those observations I leave that matter.

I can deal quite shortly with another new franchise, the War Service Franchise, not because it is unimportant, but because I think the proposals are not contested or opposed in any quarter whatever. Soldiers and sailors, mine sweepers, Army nurses, Red Cross nurses, and others would, unless some provision were made for them fail to qualify for voting, because they are engaged in the service of their country. It would be monstrous if they were not brought in. The difficulty, of course, is that the elections are by con- stituencies. We have to connect this class of voter with some constituency or other. We meet this somewhat in the manner in which it is met in a Colonial Statute which has been put to the test of practice, and we propose that these voters shall vote in the constituencies in which they would have qualified but for the War. I am told that no great difficulty has been found in applying this test and that in 90 per cent. of the cases it will be quite easy to say, for instance, where a man who is a soldier would have been resident in the ordinary course had he not been called up. There is this further provision. The residential qualification in ordinary cases requires a residence of six months, but for soldiers and others, mainly for soldiers coming home, the period is to be one month. Then there is a provision that soldiers like other persons shall be able to vote in their absence. I notice that the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Colonel Sanders) has put on the Paper appears to suggest that no proper provision is made to enable soldiers to vote. I do not understand that meaning of the statement. I am quite sure that it is the intention that every possible provision shall be made for enabling our soldiers first to register and then to vote. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that sufficient provision has not been made, we shall rely upon him to make some suggestion that will improve the machinery in this respect. There is not a reason for refusing a second reading of the Bill.

:May I be permitted one question. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the onus of claim is thrown upon the soldier and sailor, and, what percentage of soldiers and sailors does he think will be able to claim, and is this provision of Clause 5, Sub-section (2) in accordance with the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference?

4.0 P.M

:It is certainly intended to be so. I can only tell my hon. Friend that if he can show us in Committee that the proposal does not carry out that intion, we shall be glad to alter it so that it may do so. Our desire is to give the fullest right of voting to the soldier and sailor.

I pass over the subject of registration, not because it is not important, but because it is very complicated, and I will only say this: The Conference recommended and the Bill adopts a course which has often been recommended to the House—a method of official registration. The object is to do away with a great deal of machinery which surrounds revision and revision Courts, and to throw upon the appointed officers the obligation of making up the register and keeping it complete. The proposals for the subject are embodied in a somewhat complicated Schedule. I do not think that I need deal with them, but I want to call attention to the changes which are proposed in the method of voting. In the first place, we propose to make the Ballot Act a permanent law. The Ballot Act, with the caution of our ancestors, was enacted only for a year, but Parliament, in accordance with the dictates of common sense, has renewed it from year to year for forty-four years, and I think the time has come when we might register the universal conviction that the provision is a wise one by making it part of the permanent law, which will be none the less required because we propose to allow husband and wife to vote together at the same election.

Then there is a provision in the Bill which sets up what is called the alternative vote in single-member constituencies. The object of that provision is to prevent what has happened from time to time, the possibility of a candidate who represents a minority only of voters being elected because the votes of the majority are split between two other candidates. The method adopted is to invite the voter, instead of putting his cross against the name of the candidate whom he chiefly prefers, to indicate the order of his preference by putting the figure 1 or 2 against the candidates in the order of his preference. I think that that is a very simple proposal. I think that it would be effective, and I am sure that it is better than the expedient adopted in some countries abroad—the expedient of the second ballot. This proposal, I know, was only made by a majority of the Speaker's Conference, and it is a question which may have to be left to the House. That, of course, we will deal with when it comes up. I only wish to express my opinion that the method proposed is well adapted to the end that is sought to be attained and that there really will be no substantial difficulty in giving effect to it. The third change in the method of voting is the proposal that in a constituency having three or more members there shall be what is sometimes called the single transferable vote and is more often referred to as proportional representation. That is part of the unanimous recommendations of the Conference, but it has given rise to strong feeling, and the Government has decided to leave that question to the judgment of the House. Still, I should like to say, on my own behalf, just a few words about it. The object of the proposal is, as hon. Members know, not, as in the last case, to protect majorities against loss of representation, but to protect minorities against total elimination. The voter is instructed, or invited, to go through that which appears to me to be a very simple process, and instead of putting a cross against, say, the three candidates whom he prefers, to indicate the order of his preference by figures, 1, 2, and 3. I know that objection is taken to that proposal, and I do not think it would be right for me, as representing the Government, to argue it on one side or the other on this occasion. But I am anxious to secure, sooner or later, a measure of agreement upon this matter.

As the honest broker for the Bill, I should like Members who differ on this matter to come to some sort of agreement upon it, and I want to ask them, if I may, to consider and tell the House exactly where the difference of opinion arises. The proposals of the Speaker's Conference in this matter are really twofold. In the first place, it is proposed that where a constituency has three or more members the voting shall be by the method of the single transferable vote or proportional representation. I think, on the hypothesis that there are three-member constituencies, there would be no strong opposition to that proposal. The alternatives are that in three-member constituencies voters must vote either for three candidates or by this method of the single transferable vote. If you vote for three candidates, as now, the effect is that 55 per cent. of the electorate may elect all the three members, leaving 45 per cent. of the electorate without any representation at all. That is, of course, an argument of great weight, and if we are to assume the existence of three-member-constituencies I think the difference of opinion would not be acute. That is the only provision at present embodied in the Bill, but the Conference also made recommendations for the creation of a number of constituencies with three or more members.

:There are none now in this country, though there is a provision in the Irish Act for their creation. What is proposed is that a Parliamentary borough, entitled on the basis of population to return three or more members, shall be a single constituency. Take Sheffield, Nottingham, or any other borough which is divided into several divisions, and has three or more members. Those divisions would in future form one constituency, electing three or more members by the method of the single transferable vote. It may be that if that were the only proposal there would not be very much objection to it. You are not cutting across any existing boundary; you are uniting what is already a unit, namely, the borough; you are not dividing the borough, or fusing that with some other area. Of the other two proposals it is impossible to say quite the same. The Conference go on to recommend that for the purpose of this rule the Metropolis (including the City of London) shall be treated as a single area and divided into constituencies, returning not less than three or more than five members; and that where there are contiguous boroughs which, if formed into a single constituency, would be entitled to return not less than three or more than five members, such borough shall be united into a single constituency. These two proposals do involve the fusion of two or more existing boroughs in the one electoral area. So far as I can understand, it is there that the real difference arises, where I venture to make these observations, not with a view to persuading anybody to alter his opinion, but with a view to ascertaining now, or hereafter, exactly what the opinions of Members are, and where exactly the difference arises. It may be that the advocates of proportional representation have been rather too successful in the Conference, and they may fin—I really do not know—that it would be a better thing from their point of view if they met their opponents and endeavoured to arrive at some arrangement for limiting the operation of the system, in order to carry, at any rate, some part of their proposals.

:If my hon. Friend will look at the Bill he will find that the proposal is limited to the case where there is an election of the full number of members, and therefore the provision does not apply to by-elections.

:In the case of a by-election, will it take place throughout the whole borough?

:What happens if five areas are combined together to return five members and one member dies? Will an election be held throughout the five areas?

:The election must take place in the other boroughs. That, of course, is one of the points that can be discussed.

I have detained the House long enough, I think, on these particulars, and I will proceed to mention the others without attempting to argue them, although they are of some importance. It is proposed that the polls should all be taken on one day. Provision is made for voting by absent voters by a system set out in the Schedule. We propose that the returning officers' expenses shall be paid by the State. We further propose that a candidate shall make a deposit, which will be returnable to him if he has not less than one-eighth of the votes. That is intended to prevent mere freak candidates. It is proposed to reduce the scale of expenses to a figure which, I think, every experienced man will say is low, and also to prohibit expenditure by unauthorised bodies. This provision is, perhaps, rather difficult to enforce, but I think it would be found that it is enforcable.

:As regards redistribution, Boundary Commissioners have been appointed for England, Wales, and Scotland, and have already commenced their work. They will of course follow the lines laid down by the Speaker's Conference. If by any chance some alteration should be made in the Bill, such as the omission of the Clause relating to proportional representation, they will be able to modify their proceedings and frame their schedule accordingly. In one way or another I have no doubt that before we reach Clause 27, dealing with redistribution, the schedule will be, ready and will be laid before the House. One of my hon. Friends pointed out yesterday that the rules laid down by the, Speaker's Conference and embodied in the instructions to the Commission are not in the Bill, and therefore cannot be amended by the House, but the effect of the rules will be found in Schedule 4, when the time comes for its discussion, and the schedule can be amended.

:Have any instructions been given to the Commission with regard to the grouping of boroughs?

:Have instructions been given to the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland been issued?

:It is stated in the Report that the proposal for redistribution has no regard to Ireland, but only to Great Britain, and no provision is made in respect of redistribution in Ireland. The effect will be, of course, that if the Home Rule Act is not in operation when this Bill comes into force, Ireland will have the present number of representatives. On the other hand, if the Home Rule Act is in operation Ireland will have a reduced number of forty-two.

:The members of the Speaker's Conference are able to bear the responsibility for deciding this matter, and I think the House will recognise that they have decided very wisely. Before I conclude I should like to refer to the argument embodied in an Amendment on the Paper, that however fair the compromise embodied in the Bill it should not be brought before Parliament in time of war. That argument leaves out of account altogether the circumstances under Which these proposals are brought forward. If a Bill of this magnitude and importance were brought forward on behalf of any party or combination of parties, without consultation or practical agreement, that objection would, I believe, have unanswerable force. In that event, I certainly could not be a party to pressing these proposals upon the House. The whole justification of the Bill is this, that the scheme has been framed by a Conference containing members of all parties under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, and which, to the astonishment, I think, of many people, arrived at unanimous decisions on most points.

:I am aware of that, but when one bears in mind the members who were left, I think their unanimity is a matter for congratulation. My right hon. Friend here reminds me that the places of those members who withdrew were filled by members of the same Party. These proposals so framed have been approved by this House by a majority of almost six to one, containing a majority of every Party in the House, and in the case of some an overwhelming majority. I think those two facts alone are enough to show that no Government could refuse to bring proposals so framed and so supported before Parliament. Where there exists so large a measure of agreement, we may fairly hope for the adoption of these proposals without any undue diversion of the attention of Parliament from other and perhaps more important matters. It is plain that some Bill must be introduced for the purpose of providing a register, and I think it is plain also that no proposal would wholly escape discussion, and that this proposal is the one which perhaps least divides the House. It is said that these matters cannot be discussed during the War. One answer to that is that it is only during a war that these questions are reduced to their true perspective. The consciousness of the existence of graver issues renders agreement on such matters as electoral reform not only possible but imperative. I confess that I contemplate with intense dislike the prospect of engaging after the War in a series of barren wrangles on such points as residence or occupation, six months or twelve months, man or woman, two votes or three.

I would like to get all these questions behind me, and to be free to deal with the bigger things with which we shall be faced. Think of the problems which are upon us—unity of the Empire, national defence, conservation of resources, trade preference, labour and capital, co-operation, housing, health, and education. Would you put all those matters and matters of equal importance by until after a long discussion on the electoral law? Would you exclude from the discussion and settlement of those great problems a large part of your population? If, indeed, I thought the settlement one-sided, or that it aroused feelings of resentment or injustice among any section of our population, I should find it impossible to press it on the House. It is because I believe that it represents a fair compromise on a number of thorny and somewhat barren controversies, and a compromise which commends itself to the overwhelming majority of reasonable men in the House and in the country, that I believe it to be the plain duty of the Government to put it forward. And I am not without hope that those who are now opposed to the Bill may on further consideration come to the conclusion that if they desire (as no doubt they do) to prevent a waste of time and energy in war time, they can best effect that result by yielding to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the House and by permitting this Bill to pass into law without undue discussion or delay.

:I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "in view of the pre-occupation of the Ministry, of Parliament, and of the people by the efforts and anxieties of the War, it is undesirable at the present time to proceed further with the consideration of legislation which enacts far-reaching changes in the franchise without providing that a reasonable proportion of soldiers and sailors will be able to vote at the next election."

In addressing the House on this question I wish to ask for its indulgence. I have not had the opportunity of hearing the previous Debates on this subject. I had not the opportunity of being in the House when your Committee was formed, and I had no inside knowledge whatever of the circumstances which led to the formation of that Committee or of what went on in that Committee or of the reception which was given to its Report. I have not had the privilege of being present at any formal Debate upon this subject. I ask for the indulgence of the House on that ground, and also on the ground that I have not made a speech for two years, and one is rather apt to forget the tricks of the trade. The reason why I ventured to intervene in this Debate is because since I came home I have been literally assailed with letters from my own county on the subject of this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he does not think that any class feels injustice under the Bill. I can inform him from all that I can learn that in the West Country people feel that they are going to be very hard hit by it. On getting to this House I asked a good many of my Friends about this Bill. I asked if they were in favour of it, and I could not find that they were very much in love with it. But I got one answer all round, and that was, "It cannot be very bad or it would not be promoted by the Colonial Secretary." No one has a greater respect and, if he will permit me to say so, no one has a greater affection for the Colonial Secretary than I have myself. I would take his judgment on almost any question. Supposing the Colonial Secretary were to advise me to buy a horse, I would take his judgment on it very willingly, but I am quite sure lie would be the first to say, "Go and look at it yourself and have it examined by the vet.," and I think that at the present time he would say, considering the restrictions on buying corn, you had better wait until after the War. That is the view I ask this House to Take. I say let us look at this Bill, let us have it well "vetted," and, if we like it, then let us take it after the War.

In the Amendment which I have moved I have laid stress on the fact that I do not think that during the War it is a good thing for this House to proceed further with the discussion of this Bill. I would urge that, not because I think that it is going to in any way diminish the interest which this House takes in the War, but because I think it would diminish the interest which this House takes in the Bill, and I think that on a very important subject as this it is essential that it should receive the full attention and full consideration of this House. I have also said that the attention of the Government is occupied at the present time with other considerations. I think if you read the Bill itself you will find that there are certain things, that I will point out a little later, which would not have been in the Bill or would not have been expressed in the way they are expressed if the Government had been able to give their full and practically undivided attention to this Bill, instead of being engrossed by much more important topics. There is a further reason and a reason which I think will appeal, and ought to appeal, to every Member of this House. I think it is hardly fair to be discussing a measure of this sort and a measure which vitally affects almost every constituency in England when so many Members of this House are absent fighting overseas. It is not fair, in the first place, to their constituents, and I think also it is not fair to themselves. This Bill involves a shuffling of constituencies, and it means constituencies being thrown into the melting pot and coming out a different size and under different conditions to what they are at present. There will be conferences, committees and so on from which all those serving Members will be absent. When it is a question who is to stand for a particular seat, and when a county is redivided, you are sure to have some seats more desirable than others, and when that takes place then, with the very best will in the world and with every consideration for those who are absent, the man on the spot is bound to have the best of it. I do think that is the first thing that ought to be taken into consideraion. I must say that it seems to me almost pathetic that we are discussing this question in the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell). I think it would be particularly pathetic if, when the hon. Member, who made such a special study of this question, comes back, he should find the seats redistributed—as he always urged—but that, it may be, he will find his own seat is changed beyond recognition: he may possibly find himself without a seat at all.

There is one other thing that I think urges a postponement of this Bill. It has been already referrel to, namely, the need for settlement in Ireland. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courage in coming to the House and telling them that he proposes to redistribute the seats in the whole of England, and to leave the seats in Ireland just as they are. He proposes to take away the Members from Canterbury, Winchester, and all our ancient English boroughs, and to leave Newry still represented. Had my right hon. Friend donned serge instead of silk he would have got the V.C. long ago for such courage as that I But this question of Ireland really is, as I think I can point out, vital to the Bill, because the future number of Members that we are to have in this House depends on it. I do not know whether anyone has been carefully into the figures which are involved in the reference to the Boundary Commissioners. I have taken the trouble to go over them, and I think I am right in saying that we may reckon, taking inequalities on the one side up, and on the other side down, for England and Wales, that the average constituency will be 70,000. According to the Registrar's Return for 1914, by which these seats have to be determined, the population of England and Wales was 36,960,000. Divide that ay 70,000, and you get 528. The present number of Members in this House for England and Wales is 490—that is an increase of 38 seats. If Ireland is left out that is all right, but if Ireland is not left out we get congestion even worse congested in this House. his a big question. It is difficult enough to to get seats even now. I do not, of course, mean to win a seat, but to get somewhere to sit down when you come into this House. If the Irish Members are to stay, and this Bill and these instructions are to remain in their present form, then they will be contradictory, because the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners are that they are not to raise the number of Members in this House. But if they carry out their instructions literally, well, then we will get undue congestion in this House. Therefore I say we ought to settle this question of Ireland first and see where we are as to the distribution of seats in this House.

There are other questions raised in the various Amendments to the Bill. There is the question of the House of Lords. I for one fully realise its importance. I am not, however, going to deal with it, because I do not want to get in first and take the words out of the mouths of other hon. Members who, no doubt, will deal with this much more competently than I am able to do. But I do want to say this about any Franchise Bill that is brought in at the present time: the essence of it ought to be that it deals with two questions. The first of these is the question of the woman. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, that that is necessary. I have always been in favour of women's suffrage. I agree with him that it is doubly necessary now, not only out of gratitude to them for what they have done in the course of the War, but I think in mere justice. One thing one notices all over the country is that women are now taking the place of men. When the men come back the question must arise as to whether the women are to stay or the men to come in. How those questions are to be settled I do not for a moment pretend to say; but I do say that it is only just and fair that the women should have a voice in settling it. Therefore I think women's suffrage ought to be an essential thing in a Franchise Bill brought in at this moment. What do I find as to the position of women suffrage in this Bill? It is the one thing that is to be left in the air; it is the one thing for which the Government does not stand out. If it is a matter of a change of residence or occupation or any small point of that sort—well, then it is a Government question. You get a big question like this—it is not a Government question! I say if you want to treat women fairly, we ought to get this undertaking from the Government, that if the women are left out, that either by Amendment in this House or by Amendment in another place, that defect should be remedied, or the Government will undertake to drop the other Clauses of the Bill. In default of that, I say that this Bill does not adequately deal with the question of women's franchise.

There is the other question, the question to which I refer in my Amendment—that is as to the soldiers and the sailors. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware how very much point there was in the question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire—that the Bill differs absolutely in the recommendations about soldiers and sailors from the report of the Conference. Take the Bill. The very beginning of Clause 5 says:

"During the continuance of a war, and for a period of twelve months after. …" Those words do not occur in the report of the Conference. I do not, and certainly never did, imagine that it was the wish of the Conference—and I do not believe it is the wish of this House—that these special voting powers for soldiers and sailors should only be for the period of the continuance of the War. I should say that they ought to have a right in peace as well as in war, and this Bill does not give it to them. The proposal of the Conference gave it to them; but this Bill does not. This Bill applies only to soldiers serving abroad. You have not improved on the Conference report. It is only when you come to the Bill that it only applies to soldiers serving abroad. Take the case of soldiers serving at home first. What is to become of them? It is true they get their qualification in a very short amount of time; but where will they get it from? In the great camps where they are now? That, I do not believe, was the intention of the Conference. What I want to see, and what I believe most of the Members of this House want to see is that soldiers, whether at home or abroad, should be voting for Blackburn or Hanky or whatever constituency they come from—that they should be leavening the whole lump and not be put together in a small number of areas, merely swamping one particular district and having no effect upon the general vote of the country. That I do not believe was what the Conference meant, but that is what this Bill says. Now as to the soldiers who are abroad. What proportion of soldiers does my right hon. Friend calculate will come on the register or will vote under these regulations at an election, say, next April? Does he think he will get 20 per cent. or 10 per cent.? I very much doubt myself whether you will get 5 per cent.? Look again at the difference in one of the proposals of the Conference and the proposals of this Bill. The proposal of the Conference was that the onus of putting the soldier on the register should lie on the registration officer. In this Bill the onus is put on the soldier himself.

:I hope I am wrong, but I think, if my right hon. Friend will look into it carefully he will see that I am right.

:May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend? There seems some error here. My hon. and gallant Friend is attacking the Bill because of what he conceives to be the difference in it and the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. As a matter of fact, we have gone a little further. The Bill makes it the duty of the registration officer to place on the register certain people, amongst others, soldiers and sailors, but over and above that, in order to cover cases unknown to the registration officer, soldiers and sailors are enabled to claim the franchise.

:Of course, I accept the explanation of my right hon. Friend, but I may say I have consulted two or three lawyers about the matter. Anyway, I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the point is one that ought to be made more clear. Even taking it as it is, you are not going to get very many put on the register right away. Do you think you are going to get a great many to send in their claims? Under the rules laid down in the Schedule claims have to come in in the fortnight between the first and the fifteenth of the month. That, to start with, bars every soldier who is in Salonika, Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, India—bars them altogether. They have no chance of getting the vote. As to those serving in France, well, I know something of elections, and I know something of the difficulties of getting soldiers to fill up forms. A very large percentage of the soldiers will in the course of the fortnight be able to get the forms sent out to them, fill them up, and send them back again. Do you think you will get a very high percentage of soldiers to fill them up? I hope you will. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he thinks he will, I am quite ready to hope that he is right; but I cannot say that I think that you will get a very large number of soldiers to come on the register even under that provision. Then with regard to voting, I under stand that they do come on the absent voters' list. But do you expect that a very large number of soldiers will vote under the provision as to the absent voters' list? I want to point out, too, that supposing a soldier is wounded and comes home, that he changes his address in any way, it will be very difficult to find him, and under the Clause of the Bill he is only entitled to vote as an absent voter and would not be able to go and vote in the ordinary way. I do not want to press that point unduly, but it does seem to me that the provisions that are in the Bill are not the same as the provisions that were brought in by the Committee, and that in the way that they differ they are worse for the soldiers. I am very anxious that we should get every possible soldier voting at the next election.

I want to say right away that I am not out to obstruct this Bill. I do not want to obstruct it in Committee, and I do not want to embarrass the Government. I am sure my right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that, though I do believe it would save the Government an enormous amount of embarrassment if they were to drop this Bill. And I am not sure that it would break all their hearts either. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went through various points of the Bill in detail, and there are one or two to which I should like to ask him to give his consideration. I do not want to be captious at all, but I think they are points which he will find will be raised in Committee, and if he can do anything himself to make them clearer than they seem to me now, I think it will save the time of the House. The first is in regard to residence. Residence is not defined. I hesitate to say anything about a legal question before the Home Secretary, but I think that if he looks it up he will find that the legal definition of residence is a very sketchy one, and that it does want to be further defined; otherwise it may lead to trouble in the future. Then there is the question about this curious Clause as to one night's residence. I want to point out the great dangers to which that might lead. In the hands of a clever agent you could get any number of votes. Take two constituencies, say Westminster and Lambeth. I do not want to bring in particular names, but let us say there is a big Red majority in one and that the other is almost equally divided between Red and Blue. If you had a smart agent on the Red side he could bring over from Lambeth where there is a large majority 100 or 200 residents to Westminster on the last night before the register is framed, they could sleep for one night in Westminster, and on that qualification they would be able to claim a vote in Westminster. I think that according to the wording of the Bill that is right.

:No, but let us read the Clause of the Bill, namely, Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ):

"Must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency; and (b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough and Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county."

:Well I just raised the point. The next question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is about business premises. I think that is rather an important point. It is a thing I have heard raised in the country. It is in Sub-section (3), and I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether the word "premises" includes land, because if "premises" does not include land under this Clause you would be giving a privilege to the merchant, business man, or shopkeeper which would be denied to the farmer. I think the House will agree with me that that would not be just. Then as to registration. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these registration provisions are going to add enormously to the cost. You will have double the number of electors on the register—you cannot avoid that—but you will have two registrations instead of one in the course of the year, so that you will very largely increase the expenditure. It is true that you are diminishing the election expenses, but what you are giving with one hand you are taking away with the other. Then as to revision, the onus of the revision falls upon the registration officer, that is the clerk of the county council. The clerk of the county council cannot possibly do it all himself. There is a Clause under which the Local Government Board can appoint assistants to him for any particular duty, but I will suggest to my right hon. Friend that there ought to be something a little more definite than that, and that there ought to be some qualification for these assistants who are to be employed. There is the question, already raised under the operation of proportional representation, as to by-elections. I do want to point out that the idea of this minority vote is that you may get in by your minority vote some particular able and distinguished man who would not otherwise obtain a seat in the House. That able and distinguished man may be offered office, but he would not be able to accept office because he would have to fight a by-election, and under this provision he would lose his seat. I wish to point that out because I think it is a thing we ought to deal with if we are adopting proportional representation. Then there is the provision about the £150 deposit and the alternative vote. I want, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants, to discourage speculative candidatures. After all, everyone has a chance of winning an election. Extraordinary people are returned to the House of Commons. I do not know, if I may use a sporting term, whether my right hon. Friend has carefully weighed the odds in this case. You are giving £150 to get £400 a year for five years—that is, £2,150. It is about 100 per cent. It is a good outside price that a good many sporting men might be ready to take, and I think you want to make that Clause rather stronger in order to stop these speculative candidatures.

Those are all little details, but there is one biggish question I want to bring to my right hon. Friend's notice before I sit down—that is, the question of the representation of agriculture under the Bill. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Colonel Bathurst) has an Amendment about that on the Paper. I am heartily in agreement with that Amendment, and I find—for I have heard from various parts of the country—that agriculturists are very apprehensive about the way in which they are being treated under this Bill. Of course, agriculture already is the Cinderella of our industries. It is quite true that at the present time you are down on your knees to agriculture, but in practical ways agriculture has less influence than any industry in this country. Take the Committee that reported on this.

Agriculture was not very largely represented. Take the present Government. Take the portfolios that used to carry Cabinet rank. There is not a Member for an agricultural constituency among them, I think you will find. Take the last Government, and I think you find it was the same.

:I do not want to make a point on that. I think the House will acknowledge that manufacturing, commercial, and big business interests have a very much larger say in this House than agriculture. It is quite true that it may be said that men representing other interests do take an interest in agriculture, and that they approve measures to deal with agriculture. I am not sure that that is altogether a good thing. I rather think that agriculture would be happy to be spared the well-meant efforts of enthusiastic amateurs. After all, the best representation of agriculture is through agricultural representatives, and I do think it is a serious defect in this Bill that it will diminish, and diminish seriously, the number of agricultural representatives from England and Wales at all events. It is impossible on the figures to say, without a much longer study than I have been able to give it, how exactly it will affect them, but I think it is not far wrong to declare that we must lose twenty seats, and may lose forty. I am the last not to acknowledge the enormous importance of the big manufacturing, big factory, and big business interests of the country. I am quite aware that it is to them that England owes its position in the world, and that it is to those interests that England owes the justification of its position in the world. I acknowledge that all in the very fullest manner, but I say that agriculture ought to have a chance. She is treated, undoubtedly, as a poor sister. But be just to her, because, although she is a poor sister, I am not sure she is not a pretty sister as well. After all, if you take the thoughts of the men at the front now, I think that when they are coming back to England they think rather of the farm than of the factory. You hear them as they are going abroad, without the slightest regret, singing "Good-bye, Piccadilly and Leicester Square," but when abroad they sing with a certain amount of longing of the "Little Grey Home in the West." I do ask that you should be just to agriculture in this measure, and I would point out that on the figures themselves you have been a little less than just, because you are taking those figures on the return of 1914. Since 1914—in fact within the last few months—orders have come out that 3,000,000 fresh acres of land are to be ploughed. That must mean an enormous increase in the agricultural population. It may mean an increase of anything up to 500,000 taken away from the towns and transferred to the country. No reckoning of that is made in the instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, and I do think that it ought to be taken into account.

I think you ought to treat agriculture with a little more than justice, you ought to treat it with generosity. I do not want to go into actual figures, but I will tell my right hon. Friend, if he wants to square me, the point on which I am to be squared. I will throw out the suggestion to him, if it is not already too late, that if he could make, instead of a flat rate of 70,000, the number of 60,000 for county agricultural constituencies and 80,000 for other constituencies, at all events, if he could make some substantial concession of that sort, he would do a very great deal to mitigate the sense of injustice under the Bill that is undoubtedly felt in agricultural constituencies at the present time. I hope my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the point, for if the Bill is to go on I assure him it is a very important point if you do not want to make the Bill unpopular to start with. I thank the House for the indulgence in which it has listened to me. I have tried as far as I can, and I think I have succeeded, to keep away from any party questions. It has not been very easy to do so, because I have heard lots of party things said about it, but in a Government like this, which consists of both parties, I think it is up to them to give members a free hand on a Bill like this. I do not think members ought to be pressed. I hear there is some pressure, we have heard of a large majority in all parts of the House, and the majority in different parties, as the Home Secretary said. I think that might be a little premature if you want the House to be unanimous about it, and to have a free expression of the opinion of the House about it. If the House thinks it is a good Bill to go forward, I am not out to obstruct it. I think it will have to be altered in several ways, as my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, but I hope he will do something to meet me in the two points of making provision for soldiers and sailors clearer and better, and giving better representation to the agricultural interest.

:I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, and in doing so I should like to say that I, unfortunately, shall not be here to embarrass the Government in the passage of the Bill, as I have orders to go abroad shortly. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words on the Second Reading. The main point which I wish to speak of is that referring to soldiers and sailors. The Special Register Bill failed principally because the vote was not given to soldiers and sailors. I share the feeling in the House, which is far stronger in the country, that soldiers and sailors now serving must have the vote at the next election, otherwise the House would not be thoroughly representative. This Bill does not give the vote to soldiers and sailors. It pretends to do so, which is far worse; but, in fact, it does not do so. The Colonial Secretary said that the Bill did not put the onus upon the soldier to claim the vote. Clause 5 distinctly puts the onus upon the soldier. This Clause says:

"During the continuance of a war in which His Majesty is engaged and for the period of twelve months after the termination thereof any person to whom this Section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for the war."

This has to be sent in. A man has to make a statement that he is qualified or would have been qualified for the constituency. That is fully borne out by Clause 18. I contend that soldiers and sailors should have the right to vote as soldiers and sailors, not because of any residential qualification whatever. Every man who is a soldier or sailor actually serving His Majesty at the time should have ipso facto the right to vote, no matter where he lives. The easiest way for them to get their votes is to say that every soldier and sailor should be qualified by his calling for the vote, and it would be much easier to get his vote in the distant places where he may be serving. The roll of constituents should be sent out with the name of the opposing candidates, and the soldier or sailor would claim the vote in the constituency in which his next of kin is registered. Every soldier on service has a pay book in his pocket in which the address of the next of kin is registered, and that should be the constituency in which he should have the right to vote. That would be a simple method of getting the vote. The importance of finding a very much simpler method than that laid down in the Bill is tremendous, because there are millions of men serving abroad at the present time, and if the Bill goes through in its present form I do not believe 5 per cent. of the soldiers and sailors will get the vote. They will have to claim them months before. A man who is on service, knowing he may be killed the next minute, is not going to trouble much about politics six months hence. They will be absolutely disfranchised by the Bill in its present form. Up to the present time all Parliaments have been elected without the votes of soldiers and sailors. That means to say in past time, including the Mercantile Marine, over 1,000,000 have been disfranchised and have had no vote for the House of Commons, and that at a time when there were only 8,000,000 voters. Now you are going to increase the number of voters very considerably, and you are not going to say that the men who have fought and endured for the last three years are certain to have a vote and say what sort of a Government they want.

There are times when I believe that there are a great many people in the House who do not want soldiers and sailors to have a vote. They render lip-service to the cause, but do all they can to obstruct a measure providing a simple method by which they should be given the vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said: Again he said, speaking of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Clavell Salter): The absurdity of sending ballot papers out to soldiers strikes me very forcibly. First of all, soldiers would have to be registered in their constituency by the registrar, perhaps as absent voters, then they have to claim their votes, and they have to be men who in the opinion of the registrar may have been resident in the constituency. How could the registrar know if they had lived in the constituency or not? He may know in a great many cases; in others he may not. When he has registered the elector, the ballot papers are to be sent out to the soldier by the registrar for the particular district, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, men who have been wounded and who are on service are constantly changing their address. Very often if you send a letter to a man serving in a particular unit it will not reach him for six weeks. He may have trench feet, or he may have been ill. He may have gone down to the line and have been transferred from hospital to hospital, and may be either in England or perhaps gone back to another unit at the front. That letter would very likely not reach him at all, or it might take weeks. Imagine that taking place when you send ballot papers through the post. There is only one possible way of taking the votes, and that is to have soldiers entitled to vote because of their calling. There cannot be any great difficulty—there cannot be the great difficulties which the late Prime Minister made out in his speech, because Australia and Canada have both taken votes from men who are serving in the trenches, of course on a much smaller scale, but I believe quite easily; and in the case of Canada I believe the result of the ballot was actually cabled over.

There is no difficulty. You set your polling officers in the place where the soldiers are serving to examine the papers and send home the proper numbers to the proper officials. By that means you can take the votes of men as far off as Mesopotamia. Why should it be harder for men to vote in Mesopotamia, 7,000 or 8,000 miles away, than for Australians to vote 12,000 miles away from their own country? If it can be done in the case of Australia, why cannot it be done in the case of soldiers serving in Mesopotamia? It cannot be done under this Bill because it would take too long, and so on. If that is so, then you must set up your machinery properly, and have an entirely different method. That is the principal reason why I shall oppose this Bill. But there are a great many other reasons. One is that I am not in favour of women's suffrage. Then there is the question of redistribution. How are we to carry out a redistribution scheme when an enormous mass of the population are in entirely different areas from those in which they were before the War, and how is anyone to know they will not remain in these great cities which have sprung up, and, very likely, after the War will be turned into great industrial areas?

Then with regard to the question of women's suffrage. You are going to give the women the vote at the same time that you are giving the men the vote, and while the men who are serving abroad are to get the vote in the way proposed by the Bill the women at home will be able to vote quite easily. As it is the women preponderate greatly over the men, and probably after the War will do so by not less than 2,000,000. Before the War I think the excess over males was nearly 1,500,000. Therefore, by giving women the vote, you give them the main political power. Then, again, women have not been asked whether they wish to have the vote at all. When the question was being considered in the country in 1910 I asked the opinion of the ladies in my Constituency who have votes for local elections. I asked them whether they wanted to vote for Parliament or not, and sent each a card to sign. There were 1,221 on the register, and out of 1,036—185 having gone away—only 31 refused to answer, and of the rest 532, or more than 50 per cent., said they did not want the vote; 254 said they were indifferent, and only 130 voted for it. That is more than 80 per cent. either against or indifferent, and those are working women who have a vote for local elections. What would it be all over the country? Hon. Members talk about women having earned the vote, but they do not want it, Why give them something they do not want? It is not a nice way of being kind to them, and I do not think that if a Referendum were taken of the women of this country there would be anything like a majority in favour of the vote. I think there would be a majority probably against it of something like 70 per cent. Then we have not asked the men whether they want to give the women the vote, and I know quite well that enormous numbers of soldiers do not want women to have the vote, not because they do not like the ladies, but they consider that voting is a man's business. There are certainly a number of people who think that men should decide peace and war, and the preparations you make for them. I do not think that is a matter for women, and I do not think that if there were a Referendum on the subject men would agree to give women the vote.

This is all being done during a time of war, when we have immensely more important questions to think of. The Home Secretary said he thought it was a very good thing to bring it in in time of war, because all our animosities had died down, and all that sort of thing. I think that is just the very reason why it should not be brought in, because the country will certainly not pay any attention to what is going on here, and this House is, or should be, taken up by very much more important matters. Surely we have enough trouble at the present moment staring us in the face. We do not know what is happening in Russia. All that we know is that at present there is an armistice, more or less, along the frontier, and the result is that our men have to put up a greater fight against a larger number of Germans. Our task is enormously more difficult than ever before, and heavy losses are being incurred at the front at the present time. Surely what this House has got to devote itself to are such questions as the U boats; secondly, the question of man-power; and thirdly, the provision of munitions; and this is no time or place to go into questions of franchise reform and redistribution. I sincerely hope the Government will think better of proceeding with this Bill, and that those Members who agree with me will vote against it on every opportunity, in order to try to prevent it going through. At any rate, let us have the opinion of the men who are fighting before we carry out these vast and far-reaching changes.

:I rise to give my whole-hearted support to this Bill, and I should like, in my first words of public utterance in this House, to express what I am sure is in the mind of every Member, namely, our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill upon his recovery from his recent illness. It appears to me, as a new Member of this House, that the House to-day is extremely fortunate in having his presence with us to give that very lucid and practical explanation of this Bill, and I am sure the House will be extremely fortunate if the right hon. Gentleman is able to remain and conduct the Bill throughout the whole of its later stages. It is with considerable timidity that I rise to-day to address this House for the first time. It is rather less than two, months since I became a Member, and I think every Member of this Chamber will agree that during those two months we have listened to a number of maiden efforts of hon. Members, and all of them, without exception, have reached a very high standard of excellence. I think hon. Members would not think it invidious of me if I singled out for special mention the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. As I watched the hands of the clock move round from quarter to quarter, and as I saw the half-hours disappear into hours, while the President of the Board of Education kept everyone of us here enthralled, I must say my heart sank within me, because I said to myself as a new Member—and I feel compassion for all new Members who have not yet delivered their first speech—as I listened to the President of the Board of Education, "This is the standard which the House will expect from new Members who in the future must make their maiden effort." But I found comfort and consolation when I remembered the words of Solomon of old: That was the first vote I gave in this House, and, therefore, perhaps it is peculiarly apposite that my first address should be in favour of the Bill that is now before the House. I should just like to say here—and I am sure hon. Members will not look upon it as an impertinence—that the name of Mr. Speaker will be imperishably linked with this great measure of electoral reform, which I have faith and confidence enough to believe will soon become one of the statutes of the realm. Although when the Motion moved by the late Prime Minister was put there were found in this House sixty-two Members who voted against it, I am perfectly sure that not one of those hon. Members had in his mind any feeling adverse to the first part of the Motion, which contained the thanks of this Chamber to Mr. Speaker for his services. I am fresh from the throes of a by-election. In that election I was asked to give my support to many matters, but the only pledge that I felt I ought to give, and which I did give, was that I would loyally and whole-heartedly support the present or any Government, whoever for the time being might be at its head, provided it was the Government charged by the nation with the vigorous and successful prosecution of this War. I did not give any other pledge, but I cannot fail to remember that at the time of my by-election the report of the Speaker's Conference had been published for some time and it was in the minds of the electors. I am perfectly sure, if there had been any serious opposition to the resolutions contained in that reform, I should most certainly have heard of it. The result of that by-election was a majority in favour of the Government candidate of 7,045, and although I only gave the pledge I have mentioned a moment or two ago I feel I have, from my own electorate, a mandate to come here and support in the fullest possible manner the Bill which is at present before the House.

It would ill become me—and I have no intention of meandering through all the various provisions of this Bill, but I would like, by the courtesy of this House—a courtesy which is never failing when Members rise to make their maiden effort—to refer just to three or four Clauses of the Bill, and particularly to one or two which, had they been in operation, would have affected my by-election. Might I be allowed first to mention the question of the extension of the franchise to women.

On that particular subject I was asked to give a pledge, but I refused to do so, not because I had any doubt at all as to where my opinion lay, because J have always been a convinced supporter of the extension of the franchise to women, and not because I had any doubt as to what my action would be when I entered this House, but I refused to give the pledge for the reason that I have already stated. The old arguments for and against the extension of the franchise to women are perfectly well known to this House, and it is within the recollection of hon. Members that on several occasions within the limits of the present Parliament that the Second Readings of measures granting some extension of the franchise to women have been passed by large majorities. The days when the extension of franchise to women can be met with a burst of ridicule are gone for ever. We used to be told that women ought not to concern themselves with other than domestic affairs. We used to be told that by her nature, by her position in society, she was sheltered from the buffeting and the turmoil of life. Now for nearly three years women have taken their part in affairs of the greatest moment and of the greatest consequence to this nation. The women of this country have been content to share the buffeting and the turmoil which these later days have brought, and I say, without any fear of contradiction, that all sections of the women of this country—when I say all sections I include in my mind those who felt it right some time ago to take a more turbulent attitude than they have recently taken—during the last three years have played the game. They have done so from a sense of patriotism and from a love of country and not with any ulterior motive, and I am perfectly sure that the very last thing they would wish to ask for would be the suffrage as a reward. They are entitled to it as a right.

I ask this House whether it is too much for us to anticipate what the vote in this House will be. I suggest that hon. Members of this House should take the earliest possible opportunity of showing in a practical form their tribute to the work and to the worth of women in this War. In my opinion they should do it under the advice and with the guidance of Mr. Speaker by removing yonder grille, so that in the near future the women of this country may look down upon this Chamber with unrestricted vision and with unrestrained hearing. They should be able to look down upon this House, which perchance at no distant date they may adorn by their presence, and before many years have passed they may take a useful and honourable part in its deliberations. The Bill does not by any means satisfy all aspirations. It is a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill pointed out that the old register for the United Kingdom contained rather more than 8,000,000 voters, and this measure will add rather less than 3,000,000 male voters. To this 11,000,000 about 6,000,000 women will be added, or rather less than half the adult female population. The whole electorate will be raised to something like 17,000,000, of whom 6,000,000 would be women. As hon. Members of this House are fully aware, the franchise has always been extended in stages, and although this Bill will not by any means satisfy everybody, yet it is a compromise, and in my opinion a satisfactory compromise, and ought to be accepted as such. May I be allowed to say a word or two upon the proposed age limit of thirty so far as women are concerned? That proposed age limit may be necessary—perhaps it is necessary as a political expedient. Perhaps the public opinion of this country would not be ready for a more extended extension of the franchise to women, but I think that that is the only ground, the ground of political expediency, which would in any way justify the age limit of thirty. Once you have granted, once you have agreed to give the franchise to women, the only logical way in which it can be given is to give it at the same age as that at which men enjoy it. As a matter of fact, I think every hon. Member will agree with me when I say that, although this proposal may be necessary as a political expedient, the only logical solution of the whole franchise question is by giving a measure of adult suffrage. Hon. and learned Members of this House will remember that the law permits a girl now to make a valid marriage at the age of twelve, whilst a man must wait until he is fourteen, and hon. and learned Members will also remember that under the Infants Settlement Act of 1855 a man who is over twenty may, with the consent of the Court, make a valid and binding settlement, in contemplation of marriage, of his real and personal property. And although a man can do that over the age of twenty, a girl can do it at the age of seventeen. That being so, is there any logical reason why, if women can take part in these most important functions at an earlier age than men, they should not be permitted to exercise the franchise until they are nine years older than men?

I now come to a Clause which I think will be welcomed by every hon. Member of this House and also by prospective candidates. It is, I think, a most welcome reform which proposes to reduce materially the cost of elections. In my own recent by-election, notwithstanding an enormous reduction in printing and posting, my election cost me nearly £700, and it cost my opponent nearly £900. My 7,641 votes cost 1s. 9d. each, and my opponent's 596 votes cost him just under 30s. each. At the last General Election the average expense of candidates who went through a contest was over £800, whilst the successful candidate at Romford spent no less than £4,522. Another very salutary Clause in the Bill is that which relates to the forfeiture of the deposit of £150 made with the returning officer. Hon. Members will remember that if a candidate who is not elected receives less than one-eighth of the total number of votes polled, the amount he has deposited will be forfeited to the State. In my own by-election my opponent received about one vote in every fourteen of those polled, and I think that would have been a suitable case where the money which he had deposited should have been forfeited to the State. May I make a suggestion or two to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with regard to the business of registration? It is proposed that this question should be taken out of the hands of party agents and transferred to the State. Why is it that the State should not bear the whole of the cost of registration instead of one-half, as is provided by this Bill? Another suggestion which I might be allowed to make with respect is this, that it should be made perfectly clear that party agents should have power to appear and should have the right of audience before the County Court judge or the judge specially appointed to deal with appeals from the registration officer. As it stands at present, the Bill provides that party agents shall have power to appear before the registration officer himself, but it has not been made clear that they shall have a right of audience in the County Court or before the judge who is to be specially appointed.

Now may I make one or two references to the thorny subject of proportional representation? My own personal feeling is one of disappointment that it is not to receive a full Government backing. Hon. Members may remember that in my recent election, although I was adopted as the Liberal candidate, I received the full and loyal support of the Conservative party, and also a very large measure of support from the Labour party in the Constituency. Two or three days ago I received from the chairman of the Conservative party a letter urging me to do everything in my power, both by voice and by vote, to support the limited proposals for proportional representation which appear in the Bill. The proposals for proportional representation, like every other matter before this House, have their merits and they are not without their demerits. I think every hon. Member recognises that. In my opinion the strongest argument in favour of proportional representation being introduced at this time is that these proposals form an integral and inherent part of a concerted whole. The whole of this Bill is a compromise, and it is well known that there were members of the Conference who would not have been induced to agree to the Report as a whole had it not contained these proposals for proportional representation. Again, in my opinion, which I am sure is shared by a number of hon. Members, once you begin to truncate this Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, once you start to remove a brick here or a plank there, you are running a very real chance of bringing the whole fabric to the ground. It has been said in the past that if you introduce a system of proportional representation, you will increase the number of cranks and the representation of groups. I venture to dissent from that view. If I may be allowed to put it in another way, it would, in my opinion, mean the representation of a broadened and strengthened party—a most desirable thing in the near future, when the work of reconstruction takes place. At that time this House should be a faithful mirror of the whole nation. If proportional representation were introduced, every voter would feel that some value attached to his vote, and there would not be the same risk of votes becoming mere waste paper in the ballot box, as so often happens at present. Hon. Members are perfectly well aware that the proposals for proportional representation do not meet with the whole-hearted assent of the party Whips on both sides, and it may be that some hon. Members think that therein lies one of their chief virtues. John Stuart Mill, in his "Representative Government," said: too frequently forgotten, and which has for some time been upon the Statute Book, providing Home Rule for Ireland, an Act which, had it not been for the War, would now have been in operation for some time. My hope, therefore, is that the Prime Minister will not press his view upon the House, but will leave the House entirely free to make up its mind upon this question.

One of the great virtues of the Bill is this: Very often in the past, as hon. Members are aware, whenever it has been proposed to bring in a measure, say, of plural voting, or a measure dealing with one particular electoral reform, the objection has invariably been taken, "This measure ought not to be introduced until the whole question of electoral reform is being dealt with, and you ought not to introduce, out of all the difficulties and out of all the anomalies, one particular phase of electoral reform which may help you politically and electorally." That argument entirely goes now that we have the present Bill before us. The "Times" of Wednesday last said that members of the Conference showed in grappling with their difficulties, may continue throughout every stage of this Bill, with the result that we shall obtain a truly representative House of Commons, capable of dealing effectively with the gigantic problems which it will have to solve when the Angel of Peace once again returns to our beloved Empire. May I be allowed to express my very deep indebtedness to the House for its never failing consideration which it has shown to me, and may I say how very much I have been helped by the evident sympathy and support which I have received while I have been speaking.

6.0 P.M.

:Looking at what this Bill does, or with the White Paper on Redistribution attached to it, suggests it will do to the constituency I have the honour to represent in this House, in speaking under the shadow of the Bill and differing from the hon. Member who has just spoken—whom I congratulate upon his first speech in the House—because he is opening his political career, I ought to address, you, Sir, in the classic phrase, Ave Cœsar, Imperator, morituri te salutant!

It is a consolation—a pathetic one, pérhaps—to one in my position, who has retained the honour of a seat in this House, the same seat continuously for over thirty-one years, and who has fought for that seat on almost every occasion, to reflect that the only way they can get rid of me is by abolishing my Constituency. But whatever may happen in that respect, and of course many things may happen, I trust I need not assure the House, in which I have not spoken much but have always spoken frankly, that it plays no part at all in the opposition I feel bound to offer to this Bill, by reason of certain highly controversial features contained in it.

I believe most of us are agreed upon the necessity—whether we are agreed upon the time when it should be done or not—of restoring the electorate to its normal strength and efficiency, in order eventually to elect a House of Commons capable of dealing, and authorised by a competent electorate to deal, with the great problems that will confront us after the War. I do not think, although I can only speak for myself, that there would have been any serious objection to the Bill if the Government had confined themselves to the primary object of effecting the restoration of the electorate to its normal condition, especially by much more liberal and effective provisions than appear in the Bill for giving absent soldiers and sailors and other men engaged in war service the vote, which is the only thing the country really cares about at the present time. I think the Bill would then have gone through practically as an agreed measure. Personally, I have no objection to other features in the Bill, features like the large extension of the existing franchise, which is more or less a process of natural evolution, the redistribution of seats, and other provisions, which may rightly be classed under the designation of "electoral machinery." If the Government had brought in a Bill on those lines and containing those features only, they would have had no difficulty in passing it. I know what the answer of the Government is, because it has been made ever and over again. They say that a Bill only to give our fighting forces the vote would be impossible because it would open up the question of the franchise someone would be sure to get up and move to include woman suffrage. That has been the constant argument of those in charge of the Bill against bringing in a more limited measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Bonar Law) gave the argument in full in his speech in the Debate on the recommendations, and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Long) repeated it forcibly on the introduction of the Bill.

But is that really the case? If so, what becomes of Mr. Speaker's ruling in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) on the introduction of the Bill? That ruling, in effect, was that this House could in diminution of the Bill take out woman suffrage if it were already included in it, but that it could not add such a provision to a Bill that did not originally include it, if it altered its character so as to make it a new Bill. Surely, in a Constitution which has never had woman suffrage, the introduction of that great change would make a measure more of a new Bill than anything else in the world possibly could. It therefore seems obvious that a Bill giving soldiers and sailors the vote could be brought in—and this was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Special Register Bill was under discussion last November—but woman suffrage could not, under Mr. Speaker's ruling, be added to it by the House. That appears to me to be a complete answer to the bugbear that has been so persistently raised against the simpler change which the country wants—namely, the vote for absent soldiers in order to restore the electorate to its normal efficiency. I know what may be said in answer. The Government are afraid that such a Bill would be rejected if the addition of woman suffrage were ruled out of order. They need not have any such fear. If they had only showed their determination not to introduce highly controversial matters at such a time as this and under the present circumstances, that attitude would have commended itself to the whole country, and they would have had a large and loyal majority in this House.

It is the introduction of two great fundamental changes in the Constitution —namely, proportional representation and woman suffrage, and particularly the latter, which has ruined the chances of this Bill being passed by anything approaching that "general agreement," without which, I would remind the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on the recommendations said a measure of this kind could not go through. We hold that these things are not in any way necessary to effect the primary object of the Bill, and that this House, in its present unrepresentative condition in relation to the people—unrepresentative by any known test you can apply—is not entitled, constitutionally or morally, to pass them into law.

One of the most obvious objections to the introduction at such a time as this, and under the circumstances in which the nation now stands, of these great constitutional changes is that you will reopen divisions which, whether they proceed on party lines or not, are always caused by the most deep-seated convictions on both sides. There is another great objection to bringing in these changes at this time and under these circumstances. You reduce Members of this House, and the people outside, to the unfair alternatives of having either to violate their conscience and their faith in the most serious matters or perhaps of impairing the stability of a War Government in which, quâ a War Government, we have every confidence, but which has no right to introduce great constitutional changes like this having absolutely nothing to do with the purpose for which they sit on these benches and for which their life has been prolonged, namely, the carrying on of the War. I have mentioned the two debatable provisions together. But I may say at once that I make little of one of them—proportional representation. I do not think it has any chance of passing, and I do not believe those who are in charge of this Bill are at all keen about it. They certainly do not consider it an integral part of the Bill. In fact, they have clearly stated—the Home Secretary repeated it to-day—that they will leave both these matters to the House. I, too, may leave it there. The appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to the Government to declare, if woman suffrage is objected to, that they will drop the Bill will find no echo from me, and having made the promise in very express terms that they will leave the subject to the House, I cannot imagine that they have any intention of dropping the Bill, supposing woman suffrage is rejected.

I want to say a word or two about the Speaker's Conference, which is the origin and basis of the Bill. No one can value more than I do the great work that Conference did in all these complicated matters of our electoral machinery, and in some others which perhaps go beyond that designation, but it is quite obvious that they set to work to construct an ideal electorate and an ideal scheme, possibly for all time, without reference to the questions when, and in what way, and under what circumstances, that scheme could legitimately be carried into effect. It is with regard to these questions that I complain that the action of the Government has been permeated by a spirit of dictatorship, which is all very well with regard to the conduct of a great War, but which ought not in any way to be applied in this free, self-governing country to domestic legislation. In the first place, the Government gives the Conference the status of a thoroughly representative body, although Members of this House had nothing to do with selecting the members of it, and cannot therefore be bound by its findings. Nor could we in any case. There is some extraordinary confusion about the use of this word "representative," as an argument in favour of the Bill. The Speaker's Confer- ence was not representative in the strict sense, because we did not select it. I understand that in legislation the word "representative" applies to the relations between a Member of this House and his constituents, and, when it is said that the Conference was "representative," I ask myself, representative of whom? Of us? No, we did not select it! Of our constituents? No, because we have been to our constituents and have made certain pledges, and have been elected on the faith of them. We represent them. Let us take a concrete case. Assume that I have stood, perhaps time and time again, and been elected, on the ground, amongst others, that I was against one of the provisions now contained in this Bill. The Government say, "You should accept the decision of the Conference on that provision, because it is so representative." No, Sir, the insistence of the Government upon the representative character of the Conference shows how far a War Government can get from the fundamentals of a democratic Constitution in matters of domestic legislation. I am not making any criticism of the Conference itself, and I can relieve myself of the necessity of any further argument on this point by quoting the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson), which I am sure are superior to any I could choose; and the House will certainly give greater weight to his legal opinion than to any I could offer. Speaking of this Conference in November last he said: en bloc into a Bill, and then saying that we ought to accept the Bill because the Conference was representative of us, without any regard to the question whether in doing so we should be keeping the pledges we may have given to our constituents. That seems to me to strike at the foundations of a democratic Government based on the representative principle. I am not complaining of any autocratic spirit shown by the Government in the conduct of the War. I am willing to admit any spirit of that sort in matters connected with the War, but nothing could be more unconstitutional and nothing more unfair than for the Government which only has an ad hoc title for the performance of executive functions in carrying on the War, and perhaps for necessary legislation which comes within the ambit of those ad hoc executive functions, than for them to make use of their power to pass domestic legislation on subjects of the deepest controversy which have nothing to do with carrying on the War. It is only by such unconstitutional means as that, that the Government can succeed in passing these fundamental changes into law.

There are other reasons why they should not attempt it. This House is in a maimed and imperfect condition, with many of its Members away on all sorts of War services. Some are abroad, and others are at home engaged on similar service which they perform with a devotion which will prevent them coming here, except now and then on a big Division, and certainly will prevent the constant and prolonged attendance this Bill will inevitably demand. There is more than that. For all purposes of ordinary legislation this House has ceased to exist. It expired by law on 31st January, 1916. It has been successively prolonged since then, but always for one purpose—for carrying on the War. What moral or constitutional right has it to legislate on such great constitutional changes as these? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) said Reform Bills were passed by a dying Parliament. Even he never heard of them being passed by a dead Parliament, and I hold that this Parliament is dead for such purposes as these.

If it is living for those purposes it is, of course, unrepresentative, except as to carrying on the War, being nearly seven years from the time of its election. I am not going to labour that obvious point. I want to submit to the House another. I wish the House to consider from what does this House and every House of Commons from the beginning to the end of its existence derive its authority. From the representative principle, which is the foundation of Parliamentary Government. No matter how far it gets in time from its election, it still derives its authority from the theory of the continuity of the representative principle residing in it. Whatever we do in this House we do on the assumption that at that time we represent the then existing electorate. However far that may be from the fact, if the opinions of the people have changed, it is still our only authority. Otherwise, the moment we are elected we become a set of autocrats to do what we like, without reference to the country, until Parliament has expired, or until, under our party system, the Government is turned out on a hostile division. Then we return to the country and get a new lease of autocracy. I submit that is not the theory and principle of the Constitution. If I am correct in this submission, that we only act by virtue of the theory that at the time of acting we represent the existing electorate, what is the amount of authority we have at the present moment from that source for purposes of legislation?

We have had many arguments and descriptions recently—the most powerful one from the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) a few weeks ago—showing how the electorate has dwindled until it is now, I think, only 20 per cent. of its normal strength. My point is that all those arguments tend pro tanto to diminish the legislative authority of this House, and that the more you show that the electorate is in an entirely inefficient condition the more you prove that our authority, based on the continuity of the representative principle, is utterly inadequate to justify our legislating in great contentious matters of domestic politics. Then you say, "That is an impasse: we can never get an adequate Parliament." I answer, No. Raise your electorate by your Bill or by a Bill on its normal lines to its normal efficiency. I have already said I believe this Government can do it—and then submit to that re-invigorated electorate your great Constitutional changes.

I do not know that anything has yet been said in this Debate—except by one hon. Member who quoted from the "Times"—that justifies an answer to the statement that we who oppose this Bill are a sort of old party gang who oppose reforms of all sorts. But I desire to say once for all that I resent in the strongest way that imputation. I have shown how little I, for my part, am influenced by any old party considerations when I say that I am not opposed to many of the provisions of this Bill, which lie all on one side of the old dividing line between parties and which in former days would have been called Radical measures. I am not opposed to a great many of them, but the question of woman suffrage is in a somewhat different position, for although the dividing line on this question has never been identical with the dividing line between political parties in this country—certainly not between the Liberal and Conservative parties—yet it is true that most of the suffragists are on the one side and most of the anti's on the other. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) in changing his lifelong convictions on this subject has removed a barrier that existed between himself and a large and active section of his old party. I should be sorry to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has suddenly changed his opinions on this great subject from party motives, and I resent the suggestion that we who have not changed our opinions, and who stick to the honest convictions of a lifetime on the question of woman suffrage are opposing this Bill from any party motives. No, Sir. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I speak for many others—we are only too anxious to throw all old party considerations and old party motives to the winds in such a matter as the main object of this Bill—the restoring of the electorate to its normal lines, thereby creating a Parliament which will be able really to face the great problems after the War. What we do feel is that the Government could have attained that object easily and with unanimity if they had abstained from throwing on the floor of this House—unnecessarily, and for no reason that is intelligible to us—some of these great controversial matters, especially the question of woman suffrage, to which I am opposed as strongly and as honestly as others are in support of it. But now that this thing is to be done, now that we are face to face with the problem of woman suffrage on the Second Reading of this Bill, we who in our heart and conscience have been and are opposed to granting the Parliamentary vote to women, and who only find in the War a confirmation of our opinions, are bound to vote against the Second Reading or to vote for the Amendment, which amounts to the same thing, because of your important ruling or definition, Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday in these words: After that ruling it is impossible for us to leave the matter over to the Committee stage.

:I do not often trouble the House, and I do not as a rule enjoy standing between hon. Members and the House, but I have always taken the very deepest interest in the question of franchise and of registration, and by the kindly recognition of you, Mr. Speaker, and your predecessors I have been permitted to address the House upon most of the Bills that have been introduced during the long period which it has been my honour to be a Member. I am not surprised that there should be opposition to this Bill, though I confess that I am deeply sorry that there is. Opposition comes from many quarters. When you find in this Bill that the redistribution of seats means very materially altered constituencies, that causes anxiety undoubtedly in the minds of many hon. Members. I do not suggest for a moment that any hon. Member will vote against this Bill against his convictions because of any effect that redistribution will have, but with certain portions of the Bill one feels somewhat upset with regard to what may happen if I, as a member of the Electoral Conference, voted in favour of all these unanimous resolutions which are now before us. Then, again, I find that hon. Members, though differing entirely upon all vital matters in this Bill, may be together in the Lobby against the Second Reading for entirely different motives. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was very anxious that the Bill should be dropped if women suffrage were not included in it, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) takes exactly the opposite line, and yet these two hon. Members will both go against the Bill, both differing fundamentally as to what ought to be in it. Therefore I do not think it is very surprising that one should expect to find opposition to the Bill. But the greatest of all things is that this Bill is a compromise. I have been told the definition of a compromise is that everyone gets that which he does not want. If that be the true definition of it, I must emphasise the fact that that alone is sufficient to produce opposition.

But it is a compromise. How did that compromise arise? That is really the main point which we have to consider. Two Registration Bills have been before the House. Both failed ignominiously in every detail. One failed very largely because of an attack by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson), who desired, very rightly, to add to the register the votes of soldiers, sailors, and others. It was was found, unquestionably, that the moment you began to introduce such a large element into a Registration Bill it became a Franchise Bill, and the moment it became a Franchise Bill it practically became unworkable. I have satisfied myself upon that, as far as my powers are able, and I honestly believe it. Then what happened? The late Prime Minister threw out a suggestion, which he emphasised in another speech made on the same day when the suggestion was made that a Conference should be put up. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) stated that, if it met with the approbation of the House, it would give him great pleasure to endeavour to set up a Conference. It was never suggested for a moment that it should be a Committee of the House or that it should have the powers which are conferred upon a Committee of the House. May I quote his words? assent, as far as it could be taken without a Division, to the idea that a Conference should be set up.

I received with very great pleasure the invitation to become a member of that Conference, but I considered that if I accepted the invitation I took upon myself a very great and a very serious responsibility. I was not only going to that Conference as a member of the Unionist Party, but I was going as a citizen of this great Metropolis, and I was going as one who believes above all things in trying to do the best one can in the interests of one's country. Therefore I framed, as far as I could, for my own guidance, a kind of Bill or agreement which I hoped I might in some way or other induce the Conference to agree to. The first thing I put down was that we ought to have a fairer system of registration and a big reduction in the period of qualification. I well recollect, when the Plural Voting Bill was brought before the House, asking the Home Secretary why he introduced this contentious matter without readjusting all those serious and irritating things which impeded the electors of this country in obtaining a voting qualification. Therefore, I do not think there is anything which I was setting before myself in which I was not justified according to my action and my speeches. Secondly, a simplification of the franchise and the necessity of its extension after thirty-two years. Thirdly, the retention of any system of qualification which I considered I could justify on principle. The retention of the business vote as well as the residential vote I looked upon as something I could justify absolutely on principle, and one I was determined to defend as far as it was possible in me. Fourthly, the equalisation as far as possible, and as automatically as possible, of each vote. Fifthly, the reduction of expenses, which I have always looked upon to be very necessary, and which I regard as infinitely more necessary now after the grave financial trials which the country has met with during this terrible War. Those are the principles I laid down for my guidance before I went into the Conference.

I allude to this for one thing more especially. I cannot hide from myself that I am not entirely in sympathy with a good many members of my own party; but I do not think any of them who disagree with me will deny that during the thirteen continuous years' work always given ungrudgingly to my party I have considered the future welfare of my party in any action I have taken, and I always fought to the best of my ability in those pre-war days when party was the one thing which we thought most of. I cannot say that for myself honestly now if I am to make my true confession of faith. At present the future of the Empire which I hope and trust we are going to build up is the one consideration which I keep before my mind, and I am perfectly certain, if you want really and truly to keep those considerations before your mind you have to recollect that there is a good deal of justice to be done to many people who are making, and offering to make, the supreme sacrifice for their country. The opponents of this Bill would deny the rights which ordinary citizens should have, and which those who offer to make the supreme sacrifice should be voluntarily given and without stint.

This was the position in which I found myself when I became a member of the Conference, and these were the objects which I placed before myself. Now it has been said in my presence by certain members of my party that I have given the cause of our party away, and that certain right hon. Gentlemen, my friends in another party, have succeeded cleverly in inducing us to give up what we believed were party rights. I think it my duty to say this, that if they really believe such a thing they have got a very odd picture of what took place round the table at which you, Sir, presided. There was none of this cheap haggling for a single moment. What I have read out, and the result of the Conference, clearly prove that I made the statements which I had to make with regard to what I believed to be the proper solution of this great question, and that I was met absolutely in the most handsome way by the members of other parties. I am perfectly certain of one thing—that it was a compromise, and that we all have to give up something in a compromise, and perhaps what I and my Friends were giving up was greater than what was given up by others. If I may indulge in a simile, we were asked to give up what might be translated into a round sum of ready money, while right hon. and hon. Members of another party were really and truly giving us a promissory note. Therefore I believe that we have given up most, but there was no haggling with my right and hon. Friends in the Liberal party and our Friends in the Labour party. We came round the table in that spirit, and in what I should call quiet conversation across that table we arrived at a compromise which most people believed to be impossible, but which I myself never thought was an impossibility.

I have noticed, especially in all the speeches delivered in opposition to this Bill, that nobody has dared to attack the principle of the Bill. Everybody seemed to say, "We are all in favour of a great extension of the franchise. We are all in favour of all these principles, but now is not the time to do it." It is a very curious thing that it does not matter what time it is, this is always the wrong time, and we shall have the right time later on. I disagree entirely with that, and I shall endeavour to state the reason why. First of all, it is stated that you can only legislate at the present time for war purposes. What is the definition of "war purposes"? First of all, we have to win a great victory by means of the military and naval forces of our country, but that does not constitute the full victory. We have got to go a great deal further than that. Everybody knows perfectly well that in the fields of commerce, and in a variety of other fields, the Germans expect, even if they lose in a military sense, to try to retrieve their losses in other directions. I believe myself that a nation which desires to be truly prepared is bound in war-time to prepare for peace, just as in time of peace it is bound to prepare for war. I have noticed very strong criticisms directed against successive Governments for their unpreparedness. It surprises me to find that the very hon. and right hon. Members who have attacked these Governments for their unpreparedness for war are the very people who now attack them because they are attempting to prepare for peace. We shall never drive home the victory which I know we are going to obtain unless we are prepared for peace when it comes, and I do say, above all things, that if you are going to prepare for peace you must have a representative Parliament.

A representative Parliament can only be represented if the electors are those who are really and truly qualified after a great war to return Members to this House. I agree that all those who have taken part in this War must be electors of the new Parliament which is destined to settle the foundations of our great Empire Therefore, it is our absolute duty during this War, and part of what I conceive to be war legislation, to do the exact work which His Majesty's Government have in hand at the present moment. I also hear it said that this Parliament is dead, that it ceased to have any existence, I think, in January, 1916, and has, therefore, no right to alter the franchise. I do not think that that is really a logical conclusion to arrive at. All Parliaments must be moribund before they bring in a Bill altering the electorate, or bring in redistribution. That is part of our Constitution. A Government having passed a Redistribution Bill is bound to appeal to the new electorates which have been set up, and therefore to take, as one of the arguments against this Bill, the suggestion that, because this Parliament has already arrived at its end, it is therefore incompetent to take up this question, is a proceeding which is not justified. My own view is that we are perfectly competent to undertake anything which is for the good of the country, and I consider that we are just as representative now in this Parliament as any other Parliament which brought in a franchise or a Redistribution Bill at the end of its life.

I have endeavoured to put before the House what my views were with regard to what I thought we ought to aim at having in a Bill of this kind, and I would like now for a few moments to examine one or two Clauses in this Bill to see if my ideas have borne fruit and are really carried out in this Bill. First of all, with regard to the remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend, I may say that the Conference was absolutely unanimous as to the necessity of placing soldiers and sailors upon the register, and placing them there at once without any restrictions. I believe that this Bill does that, but I am perfectly satisfied, and moreover my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already told us so, that if hon. Members can satisfy him that there is any flaw whatever in this respect, he will put it right, and I have not the smallest doubt that that will be done with the approval and to the satisfaction of His Majesty's Government. After all we can pay a very little debt of gratitude to the men who are doing so much for us. Nothing I feel can pay them for all the trials and sacrifices and sufferings that they are going through for us, especially for those who like myself unfortunately are unable to, take an active part in the War. I should be the last to agree to any Bill going through this House unless I was absolutely satisfied that such a provision would be carried into effect and I should seek to, put that with all the emphasis in my power before the representatives of His Majesty's Government.

Then with regard to the contents of the Bill. I fought hard to retain the double qualification for a vote. I have believed always that there was an absolute justification for both a business vote and a residential vote, and I said at the beginning that I intended to try to justify every single qualification which I thought I could logically and legally do. I believe that the dual vote, the business vote and the residential vote, represents an absolutely logical demand, and I do not think that any objection can be taken to that. After all we have always heard of the old system of representation and taxation going hand in hand. We used to pin ourselves in the old days to some such system as that. It is a good system. When you come to examine these three questions of qualifications you will find that you cannot logically support the ownership vote, for, after all, it may be that the interest has little by little depreciated and has been only recognised in a small way pecuniarily for a great number of years, and therefore in those circumstances I do think that the man who absolutely resides in a place, pays rates and takes part in a business, small or great, according to his means, and is absolutely the ratepayer, should have the vote. Therefore I think that it is part of a compromise, and a very good compromise, to surrender the ownership vote while you retain the dual vote for dence and business. So far as I am concerned, my own beliefs have always been held on those lines. I made this suggestion over two years ago long before there was any idea that this Bill would be brought into the House, or that I should be a member of the electoral Conference. Clause 5 deals with the question of votes for soldiers and sailors, to which I have already referred. Then the qualification period of six months is one with which I think we ought to be perfectly satisfied. It gives us a compromise, because I know a good many hon. and right hon. Members would very gladly see it three months. Therefore it is a compromise which I for one support.

Clause 9, which deals with the question of registration provides that there shall be two registers in the year. I am told that that would add greatly to the expense. That is the very last thing which I want to do, but I cannot help thinking that the second register would be very largely automatic, and I do not think it would add to the expense in the way in which some hon. Members think. Then in Clause 11 we come to what I consider a very valuable point indeed, that is that the registration officer shall be an officer of state upon whom shall fall the onus of doing certain things. Up to the present time the registration officer has not been an officer of the State, and it is the duty of the Government to see that he does his work, and places upon the register all those who are entitled to be upon the register. But there is one question I should like to ask of the learned Solicitor-General. We have in the Conference suggested—and the Bill follows these lines—that appeals should lie to the County Court. I think that that would be an admirable plan, but to-day my learned Friend raised the point as to whether registration agents would be able to appear before that Court or whether it would be necessary for those who had to appeal before the Court to employ a solicitor—which would, it is pointed out, entail large extra expense on the appellant. My hon. Friend who sits opposite told us that in Scotland it works very well indeed, and that the registration agents there are able to appear before the sheriff. On this point I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will let us know later whether registration agents would be able to appear before the Appeal Court, and, if not, whether, in order to avoid expense to appellants, a provision might be put in the Bill to enable them to do so.

Clause 16 provides that all polls should be held on the one day. I do not know whether any other hon. Member shares my feelings as to the awful strain of long drawn out elections, watching day by day the fate of one's friends and one's enemies, and passing through the terrible doubts which are involved, and I cannot help thinking that to get it all over in the one day and to get back to business at once will be a very great improvement on what we have had before. The deposit of £150 by the candidate, I think, is a splendid innovation. If we are going to have a number of candidates it is only right to ensure that they are genuine, substantial men, and I do not think that any man is going to put down £150 if he sees the immediate prospect of losing it. In any event the proviso can only be for the good of the election, and I do not see that the smallest harm is done. In looking through this Bill you will find that it is following in its Clauses the lines which I laid down for my own guidance at the Speaker's Conference. I confess myself, after examin 7.0 P.M. ing all these provisions, that I cannot help hoping that, after all, hon. Friends of mine in this House will think that it would be wiser to, at all events, accept the Second Reading. Of Committee points there are undoubtedly many—and, I think, the majority of them were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bristol,—and some of the points are good; but, really, the only substantial point is whether the Bill should be taken now or whether we should wait until this Parliament is dead and a new Parliament has been elected. I do not think we ought to consider these things too much. We have an enormous amount of work to do after the War is over. We have to clear the deck of all these domestic matters which have arisen through all these long years. These things, which to me, as to others, at one time seemed to have colossal magnitude, are now dwarfed. We must build up a representative House, elected by men who really and truly ought to be on the register, and we would then be prepared to turn our attention to those matters of vital Imperial importance which will be paramount and get to work again to retrieve our financial losses and other things from which we have suffered during the War. We hear the rustling of the dry bones of old controversies throughout the whole civilised world. You do not have a revolution in Russia for nothing. You find that the democracies of the world are all thinking, always thinking. A democracy is one of the finest things you can have if, for the moment, you can guide its thoughts. How can you guide them? Not by denying things which are looked upon as just, but by guidance, by training, and by justice of treatment for each individual. It is in that way alone that the great parties in the State can hope to build up the Empire of the future, and all parties who have given up their predilec- tions during the War—perhaps never to resume them—may now see that there is something bigger, stronger, and greater than party, and that is forming and strengthening the substance of Empire.

:Nobody can doubt that my hon. Friend who has just sat down has the warmest sympathy of the party of which he is an ornament, and of the country of which he is a citizen, and so far as concerns his personal action in this matter, and every member of the Committee over which you, Sir, presided, I must say that they are all entitled to the warm thanks and the warm respect of all Members of the House. My hon. Friend said what is perfectly true that there were different opinions amongst the opponents of the Bill. Certainly there are very different opinions about the contents of the Bill. That is quite true. I myself take views different from some of the opinions expressed by some of my hon. Friends. I am not sure that if this was the month of February instead of the month of May that I should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, because there would have been time for scrutiny of a measure, and for making it in some respects a good Bill. But the fatal objection to reading the Bill a second time is that it contains a vast mass of disputable matter which ought to receive the minute criticism of the House, and the opportunity is particularly unfavourable to give it that sort of consideration and that sort of scrutiny. There is first the question of this Parliament having exhausted its term. My right hon. Friend asked whether we were to do nothing, and whether it would be improper to deal with any of these franchise questions. I lay down no such general proposition. It is a question of degree. But certainly you are setting a precedent of a very dangerous kind. If, in a Parliament that has passed its normal term by its own action, you literally double the electorate of Parliament, you are setting a Parliamentary example of a proceeding which is very unconstitutional, or very revolutionary. Nothing can be more improper for a House that has gone beyond its normal term by its own action, than to alter the conditions on which Parliament is elected.

Just reverse the problem. Suppose, instead of extending the franchise, in- stead of doubling the franchise, we halve the electorate, or reduced it to what it was before 1832, would that be more unconstitutional than what we are doing? I do not propose to argue that point further than to press the argument on the House that to produce this Bill now is grossly unconstitutional, and also that it is improper to press it in time of war. My right hon. Friend, in moving the Second Reading, treated that objection with great respect. He said, in effect, that he would not be party to pressing this Bill in time of war if it were presented in a way other than that in which it has been presented. My right hon. Friend relied on its already having been considered in principle by the Speaker's Committee, and that the Bill only carried out the principles laid down by that Committee, which was regarded as representative of all phases of opinion. I am very suspicious of this way of conducting legislation. I do not deny that a Committee may often very usefully perform this sort of function, but it depends a good deal on what the preliminary scrutiny may be. Of this I am sure, that the decision of the Committee should always be treated as assisting Parliament, and never as binding Parliament. A Committee should make smooth the path of Parliament, but it should never be said that the Committee agreed to certain things and that therefore Parliament must take steps in regard to them. It seems to be thought that the mother of Parliaments has become a toothless old crone, who cannot chew her own dinner, but requires to have it prepared in a suitable manner by skilled persons in order that it may be sufficiently digestible for her. She is to be given, what I believe is called Benger's Food, and this Bill is Benger's Food, and you, Sir, and your Committee are Bengers. I do not know myself who Benger was. I have no doubt he was a great authority on dietetics, and his Committee no doubt is a great authority on electoral law. But if I were an infirm person and they recommended me to eat Benger's Food, I might have it, but certainly I should refuse in any circumstances whatever to be forcibly fed with it. I protest against the suggestion that this Bill should be swallowed whole without being submitted to the normal forms of scrutiny and discussion.

In the case of so large a Bill one might speak the whole night, if strong enough, and if the audience would remain to listen.

The points are various and numerous, but I only propose to select a few and deal with them. Some of the points I like very much in the Bill and some of the points I do not like. Let us take women's suffrage. I have always been a strong supporter of it for a great many years, but I have never been able to support it on the same ground which appeals to so many people. It never seemed to me a very important matter whether women had the vote, or whether they did not from the mere point of view of the vote. I listened with amazement to the right hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment, when he depreciated women's suffrage, and looked upon the vote as something peculiarly for men. I do not see why it should be regarded as something peculiarly for men. The consideration on which I rely touching women's suffrage does not make any great difference. Women have already the municipal franchise and their possession of it has not made any difference in local matters, and if that be so, and if they receive the Parliamentary franchise, is it not clear that there would be no great difference, and that it would not be a matter of practical importance one way or the other. I do not think it really matters whether women have the vote or not, but I do think that the controversy about women's suffrage is a miserable one. The argument is increasingly used as to the controversy between the two sexes; it is the most intolerable we can conceive, and a question of that kind is much better brought to a close as soon as possible. I greatly regret that in dealing with women's suffrage the age has been fixed at thirty years, for it seems to me the most absurd proposal ever put forward. What conceivable reason is there for saying that a woman shall have a vote after she is thirty years of age and not before? Does anybody believe that the female mind matures after that age? The Bill treats a woman's age as one might expect to see it treated in the cheapest comic papers, and if I made the proposal suggested that the mother-in-law should have two votes, I should possibly be regarded as coming within the comic element.

What the Bill lacks is that most indispensable feature in any proposal for women's suffrage; it lacks anything in the least resembling finality. You do not sweep away the distinction, be- tween the two sexes, but you invent a new distinction which is as absurd and as contumelious to any intelligence as the distinction which now exists. It seems to be profoundly unsatisfactory. The proper method, I should have thought, would have been to have separated women's suffrage from the rest of the Bill and to have brought in a Bill of a single line abolishing the distinction between the sexes, and to have done that first before you decided or attempted to decide on the general question of the franchise. Why was not something of that kind done? Was it because of the extreme width of the franchise as it is? By this proposal you are doubling the electorate. If you had adopted what I conceive to be the workmanlike plan of putting men and women on the same footing as regards the franchise, you would have made your extension still more enormous, probably to fifteen or sixteen millions and certainly something very large indeed. That merely shows, as I believe, you are attempting to do too much in one Bill, and you are extending the franchise too far at a time when you are also giving women votes. I know that a great many hon. Members, and particularly Members of the Labour party sitting near me, contend that the ideal franchise is universal adult suffrage. I really think that those who maintain that view cannot have thought about some obvious consequences. We are all, of course, strongly in favour of any modification of franchise law or registration law which enables the self-respecting wage-earning classes to exercise the franchise. There is no dispute in any quarter about that, but it is folly not to recognise that there are members of the community who are unfit to exercise the franchise. Take the extreme case, say, of thieves and prostitutes. It may be said that they are only a small class, but are there not a number of wastrels and vagabonds and a real class in the community who do not belong to what can be called the working classes? If that be so, then in a wise settlement of the franchise question you must be sure you are excluding those who ought to be excluded and including those who ought to be included. Is that being done?

In the Home Secretary's speech I saw no evidence for thinking that a real effort was made to draw the line between those who ought and those who ought not to have the franchise. The Conference and the Government seem to have proceeded on the basis of whether it should be three months or six months or twelve months, as though that were the real point. The real point is to try to find some methods by which you may draw a distinction between the worthy voter and the unworthy voter. You may refer to what the Home Secretary put forward as a recommendation of this Bill, and it is a recommendation constantly made in the Press, and that is that you are putting the franchise on a very simple footing. I deny that simplicity is what you are to look for in a legislative achievement of this kind. The whole progress of civilisation is from simplicity to complexity. The whole progress of the animal world is from simplicity to complexity. When you are going to make a law by regulating the franchise to suit the particular social conditions of the community, the probability is that it will be a complicated law because the community itself is a complicated thing. I do not want a simple franchise law; I want a good franchise law. I want a law that will enfranchise those who ought to be included and that will exclude those that ought to be excluded. I hope that those who defend this Bill will prove that it is no less successful in excluding those who ought to be excluded than in admitting those who ought to be admitted. I will not deal now with the question of University representation. I am generally quite a supporter of the Bill in that respect, though there is some improvement in the machinery which I think I could suggest, and which I daresay the Government would adopt. The matter was very fully considered by the University Members five or six years ago, when we had the very inestimable advantage of the guidance and counsel of Sir William Anson. I think the scheme of which he approved is in some respects better than that contained in the Bill. The principal difference would be that Oxford and Cambridge would be joined together, because in the scheme which was then approved proportional representation applied instead of the present system of keeping them separate and applying the alternative method.

I want to deal rather more at length with proportional representation, which is the next important detail in the Bill. This, again, is a thing which I very much welcome, but again it seems to me that the Bill does the right thing in the wrong way. Let me first point out how very important the question of proportional representation is. It is incomparably the most important electoral reform in the Bill or out of the Bill. If proportional representation were fully applied, as in my judgment it ought to be applied, it would make a difference in the practical complexion of Parliament extending to 70, 80, or 100 votes. For example, if the present Parliament, in which at the time of its election coalesced parties had a majority of 126, had been elected on a system of proportional representation, those coalesced parties would only have had a majority of thirty-eight, and the same thing even in larger numbers may be said of the Unionists' majorities in 1886 and 1895. No electoral reform would make a difference of that kind except proportional representation. The difference it would make is enormously greater than that which would be made by the total abolition of the plural vote. It would make a vastly greater practical difference to parties. It is a practical question. A great many people who have never looked into it treat it as an academic subtlety which may interest people of ingenious intelligence, but which has no possible practical value. It is a question of the most practical importance. Anyone who refers to the earlier years of the present Parliament will know how utterly different things would have been if the party majority had only been thirty-eight. Observe that representative government becomes unreal when you have a defect of such magnitude as this. When the difference is between 128 and thirty-eight you cannot call your system representative in which there is such a defect as that, because it really means that Parliament is not the mirror, not the least like the mirror of the electorate.

There is another question which in practice is more important, and is another aspect of proportional representation, and it is this. A very large number of Members of this House under proportional representation—I cannot say how many there would be—would sit for safe seats and for seats that would be safe, in quite a different sense from the safety of any seats we know now. When you speak of a seat being safe now you mean that it is safe to the party; you do not mean necessarily that it is safe to the individual. It is very rare indeed to find a seat that a particular individual can carry and that nobody else can carry, though here and there one finds it. But, broadly speaking, seats which are called safe seats are safe for the party, but to sit for a safe party seat does not mean that the member is independent. On the contrary, it means that he is rather more dependent than others who sit for seats which are barely held. Under proportional representation a man would sit in Parliament because he was supported by a quota of electors who really agreed with him. It sounds like a paradox, but it is obviously true that there is nothing in which Conservatism is more interested than the security of the seats of moderate Liberal Members. When we are looking forward to periods of great and possibly dangerous excitement there is nothing more important—and I use the word Conservative in no narrow party sense—for the Conservative mind than to secure that the more moderate members of the Reform party should sit securely returned by persons who agreed with them and not as nominees of their own party. We all know very respected Liberal Members of this House in whose moderation a great many Conservatives would feel a considerable degree of confidence, and who, as a matter of fact, sit for very Liberal or very Radical constituencies, and vote accordingly, generally in support of their party, on all issues in which Radical feeling is excited. But if they sat under proportional representation, representing a quota of voters, moderate Liberals like themselves, who agreed with them, they would be independent and not independent in a sense very often mistaken for independence—that is, in the sense of being cranks and cantankerous. They would be good party men in the main, but they would have the same sort of strength, the very remarkable strength, which has been displayed in Parliament by the Irish Nationalist party. What is it has made the Irish Nationalist party so strong? It is because they were returned by people who agreed with them. They could vote with the Liberals on one day and with the Conservatives on the next, and they were backed by the body of opinion which supported them because they were themselves. If you could multiply that type of member, the member who really represented a body of opinion which agreed with him, you would restore to this House just that element which we all agree—I think most people agree—it now lacks—that is, the element of people who, without being cantankerous or self-advertising, yet have real independence and form a judgment and act on that judgment on the merits of the case.

We hear of obstruction and remedies for obstruction. Nobody obstructs because they like obstruction. People obstruct because they cannot persuade. If there was anyone to persuade there would be no obstruction. If there was anybody open to argument everybody would be only too pleased to argue. It is immensely more amusing to argue than to obstruct, but people obstruct because they cannot do anything else. As a consequence, drastic remedies are applied for obstruction which kill the just and the unjust, and which destroy debate and which reduce the House of Commons to the very lamentable position in which it found itself by general consent before the War. All that would be altered if we had a class of members who sat representing persons who agreed with them. Suppose that there are, out of England and Wales, enough electors of really moderate Liberal opinions to return forty or fifty moderate Liberal Members to Parliament, and suppose that majorities were never bigger, under proportional representation, than thirty or forty, what an immense difference it would make to political life and how immensely more secure, in the best sense, would be the Conservative interests of the country. How much safer it would be to trust to the judgment of this House and how free we should be of the exaggerated partisanship member. Under the existing party system the extremist always carries it over the moderate. I know because I have been in both positions. When you are an extremist you bully your party and when you are a moderate your party bullies you. The reason, I suppose, is this, that most of those who do the organising work of the party are naturally persons of strong party convictions and who have the same sort of sentiment in regard to the moderate that we all have in time of war in regard to the person who is supposed to be too favourable to the enemy. Moderation or anything that inclines a member to the other party is to the ardent, hard-working organising person the worst of crimes. Accordingly the moderate man is always distrusted and in extreme cases coerced by his constituents, by his active partisan constituents, while the extremist can indulge in what are regarded in his case simply as eccen- tricities. He can be as disagreeable as he likes if he has his leaders in his grip. So we want security for moderation. We want to introduce an element into our Constitution which will really ensure the presence of a body of moderate and moderating members of both parties, who will hold the balance and prevent that really absurd state of things which leads to what is called "the swing of the pendulum," so that no sooner has a Parliamentary election taken place than those in power begin to lose the confidence of the electors. The redistribution part of the Government's Bill is, I think, the most amazing that was ever put forward. They accept administratively the principles laid down by what I have called the Benger's Committee. They then enforce that over the whole country, and they make it run for the whole of the War for the purpose of enforcing that standard. After they have got the result of that, at the last moment they come down to the House with a complete scheme with long lists of constituencies which they are going to remove into the shades.

If my hon. Friends do their duty, it ought to be a Parliamentary impossibility for the Government to move a schedule of that sort and complexity in that stage of the Bill. Observe the way the Government treats this House. They have never asked assent to this. The House has never had an opportunity of reviewing the principles on which redistribution is to be carried out. Its only security is the security of striking out one by one any of the constituencies which it thinks has been formed, it may be, on sound principles; so that if this House disagrees with any of the fundamental principles that are laid down in the Paper circulated they have to go through the great majority of the constituencies, striking them out. I do not know whether other constituencies may be formed on principles acceptable to this House. But the real control over redistribution is taken out of the hands of the House, and I really think that is treating Parliament in a way Parliament ought not to be treated. The most amazing feature of the scheme is the treatment of Ireland. The Government is moving the Second Reading of this Bill on the morrow of having announced their intention of appointing an Irish Convention. This is going to make a new Irish Constitution, which, amongst other things, would have to decide this very question as to whether there are to be Irish Members in this House at all, as to how many they will be, what will be their powers, and what will be the powers of the Imperial Parliament over the Parliament to be set up in Dublin? With that question in suspense, and committed to another of these peptonising bodies—with that question still in suspense—the Government have the assurance to move the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with Redistribution in Great Britain. Was there ever such a slovenly and slipshod way of doing things? What is the reason of it? The reason of it is that the Government are trying to deal with a question in time of war under conditions in which it is impossible to deal with a question of this magnitude. The value of the Report of the Conference—very great if it be taken as a basis of discussion—I do not know whether it was in the true sense of the word a representative Committee or not—but if it really be truly representative of bodies of opinion and its conclusions are going to represent on the whole a fair compromise, nothing will be lost by postponing discussion and decision on this Bill to a calmer time. Because, of course, if it does really correspond to opinion, then opinion will accept it.

I confess that the extreme desire to pass this Bill in time of war, when, as it were, no one is looking, suggests to my mind that the Government do not, after all, think that it would be so very acceptable, or, consequently, that the Committee, after all, was so very representative. We cannot deal with this Bill now as it ought to be dealt with. Under normal circumstances you have the Cabinet preparing a Bill. You have Parliament discussing it at length. You have a vigilant public opinion outside noting what Parliament is doing and assisting in criticising it, and the like. You cannot have full agreement of opinion under the conditions which obtain to-day. I do not know whether the War Cabinet have considered this Bill at all. I am sure I hope they have not. The War Cabinet must have a great many things much more important to do. Observe how absurd it is? Here you have a Bill of this importance, and we are obliged to say—I do not believe there can be two opinions about it—that it would be very unpatriotic and disastrous if the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues attended to this matter at all. They are obliged to be engaged in things immensely more important and immensely more absorbing. If they concerned them- selves with these great domestic questions they are wearying their brains out and these are urgently needed for other purposes. This that I am about to say is a general observation, but I do most earnestly hope that the members of the War Cabinet bear in mind that human intelligence has only a limited degree of power. If you become overworked you may be never so clever, but you will sink to a man of the third class. The overworked man of ability is no use when we want men with the best brains in the War Cabinet to conduct the War.

This Bill then must first be brought in and then go through without any of that supervision and control by the responsible Cabinet to which we are accustomed. We have no public opinion at present. Then how are you going to get this Bill properly criticised by all those various sorts of people interested in it in different parts of the country? How are you to get the opinion of local bodies on the Local Government part of the Bill? A great number of electioneering experts are interested in the redistribution law. All these people ought to be criticising the Bill. All these people ought to be coming to us who sit here and giving us their assistance in making the Bill as good a Bill as possible. Now at present nobody will pay the slightest attention to it. They are inevitably concerned with the War. As to Parliament itself, I think the Government are putting us in a very unfair position if they press this Bill. I earnestly hope they will not. I am quite sure it is our duty to do the best we can even in these very unpleasant circumstances, and I think we ought to put down Amendments, if the Bill goes to Committee, raising every point that is worth consideration, and taking the sense of the Committee in the ordinary way as though we were in time of peace. I am sure that the House, and least of all the critics of the Bill, ought not to consent to treating this Bill as something to be accepted and adopted as an indiscriminate, prepared thing to be swallowed at a gulp, but that we ought to scrutinise every detail and press our criticisms to the end.

Is there not a better way? I wish I might in homely language be allowed to recommend the Government to "mind its own business." That is a homely phrase, but it is essentially not a disrespectful phrase. What is the business of the Government? The business of the Government is the War—the greatest business that can be entrusted to the hands of any Ministry. Let me confess that I would have the War Cabinet deliberate in two different chambers according as they were deliberating about war, and peace and domestic matters. In the one chamber there would be a list of mottoes such as: "Procrastination is the thief of time"; and "Do it now." In the peace chamber there would first be a text from Scripture: "Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof," and, secondly, I would have Lord Melbourne's saying, "Why cannot you leave it alone?" I think if the Government would bear that in mind not only in this controversy, but in all great controversies, if they would lay it to heart that war time is not the time for fundamental settlements, but a time for judicious expedients, and if they would try always to meet difficulties by adjustments and acceptances as temporary as they can be made, then I believe it would be better both for the domestic interests of the country and much better for the interest of the efficient conduct of the War. Now is not the time even for the wisest measures of reform. Now is the time for war and victory.

8.0 P.M.

:It is inevitable that this Bill should arouse in some quarters objection, and we have had the brilliant and amusing speech of the Noble Lord. He always takes the cleverest points in the subtlest way; but it does sometimes happen that by taking the very cleverest points in the very subtlest way that you expose the essential difficulties that lie in the way of the proposition you are endeavouring to support. The Noble Lord ended by saying, "Why should we not leave the whole matter alone?" In that lies the answer to the whole of his whole speech. You cannot leave this matter alone; that, by common consent, and the decision of a very large body of opinion, some portion of which has criticised this Bill this afternoon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill does not want to leave the subject alone. He says that it is of vital importance that women should be included in our electorate for the purpose of solving the problems of reconstruction after the War. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection does not want to leave the subject alone. He quarrelled with this Bill because, in his view—I think he is mistaken in his reading of the Bill—it does not provide sufficiently and properly for the enfranchisement of soldiers and sailors. The real truth is that the maxims by which we began in the early stages of the War were not suited for a subsequent period. We would not allow ourselves to dwell for a moment on any other problem whatever.

That is a position you can perfectly well take up if it is going to be a war that lasts a certain number of months, but that is a position you cannot continue to hold if the War is going to last a number of years. That has been found after a certain experience to be the case in connection with a great many matters. I do not know, and I am not sure, whether, if the Noble Lord had been a member of your Committee, Mr. Speaker—you who have reconciled so many opposites—would have succeeded in convincing the Noble Lord, but I am quite sure that no member of the Committee, any more than yourself, ever imagined that because we did what we could to reach agreement, and to make what seemed to us the best proposals—no one, I say, would ever imagine that we were going to administer our concoction by the methods of forcible feeding, either to the Noble Lord or anybody else. No, and not starvation, however prolonged and pronounced. No certificate of digestibility, however pontifical and authoritative, would have convinced the Noble Lord of the desirability of swallowing anything he had no mind to. The object which the Committee had under your chairmanship, Sir, was not to prescribe a dose which everybody else might swallow, but to show by actual administration that if people of very different opinions really put their minds to it, they could, in what they believed to be serving a great national interest, come to common agreement. I wish to put before the House very briefly considerations which convinced the Committee that we should, if at all possible, come to an agreement.

In the first place, there is this consideration: Does anybody dispute that the moment the War is over problems of unparalleled importance will come up to be solved by the House of Commons? That is agreed. It is not worth while to argue that point at length. It is obvious to any of us who have thought at all of what the War means both for the immediate and the more distant future of our own people and our own country in the domestic sphere—enormously important questions, involving the life and future of all portions of the population, questions which obviously will require the most authoritative treatment from the most representative bodies. So far nobody can dispute. But the next question is this: If that is so, is it not necessary that the Parliament which deals with those questions should be a Parliament more representative than any Parliament based on present methods can be, and representing by means of a wider franchise and a better distribution more truly than any present Parliament can those affected by the legislation to be passed? There again I do not think it necessary to spend time in pointing out that that must be so. There are very few people left who think that our present franchise law really creates a satisfactory House of Commons. I do not think that the righ hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) really thinks that when he looks round among his colleagues, but he is afraid that an alteration may from his point of view make things worse, and that is the only reason he wishes to leave them as they are. If it is the case that we are going to be faced with problems of the first order of importance and problems which can only be solved if we create a House of Commons more truly representative than anything that can be created under the present electoral law, what is the conclusion to be drawn from that? The conclusion is that we must, not in the sense in which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil) described it as the maxim for his War Council, but in the sense that we must now and while the War is going on, create some machinery which will provide this Parliament the moment the War is over. The criticism that is made by the more conservative critics is that the period allowed under this scheme within which it will be possible for people to get their votes is too short, and does not give sufficient security for solid judgment and established interest. The longer you say that period should be, the more severe you say these tests ought to be before people are justified in claiming a vote, the more certain it is that you must pass this legislation while the War is going on, and I do not care how well you devise your machinery, it is such that after it is devised, adopted, and put in working order, it is bound to take a certain and substantial length of time, many months, before it can produce the new House of Commons which is going to deal with these new problems. Those are the reasons—I think I may in this matter claim the support of others who were on your Conference, Mr. Speaker—which convinced us that in endeavouring to come to an agreement in the middle of the War on these subjects we were really discharging a piece of national work not unconnected with the War, and the idea that you could put these things on one side and say you will have nothing to do with them until the War is over is carrying to an absurd length the maxim which we were all very glad to apply literally when the War began, namely, that we should for the time being proceed on the basis that time did not pass except for the purpose of carrying the country to victory. But time does pass; and just as it is plain now that the existing register, based I think on qualifications which people possessed in the year 1913, is an absurdity upon which no new Parliament could possibly be wisely founded, so in the same way it becomes quite impossible to go on month after month and year after year on the wholly false hypothesis that times does not go by, that electoral reforms are unnecessary because all patriotic men will agree that we are for all domestic purposes in the month of July, 1914. We are not. We are in the month of May, 1917, and unless we make provision while the War is going on for the creation of a better House of Commons, based on some wider franchise, reflective of some fairer distribution of power, we are denying for the solution of problems which will not wait the service which we might render to those who will then need these problems to be instantly and wisely handled. There is a second consideration. Everyone who opposes this Bill speaks as though we are all at this moment in a temper and living in an atmosphere which made a solution of this difficult question almost impossible of attainment. It is not so. The reverse is true. There has never been a time when it has been possible on these domestic matters to come in the same spirit of general good will to a discussion and to arrive at a general understanding and agreement.

I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that even your own power and persuasion would have induced a Committee of the House of Commons to agree on this contentious subject if it had not been that we were at war. Surely we are wrong if we suppose that when the War is over we are going to find the atmosphere better for solving this question or that we are going to find opportunity and time for solving them greater than they are now. I believe that to be a profound mistake. The truth is that now is the time when these things may be attempted in an atmosphere of real conciliation and good will, and, what is more, that people are able to devote some time to them. Once the War is over and we are approaching the actual solution of these problems of reconstruction, what will be said of us if when we turn to that task it appears that we have not even machinery by means of which these problems may be fairly tackled and settled. By endeavouring to make the machine now, by that means and that means alone, can you hope to solve these problems. Does anyone suppose that these problems are going to wait? I do not think we put the case as high as we should when we speak of them arising when the War is over. It is clear that they are casting their shadow before them now. The question of the restoration of trade union conditions, the question of the relation between women workers and men workers, the question as, to the extent to which our fiscal policy may call for revision, the question as to the part which the State is going to play in directions hitherto left to private enterprises, the question of how far the organisation set up during the War is to be a model or basis for organisation after the War—I doubt whether it will really be possible for these things to be left until the end of the War. But, in any case, even if they are, they will clamour for discussion and decision then, and if we are left when the War is over and we are to say, "Now is the time to start the discussion of Parliamentary reform; now we are going to have the atmosphere which we could not secure in time of war, the atmosphere which will rapidly produce a solution of these difficulties; now we are all going to have plenty of time to discuss these questions"—if that is our prophecy of the future, surely it will turn out to be a very unfounded prophecy.

Those are the broad common-sense grounds on which the members of Mr. Speaker's Committee urge the Government to proceed with this Bill and urge upon their fellow Members of this House its favourable consideration. We, of course, have no sort of authority from the House of Commons to speak in the name of the House of Commons. We never attempted to do anything of the kind. But we have done this: we have shown that it is possible to bring together people who in times before the War had very different views on these highly controversial questions, and that it is possible to propose an agreed and united solution of them. As to the merits of the solution itself, I do not at this stage desire to say very much, but I may perhaps be allowed to make this observation. I have looked with a great deal of care at this Bill—the Representation of the People Bill—and I believe it to be the last work in his late capacity of Parliamentary draughtsman of Sir Arthur Thring. I see the Solicitor-General opposite to me, and anyone who has been a law officer in any Government knows how very much we owe to the unstinted public service of Sir Arthur Thring in that capacity. It would not be proper for me to enter upon any prolonged eulogy, but I will put it in this single sentence. I have worked at the time when I was a Minister and a law officer with Sir Arthur Thring on a vast variety of contentious Bills, and I can honestly say now that he showed from the very beginning to the end this supreme quality in the Government service. I do not at this moment know what is his private political opinion on any one of the controversial Bills on which I worked with him. I cannot believe that he agreed with them all. There is no higher praise which can be given to a public servant than that he should give his skill and his training, as Sir Arthur did for so many years, to one Government after another desiring nothing but to promote the public interest according to the traditions of the public service.

This Bill is a very remarkable production in point of draughtsmanship, because it is perfect. I thought it was bound to be a very, very long Bill when written out in draftsman's form. It is, as anyone can see who looks at it closely, a masterly performace in construction. It is recommended to the House by the Home Secretary, now happily restored to health, we are all glad to see; it is recommended to the House by a Government which is itself drawn from a different political party; it is introduced on a vote of the House rightly described by a right hon. Gentleman just now as an over-whelming vote in favour of legislation on the subject. Like every subject of the sort, it is provocative of certain objection and criticism in certain quarters, but I do not think it will be found easy to propose a solution which has secured in advance so wide a measure of general support. Let me remind the House that Mr. Speaker's Committee were so much impressed with the importance of maintaining the agreement at which they had arrived after they had arrived at it that, as between themselves, they undertook that any proposal put into this Bill by the Government in carrying out the unanimous recommendations of that Committee should be supported by the members of that Committee as a whole. We felt, therefore, that we were giving up to one another many very treasured and cherished expedients, extremes on one side or the other, for the sake of making some common advance side by side. The Radicals naturally feel that they give up much when they give up the abolition of plural voting, when they see the retention of the university vote, and when they fail to reduce the period of qualification to something less than is found in this Bill. There are great sacrifices made, not without much strain, but for the sake of what we believe to be a good object and cause. I recognise completely that those of another way of thinking, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir H. Samuel), who spoke just now, have also made sacrifices. I will not measure one against the other. Every man is inclined to think his own sacrifices the greatest, but these are sacrifices of very great importance in order to secure a general agreement.

We have now, as I submit, a scheme which the House of Commons, if it recognises the necessity of legislating while we are at war, should not lightly throw on one side. If the view be taken that the matter can be left altogether on one side until the War is over, that is another thing. But anyone who really analyses the situation as it is, and as it will be, must see that we are bound to deal with this now, and, if we deal with it now, what is the real objection to the Second Reading of this Bill? The Noble Lord said something about the importance of securing that allyour voters are worthy of the vote. That is a very old fallacy. It has been tried in various ways at various times, and there is only one way I know of by which you can secure that your electorate is worthy, and that is that you should take sufficient security to show that your standard is one which will not, as the Noble Lord said, let in, as a class, people who do not come up to your standard; and, for the rest, you should realise the value of applying your standard seriously to every man and woman as he or she comes along, which would far exceed any advantage you can get from fancy franchise by inquiries whether A is worthy and B is not. What is the test? Our test of worth is if a man is resident, and resident here means that he has had an established home in the constituency for six months on end, rather than that he is a person who is entitled to exercise the Parliamentary vote. I do not think there are many persons when these questions come to be debated in public meeting after the War is over who would be found to face a public meeting, consisting very largely of people who have sent their own sons and relatives to the front to fight, and who will be prepared to deny that if a man has resided and has had a home in a constituency for six months he ought to have an electoral vote.

In the second place, as regards women. I regard the proposals for women's suffrage in this Bill as being an essential and integral part of the whole measure, and the Bill would have lost altogether the balance which it now preserves if there had been on the part of the Government any attempt to introduce the Bill without including women. I do not believe that the risk this Bill runs comes from opposition to women's suffrage. I believe that opposition has largely faded away for reasons which need not be stated. This Bill can only lose its life if a number of persons each take their own particular objection and persists in the combination, each man acting, it may be, from his own individual point of view of criticism, so that we fail to secure what I believe both the country and the House really desires to accomplish, namely, the creation without further delay of a really representative House of Commons, representative both of men and women, which will be the instrument by means of which we may make good the result that will follow victory in the field.

:Although I have been a Member of the House now for twelve months, I have not previously troubled it with any remarks. I was commissioned by my Constituency to render the Government every possible support during the War, and I am not certain having regard to my limitations that I have not rendered that support better by keeping silence than I should have done by asking you, Sir, to notice me before. That being so, I venture to ask the kind indulgence of the House, which I know it is always ready to accord to a new Member who is struggling with the nervousness which is inseparable from a maiden speech. This Bill appeals to me as a triumph of compromise. Acknowledgments have been made from all sides of the House of the great services that you, Sir, have rendered as Chairman of the Conference. But I venture to think that the country as a whole would desire to associate itself in the fullest possible way with those expressions of admiration of the ability and skill with which you guided the Conference to a solution of what appeared to be an almost insoluble problem. The provisions of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) has just said, no doubt do not go as far as some of us would wish. On the other hand, undoubtedly they go much farther than many hon. Members in this House would have desired. But the great majority of the changes are so welcome, so overdue I venture to say, and so generally approved by the country—I need mention only three of them, namely, the holding of all elections on one day, the payment of returning officers' fees, and the simplification of registration for the franchise—they are so universally welcomed that I believe we may accept the compromise on the other points, although, perhaps, there are many things omitted which we would have desired to see. The two principles which the Government have left to the free judgment of the House and which, if I may venture to say so, I think they have wisely left, are no doubt the Clauses around which the controversy will chiefly rage. The hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment made a great point of the securing of votes to our soldiers and sailors. Well, I venture to think that there is not a Member in the House who does not hope that this will be secured by the Bill, and that everyone of those who are serving in the forces, either at home or abroad, to-day will be able to cast their votes at the next election. For myself I do not think that there is any other intention in the mind of the Government, and that certainly no opposition to them, and that no red-tape, will be permitted to interfere with what I believe the House as a whole, and I am sure the country as a whole, desire. It is, however, on the subject of proportional representation and the granting of the franchise to women that, with the permission of the House, I should like to offer a few remarks.

In my opinion the case for the extension of the franchise to women has been enormously strengthened during the last three years. I venture to attribute that change of feeling to two main causes. In the first place, it is due to the conspicuous services that women have rendered to the nation during the War. Their perseverance, their energy, their adaptability, and their resources, have surpassed anything that I think anyone imagined as possible. It is only a truism to say, I think the House will agree, that it would have been impossible to have carried on the War without them. The second cause which has contributed to this change of feeling, I suggest, is the total abstinence from those militant methods which, I believe, did far more damage to their cause than their strongest opponents ever realised. I am aware that the leaders of the movement for women's suffrage do not altogether appreciate the achievements of women being regarded as an excuse for granting the franchise. I know myself that I received a deputation by which my views were sought, and when I ventured to adduce that as a reason why I had become a little more enthusiastic in the cause it was rather resented. I was told that women demanded the vote as a right. Well, I cannot help thinking that if the great work which women have done in the War has been the means of converting some of us who were lukewarm, or perhaps even hostile, to the cause that women may well accept support from whatever cause it is forthcoming, without resentment. For, after all, we are a severely practical nation, and I do not think we altogether like accepting things on trust without any proof of them being forthcoming. A point that has been made in more than one of the speeches that we have listened to to-night is that it is not fair that this great change should be made in the absence of many Members of this House at the front, and a large proportion of the electorate in France. But that is an argument which personally does not appeal to me, because I think the House as a whole, so far as I have gathered, is agreed that no election can take place in which the men who are in the various Services both at home and at the front do not take part, and, with regard to Members of this House who are serving abroad, I cannot believe that the same facts which have influenced opinion so much in this country during the period of the War will not have influenced them in an equal degree.

I believe the unanimity with which the proposals of this Bill have been received throughout the country during the time since this Bill has been made public affords marvellous evidence of its popularity, and I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that that point has been quite sufficiently pressed home. I sincerely hope that when the opponents of this measure come to realise with what favour it has been received outside this House they will, at all events, agree to the principle embodied in the Bill, to grant the franchise to women, and, at any rate, agree to the Second Reading, and thus enormously increase the value of the gift to the recipients. Differences of opinion no doubt will manifest themselves when we come to the Committee stage with regard to the proposal to insert the thirty years of age limit. Personally, my view is that it is an anomaly altogether to make any difference whatever between the qualifying age for men and for women. There may be motives of political expediency which have dictated that this age of thirty should be put in, and it may be advisable in the first instance to adopt it; but I cannot help thinking that it is only a stepping-stone to putting women ultimately on exactly the same terms in every respect as men. After the War, as has already been stated, problems of the greatest importance to this country and to the Empire will come up for settlement in which women will be greatly interested. I refer particularly to problems arising out of demobilisation, problems of labour, problems of child welfare, and such like, and it seems to me that it would be a most lamentable thing if women had no voice in their settlement. I think that this change which is proposed is inevitable, and I hope it will be conceded with as large a volume of unanimity as it is possible to get.

Just one word on the subject of proportional representation; and may I say perfectly frankly that I know nothing about it? I have tried to read all the literature which has been sent out to me, though how it is going to work out I do not profess to understand; but I do view the innovation with the greatest possible suspicion. There is one advantage, and one only, that I can see about it, and that is the granting of representation to minorities. It seems to me that the redistribution proposal will remedy to a great extent that failing which exists under our present system. I admit that it will not do so to the same extent that proportional representation would, but when you come to consider the objections, which appear to me so numerous and so weighty, I think I would, personally, sooner continue with an imperfect representation of minorities than take a leap into the unknown, such as the adoption of proportional representation would involve. Amongst other objections there appear to be these: There will be very great difficulty in instructing the electors to fill up their forms intelligently. I do not mean to say there will be any difficulty in making them put 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 opposite the names of five candidates, but what I do mean is that if there is to be any benefit to be derived from the adoption of proportional representation at all it surely is intended that the electors will exercise greater independence. I believe that what will be found will be that, exactly as under the present system cards are sent out to the electors instructing them that they have got to put their cross in a particular square, so voters will receive cards with the candidates' names duly numbered, and they will number them accordingly, without exercising that independence which is supposed to be, I believe, one of the greatest merits of elections under the proportional representation system.

Then there will be undoubtedly—I do not think any advocate of proportional representation will deny—the greatest delay in announcing the result of an election, and I cannot help thinking that it will be all the more difficult to prevent that, seeing that now we are going to have, under the provisions of this Bill, all elections on one day, and therefore there will be a very much greater demand for skilled counters. Then there will be, no doubt, a large number of recounts necessary, which will be very costly, and there will be a considerable increase in candidates' expenses. I was horrified to hear the answer that was given to an hon. Member who inquired what would happen in a by-election in a four-member constituency, and to learn that there would have to be a complete ballot throughout the constituency. I do not know what the amount of the unfortu- nate Member's expenses would be in such a case, but the greatest of all the objections to the system, in my opinion, is that it is not suited to the temperament of the nation. I believe the British people like a fair standup fight, and that it will be no satisfaction to a man, if his first choice is not elected, to know that his vote has not been wasted, but that it has been handed on to somebody for whom perhaps he has very little liking. With this exception, I think the Bill is a good Bill. I think it will enormously simplify the present procedure. It will effect great reforms which are long overdue, and it will produce a House very much more truly representative of the opinion of the country. I earnestly hope that the Bill will become law with as little change, and with as little delay, as possible.

:There are one or two small points I should like to put before the House with reference to this Bill. In the first place, I want to remind the House of the circumstances under which this Conference came about. It was felt to be absolutely necessary after the War commenced to try to get a fresh Bill, and with that object the Special Register Bill was brought in. I firmly believe the House never understood that Bill properly. It was killed, I think, by a speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Bill was withdrawn, but very few people realised the difficulties there were in putting the soldiers and sailors on the register, and I think very few knew that under that Bill at least 75 per cent. of our fighting forces at the front would have been put on the register. The House was determined and understood that the Bill did not give proper representations to our fighting men at the front and consequently it was withdrawn. It was felt by the Government, and very largely by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that something would have to be done of a more drastic nature than was contained in that Bill. The House refused a special Register Bill and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) suggested this Conference which was received by acclamation not only in this House but throughout the country, and it had a very representative character. Some sixty or seventy names were submitted, and Mr. Speaker selected those whom he thought would be most suitable to act at the Conference. The Conference sat for something like three months, we sat all through the Christmas Vacation and worked hard to try and hammer out some scheme suitable and acceptable to this House. We soon found that you cannot deal with the subject of registration alone, and one thing inevitably led to another. We started with the franchise and we found inevitably that it led to registration. Then we found that we were immediately mixed up with all the questions relating to elections, and this finally led to redistribution. This afternoon we have been told that we also should have dealt with Home Rule and the question of the House of Lords. That only shows how a carefully thought out scheme leads from one thing to another, and how various questions in dispute are linked up the one with the other.

Perhaps it may interest the House to hear the figures relating to the electorate at the period of the last four Reform Bills. They are roughly prepared, but I do not think the majority of hon. Members are aware of them. The figures are very difficult to get out, and I do not guarantee the entire accuracy of the figures I am going to give. Before 1832 there were less than 500,000 electors on the register and it will surprise many hon. Members to know that even the great Reform Bill of 1832 only put another 500,000 electors on the register, and the total electorate in 1832 was less than 1,000,000, and the population then was about 24,000,000. Some thirty-five years passed before another Reform Bill and it was not until 1867 that Mr. Disraeli made his celebrated leap in the dark and added an enormous number to the register. The population had then grown from 24,000,000 to 30,000,000, and the Reform Bill of 1867 put about 1,500,000 upon the register, or a total of 2,500,000. Another seventeen years passed, and in 1884 the population had grown to some 34,000,000, and in that year we put upon the register another 3,000,000 electors, with the result that in 1884 there were 5,500,000 on the register. Thirty-three years have passed since then, and this brings us to the year 1917, when the population of the United Kingdom had grown to 45,500,000, with an electorate of 8,000,000. Under this Bill we propose to put another 3,000,000 men on the register, which I think the House will agree is not an exorbitant number, having regard to the thirty-three years that have passed since the last Reform Bill. I thought the House might be interested to know the progress of events during the last four Reform Bills.

This Bill has been objected to for various reasons, but generally on the ground that it ought not to have been brought in now but at some other time and in some other way. It is the old story, "Never thus, and never now." I assure the House that the Conference entered into this question without any political bias. There was not a single sign shown of any party wishing to take advantage, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir Harry Samuel) said, we went to the Conference determined to defend certain things which he thought were absolutely necessary from our party point of view, and those were readily granted by the other side, and we all agreed that if we could get through this matter it would be a great step in advance. I know this is not a perfect up-to-date machine, but it is as perfect as we can make it, and the compromises which we have come to were thought out in the most careful way. I want to assure the House that the Conference was determined to put every single soldier and sailor and mine sweeper on the register. There were immense difficulties in the way. I will not go into the details and the machinery necessary to achieve this purpose, but I wish to say that if there is one thing more than another which all parties were determined upon it was to put everybody on the register that it was possible to put on, and if this Bill fails in that respect I am certain that members of the Conference would be the first to amend it.

The House cannot get away from the idea that we are to have some sort of revising barrister. This reminds me of Dicken's famous case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which he called "costly nonsense." Now the Conference has swept away all the costly nonsense of the register and the revising barristers' Courts. The efforts of various parties in the past have been directed to keeping people off the register instead of trying to put them on. It is said that our proposal will be difficult to carry out, but I venture to say that there is no one, no matter what obscure part of the Kingdom he might live in, who would not get every three months without fail a demand for his rates, and if that can happen with regard to rates, what difficulty can there be about putting a man on the register? We decided to appoint a registration officer responsible for putting all men on the register. Four or five years ago I suggested something which went very much further, and my suggestion was that a man should be paid a handsome salary for putting people on the register, and that he should be fined for every man he left off. We have not done that, but we have arranged that official people in the shape of town clerks and clerks to county councils shall be responsible for the register, and they will have to seek out and find the people who ought to be put on the register.

We have been told that the soldier will have to fill up an application form, but he will have to do nothing of the kind. The registration officer or his representative will call at various houses, and he will find, for instance, that John Brown lived at a certain house. If he is not there he will ask, "Where is he?" The reply may be, "He is in the Army." The officer will then say, "Very well, let me have all the particulars; give me his number and the name of his regiment." That information can easily be verified, and there is no reason why that soldier should not be put upon the register at once. If by any chance the registration officer left a man off the register, that man would have a right to claim, or his party might claim for him, but the responsibility is upon the registration officer.

I should just like to say a word or two with regard to the votes for women. Most of the House know that I have been a suffragist all my life. It is a legacy from my predecessor, and I have been a persistent supporter of the movement ever since in a quiet way. I realised, however, that there was a large body against the woman's vote, and that therefore it would be necessary to commence in the smallest possible way. During the Conference I saw a very distinguished lady, who is at the head of one of the large suffragist societies, and she frankly told me that her society and three or four others would be quite willing to accept the age of forty to start with. I commenced the bidding at that figure. The idea was to get as few as possible on the register. I felt that was the only way to succeed. We started with the local government franchise of spinsters and widows who own houses and pay rates and taxes. We knew the figure with regard to that. We then proposed, still keeping to the local government franchise, to include the wives of men on that franchise. We felt, however, that was far too much. I am taking the House into our confidence, and explaining exactly how we arrived at the conclusion we did. I found that taking the age at forty practically meant putting 3,000,000 women on the register. The next suggestion was that we should put it at thirty-five. That meant 4,500,000. It will be remembered, as I said just now, that we should be increasing the register of men by 2,000,000, from 8,000,000 to 10,000,000, and, if we adopted the age of thirty-five for women, that would be 10,000,000 men and 4,500,000 women. When the suggestion was before the Government they, for reasons of their own, considered that thirty-five would hardly do, and they reduced the age to thirty. This will put 6,000,000 women on the register. The whole of the electorate, therefore, will now be 10,000,000 men and 6,000,000 women. That is the position at the present time. I know it is utterly indefensible and utterly illogical, but a great many things utterly indefensible and utterly illogical continue for a very long time in this country, and we hope and believe that this will be a settlement of the question for many years to come. A great many of the lady suffragists have assured us that immediately this Bill is through they will not start a fresh agitation to have the age lowered still further, but they will see how they get on for some considerable time, and I hope that it will be in every way successful.

I earnestly hope that this Bill will go through. I firmly believe that some of the fears of its opponents are entirely unfounded. I believe after a time that we shall not know when the revision takes place. It will be entirely automatic. People may say that County Court judges are very much overloaded with work and that it will put an enormous amount of work on to them, but I do not believe it. I admit that the first register will be a difficult business, but in the course of a year or eighteen months I do not believe that there will be more than one or two cases per revision in each electoral area. The whole thing has been so simplified that the leading questions which can arise will be of the slightest character, and the great cases of Kent and Fittal carried up from court to court right to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords will all be swept away. By this Bill we cut clean out thirty-two Acts of Parliament, and we modify another thirty-two or thirty-three. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eighty-seven."] Yes, eighty-seven Acts of Parliament have been dealt with by this measure, which is the greatest Reform Bill that has ever been brought forward. It is far greater than the Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, or 1884. I earnestly hope, whilst the House is sitting at a time when party feeling is abated, that common-sense will prevail, and that the great spirit of compromise which has carried this country forward as it has done through the centuries will be found in the case of this Bill and that it will be carried through all its stages.

9.0 P.M.

:I rise to state why I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I would have preferred to have spoken on the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, because, being a very young Parliamentary hand, I found it difficult to frame suitable words for an Amendment of this description, and I therefore took the Prime Minister's opening paragraph in his letter to the Leader of the Nationalist party of the 16th of this month. The House will remember how about four years ago one of the late Members, at a time when the question of votes for women was very much before the country, in order to test the opinion of his constituents, gave up his seat and fought a by-election at Bow and Bromley. The question then was very acute, and although, as far as I am concerned, I did not fight the election from a purely anti-suffragist point of view—I fought it on other subjects which I thought were more important at the time—I am bound to say my opponent's opinion, as he was reported shortly afterwards to have expressed it, was that "had it not been for the question of votes for women, I would have walked over my opponent." That was certainly five years ago. I fully realise that opinion has changed tremendously both in this House and in the country since then, but I am determined, as far as this Bill is concerned, not to go back on my pledges made at that time. I am further convinced that the great majority of the women themselves in this country have not changed on this very important question.

I frankly confess that in France I have met many soldiers who have changed their opinions, but I regret to say that they have always given their reasons for change as a reward for the great and noble services that women have given in this terrible War. Personally, I think that to talk about giving the vote as a reward to women is an insulting proposal. If you are going to give it as a reward for their services, I should like to ask what reward are you going to give to the 1,250,000 young men between the ages of fourteen and eighteen who, we are told by the Minister of Munitions, have been gallantly carrying on their own shoulders some of the burdens of this War, and I should like to know how you are going to appraise that reward? Are you going to give the same vote to a soldier as to the lady of thirty years of age who has worked very hard indeed in a munition factory or in a canteen kitchen? Many hon. Members of this House have served in France and others have been there on visiting tours. They must have noticed the remarkable way in which the women of France have worked for their country during this War. I myself have seen old women and very young girls toiling in the fields in Flanders till the last speck of daylight, and I have seen the same elderly women and young girls up with the first ray of sunlight in the morning. I challenge hon. Members who have served in France to say that they have ever heard in France the cry of "Votes for women." I hope sincerely that it may be my good fortune to go back to France, but I should be ashamed to go back to France and tell these Frenchwomen that although my sisters in England had done so nobly in this War, that they had, in the middle of this great War, demanded that they should be given the vote.

There was an argument used by an important member of the Government during one of the Debates we had on this subject some time ago which made a great impression on my mind. I refer to the hon. and gallant Member the late Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He spoke of the expression used sometimes in the City, of watering stock, and argued, what at that time appeared to be most forcible, that you could not water the stock of the electorate without consulting the present shareholders. Whatever the strength of the argument was then, it is ten times stronger now, because you have your shareholders—that is to say, your electorate—your gallant men in France, and without saying "By your leave," or asking their permission, you immediately water the stock by adding a considerable number of millions of women to the electoral stock. Hon. Members who, perhaps, during their political life have been anti-suffragists have used the argument that by voting for the proposals in this Bill they would be doing something to obtain a satisfactory settlement. I wonder if they are sure of setting a settlement with this Bill? I saw that the Prime Minister received a deputation of women, and so far as I could judge by reading a report of the proceedings, he told them to accept this and to go ahead afterwards. If this could be guaranteed to be a settlement, something might be said in its favour, but the only suffragette paper which I have the pleasure of receiving I looked up last night, and this is what I found in it. It is the "Suffragette News Sheet," the news sheet which is run by the old guard of the Women's Social and Political Union. It says: seat directly to opposing votes for women was not represented on Mr. Speaker's Conference, wrote to another newspaper, the "Daily Telegraph," and I need not add that that letter as well was never published. I have dealt chiefly with the women's question, because I think I have a right to be heard upon it, and because of the ruling which Mr. Speaker gave the other day in reply to the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. David Mason), from which I take it that if the House passes the Second Reading of this Bill they will have agreed to the principle of giving votes to women.

The Government has no call or mandate from the people to pass this Bill. The only call they have had from the people is what they have embodied to a very small extent in Clause 5. So far as it goes, I welcome what they have attempted to do in the direction of giving the vote to soldiers and sailors. As has been pointed out this afternoon by two hon. and gallant Members, it will be a very difficult thing in fifteen days to get the soldier to sign the necessary forms, supposing that he has not been placed on the register at home. A soldier has more to think about. I can speak from experience. He does not like signing any forms if he can possibly get out of it. There was one point in the Prime Minister's speech made when the Resolution regarding these proposals was before the House which I failed to understand and of which I should like an explanation. He said that you could not give a vote to a serving soldier or sailor without raising the whole question of the franchise and of giving votes to women. I challenge that, because I remember that when the ex-Prime Minister was being badgered, very often by the present First Lord of the Admiralty as to why he did not give votes to the soldiers and the sailors who were fighting for us, he made the excuse that it would open up controversy. I have a distinct recollection that a leader of a great women's society immediately wrote to the Press and said that that was not to be any excuse for not giving the soldiers and sailors votes, and that the women were only too glad to stand out in order to see that the soldiers and sailors got the vote. There will be many Members in this Debate who will quote previous sayings by statesmen. I think they do very little good indeed. On 14th March of this year I heard what I thought at the time was the most statesmanlike speech which the ex-Prime Minister had ever made. I say that because he was saying what I agreed with entirely. It was on the Indian cotton debate, and he was pointing out that for two and a half years he had done everything in his power to avoid any controversy. He had done everything to prevent the least jarring note. Within one week from that date, on 21st March, he had tabled his Resolution calling upon the Government promptly to introduce legislation embodying these Resolutions. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he calls this a controversial Bill. Does he consider the question of votes for women a controversial question? If he does, the magnificent speech which he made on 14th March was very different indeed from the Resolution which he tabled one week later.

My hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull) said something which was disparaging to the agents. I know my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) said there were many who were paid to keep people off the register. I think that a very unfair accusation. Everyone must agree that the agents of all parties have in the past done a tremendous amount of good in getting a fairly accurate register. I think my hon. Friend (Sir W. Bull) was not counting upon what every official responsible for compiling the register counts upon, and that is to have a complete canvass of the register. I am told, and I hope it is true, that at present it is absolutely impossible to get canvassers, male or female, to canvass for any new register, and I am certain that instead of these agents having done bad work in the past, they have done a tremendous amount of good by getting people on the register who would otherwise never have got on unless they had worked hard to get them on, and consequently would have lost the rights of citizenship. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. If this proportional representation proposal is knocked out of the Bill, will he go on with it? I understood that the proportional representation proposal of the Speaker's conference was passed unanimously. If so, I fail to see why the Government should put the burden on the private Member of this House to say whether it should be in the Bill or not. I should like to ask him also if the women's votes are knocked out of the Bill will he go on with it; and if the suggestion is made, the House having previously adopted the principle that women of thirty should get the vote, that all women of twenty-one should get it, will the Government go on with the Bill in that case? We have heard much in the past, and some of us have taken a humble part in snap divisions, but if the Government is determined to go on with this Bill during the War, it is going to have it on a snap division, when the most patriotic people are prevented from taking part in it owing to their patriotism.

:The speech delivered some time ago by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) seized upon some of the most obvious difficulties under which the Government is labouring at the present moment in introducing this Bill. He attacked that position in very biting and very lively language. He exposed some of its absurdities, much to the delight of the House. But as he was proceeding with his descriptions and his arguments I could not help remembering the position in which Lord Salisbury found himself in 1868, when a Bill similar to this was before the House, a Bill that had been the subject of revision after revision, of election, of a great campaign in the country, and of the very fullest discussion in this House carried on Session after Session, and the absurdity of the situation which was brought before us this afternoon was brought before the House of Commons then under totally different circumstances by the Noble Lord's father. The fact of the matter is that every discussion on the franchise, on redistribution, and on the subjects dealt with in this Bill has been a barren discussion, and has been a discussion of bare machinery which has raised all sorts of superficial opposition, which has been used by party after party to try to advance its own purposes; and when it was all over, whether it was conducted in secrecy or in public, was unsatisfactory both in its history and in its results. I therefore welcome the new position in which the Government finds itself. We want no more barren controversies about political machinery. If an agreement may be come to regarding it between particular parties in this House, I, for one, although many of my own particular ideas are not in the Bill and some of my special political antipathies are, shall be inclined to vote for the common measure of agreement which has been come to by the Committee presided over by Mr. Speaker.

It is said that the present circumstances are not the circumstances for discussing this measure. I think the present circumstances are precisely the circumstances under which the present measure should be discussed, and that for two reasons, neither of which I think has been put quite in the same way that it impresses me. The first reason is this: This is an old Parliament. It has exceeded its natural period of existence, and it has to leave to its successor something which can only be described as a perfect welter of promise. What is the function of this Parliament? It is folly for any Member to say that it ought to surrender its authority. We are living under conditions under which it is absolutely impossible for the country to elect anything to succeed us. Surely our supreme duty is to do something to secure that the next Parliament shall be representative of the people; and when that is done and the War is over, let us come to an end. This Parliament will surrender and refuse to accept one of the most imperative duties placed upon it if it leaves the present system of election in the condition in which it was in 1910 when this Parliament was elected, because its duty undoubtedly is to make such changes as will make the new Parliament equal to the new task that the country is going to place before it. The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon) said it was impossible to allow certain things to wait. I should like to reinforce that argument. Will this House of Commons imagine what would happen if this question is to wait and a new Parliament is elected under the old circumstances? We meet here after peace is declared while the country outside is seething with the most pressing problems, and the people outside are interested in the most vital concerns—labour, men, women, trade, commerce, and industry generally. Is this House of Commons going to waste month after month of its own life—because these problems are not going to be settled in a year or two—with the sorry spectacle of wrangling over questions of franchise when these tremendously vital problems are being fought outside As a matter of fact, you will have a revolution if you try that game. If you imagine that you are going to deal with pettifogging, niggling partisan questions whilst the country outside is facing these tremendously im- portant problems, you are going to have the country rising up and telling you to be gone and mind your own business and do something that justifies your existence. Therefore, this Parliament in considering this Bill, and the Government producing it, is doing what, to my mind, at any rate, is its most elementary and primary duty both to this House and to the country.

It is perfectly true that the Bill is a patched one. It consists of a little of everything. If we had the somewhat gay imagination of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), who seems to believe that it is possible to have an ideal electorate and an ideal elector, and that you can secure him by Clauses in an Act of Parliament, I dare say we could produce an ideal franchise, registration, and redistribution Bill. As a matter of fact, whatever is done, whether it is done under present circumstances or done in the House of Commons leisurely and in times of peace, the result is going to be a patched one. The result is going to be a compromise, I maintain that any compromise come to by open discussion such as that which took place in the sixties, and again in the early eighties, any compromise such as those, in these times, arrived at by those methods, would be more satisfactory than the compromise that is before us in this Bill as the result of the deliberations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. For myself, I should like adult suffrage. I think the case for it is perfectly clear. I should like a complete measure of women's suffrage. From my point of view I do not believe that the War has contributed one single new argument in favour of women's suffrage. Anybody who has entered intimately into the great concerns of life, the life of the home, the life of the State, and the life of the citizen, must have known long ago of the magnificent part and the essential part that woman has been playing in all those spheres. There is not a single public cause of righteousness, of justice, of mercy, or of wisdom, but woman has been connected with it. Her work has been essential. They tell us that after the War is over the great problems between men's labour and women's labour will have to be faced. Where were they in 1911, 1912, and 1913? Those problems were growing up then. There was not a single industry and there was not a single profession in the country that was not being crowded by those problems. This House, elected by men, representative only of men, was taking upon itself the right to decide what woman's place in the workshop should be, and we passed a very intricate and very elaborate system of factory laws which affected woman's labour, which limited woman's labour, and which showed woman's labour the particular channel along which to run. That was precisely the same problem as this House and this country will have to face when the War is over. So far as service to the nation is concerned, what would our nation have been without the service that women were giving long before the War broke out? This is a very tardy recognition of the obligation that this nation and every civilised nation is under to the woman worker, and I am very glad that the War at any rate should be made the excuse and the occasion for that recognition being embodied in a franchise Act.

There is one section of the Bill in which I have taken special interest for a considerable time, and that is the method of voting. One of the peculiarities of this Bill is that it contains practically every known method of voting. The experimental value of the Bill is going to be very great. You are going to have the old family system. You are going to have a special university system, you are going to have an alternative vote, you are going to have a transferable vote, you are going to have single member constituencies, double and treble member constituencies, and you are going to have proportional representation constituencies varying from three to five. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and gets into operation, the experimental value of the British electoral system will be very great and will receive the homage of every student of electoral methods, from one end of the world to the other. The Noble Lord, seizing upon one of these new methods, proportional representation, tells us, with that delightful enthusiasm which occasionally characterises his opinions, that this system is going to cure us of all the Parliamentary ills to which this House of Commons is heir. It is going to produce the independent man who is going to smash the Cabinet system, Cabinet control, the coercion of members, and so on. By so deftly balancing the difference between party and party this House, having been elected by ideal electors, is, at any rate, going to be an ideal legislative assembly, because it will do nothing at all. Then the result is going to be this—a result after the Noble Lord's own heart—that you are to have a large block of Members on one side of the House, say two hundred or three hundred Members on one side, and a large block of Members on the other side, another two hundred or three hundred Members, and a small group of special, superior, selected men, from twelve to twenty of them, sitting below the Gangway, and these superior men, elected on their personal merits, are going to save this Sodom and Gomorrah from complete destruction. With all due respect to the Noble Lord, I say that this picture of the salvation of the House of Commons is an exceedingly absurd one.

This House suffers from a great many maladies, and those who wish to cure them will have, first of all, to go a little more fundamentally into the problems than the Noble Lord went, and they will have to begin with the assumption that no one change is going to bring about very revolutionary results. I am opposed to proportional representation for several reasons, but I have always conditioned my opposition by certain observations. First of all, in my view proportional representation was an absurd proposal in this country without payment of election expenses In the larger constituencies it put such a handicap on the poor party and on the poor candidate that it practically barred the door of the House of Commons in their faces. Another essential to proportional representation was that candidates should have the right to have a free post, so that their opinions should be properly placed before the electorate. Otherwise, again in large constituencies, it was going to mean such an enormous expenditure that the getting into this House would be a great burden to poverty-stricken parties and poverty-stricken individuals.

Then there was another limitation that was necessary. There has been growing up in this country, during the last twenty years, very rapidly and very badly during the last ten or twelve years, a new method of electioneering. I think it reached its climax, at any rate its climax so far as advertisements were concerned, in the famous by-election which figured at the time in every newspaper in the country. Outside organisations, drawn from all directions, untrammelled by honour and by having any sort of responsibility for local opinion, came in and flooded the constituency with agents who were certainly not above reproach and adopted methods with which honourable politicians do not care to be associated. An election conducted in those circumstances is degrading. It is generally illegal, and it can only be maintained by an elaborate system of lying by agents and everybody concerned in it. Under proportional representation if there are large constituencies, and you slacken the grip of the individual upon the constituencies, that illicit, illegal, outside, improper method of electioneering would gain a new control and new weapon. I am glad to say that those conditions which to begin with would make proportional representation in a large constituency futile are met in this Bill, so that the conditions in which, to my mind, proportional representation is absolutely unthinkable and which would make it to me inacceptable even in the conditions in which this Bill is produced, have been removed by the provisions of the Bill. I hope that there will be opportunities for amendment. I think that some of those points might be made a little stronger, but these are Committee points and not Second Reading points.

There is another aspect of this proposal for proportional representation as contained in this Bill. What is the fundamental fact of proportional representation? It is that you should govern by a majority, but that the minority should be adequately represented. I think that I am doing no injustice to proportional representation by that definition of its intention. But I do not believe that you can secure that end in a three-member constituency. This Bill, with its three-member constituencies for proportional representation crushes out minorities, rather than secures them representation. Perhaps the House will allow me to give a few figures of a constituency about which I have made careful personal inquiries. I have estimated the new register in this constituency, assuming that the Bill as drafted, so far as franchise is concerned, has become an Act of Parliament, with the result that this will appear as a three-member constituency. I assume from the figures, in accordance with the experience of past elections held in the constituency, that between 60,000 and 70,000 electors will go to the poll. For the purposes of simplicity I assume 60,000. The quota that will be required to elect a Member in those circumstances is 15,001, or, say, 15,000, to keep to round figures. Now, that is not representation of minorities. If a member to be successful has to poll 15,000 votes, you are dealing with majorities and not with minorities at all.

The effect of it is perfectly simple. Look at the result. I will take it in two ways. Suppose you add two members and that the constituency is a five-member constituency, which is supposed to be the minimum size for the full proportion of the proportional representation idea. You add two other blocks of 20,000 voters. That is, of your 60,000 you make 100,000 and you turn your three members into five. Your quota is then 16,500. You have added 40,000 voters and to your quota you have added only 1,500. In that way the proportion is so small that what really may be called a minority comes in and gets its chance. It makes a tremendous difference, that with a 60,000 poll your quota is 15,000 and that with a poll of 100,000 it is 16,500. The jump is far too large between three and five members, and the giving of such a large proportion in the case of the 60,000 means that the minority must practically approach a majority before it receives any representation at all.

My second point is this: Hon. Members who know these constituencies with three of four members know that if you take the whole constituency there are certain areas in the constituency at one end where one party dominates, and that there are areas at the other end where another party dominates. In this constituency, with its three members, there are three sections—I am assuming that the constituency has been divided into three single-member divisions. There is a section where a person of my views would poll about 1,500 votes. There is another section in which he would poll about 3,000 votes, and there is another section in which he would poll at least 9,000 or 10,000 votes and get a majority. Now when you have got a small three-member constituency and vote on proportional representation, what it really means in an ordinary average constituency with the ordinary distribution of classes and population and its division into west end, middle, and east end is this, that you fix a minority that is so great that it must represent the majority in one or other of these three constituencies into which you will have to divide up your chief constituency. In the constituency I have in mind one Labour Member would be returned under proportional representation, while he would have a perfectly safe seat in one of the three-member constituencies into which his constituency has been divided.

:Yes, he would get representation without it; but the point is that under present circumstances the growing minority are able to use their strength and political enthusiasm to get that representation otherwise, and what happens in the case of proportional representation, so far as minorities are concerned, is simply that it mechanicalises the whole thing, and it deprives the growing minorities of that political power which I consider to be a great asset in the expression of democratic thought, of that young enthusiasm, and of that power which enables them to gain representation even now. Democracy does not consist of counting noses; it consists of intelligence, activity, and enthusiasm, and upon the counting of that political vitality upon which progress depends quite as much as upon the mere dull and dead mechanical majority as opposed to the equally dull and dead mechanical minority. I am very strongly in favour of a system of election which will give its due influence to vitality of politics as apart from the mere counting of noses, and the summing up and the counting of ballot papers at the end of the election of the day. I think, therefore, that hon. Members, if they would think over and take the actual cases—because after all the merits or demerits of this Bill must be judged from actual cases—if they take the actual constituencies, and try and find what the difference is in the three-member constituency polling under the proportional representation scheme as proposed in this Bill, and the representation of the same constituency if it were divided into three single-member constituencies, they will see that the special virtue of proportional representation are not embodied in this Bill. So far as the three-member constituencies are concerned, therefore, you do not get in that part of the measure a definition of proportional representation. But minorities are now represented in this House. There is not a minority school of votes of any democratic importance in the coun- try that is not represented in this House, and that is the greatvirtue of this House. That is why this House maintains its distinction and that catholicity of thought which is as conspicuous to-day as it ever has been in the history of this House.

To make my argument complete, therefore. I suggest that the Government should reconsider how far the three-member constituency ought to be subject to the system of proportional representation, and how far the particular characteristics of proportional representation as a method of election requires, at any rate, a larger constituency than the three-member constituency. Into the particular merits of proportional representation I do not wish to enter very much, although I very often wish we had more opportunity of discussing this question. I dare say it sometimes strikes hon. Members that it is not business, but I think it it business that there should be clear ideas at the beginning, in order to understand clearly what proportional representation really means before Members go either for or against proportional representation. There are circumstances under which proportional representation is a very wise and simple method. Those circumstances are found to-day in Ireland; they are found in India; they are found wherever you have got a political union which, for some reason or other, either racial or religious, or any of those reasons that strike very fundamentally into the social or political relations, and the system of proportional representation might well be adopted to get you out of many difficulties which the very operation of the majority rule sometimes exaggerates rather more than it reconciles. Where you get the people of Ulster, and in the South of Ireland the Protestant Unionists, or the Nationalists, or again where you get Mahomedans or Jews, and where you get the claims of rival sects and races comprehended in one political unit, then I think you have got ideal circumstances under which proportional representation becomes a benefit to the State. We have not that here. Then, again, in certain circumstances it is impossible to redistribute the seats in such a way that the majority adequately, as a rule, represents the majority in the State.

We had a very interesting example some time ago in Ticino, where redistribution and racial and national difficulties could not be solved, and proportional re- presentation was adopted with very great results. We had the same in Tasmania, where there were actually so many changes in the method of election within a short time that, owing to the small number of electors, the small number of constituents, and the small number of constituencies, no system of majority rule, block vote, or single vote, or any other method that could be devised, would satisfy the situation, and proportional representation was accepted. The latest official report is a very qualified report as to its success, but still, on the whole, it is very favourable. It struck me that the Noble Lord was developing an interesting argument from his own imagination in regard to proportional representation. The system was tried in Tasmania, and was abandoned, for it handed Tasmania over to party. Proportional representation was adopted in Tasmania, first of all, to apply to the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth and the Senate elections, and on its first experiment was abandoned, because it merged the whole of the Tasmanian representation in a featureless caucus and party representatives. That is an interesting comment on the effect of proportional representation in Tasmania. The story of the Tasmanian attempt to solve this point is one of the most amusing I have ever read in my life. With the new difficulties they abolished representation for the election of the Commonwealth, and then they reintroduced it for the local legislature, with the result that again parties renewed their complete grip over Tasmania and its politics, and certain strong individuals were left out.

Fortunately we are a large country; our constituencies are sufficiently numerous to enable the balance to be made on the whole. If Birmingham is over-represented by Unionists Wales is over-represented by Liberals, and when we all come here we are a fair working reflection of the will of the nation, if not of the mere numerical proportions of the nation. But hon. Members may say, "Ah, but the Birmingham Unionists cannot represent the South Wales Unionists or the Scottish Unionists"; but the curious thing is this, that very often your Birmingham Unionist has tried to represent a South Wales constituency, and has found that he was most acceptable to whatever number of South Wales Unionists there were, or, if in Scotland, to whatever number of Scottish Unionists there were. As a matter of fact, the national representation of this House is just as good as representation can be, unless you file off all the Gothic roughness and peculiarities and excellences of representation and make it a mere mechanical representation of the relationship between party and party, which means absolute deadlock all the time. I would like to remind the House of what has been already said, and that is, that to this moment, and it is inevitable, those in support of proportional representation have never produced a scheme for running by-elections, and they never will, because they cannot do it. It is essential to eliminate the importance of the by-election, whatever importance it may have, from any thorough-going scheme of proportional representation. But that is not all. They have not discovered and agreed upon a scheme that is satisfactory for holding the election and for counting the votes and for basing the political idea on which they base their scheme. We have a series of methods recommended from the Belgium party method to the method that is adopted by the Proportional Representation Society here. I venture to say that if you are going to carry the proportional representation idea to its logical and political conclusion the Belgium scheme is the best one—that of voting on a party ticket and not upon individuals; because if it is a vote on individuals, let us see where it lands us.

I do not know of anyone who is going to speak on behalf of proportional representation to-night, but if there is I would like to put a question to him. Proportional representation has been tried for some time in a good many countries. It is a sort of idea which is in the air, epidemic, just like it used to be about German education before the War broke out. At that time everybody who professed to be an educationist was saying that German education was the best, while a few obscure, old-fashioned people like myself said it was very bad, and that the best thing for the country was to take its own culture as the basis of education and develop its education from its own roots, with its political methods, practices, machinery, and ideas. But that is an aside. Proportional representation has been tried in a good many places. Will they tell us in respect of any country where the great, able politician has been saved by proportional representation and sacrificed by the electoral methods that preceded it? As a matter of fact, anyone who takes the trouble to scrutinise list after list of proportional representation results in Belgium, Tasmania, and so on, will find that there was not, so far as I knew, and I took great pains to find out, one single instance of a strong, capable politician owing his seat, his success in the election, to the operation of proportional representation. There was a very conspicuous citizen of Antwerp who once stood independent of his party. He got a very fine vote under proportional representation, but he was not elected. What happened? The next time his party adopted him. That is what happens here. If there is a Liberal independent or a Conservative independent who kicks the machine over and tells the party managers and Whips to mind their own business and fights and fights well, and is defeated, what happens to him? The doors are open to him and he is welcomed in, with fatted calves killed in his honour and the place of honour is reserved to him. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Mr. Harold Cox?"] Mr. Harold Cox never got the opportunity. There is not the least doubt he would be welcome to a party that had any conception of his virtues and ability. There is one thing perfectly certain: that a three-member constituency vote would leave the gentleman who used to be our colleague in the same unfortunate position in which a double-member constituency left him in 1910. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would give him a chance!"]

The point is this—and it is a fundamental point in this respect: Hon. Members talk about accuracy of representation. What is accuracy of representation? You get your able man; let us assume that the grand event comes off, that the miracle is performed. What is he going to do when he comes here? He has had no mandate on the thousand and one questions which come before us day after day. He may have been elected as an anti-vaccinationist or as a supporter of one or other of the extreme schools of teetotalism. If it were in 1902 he might have been elected to oppose the then Conservative Government Education Bill. On the particular question alone he comes here, but this is a House where representation is effective. Representation is not made effective by a majority of people in a constituency sending a man here. The essential characteristic of representation is that the majority which rules this House, which is respon- sible for its business, is a majority which has been elected to carry out a programme in accordance with the wish of the country, whereas under this system of anarchistic, individual, able-man representation you get a man elected by a minority in a huge constituency upon one point, and he comes here and, except on that one point, does not represent his constituency at all. He has got no mandate as to whether he is going to be a member of the Coalition Government or a supporter or not. He gets his mandate, he runs his election, he creates his issue upon this particular point with which his quota agrees, and when he has got into this House he is not representative at all, as a matter of fact.

The working out of proportional representation in the way that the advocates of proportional representation would like is a negation of the representative system and the placing in the hands of individual representatives here for constituencies the supreme control over the kind of legislation that this House is going to make itself responsible for. It is a most absurd idea of representation. The present method, at any rate, compels candidates, whilst they are still candidates, to declare where their cohesion is, who their colleagues are, and what party they have got to work with, so that, on the whole, the majority in this House is a representative majority and not a scratch majority.

:There has been no case where that has happened. The only case that has really been made was in the case in an article in the "Nineteenth Century" about which Mr. Gladstone wrote and denied its accuracy. If anyone goes into the figures they will find that Mr. Gladstone's denial is perfectly sound. In any event if you had a minority of electors electing a majority of members you are only precisely in the same position as if proportional representation was successful in doing what its supporters want it to do. The House will understand that I am no friend of proportional representation.

:Except in Ireland, and in communities that are in a somewhat primitive condition of social cohesion. That is perfectly true. I am like the Tasmanian, and would adapt my electoral methods to the circumstances of my State. I do not go in for vague phrases about proportional representation, majority government, and minority representation, which are absolutely meaningless to apply to our particular system of Government. At the same time, I am willing to vote even for a Bill of this kind, because, as I started by saying, I believe it is the duty of this House to remove this question of the legislative franchise outside the region of immediate controversy. If I have the chance, I shall vote against proportional representation. Having, however, done that, I shall return to a whole-hearted support of this Bill. I will take it with or without proportional representation, because I believe it will be a great scandal and a great disgrace if this House, despite the inequality of any representative method of electing Members, ceases to speak for the country. If it is not done now, it cannot be done at all. If we cannot spend the time in making this compromise effective, then we shall waste time in discussing proposals that will result in a still less satisfactory compromise than Mr. Speaker's Conference has produced for our consideration.

:I may differ from many of the opinions put forward by the hon. Member for Leicester, but I never hear him speak without attending most carefully to his arguments, attaching value to those arguments, noting their weight, and the necessity for attention to them. In this instance I have followed the speech of the hon. Gentleman with the very greatest attention, though I am afraid I shall be obliged to differ from him in the ultimate conclusions. Take the very last point which he has touched upon at some considerable length—the question of proportional representation. From that rather involved—I think the House will agree to that argument—I have drawn at least these conclusions; first that he has no love or a very platonic love for proportional representation, and, secondly, that he thinks that even if something could be said in favour of it the form in which it was embodied in this Bill was thoroughly unwholesome and unlikely to act well. I think he will agree with me that there was a third proposition which evolved itself from his arguments, and that was that the principle, whether for or against proportional representation, was one of a very highly important character which could not be slurred over but must produce a great and important effect upon our elections, and upon the colour of our politics. I go back to an earlier part of his speech. As I understand the hon. Member, he said it is our business now to, pass this Bill, and after passing, to disappear and make way for a better Parliament. How does the hon. Member work that out?

If we pass this Bill we cannot say when peace will come; we must have an election at once. We cannot, having passed this Franchise Bill, go on and wait for any definite time before peace comes before we disappear. Surely the hon. Member will admit that the difficulty I have raised in regard to what he says is something at all events which requires some consideration. The hon. Member went further and said that after the War you will have enormously difficult questions to settle, you will have big questions, touching every fringe of our lives, and you must pave the way for dealing with these questions. Therefore you must get this Bill over for the present. But does not the hon. Member allow that in the settlement of all these questions one of the fundamental points is that they must depend upon the form of the electoral reform that you now adopt? The form of the House that you get elected which must depend upon the framework of this Bill which the hon. Member now insists we must pass through as rapidly as possible. The first principle of settling all these important Questions, which I agree with the hon. Member will have to be settled after the War, will be what is the body which is to deal with them? I, on the contrary, contend that a Parliament like this which has passed its prime and which is at all events dwindling to the decrepitude of old age is not the body which can settle these basic, these fundamental questions. It is all very well to say, "Accept this compromise, it is a good one." I have not a word to say to that. But what I do say is that you cannot tell at the moment about the changes and results that will follow this War. The thing is not clear at the moment. I admit that the questions which the hon. Member for Leicester referred to are all questions of importance, but they rest in the first instance fundamentally upon this first question which we are now asked to decide in the heat, hurry, and anxiety of the War.

Upon this first primal question is to be formed the body which is to decide, and that must decide, upon the form of your electoral Bill now. Anyone opposing or even casting doubts upon this Bill is exposed to a very easy, specious, and popular criticism. We are told that we fail to accept the decisions of conferences, or a compromise arrived at by a conference. I was very glad to listen, as I have listened to the various speeches to-night, to the very able defence put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood for the proceedings of the Conference. A better defence could not have been put forward. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman never deserted his party allegiance, and that he did honestly believe in the proposals to which he appended his name. I openly confess that I am very little of a party man. I do not really attend very much to the question of whether this compromise is in favour or against any particular party. At this moment we have reached far too perilous and critical a point in the history of the nation to be touched by any such question as that—and I am sure he agrees. I was glad also, and I accept it with the greatest agreement, that he pointed out that none of us here ought to be suspected of speaking in party interests if we speak on one side or the other in regard to this matter. We are speaking, I am perfectly certain, most of us, in a very conscientious belief of what we think is desired in the interests pf the country, and really he is a very poor Member of Parliament at this moment who cannot despise and set aside the party interest in considering a question at a moment so critical to the nation as this.

I am quite ready to accept the compromise when the time comes for considering it. I confess openly that I have some doubt as to the constitutional power of this Conference to assume the authority of Parliament, and then to have it thrown down our throats, as it has been in certain organs of the Press, as binding us and limiting our judgment. I am not going to discuss the particular proposals of the compromise. I think they may be very fair, although when I glance over them they are not altogether in conformity with my views. I see great difficulties as regards female suffrage, and I am perfectly certain that if I examine my conscience honestly I shall find that my opposition to that has come from the belief, mistaken or otherwise, that the granting of the suffrage to women will be against the interests of women in many ways, and is against what I believe to be the views of the majority of the women of the country now. I put that aside. I am quite ready when the time comes to look at the compromise, but when we are next told: "You must accept this because you accept in this way the ending of most troublesome questions," I wonder whether that is really put forward seriously. Do hon. Members who urge this think that if you pass this or any other electoral reform bill all the chicaneries of registration, all the power of the caucus, all the petty local disputes about elections, all the elements that draw us one from another will disappear, and that we will all throw our arms around each other's necks and say that we were all always of the same opinion and have only just now realised it? Is not there an infinite diversity of opinion which will show itself even after you have passed this pacificist reform Bill just as you have passed other reform Bills in the past? Surely many of these disputes will arise with just as much acrimony. We need not hope that the roseate picture drawn by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) of a universal reign of peace where no longer disputes will interfere with elections is ever going to appear.

:The right hon. Gentleman's speech in my mind seemed to reflect some such picture. We are told, further, that we are opposing a popular extension of the suffrage. So far as I am concerned—and I think a great many others are concerned—that is simply not true. I would be very glad to see a shortened period of registration, and an extended suffrage, so long as it is carried on, on what I consider to be the lines that we have followed in the past. I have doubts about this very wide extension of the suffrage to women, but at the same time I am quite ready to say that if I find the opinion of the House and of the country turns to that proposal it will be the duty of myself, as I believe it will he the duty of anyone else, no longer to fight the point, but cordially to seek the best arrangement for carrying it into effect. But is it so urgent that this addition of some two or three million people, or even six millions, to the electorate is to be a great turning point in the whole history of this nation? One would think from listening to some of the speeches that we were in the position of some of the Russan people before they found an outlet in the revolution as a means of throwing off a long epoch of slavery and servitude. Does anyone think that the Reform Bill is really going largely to increase or effect the main stream of democratic movement that has asserted itself long since in this country far too strongly to be gainsaid? We do not require political changes of a far-reaching character. Our stream of democratic feeling is passing on easily and safely without let or hindrance. There is no man now in this country who needs fear the repression of his opinion or needs fear having full liberty. We are not like other countries who can only assert their liberties by the stern acts of revolution.

Let us take a parallel much nearer to our own. Let us look at the country where democracy rules as it does here. Let us look to that closest of our Allies, France. There, as here, democracy is safe, needs no guarantees, needs no defence. What would we think if we saw France at this moment turning to electoral reform, to re-arranging a departmental division, to trying to renew the old disputes between scrutin de liste and scrutin d'arrondissement which occupied so much of the debates in the French Chamber in other days. Would it be too strong a thing to say that we should feel then as though our great Ally were possessed of a form of epidemic madness to enter at this moment on such matters of dispute? Even if we were ready at this moment to consider it, I would like to know whether we are certain that our constituencies are prepared to do so. Have the constituencies realised that in this Bill the whole electoral machinery of the country is at this moment to be thrown into the cauldron? Have they really taken up fully and carefully the discussion of this question? Do you think that if they did take this up there would not be many more expressions of opinion from all parts of the country than already exist? I think myself it will come with the greatest surprise to the country when they find that this Parliament which they thought occupied only with one business, that is the business of the War, is launching itself on what cannot but be a bitter and protracted debate? Narrow it down as we may try to do, smooth down our divisions as we may try to do and shall try to do, do you think that, even in spite of that, it can be anything but a long protracted and sometimes bitter debate, and do you think our constituents will be ready to pardon us for occupying our time in that way? I think I can only say that the strongest argument of all in my mind is this, you have as a nation and as a Government only one business that ought to absorb us, and that is the War. Let us accept and examine compromise, let us turn down no compromise at present. For the moment we have only one duty, and let us not allow anything to interfere with it. Some words that Shakespeare puts into one of his characters keep running in my ears:

:It is gratifying to observe what a large measure of support from all quarters of the House has been given to this Bill. To-day's Debate augurs well for the ultimate success of this important piece of legislation. The criticism which has been offered in the course of the Debate has followed two main lines. There is, first of all, the general criticism, reiterated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, which is directed against the proposal that this Parliament, at this time, in this emergency, should undertake a Bill of this kind, and secondly, there is a series of specific criticisms directed against particular provisions of the Bill. May I say a word, and a word or two only, on each of these matters? The Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) assured the House, and I am sure he meant it, that Members do not obstruct because they like obstruction, and he gave the House an agreeable travesty of the proceedings of your Conference, Sir. But, after all, travesty ought to bear some kind of relation to the actual facts. For my own part I entirely fail to follow his argument. It is not, after all, the supporters of this Bill, still less the authors of this Bill, but it is the opponents of this Bill who maintain that this House has become so toothless, I think he said, so moribund, that it cannot at this stage embark upon an undertaking of this magnitude. The Noble Lord appeared to think that the Government, for some reason not at all clearly stated or suggested, had gone out of its way gratuitously to embrace the difficulties of this task. The fact is, as I imagine every Member of the House knows perfectly well, that the Government has undertaken this task from duty and from necessity. It has undertaken the task from a duty of a twofold character. There is, first of all, the duty which most Members of the House I fancy, in their hearts recognise, of providing the machinery that is to give us a Parliament fit to deal hereafter with the problems that will arise out of the War. There is, secondly, the duty, which I am sure every critic of the Bill recognises, of taking proper steps to secure that the gallant men who by land and sea have been fighting for their country shall not find themselves at the end of the War deprived of their right to vote. It is that second duty which involves the necessity, because all experience has shown that it is a practical impossibility to undertake the task of providing against the disfranchisement of the sailors and soldiers without opening up the general topic of electoral reform. The Noble Lord seemed in one passage, at any rate, of his brilliant speech to deplore the fact that at a juncture like this a measure of this kind should be put before the House. I do not know what others think, but for my own part I cannot help thinking that it is a matter not for regret, but, at any rate, for some satisfaction, that for the first time in our political history a serious attempt has been made to deal with the franchise, the redistribution of seats and the remaining problems of electoral reform, not as the result of a prolonged and embittered struggle between political parties, but as the result of an agreement between political parties. That attempt has so far succeeded in producing a compromise which is generally acceptable to reasonable members of all parties, and the sole function of this Bill is to give to that compromise legislative shape and form.

I now pass from that more general matter to deal in a word or two with some of the particular criticisms which have been levelled against individual provisions of the Bill. The first of these criticisms, both in order of time and I venture also to think in order of importance, is the criticism which says that the Bill fails to make adequate provision for the enfranment of the sailors and soldiers. Indeed, the hon. Member for the Bridgwater Division (Colonel Sanders), and I think also the hon. and gallant Member for Central Finsbury (Lieutenant-Colonel Archer-Shee), went so far as to say that in this important, in this vital, respect the Bill actually fell short of the resolutions of the Speaker's Conference. May I deal with that matter, and may I say by way of preface—I think I hardly need to say—that collectively and individually all the Members of the Government are supremely anxious that adequate steps shall be taken to avoid the disfranchisement of any of these brave men, and if it were the fact, as I believe it is not the fact, that the Bill in its present form does fail in some particular to provide adequate machinery, that is a difficulty which we shall cheerfully and promptly remedy? But how far is it true to say that the Bill falls short of the recommendation of the Conference in this respect? I venture to think the truth is quite the other way and that in very important particulars the provisions of the Bill as it now stands not only give effect to the recommendation of the Conference, but go beyond it. What is the recommendation? It is Resolution number 32.

"During the continuance of a war in which His Majesty is engaged, and for a period of twelve months after the termination thereof, any person to whom this Section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a Parlia- mentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for the war."

The House will observe that in the Resolution the term that is employed is "who ordinarily reside in this area." It was clearly necessary to give some meaning to those words, and the meaning which, in fact, the Bill has given to them is that it treats them as meaning "who in ordinary circumstances"—that is to say, if there were no war—"were resident in that area." What is the complaint that is made? It is said that under the Bill the burden is cast upon the absent sailor or the absent soldier to take pains to see that he is not disfranchised. Nothing could be further from the fact. If Members will kindly turn to the First Schedule of the Bill (Rule 5, at page 23) they will find this provision—the marginal heading is "Duty of registration officer to prepare electors' lists":

"It shall be the duty of the registration officer to prepare or cause to be prepared lists (in this Act referred to as electors' lists) for each registration unit within his registration area of all persons appearing to be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary or local government electors in the spring and autumn register respectively, and to publish those lists in the form in which the register is to be framed."

And so on with regard to each list. So that no less with regard to sailors and soldiers than with regard to any other persons, the duty is cast upon the registration officer to see that those electors are put upon the list. If the matter stopped there the Bill would still be giving effect to the Resolution of the Conference. But it by no means stops there. The words that are used in the Resolution are the words I have already quoted, "who ordinarily reside." Yes, but under this Bill we have two different qualifications. One is the qualification of residence, and the other is the qualification of occupation of premises, and the Bill as it stands provides that the absent sailor or the absent soldier may get his vote, not only in virtue of a qualification of residence, which he might not fulfil, but in virtue of the qualification of occupation of premises. More than that—and this is really the provision, a misunderstanding of which, if I may say so with respect, has given rise, I believe, to the view with which I am now dealing—not only is it the duty of the registration officer to put these men upon the lists, but, over and above that, there is given to them a right to claim, and a right to claim of a peculiarly advantageous kind. Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 says:

"The statement of any person claiming to be so registered, made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that he would have had the necessary qualification but for the War, shall for all purposes be sufficient."

If the registration officer fails to ascertain from the material before his hand or from the inquiries that he is able to make on the spot from the relatives of the absent man there may be a claim, and the mere statement made on behalf of the absent sailor or soldier, verified as provided, is not merely to be primâ facie, but conclusive evidence. It is a misinterpretation of that additional, that cumulative provision which has given rise to the present misunderstanding. But the provisions of the Bill go even further than that. Not only have we provided, as the Resolution of the Conference suggests, for persons serving in His Majesty's forces, but we have provided in the same Clause for persons ejusdem generis who are not in terms included in the resolution. The provision is not limited to persons who are sailors or soldiers, but it includes persons engaged at the front on railway work, and women who are engaged in nursing. When the hon. and gallant Member, whose zeal in this matter we all respect and admire, comes to look a little more closely at the Bill as a whole, he will see that his criticism is not merely without foundation, but rests upon a view of the Bill which is contrary to the fact. I repeat, however, if that should not be so, and if it should appear in the course of this Debate that a loop-hole has been left which can be stopped up, and that something can be done to make it more certain that no disfranchisement shall follow upon the noble work of our soldiers and sailors, that loop-hole shall be stopped and that remedy found.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation of two other points? The first is about the phrase "during the continuance of a war" and twelve months afterwards. Why were those words inserted? My second point is about soldiers serving in the War and soldiers not serving in the War. Why were the words "is abroad and" inserted. I am very glad to hear the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman on the other point, and I dare say I was wrong about it.

:I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, but I am not quite sure that I follow his question. The words are "during the continuance of a war in which His Majesty is engaged and for a period after the termination thereof."

:The answer to that which occurs to me is—in the case of such a person no difficulty ought to arise upon the ordinary qualification of residence.

:I want to know whether he would be qualified for his own home or the place in which he is serving if, according to the report of the Conference, I gathered the intention was that he should be qualified for his own home? The effect of this Bill seems to be that a soldier in time of peace and a soldier in time of war serving at home is qualified not for his own home but for the place wherever he may be serving.

:I am not saying it was not made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech, but it is a new suggestion, going beyond the resolution of the Conference in another particular. The resolution of the Conference is based upon residence, and the question of residence is one of fact. If Salisbury Plain were the place or his established home that would be the place of the soldier's qualification of residence. The suggestion, as I follow it, is that it would be more convenient to provide that a soldier shall vote for some other place, but what place I do not know—where he was born, where he was when he enlisted, or some other place. I agree that the Bill does not provide for that.

:This point is rather important. I have got here the terms of the Committee's Report:

"It shall be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain, as far as possible, the names and addresses of all persons of full age who ordinarily res de in his area, but who are serving in His Majesty's Forces——"

There is nothing about home or abroad and nothing about a time of peace or of war—

"and such persons shall be qualified to be registered and to vote as Parliamentary electors within that area."

I took that to mean that they should vote for their homes, and that is what I am anxious to get. I want to have it clear whether, according to the terms of the Bill, we are going to get that or something quite different.

:The answer is that the soldiers referred to will get what was recommended by the Speaker's Conference. Different considerations will apply according to whether the particular soldier was a member of the old Army or the new Army. If a member of the old Army, it may well be that his home was, in fact, in barracks, but whichever it was, whether he belonged to the old Army or to the new Army, the question where his residence ordinarily was is one of fact.

:I venture to think that it does, but if it does not, it is a matter which may well be considered in Committee.

:Is there any reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see why a soldier should be the less possessed of a residence under the Bill than anybody else?

:May I ask whether any man who has at present a vote in a particular constituency will be disfranchised by the Bill?

:From what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, it appears that he may.

:I pass from that which appears to be a point for the Committee stage to deal with another criticism. It was suggested with regard to Clause 1, Sub-section (2), that it would be possible for an ingenious election agent to import into a constituency a number of persons to sleep there for one night, the last night of the qualifying period, and so get a qualification in the wrong constituency. The hon. Member who made that criticism failed to pay sufficient attention to the fact that the words of Sub-section (2) ( a ) are "must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency."

And persons imported in that way and for that period would certainly not be held, or ought not to be held, to be residing in the constituency. It is quite true, as was said by more than one hon. Member in the course of the Debate, that this Bill refrains from giving a definition of "residence." The task of defining residence is a task of no small difficulty. It is a matter which has occupied and embarrassed the Courts on many occasions, and the decisions are not all upon all-fours. It is a difficult question of fact and of law, into which the further difficulty of intention enters, and the Government has decided—I think wisely and prudently decided—to refrain from the difficult task of providing a definition of the term "residence," believing, as the Government does, that sensible persons, having before them the facts of a particular case, will have no difficulty in arriving at a sound conclusion.

:May I ask the Solicitor-General whether it is not a fact that a person who has lived for six months in Dulwich may go and live for one night in St. George's-in-the-East, and by that means be qualified for a vote in St. George's-in-the-East at the next election?

:Unless my view of the Bill is entirely wrong, the answer to the right hon. Baronet's question is in the negative, for this reason, that a person who moved in that way for that purpose and for that limited time could not properly be held to be residing in St. George's-in-the-East.

:These are matters which seem to be more appropriate to the Committee stage. We are now discussing the general principle of the Bill.

:There were other particular matters to which, if time permitted, I should have liked to refer, but I refrain from doing so for the reason which you, Sir, have just mentioned, that they seem to be more appropriate to the Committee stage. But there are two matters to which, perhaps, I ought to refer. My right hon Friend the Member for Nor- wood (Sir H. Samuel) asked me in terms whether, upon an appeal from the decision of the registration officer to a County Court, it would be practicable for the registration officer himself to appear before the learned judge of the County Court. I believe that the intention of the Bill is that the registration officer should be able to appear in person before the judge of the County Court in precisely the same way in which to-day he appears in the revision Court. Whether machinery will have to be devised in order to give effect to that intention I am not at present able to say, but certainly, as I understand the purpose of the Bill, it is to enable the registration officer to avoid the expense of instructing a solicitor or briefing counsel.

The remaining matter, which I cannot pass over without saying one word, was a matter mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waltham-stow (Sir J. Simon). He referred to the work of Sir Arthur Thring in the drafting of this Bill. I should like, if I may, to associate myself most cordially with the expressions he employed concerning that distinguished and brilliant draftsman. The discussion—no doubt the close and protracted discussion—of matters of detail will hereafter be necessary, but to-day, at any rate, the House is concerned with the principle and purpose of this Bill. If there were any doubt as to the temper in which the Bill as a whole ought to be regarded by the House, that doubt would be at once removed by a glance at the origin and the history of the Bill. What was the problem and what was the emergency that gave rise some ten months ago to the exacting and patient labours which have at length produced this measure? It was the problem, no longer to be avoided or postponed, of creating a worthy foundation for the Parliament which is to be fit to perform the great work of reconstruction after the War. What is the electoral basis, and what is the distribution of electoral power best calculated to equip that Parliament for its unexampled task by making it in the truest sense representative of the opinion of the country? Those were the questions which from last October to January occupied the attention of Mr. Speaker in a Conference eminently representative, as we are assured and as we know, of the various shades of political opinion in Parliament and in the country upon the special topics connected with electoral reform. Of the way in which members of the Conference did their work the House has the best possible evidence. That evidence is contained not only in the Resolutions which they have formulated but also in the tribute that is paid by you, Sir in your letter to the Prime Minister, to the admirable temper and the conciliatory disposition which all members of the Conference showed in grappling with the difficulties confronting them. May I without presumption, and without offience, express the hope, which is also the belief, that in determining these great and difficult matters the House in its turn will manifest a disposition no less conciliatory and a temper no less admirable. A great man has deplored the mischief of not having large and liberal ideas in the management of great affairs. That is not an accusation which can be brought with fairness against the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, whose Resolutions are reproduced, and I hope faithfully reproduced, in the provisions of this Bill. The Bill seeks to accomplish at least two enormous tasks. One is the task of enfranchisement. The other is the task of giving us clearer law and a simpler system. The second is only less a work of enfranchisement than the first. In other words, the purpose of the Bill is, with the least possible trouble, to give the largest possible number of qualified persons the Parliamentary vote and to secure for each vote its due and proper weight. In pursuance of this purpose the Bill sweeps aside the complicated and redundant, and, in some respects, the obsolete provisions of the existing franchise law, and substitutes a simple franchise on the broad lines of six months' residence or six months' occupation of business premises. An end is put for ever to the system under which a man may be excluded from the register for a period of nearly two years, and prevented from voting for a period of nearly two and a half years. The cumbrous and dilatory methods of the existing system of registration are in like manner superseded. Not only will there be henceforth two registers instead of one—that is a register coming into force on 15th April and another on 15th October—but every registration area will also have its registration officer, whose astonishing duty it will be not to keep a qualified person off the register but actually to put him on.

I pass over other provisions of the Bill. It is not in vain that all polls are to take place on one day. It is not in vain that some limitation—not a limitation entirely acceptable to one great party in this House—is to be put upon plural voting. It is not in vain that the payment of registration expenses and returning officers' charges is to be a payment from public funds. I am quite sure that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) may at least reflect with pleasure that henceforward the university franchise will depend not upon a man's ability to find a certain sum of money, but upon his ability to take a certain degree. With regard to women's suffrage and proportional representation, I will only say this, that those who support the first are convinced—and, as I believe, rightly convinced—that the cause is just. Those—and there are some—who understand the second, assure us that it is quite simple. This measure is a compromise, brought about in a spirit of compromise, and I trust that in that spirit of compromise it will pass safely not merely through its Second Reading, but through its subsequent stages. I will only add that, amid the anxieties and uncertainties of this unprecedented time, it is satisfactory indeed that this House, voluntarily and without pressure, deliberately and in all sincerity, with good hope and good will, should be applying itself to the task of making the representative institutions of this country more truly deserving of the word representative.

:This Bill has so many aspects that it would be impossible to touch upon them all, and as I had the honour to be appointed a member of the Conference to help to deal with one particular aspect of the Bill, I hope I shall be excused if I deal chiefly with that aspect to-night. It is not that I wish to put that forward as if it were the whole question before us, but it is an economy of time if one sticks to that particular part of the subject with which one is familiar. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) made a great attack upon proportional representation, which is the aspect of the subject on which I desire to speak. He put before us his well-known objections to that principle of election—objections which he has put forward in the country for a long time. I welcome the fact that he considers some of his objections have been entirely met, or met to a very great extent, by this Bill. He admits that the question of expense has been largely met by the provisions for the payment of the returning officers' expenses, by the provision for the candidate sending his literature freely through the post to the electors, on one occasion at any rate, during the election, and the provision which prevents outside organisations flooding the constituency and spending money. He admits that is all to the good. I, of course, agree that they are all to the good, and I think they go a very long way to remove any fears that there may be as to proportional representation pressing hardly upon poorer candidates and poorer parties.

But far more important to my mind than this is the fact that in every country where proportional representation has been applied and in almost every country where it has been asked for and not applied it is the poorer parties that have asked for it and supported it, and it is a fact that in South Africa, for instance, when a certain party at municipal elections in the Transvaal poured out money very freely in the attempt to get hold of the representation in those cities it was entirely unable to do so. The poorest party represented there was able to get two quotas of the votes and get two members to represent it, and no power was able to prevent the poorer party from getting its fair share of representation. Before I consider my hon. Friend's objections in detail, I should like to point out that a great many of his colleagues in his own party very strongly support this system to which he objects, and that the Labour party, of which he is so distinguished a member, has decided to support the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference as a whole, including the proportional representation Clauses. However, it is only right that his arguments should be considered. He said that it was the ideal of those who favoured proportional representation that the man returned should not be a regular representative of a party, but should be what I think he called an anarchistic representative, a man who came here to put forward some extreme strange notions—anti-vaccination or something of that sort. The answer to all that is that that is not the ideal of the people who support proportional representation. Under the system proposed in this Bill a man to get into this House must have a quota. My hon. Friend's objection was that under this Bill a man would have to get too large a number of votes, over too large an area. But surely that is an answer to his own allegation that some individual would come in here detached from party, a mere anarchist in politics. As a fact, proportional representation is found to maintain the parties. In Belgium, after about seventeen years of the system they have the same three parties that they had at the beginning. In Tasmania, after three general elections under proportional representation, they still have the two parties that they had when the system came into operation.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating the proof of the proposed system is how it is liked by the people who have tried it. The fact is that no people who have tried it have given it up. My hon. Friend quoted the case of Tasmania. There were certain difficulties there. I am not going into details now, but my view of those details is not the same as that which he put forward, but they did abandon it for a short time and then they found out their mistake and they went back to proportional representation, and still adhere to it; and such difficulties as they have found are not due, as my hon. Friend thought, to the greater power of the party machine, but to the too great independence, as some think, of one of the members who were elected, which is the very opposite of what I understood my hon. Friend to put forward. Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, Würtemberg, South Africa, Tasmania—in nearly all parts of the world countries have adopted or are adopting this system. In our own Colonies and in the United States it is making its way. Legislation everywhere is on the road for adoption. Within the last few days we have heard that it has been adopted in principle in Russia and, I understand, in Roumania. On the very day of the introduction of this Bill we heard that it had become law for the election of the House of Commons in Holland. Therefore, we are in line with the other democratic nations in trying this system. The Solicitor-General rather joked on its being so simple. As a matter of fact, the system proposed for England is the same as has been tried in Johannesburg, where you have a large number of people who know very imperfectly the English language; yet, in spite of that, the elections there were carried out with a very small proportion of spoiled votes, and with practically no trouble at all. Therefore, we have the right to say that it is extremely simple. All the elector has to do is to take the ballot paper and mark 1, 2, 3, and 4 against the names he prefers; but if any difficulty were found, it might be explained to him that it was very much the same thing as his marking horses in a race 1, 2, and 3, in the order he preferred them. There are very many ways of achieving the result of proportionality in the representation of any country. My hon. Friend seemed to object because there is this variety of ways; but, after all, in all election systems there are very great varieties of ways in different countries, and if the result is brought about, I do not think there can be any objection to its being effected by various methods in one country and another. My hon Friend said that what he called virile minorities should have more power than would be given them by their numerical strength. That I entirely object to. I am a great believer in giving minorities representation in proportion to their strength, but I for one do not acknowledge that it is desirable to give minorities representation in excess of their strength. My hon. Friend spoke of virile minorities, I think we might rather call them pushful and very often wrecking minorities. My objection to the present system is that very often such a minority has far more power in a constituency than it ought really to have, compared with the great mass of quiet citizens.

It is all very well to sneer at counting noses, but, after all, I have always understood that it was the very essence of all democratic government to count the number of people taking one opinion and the number of people taking the other. I still, for my part, adhere to that general rule. I think you ought to give the minority only that share of representation to which its numbers entitle it. The hon. Gentleman said that the three-member constituency was too small to give any real proportional result, and that in a three-member constituency a man to be returned would have to get 25 per cent. of the votes. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing that a man should have to get that result. I quite agree that for most purposes it is better to have larger constituencies, but until the system has been thoroughly tried, people are naturally shy about having very large constituencies. These three member, and four- and five-member constituencies will be ample to enable us to test the system, and they will give representation to bodies of opinion that would find it exceedingly difficult to get representation under our present system. What is more important, or quite as important, is that it would prevent minorities getting, as they do very often under the present system, a very unfair share of representation. You have cases at present of a town divided into three single-member constituencies, and owing to the concentration of population, you have one of those constituencies carried by a large majority by one of the parties and the other two carried by small majorities by another party. The result is that in that town, and it is not an imaginary, case, but one which has happened several times or in a county the minority of voters get a majority of seats. That is a gross hardship, and the virtue of the system proposed in this Bill is that the majority of seats is secured to the majority of voters. My hon. Friend denied that there was any case where a minority of voters in the whole country had got the majority of the seats, but in the election of 1886 I think it has been clearly proved that if you make anything like a fair allowance for those constituencies which were not polled there was a minority of voters one way and the minority of seats went the other way. Those figures were before the Royal Commission on Electoral Systems, and they accepted them as being as near as it was possible to get at the truth.

My hon. Friend also said—and it has often been said—that the Unionists of one part of the country may monopolise the representation there, and that the Unionists of another part may not get representation there, but that that comes out fair on the average, and that, for instance, the Birmingham Unionist can represent the Welsh or Scottish Unionist. I think one has only to state that argument to condemn it in the mind of any fair-minded man or any man who has a real grasp of what representation is. The Unionists in Wales surely have the right, if it can be arranged, to be represented and to express their own views through their own chosen representatives, and cannot be expected to have their views put before the House by the representatives of Birmingham, who have other work to do and cannot possibly be in touch with the Welsh Unionists, as their own repre- sentatives would be. That argument of my hon. Friend is very much like the argument used at the time of the great Reform Bill, when it was said that it did not matter much, Manchester being unrepresented, because wealthy Manchester cotton spinners had gone down into Cornwall and bought a borough there, and came in for a Cornish borough and represented Manchester. Under the system sented Manchester.

Under the system proposed in this Bill there will be very close touch between the representatives and the electors. It is sometimes said that because the constituencies were large that touch would be small, but the mere fact that the people will be represented by their own men will keep them in close touch. In Birmingham at the present time a really strong Liberal or Labour man is almost certain to get a seat elsewhere, because the chance of being returned in Birmingham is nil, and he is wanted by his party in this House. Under proportional representation each of those parties would get representation there, and they will therefore be careful to put forward their strongest and best local men. The touch between the constituents of these men will be very close, because these men will be well known to the constituents before they stand for Parliament.

It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

Charity Bills

Church Lands (Bristol, St. Thomas) Charity,

Essex and Herts Clergy Charity,

Birmingham Churches Fund Charity,

Congregational Chapels Charities,

Baptist Chapels Charities.

Bills considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Presbyterian Church (Crook) Charity Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1:

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

:May I ask how much longer this is going on? I do not mind a few Bills, but I think we ought to draw the line somewhere.

:This is the last.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

House adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes. after Eleven o'clock.