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

I will state shortly the grievances which the Bill attempts to remedy, and then the methods by which it is proposed to do that. The Bill seems somewhat lengthy, but, in order to avoid the charge that it was a piece of Chinese legislation, the existing Statute—the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886—has been repealed, and then re-enacted with the necessary Amendments. We could have made this Bill quite short, consisting only of two or three Clauses, but we should have had to fit it into the existing Statute, and that would have left the Bill open to the charge often made against legislation that it is Chinese legislation. This Bill deals with a very important branch of our law, namely, the law relating to family and domestic relations, which I may shortly term the law relating to parent and child. The Bill affects and seeks to ameliorate that law. Under the existing law, where any difference or dispute occurs between father and mother as to the guardianship, maintenance, or education of their children, assuming there are no serious charges of misconduct against the father, the Courts, on being called upon to decide, have laid down the rule that the father's wishes must prevail. The scales of justice are thus unduly weighted in favour of the father. This rule is fundamental, and applies also to cases where the parents do not resort to Court to settle the matter. The father knows, and the mother is conscious also, of the fact that should they have to refer to the Court the father's wishes will in the end prevail.

I will state the law shortly, and I hope other lawyers who are present will correct me if I am wrong. The father of A child has the sole right to say where it shall live, how it shall be brought up, and if the wife does not choose to live where he directs he can take the children, certainly if they are under 16, away from her. If there is a difference of opinion between the father and mother, the father's opinion must prevail, whether he has the property or not. There is no statutory rule, or rule of common law, that some children shall be given to the mother and some to the father. A case was decided some years ago which brought out this state of the law, as I have shortly explained it. It is a case well known to all lawyers, namely, the case of Agar Ellis v. Lascelles. In that case the Master of the Rolls laid it down, and in so doing he was only stating what is the common law of the realm—of course, I am speaking more particularly with regard to England at the present time; I shall deal with the law of Scotland later: legislation has been to put man and woman, husband and wife, on equal terms both as regards their property and all other civil rights, and the claim is now made, and the Bill embodies it, that the wife should be treated on an equal footing with her husband in all cases of the control and up-bringing of the children. This claim is but a phase of the application of the principle of equal citizenship of women before the law.

The law is also defective in another respect, and that is as regards the liability of parents for the maintenance and education of their children. There nowhere exists in English law a clear, definite enactment that parents are bound to maintain their children. It is true that through the medium of the Poor Law they can be compelled to maintain, educate, and bring up their offspring, but that is only if they are taken to the workhouse. The father or mother can at any time take them away again. Therefore, that remedy is somewhat illusory. It is proposed in this Bill to take the opportunity of amending the law in this respect and to put in the Statute a clear, definite statutory obligation on the parents to maintain and bring up their children according to their respective means. In order to bring the law into consonance with the ideas I have outlined it is proposed to repeal the whole of the Act of 1886 and to re-enact it, altering Clauses 2, 3 and 5 in it by the substitution of the new enactments which appear in the Bill. The Sections of the old Act of 1886 are substantially these: Section 2 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, enacts that on the death of a father the mother is to be the guardian alone or jointly with others, and the third Section says that a mother may by deed or will appoint in certain cases the guardian after the death of herself and the father. Those are the two substantial Sections of that Act which it is proposed to alter.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend correct in stating that, under the Act of 1886, the mother may appoint a guardian on the death of the father? Is it not that she may nominate provisionally a guardian, and that the appointment will have to be confirmed by the Court?

The mother of an infant may by deed or will provisionally nominate a person or persons to be the guardian or guardians of such infant after the death of herself and the father, and the mother of an infant may by deed or will provisionally nominate a person or persons to act as guardian or guardians after her death jointly with the father, and, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the father is unfitted to be the sole guardian, the Court may confirm the appointment. In other words, the Court has discretion as to whether the mother's will shall prevail or not. This Bill proposes to repeal these Sections, and proposes to substitute other Clauses, of which Clause 3 is the most important. Clause 1 is merely a recitation Clause and Clause 2 repeals the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, so as to clear the board. Clause 3 reads: really only carrying out the principle laid down in Clause 3. Clause 4 says: b ) that the Court shall have regard to the welfare of the infant and the conduct and wishes of the parents. Then paragraph ( c ) provides: g ) and ( h ). Taking ( h ) first, it provides that in the event of failure of any person required to make such payments, the court may authorise the sums payable under the Order or any part thereof to be deducted from his or her wages.

Paragraph ( g ) reads as follows: reaching a decision without resort to the Court.

I have seen in the Press an objection that there may be a difficulty where there is only one infant, and that the Court may have to resort to the expedient of Solomon as to the custody and maintenance of the child. We have already had in our colonies Statutes on similar lines to this, and none of those fancy difficulties has occurred so far as is known. The Bill will make it clear that the father and mother will have equal rights as regards the guardianship and upbringing of their children, and where unhappy differences arise between them the scales of justice will not be weighted against the mother. It will enact that equal rights be assured and that as far as possible there be equal responsibility between the parents for the maintenance and education of the children. Thirdly, it will provide that in case of the death of either parents there will be power of appointing a joint guardian to act with the surviving parent.

With the consent of my English colleagues, may I now address my Scottish colleagues, if there are any here? The Bill applies to Scotland as the existing statute of 1886 applies to Scotland. I may be charged with having attempted to deal with Scottish law by an English Act. My excuse is that the existing law does that. The law in Scotland in regard to the maintenance and education of children is a little more advanced than the law of England. The right of guardianship is not absolute after the child attains the age of puberty, 14 in boys and 12 in girls. I suppose we come to maturity rather sooner in Scotland. The old Statute of Charles II does not, of course, apply to Scotland, but at common law the father has authority to nominate by will tutors to his children. The tutors would not in all probability be entitled, as against the mother, to the custody of a child under 7 years of age, and there is some authority, I believe, for the view that the mother, on the failure of the father, had at common law a right of custody. There are no wards of Court in Scotland. The obligation of parents to aliment their children is clear at common law in Scotland. The obligation falls on the mother failing the father. In asking the House to give a sympathetic considera- tion to the Bill, I would respectfully remind my colleagues that this is in no sense a political measure. I would refer especially to my colleagues of the Coalition group. We are bound by election pledges to carry out the programme which was outlined in the famous letter of November, 1918, just before the General Election of that year. We are committed to the principle of equal citizenship as between man and woman. In that manifesto it is stated, "It will be the duty of the new Government to remove all existing inequalities of law as between men and women." I have protested against the construction sometimes put upon that phrase. It has been used with reference to the franchise. The Franchise Act under which we are now here was passed just before the Election took place, and none of us had in our mind that we were going to rip up that settlement. Such a construction has been put upon it. That proposal must be dealt with on its own merits. I have dissented from it, and I take the view that we are entitled to say that that phrase did not apply to that branch of the law. But if there is any point, in existing laws or in common law, where there is an inequality between men and women, I hold that we are bound to get rid of it. This inequality in regard to the guardianship and maintenance and upbringing of children is one of those inequalities.

The Bill has received a great deal of support. The House is entitled to take what view it thinks fit in the interest of the whole community, but I am bound to point out that the Bill is largely supported throughout the country, especially by women's organisations. I have here a list of organisations which have stated publicly, by resolutions and otherwise, that they are in favour of the principles of the Bill. I will give the House some of the names contained in this comprehensive list. It includes the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, the Women's Co-operative Guild, the National Union of Trained Nurses, the National Council of Women, the Church Army, the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene, the National League for Health Maternity and Child Welfare, the Catholic Women's Suffrage Society, the British Women's Patriotic League, the Women's International League, the Federation of Women Civil Servants, the State Children's Association, the Women's Local Government Society, the Union of Jewish Women, the Conservative Women's Reform Association, the Young Women's Christian Association, the Women's National Liberal Federation, the Scottish Mothers' Union, the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Workers, the National Women Citizens' Association, the Scottish Christian Social Union, and I could name many others.

It is said that there is no precedent showing how this Measure would work, but I may state that there is at the present time, in certain of our Colonies, Statutes on substantially the same lines as this Bill. There is such a Measure on the Statute Book of British Columbia, which was not brought to my notice until after this Bill was drafted. I will read Section 5 of that Statute, which has been in operation for four years, to show the House how similar it is to the present Bill:

I beg to second the Motion.

It would be much better if I did not speak at all on this Bill, and if we put it to the Vote at once, because I think the House is unanimous—apart from a few glaring and notorious exceptions—in wanting equality between men and women. Therefore, I do not wish to dwell upon it, and I would much rather see the House proceeding to a decision, because what we want to do is to get the Bill through, and the sooner we get it through the better. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Bill has stated its provisions very clearly, and even if hon. Members have not read the Bill his statement has been clear enough to enable them to see what it is all about. What are the principle objects of this Bill? The Mover has referred to it as bringing about a drastic change, but in putting it that way he was a little hard upon it. The first great object of the Bill is to make the mother the legal parent of the child. [HON. MEMBERS: "The legal guardian."] No, the legal parent of the child, because at present a mother has no legal rights. She is, of course, the parent, but she is not the legal parent. The second object of the Bill is to make both parents equally responsible for the maintenance of their children, according to their means. The first object, as I have said, is to make the mother the legal parent of the child.—[ Laughter. ]—I am not surprised that the House laughs, because it is a most extraordinary thing, when you come to look into it, that a mother has no legal right over her children. It is amazing, and very few mothers know it themselves. It is only the unfortunate mothers who know it, and know it too well. Men are apt to make very alluring promises, and I do not blame them in the least. Jeremiah says: brought up in any religion, in any environment and under any conditions he likes. His opinion is final, even where the mother is the sole supporter of the child—and in many cases the mother is the sole supporter of both the children and the father—yet she has absolutely no legal right. This Bill also makes it possible for the mother to appoint a guardian to act after her death. Take the case of a woman who is unfortunately married to a rotter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, we have to look the facts in the face, and there are some of both sexes. When she comes to die she realises that she has to leave a large family under the guardianship of a man who has proved a bad father and a bad husband. The Bill stops that, and I am sure that will appeal to hon. Members. Our children may find themselves in that predicament some day.

The Mover of the Bill has referred to Mr. Wade, the Agent-General for British Columbia. He read an extract from Mr. Wade's letter, but as I should like some hon. Members to hear it again, I shall repeat what he says about the operation of this law in British Columbia—

Let me give the House a case of what can happen under the present law. It is the case of a man who, while living with his wife and children, brought another woman, a bad character into the house. He ordered his wife to entertain her and be polite to her, and he said that if she did not receive this woman that she (the wife) would not be allowed to have any control and any say in regard to the children of the marriage, and that he would not consult her about them any more. The mother refused, and the husband carried out his threat. He left her, taking the children with him. On the death of this husband some years after, he left a relative, who was opposed to the wife, as the testamentary guardian of the youngest child, who was then 14. He also left a proviso in his will that the child if, when he came of age, came into the presence of the mother for more than six days in the year, he forfeited his inheritance. I do not say it is a typical case, but I do say it is a case possible under the law as it now stands.

The second objection is: it is urged that in marriage there must be one parent who rules. That is very good for the Turks, but not for Anglo-Saxons. After all, people nowadays are beginning to look upon marriage as a sort of co-partnership, and the thought of an autocrat in marriage, whether male or female, is a mast unattractive one. But the marriage laws as they stand now make possible the existence of autocrats. This is no longer the feeling of the younger generation. Things have changed. I know it is a little difficult for hon. Members to realise that things have changed—perhaps they have lived too long in the East! We say there should be co-partnership and equality of conditions. Take a business partnership—which may be an equal partnership. If there is necessity to go to law, as sometimes happens, the judge judges not from the point of view of a particular partner, but on the facts of the case, and that is exactly what will happen if you give both parents equal rights. If they are forced by law to go to law the judge will judge according to the facts, apart from the conditions of partnership.

Another objection is that this amendment of the law will lead to endless wranglings in Court. If I thought that I would not be very anxious to see it passed. If I really believed that people would take cases into Court more than at present I should be sorry. But I believe it will keep many cases out of Court, and I will tell hon. Members why. If the husband knows that the wife will get exactly the same consideration in Court as himself, he will be all the more anxious to come to a reasonable agreement at home. Now, the husband realises and the wife realises, that if the case goes to Court everything is, as we say, loaded in favour of the husband. There are many men and women, if their heart is not right, who will keep straight through fear, though they may not love each other very much. Again, this Bill is not a Bill for ordinary good husbands and wives like ourselves! It is to be used against our erring brothers. It is said that no guardian should have equal rights with a surviving parent. But that point is not new to this Bill. All that it does is to make the law equal for men and women.

Again, there is a great objection as to the maintenance. The Mover of the Second Reading said he thought the provisions were rather drastic here. I do not think they really are drastic, if you look at it from the point of view of the children and not the parent. As it stands now the woman, and particularly the poor woman, suffers. The rich woman, if her husband is not supporting the children, can pledge his credit, but the poor woman unfortunately has no credit of her husband to pledge, and she may have to go to the length of applying for a maintenance order and breaking up her home, or stay and see her children neglected and her home going to ruin. People who know these matters say that this Bill will do more to preserve the home life than practically any measure affecting children that has been brought before this House of Commons. The Bill also sets up some very useful machinery. I have just dealt with the question of maintenance orders, which it is difficult sometimes to get, and still more difficult to enforce. This Bill makes it—and I believe there is a slight opposition to this—possible for the maintenance to be deducted from the wages or income. It is right that we should take money out of the wages if the father or mother do not bring up their children properly. We have the right to do it.

The position is most extraordinary now. A man may be ordered to support his wife and children, but if he goes to gaol the whole of the debt in this regard may be wiped out. There was a case the other day where the man had 18 years' maintenance wiped out by one month in prison. That is an extraordinary state of things. You might think it very strange that a man would be willing to go to prison for a month rather than support his children. But we know that such cases do come up very often. The principle of this Clause has already been passed in another place. The second piece of machinery which is most valuable is, that this Bill allows cases to be brought before police magistrates' Courts. That is to say, it brings the Courts within reach of the poor. Now, in guardianship cases, the parties have to go to a County Court or a higher Court.

I urge the House—though I do not think there is much need to do so—to pass this Bill. I think they will. It only asks for equality of men and women in this matter, and it is really passed in the interests of the children. With few exceptions, most hon. Members here want to do what they think is best for the children of the country. I think I am right in saying that most of them want to do that. If they look at this Bill, and if they consider the societies who are backing it, societies which are not only political, but of all sides, creeds, and sections, I think they will be convinced. It has been very astonishing to me to note how few Members are here to-day, because no Bill that has been introduced since November, 1918, has caused more interest among women than this equal guardianship Bill. I urge the Government to pass it. They say they will take the Whips off, but we know what that means. I ask them not only to take the Whips off, but I ask them to say something which will give Members a lead in this matter.

This is a Bill which will not cost the country a penny, so that not even the Anti-Waste party can object to it. It is a Bill which all people want. It takes nothing away from the men, but it really gives a great deal to the children. I do hope the Government will remember that some day, when it comes to an election—and Governments do remember that sort of thing when they have to face the electorate. They have given a lot of promises. I do not mean to say that the Government is the only party that uses women's votes. All parties are alike when it comes to women. You will find men in the Coalition party who are as keen as mustard about things affecting women, and the same is the case among the Liberals and the Labour party; but you will find men in all these parties who only give lip service to them. I do not want to say a word against my Labour friends and colleagues, but they know as well as I do that some of the greatest anti-feminists are amongst their numbers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Women know it. The Coalition is notorious, but all parties are alike. However, the whole weight of the women's societies and all right-thinking women throughout the country are looking to see what the House does to-day. I think I can leave it in the hands of hon. Members, and I do not want to hear a voice from the East.

1.0 P.M.

In spite of the long list of associations read out by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig), I have not weakened in my intention to oppose what we have just heard. There is a good old English proverb, which will bear analysis, that if two people ride on a horse, one of them has to sit in front. The only point is, which is to sit in front and hold the reins? [An HON. MEMBER: "Give them a horse each!"] That means divorce, and we do not want a new Divorce Bill. We are talking of ordinary family life, in which one must be the master. I am quite prepared to say it should be the woman, but I prefer it should be the man. It must be one or the other, it cannot be both, and to say that this Bill would make the child in any way happy—why, it simply means that the poor child would be the shuttlecock of its father's and mother's idiosyncrasies. The hon. Member who has just spoken said she did not want to hear a voice from the East. I have spent some years of my life in the East, and there is one gentleman in the East, and he is the Turk, who accepts her view entirely as to the management of children, because the children in all the Mohammedan countries—and there are millions of Mohammedan subjects of the Crown—remain with the mother, the boys until ten years of age, and the girls, of course, until they marry. The boy is absolutely the mother's for ten years, and at the end of that time he passes from her surroundings and is guided by his father. There are some people who do not care very much for the East or the Turk, and call him a Bashi-Bazouk and things of that kind. But that is his view with regard to children. My hon. Friend may say that in these countries divorce is easy. It is remarkably easy. I do not think it is easier than in some other countries—far from it. But there is one point in the Mohammedan law of divorce which works very favourably to the women. If a Turk marries a woman who has a little money, say £100, and he divorces her, he is obliged to return her that £100. In most cases the husband mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite has spent the money which belonged to his wife, and it is exceedingly difficult for him to find that £100; but, if he does find it, then, as my hon. and gallant Friend, who is a Scottish Member, will tell us, "and then the auld brass will buy her a new pan." We are told that a woman accepts the promises which the man makes before marriage, and, of course, the man accepts the promises which his wife makes him before marriage. In more civilised societies than in the East, perhaps, we put those promises in writing, and if they are in writing before the marriage then the remedy lies with the Court. It is the simplest of simple arrangements, and the promise that the man made before marriage has to be carried out, or the Court will know the reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Are they not carried out?

They are not legally binding.

They are absolutely legally binding—the promises a man makes before marriage in the form of a settlement.

May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in the case I cited—I am not sure the promise was in writing—the husband before marriage had promised his wife that the children should be brought up in her faith. After the marriage, he changed his mind, and as there was no moral misconduct alleged against him, his view prevailed, and they were brought up in his religion.

I am as well aware of that case as my hon. and gallant Friend, as I have the honour of belonging to the same profession. But that was a question of religion. The man was of one faith, and he agreed to bring the children up in that faith. He changed his faith. He believed the faith he had left to be a false religion, and he went to the Court to know if the Court could force him to bring up his children in that religion. The Court decided. I can give another case. A woman, a Roman Catholic, married an Englishman, and they agreed that the children should be brought up as Protestants. At his death guardians were appointed. What did she do? There were two little children. She did not wait for the Court or the guardians, but she took the first boat to Spain, and brought the children up as Roman Catholics in one of the provinces in Spain. You can weigh one case against the other. In one case the woman defied the law and took advantage of a Roman Catholic country, and in the other case the man went to law. It is a vast change which this Bill proposes to introduce. To take an example: if husband and wife go to sea and are drowned, the law supposes that the husband, being the stronger of the two, shall survive his wife. Is that equality between the sexes? It is a matter of great importance, when there is any money to be divided, as to whether the husband or the wife died first. If we make this change we must make a change right through the law, and we must not confine it to one particular instance.

It seems to me that the tendency of this Bill will be to prevent men marrying and to prevent women marrying, but especially the man, if he is not to be able to bring up his children as he likes, whereas if they are illegitimate, they can be brought up by anybody. The tendency will not be a moral one, and the tendency of this century is distinctly in advance so far as morality or immorality is concerned, so that we need not give it a further push in that direction. Anything that makes for illegal unions between men and women lowers the position of the woman. It is only in Christian countries that the position of the woman is what it is, for in- stance, in England; in all other countries the position of the woman is inferior. She has taken 2,000 years to reach her present position, but she will not take two to revert to the position in which she is a bondwoman and a slave, and I say at once that she will assist in that, because women of the East are as a lot absolutely happy in what we call their servitude. The women in the harem or zenana would not change places with what they call the bold, brazen creatures who uncover their faces and their backs and figure in what we call Christian society. I would think my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, if I did not know him well, had been bitten by Lenin and was looking forward to a vast and happy world in which free love was to govern. To me that offers no attraction, and never did. [An HON. MEMBER: "And never will."] I take that as a compliment, but that is the tendency, and it is a tendency which can only lower women, and any tendency that lowers women is one which we must and ought to fight. There are in every Bill some parts which one would like to see made into law, but in this Bill it seems to me that out of the 15 Clauses there are exceedingly few which I for one would like to see on the Statute Book, and it gives me pleasure to oppose it.

I admire the courage of the last speaker in opposing a Bill of this sort, and in maintaining the gradually decaying cause of the male. I am not at all impressed by the long list of societies quoted by the hon. Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig), nor by the large number of letters which I myself, in common, I suppose, with every Member of this House here present, has received from various women's societies in support of this Bill. I am bound to say that I feel obliged to give my testimony against these women's societies, who persecute us with the woman's point of view in regard to almost everything. The proper point of view is that women are equal citizens with the men, and should not have any sort of sectional point of view at all; but the spirit which is endeavouring to lift women into a sort of trade union, up against all the other sections of society, is against the spirit of citizenship as it is at present conceived in this country. I myself am more persecuted by women's societies than by any other form of elector, and I am bound to say generally that they seek interviews with me upon questions which I blush to discuss with them very much, on account of my entirely modest nature. Leaving that point, however, we come here to the root conception of citizenship in this country, that the male and female ought to be equal, and particularly that is the case, I should say, with regard to all the status involved in marriage. The old point of view, which has been stated so ably by the proposer of this Bill, seems to be a survival of the old days in which the reigning theory wag patria potestas, the idea that woman was a perpetual inferior and unable to contend against the superior intellect of the male or to be given the guidance of any affairs whatever, either in the family or in the world outside. I admire a person who is bold enough to maintain such a superannuated point of view. He seems to be on the same level as those people to whom I have just alluded, whom I regard as suffragettes out of a job and still carrying on superannuated discussions of the ground-down quality in the female against the super-eminence of the male.

Here, however, you have a ground like this, in which, if there is any superiority between the male and female, it ought to be given, and is by nature given, to the female. After all, in the world of nature it is the female, the mother, who is charged by the great mother nature with the superintendence and the guidance of the young. It is to the mother, and not to the father, that nature has given the tending of the young. That is her particular sphere; her whole instincts, her heart and mind direct her towards that sphere. If between the two there is any preference to be shown, it really should be shown to the mother, and that is recognised by Scots law just now, because in proceedings for divorce and separation the guardianship is generally given by the Court to the mother. It is the presumption that the mother is entitled to the guardianship as long as the child is below 10 years old. As a Scotsman and a Scottish lawyer, I do not resent being put into the same Bill as the English nation. That is a position which we are proud to occupy, and, really, all this Bill does is to keep the law much in the same state as it is now, as far as Scotland is concerned. It has been tried and found good in Scotland. It is presumed when the interests of the two clash that the father is to get the custody of the child. This measure abolishes that, and puts the Court in the position of holding the balance equally between father and mother. That is all it does as regards Scotland, and I welcome the introduction of this new principle. I think the proper attitude towards marriage is to regard it as a partnership, and not as an institution where patria potestas is supreme, and where nothing can stand against the husband's will or influence. I know there is something in the Church service about their being one flesh, and man and woman one flesh, but it seems to me that that theory means that there is one flesh, and that is entirely the father's, and not the mother at all. That contradicts alike nature and religion, and the tendency of modern law.

There is only one other point I should like to raise. It is proposed that the predeceasing spouse should be able to leave a guardian to act along with the surviving spouse, but that proposal does not meet with my approval. I think when one spouse predeceases, the natural right of the surviving spouse should be paramount and exclude all strangers. It has been said that the proposal of this. Bill does give a right to a spouse predeceasing who is leaving her children to a "rotter," I think he was called, to appoint a guardian, but that may be all very well, and it may be the other way. The predeceasing spouse may be the "rotter," and she is leaving a relative of hers to be a thorn in the side of the surviving spouse. This may be of use in some cases, but it is likely to be the other way. The surviving spouse should have his or her natural right of having care of the children. With that qualification I support the view of the tendency of the law in my own country, and the tendency of the general intellectual attitude of the whole country that the mother should be placed in possession of all the civil rights on equal grounds to the man, and that in the family relations the mother should have, and is entitled at least to have, equal rights with the father in the management and custody and guardianship of the children.

I desire to say a few words on behalf of my colleagues and myself in regard to the Bill now before the House. It is to be regretted that there has been a tendency to develop the discussion on the question of the abstract rights of the woman as against the man. The real intention of this Bill in seeking to establish a greater form of equity in that direction is not merely because of the position that has been previously established as between man and woman, but rather in order to better safeguard the interests of the child. It would be better if we could consider this Bill rather more from that standpoint. We may be sure that in the past the interests of the children have been handicapped and limited by the law as it stands, and this Bill, if passed, will not in any way create a condition of things which will operate in any other direction but in the interests of the children who may be involved.

In the past there is no question that the interests of the children in many respects, when differences have arisen between parents, have been very seriously jeopardised. There is no question as to the limitations placed upon the mother as regards many of the responsibilities that a parent should exercise towards children. Therefore I am glad to be able to say that those with whom I am associated are very pleased to give their support to the Second Reading of this Bill. I desire, however, to point out that it may be necessary in Committee to ask for serious consideration to be given to some of its Clauses. We view with a certain amount of apprehension the Clause which would give the right of a deduction to be made from the wages of a workman. Previously the law has been to protect the wages of a workman from deduction being made by an employer except for the purpose of insurance and things of that description. It could be shown that legislation of this character might in some respects defeat the object it has in view. I do not think the general feeling of employers is in favour of having too many of these obligations placed upon them, and it seriously affects the question of bookkeeping and matters of that description, and in the end, if disagreement arises, it might ultimately result in the discharge of a workman or differences and disputes arising whereby the employment would come to an end, and the position of the man as an unemployed person certainly would not be improved as a means of enabling him to carry out his obligations in that respect.

I do not want it to be assumed that we have any desire to create circumstances whereby the workman or the husband will be enabled to get out of his responsibilities towards his child. Nothing of the kind. We recognise fully the principles on which this Bill rests, and we want to see the law so made that in regard to these unfortunate circumstances or conditions that do sometimes arise in married life—and we have to recognise the fault is not one which is entirely on one side—as to enable any Court called upon to adjudicate to be in a position to determine the whole case upon its merits, and in a way that will contribute to the best interests of the children who may be involved. Viewing it from that standpoint, we are in hearty accord with the principle of the Bill, but we hope that the promoters of it will be prepared to give close examination to some points in Committee.

I propose to vote for the Second Beading of this Bill, and I have no doubt that its general principle will commend itself to the great body of people in this country. We have accepted the idea of equal citizenship of men and women as part of the political philosophy under which we live, and it is very difficult on abstract grounds to raise any valid objection to the measure. At the same time, there are three or four specific difficulties of which I as a lawyer feel very conscious in relation to this Bill, and I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig), who has introduced it, or some of those who are going to speak afterwards in support of it, to deal with these questions which seem to me to involve very considerable difficulties. Laws of this type have a tendency, however much one supports them in principle, in the first instance, to outrun public opinion, and in the second instance to be unworkable in practice. I am afraid that there are certain provisions in this Bill which do not accord with public opinion and which will be extraordinarily difficult to work out either in the ordinary practice of life or in the ordinary practice of the Courts.

The House must remember that we are not dealing with husbands and wives who live harmoniously together. Normally, questions like education, religion, and residence, are all settled by mutual agreement between husband and wife, and couples of that character do not really come within the purview of the Bill at all. We have to deal with cases where, unhappily, the husband and wife are not in full agreement. It does not follow for a moment, as the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has suggested, that the one or the other must be a rotter. Both may be perfectly respectable and God-fearing people, but at the same time they may have the unhappiness to live in disagreement. It seems to me that Clause 3, which is a very important part of the measure, and which gives absolutely equal rights to a husband and wife against whose character nothing can be said by either, but who have the misfortune either to live apart or together in disagreement, will be extraordinarily difficult to work out. At the present time, as the promoter of the Bill stated, the husband's rights are paramount, unless it can be shown that he has been cruel or immoral and that it is essential to the welfare of the infant that he should be deprived of the infant's custody. Historically, the view which the law has taken of the husband's position is based upon what the Courts call the sacred rights of the father to have the final decision with regard to everything which affects the well-being of the child. I think, even if it had not been based upon that principle, it would have been based upon the rule of convenience. Some rule of convenience is essential when a Court is called upon to adjudicate between husband and wife against whom nothing can be said on questions affecting the welfare of the child.

The husband may wish his child to be educated at a boarding school. The mother may wish the child for equally good reason to be educated at a day school. How is the Court to interfere under Clause 3 and to decide that question unless it has some rough and ready rule directed by the doctrine of expediency to say that the wishes of the one or the other must prevail? It is the same with regard to the calling in life or to the residence of the child. On all these questions, even although this Bill provides that the rights of husband and wife shall be exactly equal, the Courts in practice will be bound to adopt some doctrine of convenience, possibly one by which in the case of boys one line of ruling is followed and in the case of girls another line of ruling. My hon. and learned Friend alluded to the question of religion. That has been the main substratum of cases which have gone to the Courts, where husband and wife disagree with regard to the bringing up of children, and heretofore the Court has followed the view of the father unless there is actual cruelty or immorality. It is quite impossible for the Courts in the working out of this measure to compromise on the question of religion where the husband and wife take different views. The husband wants the child brought up as a Protestant and the wife as a Roman Catholic. How can the Court adjudicate so as to afford equal scope to the wishes of both husband and wife in a case of that sort? You cannot compromise between somebody who is a keen Roman Catholic and somebody who is a keen Protestant by saying, for instance, that the child must be brought up in Anglo-Catholic tenets. It would satisfy neither. You would have to decide one way or the other. It seems to me that those who are responsible for this Bill will be very well advised if they incorporate in Clause 3 some provision whereby specific direction is given on these very material points, because the Courts will be absolutely unable to give equal power to both husband and wife. Whether it is done by following the religion of the father in the case of boys and the religion of the mother in the case of girls I am not concerned with now, but there is a real lacuna in the Bill which those who are promoting it would be very well advised to fill up at the earliest opportunity.

I should like to follow an hon. Gentleman who spoke (Mr. Jameson) in protesting against Clause 6 in its present form. Clause 6 provides that after the death of a husband or a wife the guardian whom he or she may appoint shall act jointly with the surviving parent and have equal power with him or her. That is a most amazing proposition. I wish hon. Members would apply it to any case within their own knowledge or to themselves if they should be so unfortunately circumstanced. Take the case of a man who has behaved perfectly well and who has had the custody of his children, but who has had the misfortune to be separated from his wife. His wife makes a will appointing her sister, brother, parent, or some friend to act as guardian after her death jointly with the husband who has had the custody of the children all along. Can it be seriously contended that it is sound policy that the husband in such a case should exercise authority only equal to that vested in the guardian nominated by the wife who has not been living with her husband and who has not had the custody of the children at all? It is absolutely bad in principle and also entirely unworkable in practice. If a question did arise between a guardian so appointed and a surviving husband or wife and the case went to the Court and the Court was directed by statute to give equal authority and power to this testamentary guardian and the surviving husband or wife, it would be absolutely impossible to comply with the provision. What the Courts would do would be to adopt a doctrine of convenience ad hoc and to give paramount importance to the wishes of the surviving parent. Clause 6 in its present form is unworkable, and I respectfully make that suggestion to those promoting the Bill.

I should also like to raise a third point, and a very important one, with regard to Clause 4. That seems to me to introduce into the English law the doctrine of legitima portio, which is quite alien to English law, but which has a place in the Scottish law, and is derived from Roman law. My hon. and learned Friend will tell me if I am incorrect, but take the case of a husband who is worth £18,000 and a wife worth £2,000. The wife dies, and, relying on the wealth of the husband, she leaves her £2,000 to someone away from the family. In a case like that, how is the one-tenth of the joint fortune belonging to the wife to be charged with a tenth of the cost of the future maintenance and education of the children? It seems to me that on the true construction of this Section such a charge would be imposed. Of course, it is an absolutely novel doctrine in English law, and it is very difficult to work out in practice. Where the wife leaves her property to vest immediately in certain beneficiaries, it would be impossible to say what would be the future contingent liability of her estate to meet the expenses of the education and maintenance of the children, and as a result the distribution of the estate would have to be hung up for an indefinite time. These are objections which appear to me as a lawyer, but I think the points which I have raised must commend themselves to any citizen who is not simply swayed by sentiment and who wishes to see this Bill passed. I do not want to stand in the way of the Bill having a Second Reading. I heartily congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on having had the opportunity of bringing the measure forward. It is on sound lines, and I hope that, subject to the points which I have brought forward being met, it will have a prosperous passage into law.

I cannot deny I have been considerably impressed by the difficulties raised by the last speaker, but I think he will see that they can be dealt with very well in the Committee stage. I should like very briefly to say why I desire to support this Bill. The hon. Member opposite from his store of Eastern experience gave very strong reasons against the Bill; very strong according to his view. But he has overlooked one thing. He gave as an analogy the case of a man and his wife riding a horse. Analogies are sometimes dangerous when followed out, and one thing he overlooked is this, that whatever arrangement may be made by any legal system, the man and woman, just as man and man, or woman and woman who have entered into partnership will eventually arrive at this position, that the one with the stronger character will really have the direction of that partnership. That has been the history of our race from the earliest times. Even the cave woman who was clubbed after a short time was pretty well able, to use the vulgar phrase, to curl her husband's hair if she wanted to. I think this Bill in principle will work in that direction. My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the law in Scotland which undoubtedly gives a woman more equality with the man, particularly in all domestic matters. I do not want to obtrude this on a House which, we all recognise, is mainly English. But the whole tendency is to establish equality, not artificially, but simply to remove undoubted handicaps. A woman essentially good and sensible, but not quite so strong-minded or subtle as some of her more fortunate sisters will, by this Bill, be put on a better plane of partnership with the husband with whom she has to live. In the interests of the home as a whole and particularly of the children, we must welcome this Bill as a very decided step forward in removing artificial inequalities and allowing partners in marriage to work out their own salvation according to which is the better of the two.

As one who is essentially an ardent supporter of any movement for greater protection in the upbringing and care of infant life, I hope I may be allowed to be a discriminating supporter, and to point out one or two difficulties which must be faced by this House whenever any radical measure of reform is brought forward. The difficulties are too much contemplated as being confined to cases in which one party or the other is definitely and obviously in the wrong. It is in view of those cases that this measure has been brought forward. As has been said, we are in danger in this Bill of introducing a general system which would cover an infinitely greater number of cases where there is no moral difference between the two partners, and where, whether the partners agree or disagree, the case is not plain as against one or the other. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) ventured into the realms of natural history, in which he is not, perhaps, quite so deeply versed as he is in questions of law. He seemed to suggest as a generalisation that nature provided that the mother has the care of the children. That is a grotesque error and misrepresentation of nature. Nature takes the thoroughly straight forward and natural line that marriage is a partnership. The father has his definite duties and the mother has her definite duties, and the mother has the more intimate domestic duties. But so long as she requires protection and the provision of food from outside, it is the duty of the father to provide it, and he carries it out. There are obvious very melancholy cases, even in the wilder haunts of nature, which possibly my hon. and learned Friend may have had in his mind, and also in civilised animal nature there are instances where, as in the case of a bull, which leads a separate life, the whole protection of the young is given to the mother or to the cowherd in charge. There the bull is not doing his duty as nature intended him to do. The greater part of this problem must obviously refer in the main to ordinary marriages, which work out, thank God! in such a vast number of cases, perfectly happily, and here, whatever differences there may be between parents, their whole, effort is concentrated on the welfare of the child.

That is where the difficulty seems tome to come in in accepting Clause 3 as it stands. I share with the hon. Member for West Edinburgh the complaint against the communications that have been addressed to us asking us to vote blindly for this Bill. I feel that either they have been based on the sentimental and natural love of children, which has our complete support, or they have in a certain number of cases been based upon or anyhow tinged by, a general effort for the advancement of what are called women's rights. I think it is clear that the one must not be mixed up with the other—that this whole problem of the guardianship of infants must not be in any way damaged by any suggestion that in this way we are deciding for women's rights as apart from the rights of the infant. That is the danger which I see in Clause 3. I do not see why support should be given to a general pronouncement that the father and mother shall for all purposes have equal authority, rights, and responsibilities. Of course in theory we all agree with it, just as we all agree with the theory of equal citizenship between men and women. The whole difficulty is, as has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst), to interpret that in actual points of law. How are you going to do it in actual cases? Where does equal responsibility come in? The family has to be a business arrangement, and generally the business is quite clear. If it comes to any difference of opinion, each side has an equal vote, but the casting vote is given to the husband. That is, and must be, the way in which it generally works out, namely, that when it comes to a question of difference, there must be someone eventually who shall decide.

This Bill proposes that it shall be the Court. Of course, in the last resort it must be the Court, but I should have thought that the general structure of the Bill would have been sufficient if you left out the general declaration as regards the equal rights and responsibilities of the two parents—which is obviously true—and were simply to say that, when difficulties arose, then you could go to the Court and have Clause 5 and the rest of the machinery of the Bill. That is the only point that I shall make in connection with the Bill, namely, that we should beware of mixing up a greater and entirely different subject—that is to say, the subject of the distinction of duties between father and mother—with the object with which I think we are unanimously in agreement, namely, the promotion of the welfare and the custody of the child.

One is glad to observe that the opposition to this Bill is by no means serious. The hon. Members who ventured to oppose it did so, I think, from a very peculiar point of view, which is not at all in accord with modern thought or opinion, and which. I am sure, will carry very little weight in this House. Therefore, there is no necessity to argue the case for placing the woman on an equal footing with the man in respect of the guardianship of children. Nevertheless, a most important point has emerged in the course of this discussion, and one which will have to be faced particularly by the representatives of Labour. Objection has already been entered against the proposal to make deductions from wages in respect of any Court decision regarding the maintenance of a child. I always anticipated that, when we came to deal with this matter in a practical fashion, that proposal would encounter very strong opposition. Those of us who have been associated with the Trade Unions and the Labour movement have always very jealously regarded our right to have paid to us our full wages, so that if any deduction has to be made, it has to be a voluntary act on the part of the workman. Nevertheless, I fail to see how we are going to carry out adequately the proposals of this Bill unless we do give to the Court the right to order that deductions shall be made in respect of the maintenance of the child. I recognise that that cuts athwart a very important principle, but I am clear in my own mind that, if we are to carry out properly the purpose of this Bill, this power must be taken. Therefore, we shall have to face the alternatives. If it be, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that we are simply going to leave the matter as it stands now in regard to ordinary affiliation cases, then we are leaving loopholes through which a man may escape the liability which we are seeking to impose upon him by this measure. As the hon. Member pointed out, a man may rid himself, by a short period of imprisonment, of a long-deferred liability, and I want this very important point to be faced.

I remember that during the War the necessity was urged upon us of dealing with the case of the defaulting soldier. I am not going to be dogmatic on this point, because I am not very clear upon it; I have sought to verify it, but so far have failed. I do, however, want the Minister now in charge to take note of the point, in order that we may have, if necessary, the opinion of a Law Officer upon it. During the War there was a considerable outcry in the country, and Members of Parliament were urged to deal with the many cases that had arisen of soldiers who had defaulted in respect of affiliation orders made against them; and, in order to meet that point, power was conferred upon the Courts to order that collections should be made by deductions from the soldier's pay. That was the only way in which this House then found it possible to deal thoroughly with that grievance, which then almost amounted to a scandal. If the House felt that that was the only way of dealing with the matter in regard to a soldier, I fail to see, provided the law still holds in that regard, how we can discriminate as between the soldier and other classes of society. That, to my mind, is the most important point in connection with this Bill, or at any rate, the most serious in its implication. It is one that we must not shirk if we admit the right of the woman to equality in this regard—and no serious opposition has been offered to that, so far, and certainly I would not offer opposition, but would rather support the claim. But how are we thoroughly to implement that right unless we do give to the Court power to order that deductions shall be made from wages or income, as the case may be? While I am anxious to see this Bill passed into law, I do not think that we shall serve any useful purpose by shirking what is, in my opinion, the most controversial point in connection with these proposals. If we found previously, in dealing with the defaulting soldier, that the only way to settle the problem was by giving the Courts power to order deductions from his pay, I cannot see how we can avoid contemplating that as the only certain method of dealing with the question under this Bill.

No.

That is how it appears to me, and I want the point to be faced. I have raised it in order that it shall not be merely glossed over, because, I repeat, no useful purpose is served in failing to recognise that, if we enact it, we shall arouse a great deal of opposition. That is why I have directed special attention to it. On the other hand, I fail to see how it is possible, without such enactment, to carry out adequately the proposals of the Bill. And that is a point I should like to have more fully considered here. I agree that there is a danger in giving either of the parties involved the right to nominate a guardian after their decease. It might be possible, of course, for either of them to design to give great provocation to the one that may remain, and I think this point will have to be very carefully considered in Committee. I am opposed to the proposal, for I believe the one who survives should have devolved upon him or her the right exclusively to determine the question of the welfare of the children. I am sure no one will charge me with a desire to set up difficulties in respect of the Bill. The principle seems to me to secure almost universal assent, but this proposal, which involves deduction from wages, is undoubtedly controversial, nevertheless a most important implication of this Bill, and if we are to drop it I desire to be informed how it is possible adequately to protect a woman placed in the circumstance of having a defaulting husband or other person. Despite that, I feel that the Bill ought to have a Second Reading and that these points ought to be thoroughly thrashed out in Committee.

2.0 P.M.

I desire to say one or two words in support of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) started a very serious objection to it in regard to Clause 3. I consider that without that Clause the Bill would be absolutely useless and meaningless. I do not see what principle a Court will have to go upon without this declaration, which is an essential element in the Bill. There are certain details that I have some difficulty about in connection with Clause 6, and perhaps there might be some modification of Clause 4, but this declaration in Clause 3 of the rights of mothers with regard to their children I take to be the kernel of the Bill. I do not support the Bill because of any mechanical theory of the equality of the sexes. Perhaps too much has been made of that point of view and it has sometimes been carried perhaps too far by some of these women's societies. I get these letters. I received one not long ago in which there was a threat that if they discovered that my name was not in the Division List on this Bill they would write to my constituents. I did not reply to that, because the sort of thing you would like to say in reply to a letter of that sort you could not say to a lady. In the interest of the women's societies themselves and the objects which they may serve, with which I generally agree, a little more wisdom and tact, if not the wisdom of the serpent, as well as the innocence of the dove would be necessary in their propaganda. If I might make that as a friendly suggestion to these women's societies, they will not be the worse for taking it to heart, because we do not like to be bullied, even by women. In essence there can be no objection to the Bill either as a matter of the rights of the mother or in the interests of the child itself. When we consider the tremendous anxiety, the danger and the tremendous amount of suffering which the mother has to experience in her capacity of motherhood, we must admit that hot only has she a right to equality, but if there is to be any preference at all the mother really has the right to have it, because after all the father has not so very much trouble in the upbringing of the children. It has been said that the father has to provide the food. He has, but a good many of them do not have to work even for the food. We have heard it said in this House by a distinguished statesman of some people that they toil not, neither do they spin, and yet their children are fed. But accepting the view that the father as a rule works, after all that is not to be compared with the terrible suffering sometimes and the anxiety and worry of the mother in connection with the upbringing of the children, and therefore not only do I think the mother should be on an equality with the father with regard to any rights connected with the children, but if there is to be any preference at all it should be given to the mother.

I did not hear the hon. Member's last word, whether preference should be given to the father or to the mother.

I do not want to press that, but I suggested that if there was any preference to be given it should be given to the mother, but my view is that it should be a question of co-partnership. The only serious objection to the Bill was from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as I understand, it on the ground that he thinks there should be unity of command in the home. The prospect which he placed before the House of what would happen if the Bill became law has left me cold—free love, the increase of illegal unions, and things of that sort. He had a merry twinkle in his eye when he said it, and I do not think he believes it himself, and there is no need seriously to discuss it, though, of course, questions of this sort are bound to arise when considered in detail, and they can be put right in Committee. On the main principle of the Bill I do not think any valid argument can be urged against it. Even my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir B. Falle), with all his Oriental imagination, was not able to bring any serious argument against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope we shall give it a Second Reading.

We are all agreed on the main principles of the Bill, and I hope we shall give it a Second Reading. It is no use talking about the East. The East is the East and the West is the West, and the less we mix them the better for the future of the race. It is no use making comparisons between the conditions in Eastern countries and the conditions in the West. It does not help us to solve our problems. I shall not attempt to go into the legal entanglements of the question. That gives a glorious opportunity for disagreement amongst the lawyers. One point that alarmed me in the Debate was the statement by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts). I did expect something different from him, considering his early training and associations. I thought he would have come to a very different conclusion, but I suppose things have changed. The only defect in the Bill from my point of view is the Clause dealing with the deduction of wages for the payment of arrears of maintenance. I do not support any persons who desire to evade their responsibilities, but I am alarmed when I read these words:

Therefore, we say that the processes of law are sufficient to compel persons to pay for the maintenance of their children. If we are to accept this Clause it may mean an awful condition of affairs. So far as I am concerned, I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill on the distinct understanding that in Committee there will be a determined effort made to strike this Clause out of the Bill, or to modify it in such a way that it will take the sting away. Let us imagine the right of the employer to make these deductions. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Court!"] The Court makes the order, but it gives the employer power to make the deduction out of wages. I am not quarrelling with the Court making the order, or disputing the right of the Court to make the order, or the right of the Court to enforce the order in a proper way, and I am not defending a man or woman who tries to escape his or her responsibility and liability in the maintenance of their children; what I am disputing is the violation of the Truck Act that gives to the employer the right to deduct out of the wages the amount that the Court has ordered, and to pay that to the collecting officer. It is a deplorable thing to imagine the collecting officer going once a week or once a month to the works or factory to collect the money so deducted. I suppose following that there will be power of arrest if the money is not there. At the present time, with the large amount of unemployment, and the large amount of short time worked, the chances are that the man or woman will be owing a bit every week, and he or she will not be able to earn sufficient to meet the requirements of the law. That would be totalled up until such time as he would Work a good day. Then he will have to keep working a long day to make up arrears. I am here to safeguard the Truck Act which has had such a beneficial effect upon the workers. We are not going to surrender the safeguard which it gives even if it means the destruction of the Bill, but we are agreed on the general principle of the Bill, and are opposed only to the Clause to which I have referred.

I desire to support this Bill. I agree with the position of the last speaker with regard to the Clause to which he has referred, but for a different reason. He objects because he considers it an infraction of the Truck Act. I object from the employer's point of view, because we unfortunate employers have been so harassed with deductions for insurance, unemployment, and every other kind of thing that to impose upon us any further deductions would be to make our pay books an unreasonable size. I understood that the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) also objected to this Clause, and he gave a case with regard to service men. I believe that the framers of the Bill will have no difficulty in altering the Clause in such a way as to make it less objectionable than it is. At a time like the present, when there is so much friction, all causes of friction between employers, and employed should be avoided as far as possible. Everyone with any knowledge of working men—and I have had 50 years experience—wants to be on good terms, with them. We do not want them to have a sense of grievance when they come for their pay, or the feeling that there is a taskmaster wanting to increase their deductions. They think that there are deductions enough, and they are not going to have any more.

I might perhaps be said to be under the suspicion of petticoat government in supporting this Bill. I happen to be the husband of a wife who for 20 years has been an urban district councillor and is a county councillor, and sits on the bench as a magistrate. That position would seem to impose a great obligation on me to support the women's cause. Then I have had the honour in this House of supporting a Bill for the enfranchisement of women at the age of 21. I would be very ungrateful if I failed to recognise the great support which I have received in my own constituency from women. Whether they were right in giving me that support, at any rate, I have received it. The Noble Lady who supported the Bill spoke about the rotter. I could not make out whether she meant the male rotter or the female rotter.

Any rotter.

On the assumption that it was a male rotter, I have had experience of cases in which a woman, succeeding a man who had let his affairs go to merry Derry, and had become bankrupt, nursed back his estate to affluence, looked after children who had been neglected and brought them up as they ought to be. I have the greatest possible confidence in women in cases of that kind and perhaps a larger amount of confidence than other men. I support this particular Bill because although like the hon. Member (Mr. Wignall) I believe that the Clause referred to is objectionable yet I think that it can be modified in Committee. I live in Ireland and I think I am the only Member who has spoken from this Western point of view. So far nearly all the other speakers have been nearer the East. I hope that the Bill will be carried and I am sure that in its later stages it will be modified in such a way as to remove anything which may at present appear to be objectionable.

I wish in a few words to identify myself with this Bill. I do not think that there is going to be any opposition to it in the Lobby. Though I sit on the Labour benches I am not much alarmed at the Sub-section providing for reductions in wages. I agree that it would be very bad to interfere with the Truck Act, but if anything would operate to remove my objection to that it would be a case of this kind. I am not a lawyer and I am not quite sure, but I think that we could manage affairs in Scotland better than that, and that if an Order were made requiring payments to be paid and the payments were not made there would be imprisonment for contempt of Court. Setting law aside I know that there are anomalies and some matters which might require adjustment in Committee, but I think that all of these will be capable of adjustment when we get into Committee. But we have the moral law and as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have deprecated placing in front the duties of the mother as opposed to the welfare of the child I should say that to give the woman equality would be to assist in the right upbringing of the child. I do not know any better course than to give the mother equality. As has been said already she has to suffer the pains and most of the responsibilities of early childhood with the child, and I think that she should have equality when it comes to privileges; and while I want this Bill passed in the interests of the children I also want it passed in the interests of the mothers.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Rathmines (Sir M. Dockrell) was afraid—very few Irishmen are afraid of anything—but he has given us the case of his own wife who is a councillor, etc. We admit our womenfolk to this House and hope to see more of them soon. We compel them to serve on juries and if we give privileges to women and impose duties upon women, then our womenfolk should stand on a direct equality so far as the upbringing of children is concerned. I want merely to identify myself with this Bill because I believe heart and soul in the equality of the sexes, especially in a thing like this. In 99 cases out of 100 she has the upbringing of the child and a right-minded husband does not interfere. But we are legislating for the other kind of husband who takes a special delight in frustrating the hopes of the mother of his children.

I wish to give general support to the principles laid down in the Bill. I have listened to a considerable part of the Debate and what has surprised me more than anything is that the Bill is as good as it is. We were told by the Noble Member for the Southern Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) that the mere male sex is full of iniquity, and I have no doubt that we are.

I did not say that.

Full of wickedness and inequalities. What beats me is how a Bill proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, probably drawn up by a male lawyer, and mainly supported by males, can possibly contain so many good qualities. I must conclude, at any rate, that some of us are improving. The first point I wish to emphasise is that we lay down once for all in this Bill that, as far as the control of children is concerned, both parents have entire equality of rights and entire equality of responsibility, and the responsibility for payment as far as possible equally divided. It is time that we endeavoured to bring our law courts into line with modern feeling on this question. We have been told that Scotland is considerably ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. I am doubtful whether that is the case, but I have not the experience of some hon. Members as far as the legal side of the question is concerned. There is one point in regard to which some definite change should be made in the Bill. It relates to the power of a Court to make an order for deduction from the pay of a man or woman of any sum which may be inflicted under this Bill. I take the view already expressed, that that would be a direct infringement of the Truck. Act. It would hinder and handicap labour severely and it would do a great deal to make it more difficult for the ordinary employer to conduct his business. It would increase his expenditure in book-keeping to a large extent. It would place on his shoulders the onus of collecting payments due by his work people and it would generally make his position less easy with his workpeople. We must find other means of collecting this money. There is another strong objection to the Bill. We have definitely passed a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. In view of the legislation which the Government has passed it is essential that in all measures of this kind Ireland should be allowed to conduct her own affairs without any interference from the rest of the United Kingdom.

I desire in a very few sentences to support the Bill. The principle factor to be considered, in my view, is the welfare of the child. As to the relative equality and position of the man and the woman, I am not particularly interested at the moment, but I am determinedly interested to know how and in what fashion the bearing between the man and the woman shall affect the child. First, I cannot see how idealism of character as well as the full stature of citizenship can be attained unless the law compel the man and woman equally to bear their respective responsibilities for the upbringing of the child, and for providing the child with proper opportunity in its home life. I cannot see how it is possible, if the responsibility be put upon the man alone, for such idealism to be attained. There must be the full and proper bearing on the child both of the male and the female sex. The same thing obtains In education. Many of us know that the neurotic type to be found to-day in certain sections of labour is directly the result of the elimination of the man in regard to education. So we must have a brutalising of the full character of the child if only the man's view be presented to the child.

I represent an industry which employs more women labour than any other in this country—the textile industry. There you see the possibility of a great future for the child in the ideal of craftmanship. I am hoping that the time may come when it will not be necessary for women to work, when women will not take part in the hurly-burly of the rattling boxes of machinery which go to make up industrialism. Here, one sees how vital and essential it is that men and women collectively shall have the responsibility of deciding how that ideal of craftmanship shall obtain in our workshops. We want to lift them above the mere sordid bread-and-butter existence which now obtains. We are the schoolmasters of the new and old nations. If we hope to get that great league and society of nations into full and practical operation, it can only be by the dual application of the sexes in this country in equal rates of legal responsibility, both the man and the woman, in regard to the citizens of the future which will have that proper bearing on the future life of this nation and of the world. For these three reasons, first, for its effect upon education, second, for its balancing of responsibility as between the two sexes on child life in industry and the future of industry, and thirdly, and greatest of all, for what I think will be its effect in the formation of character, I support the Second Reading of this Bill

Having had an opportunity of hearing this Bill debated so far, I think the House is now prepared to give it a Second Reading. I rise for the purpose of saying a sentence or two lest it should be thought that sufficient attention was not paid to the legal points suggested in the course of the Debate. Fortunately, the Bill was in the hands of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig), who was able to state the law accurately, and he has relieved me from the necessity of going into a general discourse upon the subject. An hon. Member has rightly said that this is a Bill not to deal with cases arising in the normal happy circumstances of home life, but rather with cases of difficulty, in consequence of unhappiness in married life as judged from the standpoint of those who may perhaps be compelled to leave their children to one or other of the spouses on their demise.

Perhaps I may make two general observations. I think the Bill when it is dealt with in Committee should be considered from the point of view of the alterations it makes concerning what I may call home life rather than from the point of view that it is designed to complete equal rights of citizenship. I am not at all sure that the Bill has been placed in a proper perspective. It should be considered as dealing with ground which has hitherto been regarded as sacred in the home life of the nation. There is no doubt that a change is made by virtue of Clause 3 and Clause 6, for powers are there given to the wife in the matter of the appointment of a guardian. These Clauses will have to be considered very carefully in Committee, because I have ascertained that, in some parts of the House, there is a feeling that they go too far. It seems to me, however, that all these matters can be adjusted in Committee.

The other observation I desire to make is this. It seems to be assumed, in the speeches of hon. Members, that the Courts have hitherto regarded cases brought before them from the point of view of the father, and the father alone. That is a complete misrepresentation of the attitude of the Courts. From my experience of them, extending over a considerable number of years, I can say to the House that the point of view from which the Courts look at these questions, which are the subject of this Bill, is always the point of view of the children. They always ask what is the right thing to do in the interests of the child, and the Courts have been very careful, indeed, to construe their liberties as widely as possible in order that the interests of the children should be safeguarded. They have passed away from what has been described as the old tradition, under which a father could come in and claim absolute legal rights at the hands of the Courts without any question. When this Bill is in Committee I hope the hon. Members who sit upon the Committee will bear in mind that the general trend and practice of the Courts is to give the greatest latitude in any orders they make for the interest of the children.

Further, I ought to create one more impression, and it is this. In all cases the Courts have always leant in favour of giving the mother the custody and the care of children of tender age. I cannot recall, for my own part, a single case in which violence has been done to those sentiments, which accord both with our feelings and our wishes. It has been suggested that Clause 5, which makes orders for maintenance effective, goes too far. Obviously that can be adjusted in Committee, but something must be said with regard to paragraph ( h ) which, I think, the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean Division (Mr. Wignall) criticised somewhat severely. Without saying one way or the other whether it goes too far or not, it should be remembered that the reason why it is drawn in this way is that unless the words

Perhaps, as a lawyer, I may point out one matter which gives me a great deal of misgiving. That is paragraph ( g ). I am not at alt certain that any person in any rank of life would be quite satisfied to have a copy of some entry in some book, brought forward by some person, without any verification, and to have that treated as evidence against him. It seems to me to be going too far, and it certainly gives me, as a lawyer, a very unpleasant feeling. At the same time, these are matters which can be scrutinised and considered in Committee, and I think the Bill, with the good will of the House, can be sent to a Committee with the clear understanding that these matters must be considered, and that those who have given either a vocal or a silent approval to the Bill, reserve their rights to deal with the points which have been mentioned, and some others, fully and sufficiently in Committee.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

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

We on the Labour Benches think that this measure is long overdue. Some time ago, in the last Session, a little attempt was made by the Minister of Health to deal with and to remove existing abuses. Unfortunately that particular Clause of the then Bill was dropped, much to our disappointment, although the provision in the Bill of the Minister of Health fell a good deal short of what we desire. There is nothing in the proposals of this Bill which has not been well considered by the respective local authorities in the country. I am pleased to see in his seat this afternoon the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association. He represents a very important organisation in the country which has felt the need for what we desire, and substantially the proposals which are in this Bill have been put forward by the County Councils Association.

We think there is nothing very indefinite or obscure in our proposals. In the Memoranda explaining the objects of the Bill it is stated: I am sure if it had been possible, say in the last ten years, for the bulk of our people to have had the opportunity of interesting themselves so as to take an active part in the administration of the law of the land we would not have been involved in the present dreadful crisis. I am confident of that.

We believe that it is the duty of this House to remove any barrier which prevents either man or woman having the opportunity for membership of county councils, boards of guardians, town councils, or any other administrative body, if they have the requisite knowledge and experience and the confidence of the electorate. This measure would tend to widen the field of selection. The men who to-day are barred out from the opportunity of being upon any of these boards and authorities within the scope of this measure because of the great expense of their selection and election will find the task easier. There are almost insurmountable barriers preventing many able men and women being representatives on either councils or boards of guardians. We know men of wide experience, of adequate knowledge, of great energy and initiative, of strength and ability, who, given the opportunity, would be a great acquisition to the community by giving their services to it. They are barred out at present, because they cannot afford to lose the time entailed, or pay the travelling expenses, or to sustain the loss; they cannot maintain themselves while on the board or authority.

3.0 P.M.

This is a reasoned measure, and I feel confident that the Minister of Health will give due consideration to it, at least realising the importance of such a measure towards good government. In many parts of the country we have large numbers of working men upon our county councils. Some of the committees of these county councils meet at least once a week. The wages of these men will not enable them to pay their travelling expenses once a week, whatever their capabilities are, and however much they are an acquisition in administration for the well-being of the country. We think this is a liability which ought to be met by the local authorities. With regard to Boards of Guardians, I know of no institution in the country where provisions such as these are so essential in order that the Poor Law may be humanised. When I make that statement, I mean no reflection on the men and women who have been on these Boards in days gone by, but as one who has served some considerable time as a member of a Board of Guardians, I recognise that provision ought to be made so that at least the wives of working men should have an opportunity of serving upon these Boards. In the administration of the Poor Law there is work which is entirely outside even the horizon of thought of the average working-man, with all his sympathies and knowledge. If this Bill were carried, it would give at least an opportunity to the wives of working-men, the mothers of the very people who fill our Poor Law institutions. There is the unfortunate woman who goes in and out of the workhouse. It is impossible for the ordinary members of boards of guardians to understand her psychology. She thinks that anyone who goes to her is simply bent on giving her a pious lecture. We believe that if it were possible for many of the working-men's wives and daughters to get there, there would be a better understanding, and it would be a big help to these unfortunate people, and it would help in a very large measure to humanise the Poor Law. Then, again, there is the child-life coming under the administration of the Poor Law. I submit there is no one who can understand the needs and the requirements of the bairns that go into these institutions like the mothers of the common people. But to-day it is absolutely impossible for the average working-man's wife to be a member of a board, owing to the travelling expenses incurred. These are barriers which ought to be broken down in the interests of the whole nation, and it is incumbent upon this House to see that, as we extend the franchise, full opportunity should be given to citizens to be utilised in the administration of the law. I am sure the cost involved would be microscopic in comparison with the unproved government we should get, and, instead of being a charge, I think it would be conducive to building up better citizens and to securing peace and tranquillity.

I beg to second the Motion.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that that which is being sought in this measure is by no means a new principle. It is a principle which is already established, so far as this House is concerned, and I think last year, or the year before, it was recognised in the legislation necessary to govern the administration of the agricultural committees that have been set up for dealing with the interests of agriculture in the respective counties. Therefore, what is being sought is merely an extension of a principle that this House has accepted in at least two special instances. We always speak with an element of pride of our constitution, and we claim—I think very rightly that we have, so far as legislative and administrative machinery is concerned, a system that will compare with any other in the world, and the tendency is to make it even more perfect and more democratic year by year. The franchise has been gradually developed. We have proceeded from one stage to another, until at the present moment it is recognised, if not completely, very largely, upon the basis of citizenship, and the right of every man and woman to participate in the administration of the Government of the country, or the county in which they may be interested. We feel that, having extended and developed the legislative and administrative machine of the country up to that point, it is our duty now to see that there is no barrier in the path of any against participating in the obligation necessary for that administration, and that is where we feel at the moment a great anomaly exists.

I do not think it will be claimed in this House that any section of the community has a monopoly of ability so far as public work is concerned. Men and women of all grades of society have taken their place upon public bodies, and have by general consent rendered very useful service. In fact, the advent of men and women from the ranks of what is generally understood to be the working-class, has been welcomed, because their experience has been such as to enable the authority to view better its obligations and responsibilities than otherwise would be the case. I think it will be generally conceded that on our public administrative bodies the wider the experience of those who compose the membership, the better it must necessarily be for that body and the efficiency of its work. We feel that at the present moment there is a barrier in the path of a section of the people which prevents them participating, in public service, and I would like to emphasise the importance of this question more particularly from the standpoint of the rural districts. In doing so, I think I am again entitled to draw attention to the fact that the principle has been specially recognised in the provision that was made in regard to agricultural committees. There it has been recognised that when you make provision for working men to sit upon public bodies which can only efficiently meet during the day, thus necessitating loss of time and employment on the part of those who form part of their membership, it is unfair to ask those individuals to carry that burden.

We feel that the same principle operates so far as the rural district councils, boards of guardians, and even county councils are concerned. The more we create the possibility of all sections participating in public work, the more shall we gain from the people as a whole a respect for constitutional procedure as the best means of dealing with our social problems and difficulties. That is a phase of the question that is worthy of emphasis in this House. It has been suggested from time to time that attempts are being made to belittle our Constitution, and to seek other avenues as a means of overcoming the problems that face us. The more we remove barriers and open up the path to all sections to participate in public life, and the more we make it possible for all points of view to be adequately represented, the more shall we command confidence and respect for our constitutional machinery, and the less likelihood shall we have of disturbance or anything arising that may be considered to be extreme methods. In our rural villages to-day the agricultural worker is very anxious to take his full share in public life. In my native county of Norfolk we have quite a good number on the county council, and in various districts we have them in substantial numbers on the rural district councils. In some instances they are in the majority, and I have yet to learn that their presence on these bodies has in any way or in any degree operated against the efficiency of the work of those bodies, but at the moment the opportunities of these men to serve on these authorities are limited to the extent to which they are associated with some organisation that can compensate them for their loss of time. At the present moment the National Union of Agricultural Workers are compelled out of their funds to compensate their members for the loss of time involved in attending to their public duties. It is a view held by many that it is not a right procedure for trade unions to take to political work in this way, and I would suggest to those who may hold that view that here is an opportunity to take the work and the obligation away from the trade organisations by recognising this work as a public service, in the carrying out of which no member ought to be under any special penalty from the financial point of view.

Take the minimum rate of wage of a rural worker, namely, 46s. a week. A sixth of that would mean that a man would be called upon to suffer a loss of 7s. 6d. from his wages if he had to attend a meeting once a week, and no hon. Member would be prepared to argue that that is a position in which any working man ought to be placed. I would point out also that this is not a provision that is directly limited to those who are supposed to be members of the working classes. It is wider and broader than that, but it has special application to that section of the community, and I would like to suggest to the Minister of Health that, in any consideration he may give to this Bill, he should view this question, if possible, from the standpoint that actuates the pressing forward of this legislation. We are anxious to broaden the basis on which service can be rendered to the community, and if in the ranks of the agricultural worker and in any other section of the community in towns or cities there are to be found men or women of the necessary ability to serve on these bodies, financial limitations should not be a barrier in the path of their giving those services if they can obtain the confidence of their fellows. To-day it is a real barrier, and if we do want to bring into our public machinery all sections of the community, we must, as we have done in connection with this Chamber, recognise this financial difficulty. It may be argued that this is a principle which will lower the dignity of these authorities, but I do not think it will be argued that the dignity of this House or of the agricultural committees has suffered because of that fact, and we ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading whereby it may be sent to a Committee and receive the consideration to which it is entitled. It may be that some of its Clauses are not drawn exactly to the views and opinions of some hon. Members, but so long as the principle is not contested—and I think we have a very strong case to urge in that respect—any little failing the Bill may possess could be adequately dealt with in Committee, and I sincerely hope it will receive Second Reading and be placed upon the Statute Book.

I am sure there is very much in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Bill with which we are all in agreement. No one to-day doubts the importance of all sections of the community being adequately represented on the local bodies, and so far as their arguments referred to the value of this representation, I think they would find common consent. The difficulties that arise on this Bill are not so much on its general principles as on further points. The hon. Member who seconded the Bill, with great ability and ingenuity, invited the House to give it a Second Reading, with the remark that on the Committee stage Clauses could be dealt with which were not drafted entirely in accordance with the views of hon. Members. He adopted such a conciliatory manner with regard to the actual drafting of the Bill that he almost disarmed opposition, but I feel bound, all the same, to point out one or two facts as to the actual Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading pointed out, with perfect truth, that in a Bill not entirely of this character, namely, the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill of the Ministry of Health last year, something of this sort was introduced. The council of which the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins) is chairman duly considered these proposals to pay travelling expenses and subsistence allowances, and they recommended that any expenditure for these purposes should be defrayed out of money not provided by Parliament. Although I have the fullest sympathy with a great many of the arguments used in this Debate I think this Bill goes too far. It must be remembered that all members of local bodies are not members of the working classes, and by these proposals we get into the difficulty of spending public money upon people who can afford to pay their own expenses. I know there are people who cannot afford to attend public bodies and give the services required of them, but I do not understand why some differentiation cannot be made in those cases. Anything which tends to place a further burden on the rates at the present moment cannot be looked upon with any amount of enthusiasm. There are many things which would pass without much comment in ordinary times which to-day we have to look at and scrutinise very carefully. I do not know why some method cannot be found to meet the case which has been made out without applying it to everybody. It is quite true that there is a good deal to be said for paying the travelling expenses of those who have to attend local authority meetings and committees, but I am a little sceptical about this being extended to the conferences and meetings of other bodies. Some of those conferences are useful, but a great many of them are largely joy rides. I think the tendency to attend conferences in London is upon the increase, and I doubt whether the ratepayers who have to pay their own travelling expenses are agreeable to paying their representatives for attending these conferences, with a music-hall in the evening.

Surely the local authorities have that power now. I have known cases where these authorities pay expenses when their representatives come up to London.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the payment of these expenses in attending such conferences is subject to the approval of the Minister of Health?

I do not know that that is the case. I believe those powers do exist in the case of a number of authorities, but not in the case of all.

I believe boards of guardians already have those powers.

We want to extend this principle so as to allow people who are unable to pay these expenses themselves to render public services.

If those powers already exist, then there should be no objection to dropping this provision out of the Bill.

With regard to "joy rides," that power already exists with the ratification of the Minister of Health.

If it already exist then there is no necessity to provide for it in this Bill. Paragraph ( b ) was rejected by the Council to which I have referred. They went into this question on behalf of my predecessor. I also object to it on behalf of the Government. I think it is far beyond what hon. Members really are asking for. It is

"an allowance at prescribed uniform rates in respect of other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost in attending such meetings."

If you are going, to do that, it would be much better to pay all the members of the local authorities, but how are you going to do it? The people attending local authority meetings are in receipt of different wages. Are you going to pay them all at a uniform rate, or for what they actually lose?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Memorandum, he will see that there are reservations suggesting that they must be away from home so many hours.

One member of a local authority may be receiving £1,000 a year and losing so much time, whereas another may be receiving £2 or £3 a week and they are to be paid at uniform rates. I think that principle is quite unsound. After all, we must recognise that public work entails some sacrifice, and brings with it the satisfaction that you are rendering public service, and although it should be made reasonably easy for people to give their services whose means are somewhat limited, I do not think we ought to do anything on the lines of making this a paid service. Hon. Members may say that there is an analogy in the payment of Members of Parliament.

That is the worst thing we ever did.

I will not enter upon a discussion of that question now. The obligations placed upon Members of Parliament show that there is no real analogy between them and the local authorities. I wish to say on behalf of the Government that I hope, whatever happens, that this provision will not find its way on to the Statute Book. In view of the conditions which exist to-day some more limited principle ought to be adopted and that is as far as we ought to go at the present time.

The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Swan) who introduced the Bill referred to myself as speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, and I can tell him that this matter has been before that association for a very considerable time. There is on that body practical unanimity that members attending county councils should be reimbursed their expenses. They agreed with the Bill brought in by the present Minister Without Portfolio (Dr. Addison) which embodied that principle. Last week the annual meeting of the County Councils Association passed unanimously a resolution instructing the parliamentary committee to take such steps as they could in order to get legislation passed at the earliest possible moment to remedy what they believe to be an injustice.

Is it not a fact that at the same meeting another resolution was passed calling the attention of Parliament to the ever-increasing financial burdens placed upon the rates?

Had the Noble Lord waited one moment, I was going to deal with that very point. The County Councils Association's Bill differs entirely from the present Bill in one or two important matters. In the first place, the County Councils Association do not agree with the mandatory principle included in this Bill. Their Bill says that each separate county council may pass a resolution that their members shall be reimbursed their expenses. This Bill is mandatory, and therefore in no way receives the assent of the County Councils Association. The Noble Lord has referred to the question of the rates. If a county council has a discretion to deal with this matter and if it thinks that it is an unfair burden to impose upon the rates, then it will not pass that resolution by a majority. On the other hand, if it is sufficiently wealthy, then it would, as I have no doubt the Durham County Council, so ably represented by the hon. Member opposite, would, at once unanimously pass that resolution. It is a matter entirely for themselves and no one else.

This Bill really deals with three separate matters. It deals, first of all, with the question of the reimbursement of expenses; secondly, with subsistence allowance; and thirdly, with payment for loss of remunerative time. With regard to the question of the reimbursement of expenses, I would point out that this is no new principle. It has already been passed in regard to county agricultural committees. I go still further. I was the first chairman of our county insurance committee, and exactly the same principle has been in operation there ever since the Insurance Act has been put in force. The members receive their expenses, they receive their subsistence allowance, and they also get money for loss of remunerative time. The right hon. Gentleman, unfortunately for those who are very much interested in local government, apparently knows nothing whatever of the subject, and he thinks that there would be a great deal of difficulty with regard to the apportionment of this loss of remunerative time. There is not the smallest difficulty with regard to that question on the insurance committees. We have also had the same principle in operation on the tribunals which were established during the War. At the present moment on these different advisory committees, expenses are paid and different allowances made. Therefore, it does not seem to me that anybody who votes for this question is establishing any new or novel principle. May I point out, as one who has some little knowledge of local government, the very great difficulty in which county councillors find themselves? There is such a thing as the Joint Pauper Lunatic Asylum Board or, as I ought to call it, the Joint Mental Hospital Board. [ Laughter. ] The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) should not laugh.

I did not laugh.

We now call them mental hospitals instead of pauper lunatic asylums.

Yes, and a good many people ought to be inside them.

You have the Joint Mental Hospital Board, and those municipal members who attend get all their expenses, although the meetings are generally held in the town or close to the town where they live, but, on the other hand, the county council representatives coming from a distance of 30 or 40 miles have all their own expenses to pay. Therefore, I do hope that the promoters of this Bill will seriously consider the olive branch that has been thrown out to them by the Minister of Health. I think we could get a permissive Bill allowing county councils to reimburse members' expenses. I agree with every word that has been said by the Minister of Health on the question of loss of remunerative time. It is not a matter on which I am entitled to speak on behalf of the County Councils Association. On the contrary, we are not in favour of it at the present time. I do hope that we shall receive an assurance that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to jettison that provision altogether. If that assurance were given, and then, in Committee, we could get the word "may" substituted for the word "shall," it would have some effect on the votes of those members who are very much interested in this question. It does not affect me personally. I live within seven miles of my county town, if I were given a cup of tea I should not sleep at night, and I have no remunerative time. There ought to be considerable unanimity in this House on this primary question of reimbursing members their expenses, and I do earnestly ask the promoters whether they cannot make a statement agreeing to jettison those other Clauses relating to subsistence allowance and loss of remunerative time in order that we may have the Bill go upstairs with the practical unanimity of the House.

Whatever arguments may have been adduced by the last speaker in favour of the payment of out-of-pocket expenses of county councillors, they can in no way be arguments in support of this Bill, because the authority of a county council extends over a very wide area, and members have to travel very long distances to attend meetings, which are held, more or less, in the daytime. In my opinion, it would not be for the benefit of local administration that members of local authorities, urban, district, county, dock, and various other bodies, should be paid their expenses for attending meetings, committees, and sub committees. The hon. Member who seconded the Bill suggested that there would be about one meeting a week. I have been associated with local government for 23 years, and I know from practical experience that we frequently attend six, eight, and ten meetings in a week.

I mentioned the day meetings to show what the minimum loss would be to an agricultural worker, but I fully recognise the truth of what the hon Member says.

The inference to be drawn from the statement of the hon. Member was that in a large number of instances the payment would be only for one meeting per week. I do not think there is any local authority which would be limited to one meeting per week.

Rural councils.

The meetings of rural councils are held in the villages or in the principal town of the area. No railway expenses are involved. These meetings can be held in the evening to suit the convenience of members constituting the body. It is the invariable practice of local authorities when holding their first meeting to fix a time for the meeting which will be most convenient to the great majority of the members. I may endorse the observation of the hon. Member who interrupted me just now when he said that administration in this country has been the pride of our people. That is because we have endeavoured to infuse into our people a spirit of local patriotism, a pride in their constituency, but once you get introduced a kind of paid local administrator you have the most objectionable person possible to administer your local affairs. I have no desire to subsidise trade union officials, or people who desire to live on local administration. Apart from the general question of meetings there are committees and sub-committees, and the Minister of Health has pointed out we have growing up in this country a great desire for conferences and various other gatherings which will involve men giving time, and necessitate more payments if this Bill is passed. We want to see our local business transacted without undue waste of time, and if members of local authorities are to be paid for all the time they lose there will be a tendency to refer matters to subcommittees, and to keep them hanging on week after week instead of dealing promptly with the business. All this would involve charges on the ratepayers and conduce neither to efficiency nor promptness in dealing with matters of public concern.

Only recently, on a Departmental Committee, a manufacturer travelled 30 miles to town to attend, and would have had no idea of asking for any payment, but picking up a form on the table for expenses, he observed, "I may as well have my expenses," and filled in the form accordingly. Otherwise he would never have dreamt of doing such a thing, and it is because the Government have instituted this system of payment of out-of-pocket expenses to a large number of gentlemen associated with the trade union movement that Members of these Committees feel justified in asking for their expenses as well, although under ordinary circumstances they would not do so. There is another aspect of this question. We have a good deal of propaganda in this country in favour of municipal trading. Is it desirable that local authorities, many of which desire to go in for municipal trading in various forms, should be paid by the ratepayers to set up a system of trading which is entirely antagonistic to their own interests, and to pay local managers of municipal trading while they have to carry on their own business in competition with the very man they are paying? For my part I submit that that is a kind of payment which we should discourage in every possible way.

With regard to county councils, I would support giving permissive powers in the Bill to make payments to county councillors who travel long distances. If the power were simply permissive I believe that many local authorities, realising their obligations to the ratepayers, would not sanction any such payment, but would prefer to rely upon the civic patriotism of their members to get the work done. The power would be in the hands of those constituencies to send men to the county council who would be ready to do the work for the love of the thing, and because they desire to take an active part in local administration. I do not see why men should ask for payment for every service they render. Yet this is a practice which is growing up in every part of the country. It is a feeling that a man should never do anything unless he gets something for it. It is a feeling which is undermining the whole principle which has made our municipal administration the glory of this country. I hold that if a man gets elected on a local administrative body, he should at least have some knowledge of the work, for he will then begin to realise his public obligations and that will help to curtail in a very large degree any revolutionary ideas which he might be inclined to entertain. He would have much more pride in his work if he did it without payment. He should be proud of serving his town or city, and in the past we have had no difficulty in getting men willing to do this work gratuitously. But what do we find now in connection with a lot of our local authorities, and particularly those dominated by gentlemen associated with the Labour party? They have at their head a leader, and the group as such have no independent opinion.

Nonsense.

They are controlled by their leader. They dare not vote as they may desire individually. They are mere pawns.

The same as you are.

The leader dominates the policy, and they follow. The hon. Member who moved this Bill referred to the fact that he had in mind the payment of members with the necessary knowledge. If we had a guarantee that every administrator elected on a local authority had the necessary knowledge, one might be disposed to agree with this Bill.

You, at any rate, would not get much pay.

There are a large number of people who come on the local authorities who have no knowledge whatever of the subjects with which they are called upon to deal.

Speak for yourself.

Order, order!

I am sorry.

I am speaking as a member of a local authority, who has sat at a table with men having no knowledge at all, and the hon. Member, in moving the Bill, said he referred to men having the necessary knowledge.

What I said was that men with the necessary knowledge ought not to have a financial difficulty which would prevent them rendering service to the community.

There is much to be said if a man has the necessary knowledge, but there are a large number of people who have not that knowledge and, furthermore, have not the capacity to acquire it. Lists are provided at local elections and men are put up simply to fill the lists, but there is no guarantee that the candidate has any knowledge of local administration whatsoever. To my own knowledge, and to my own cost as a ratepayer, I know there are men on local authorities who do not possess the necessary knowledge and who recklessly throw away our money without regard to the public welfare. It would not be suitable for me to go into details, but only last evening I was discussing with an alderman of a southern metropolitan borough certain incidents that happened in his own borough. He referred to cases in which payments had been sanctioned for wages of officers at least double what would be paid in the commercial world for the services of those people. He mentioned that girls of 18 or 20 were receiving over £4 a week as typists in municipal service in South London. A little while ago it was desired to remove those girls in order to employ discharged soldiers, but the party who dominate that council—I may say it is the Southwark Borough Council—refused to dismiss those girls, preferring to keep them rather than employ discharged soldiers. When things like that happen in a metropolitan borough, does it suggest that those are the people whom we should pay to administer our affairs? And that kind of thing is going on in many parts of the country.

I do urge the House not to tinker with this question. The practice of paying men who have travelled long distances from places in the country to attend our tribunals and profiteering and other committees, has crept into our departmental work, and it is not, to my mind, in the interests of good administration. Now it is proposed to introduce it into our local life. I do not know whether anyone really has any conception of what it would cost. There must be some hon. Members who realise how many local authorities there are in the British Isles. I think there are over 20,000. Taking 10 as an average membership, you may have 200,000 local administrators in this country, and, at an average of, say, £2 per week for railway fares and other expenses in connection with local administration, clearly a very large sum indeed is involved. The proposal would place upon the backs of the already overburdened ratepayers a charge which at this time is not justified. The desire of everyone associated with local administration is that its cost and the burden of the rates should be reduced, and nothing whatever should be done to increase it. Therefore, I hope the House will not agree to this Bill.

I am not sure that the promoters of this Bill have not made at the commencement a big tactical blunder, apart from the principle of the Bill itself, in endeavouring to foist the measure on the House at this present moment of very high local taxation and administration expenses. The rank and file of the community are already overburdened far more than they can stand, and for the first time in our local government experience they are beginning themselves to realise how overburdened they are. The promoters have also made one or two rather damaging admissions from their own point of view. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Bill admitted that at the present moment members of the working classes who go into local administration have to be subsidised from party funds. That is at once an admission that they are being paid out of party funds for local work, and does it not mean that they are out to get positions on these local bodies, not from the national point of view of public efficiency, but from the purely party point of view? That, surely, is not a high appreciation of public service. Since it is admitted that they are already paid, the purport of this Bill is really to shift the responsibility of providing the payment, which they already receive from their parties, on to the State, and I hope, therefore, that it will not be accepted. It has already been mentioned that, where gentlemen who are associated with the promoters of this Bill are in power, the rates and the local expenditure have gone up by leaps and bounds; and if any hon. Member will take the trouble, as I have done, to look into the numbers of the deputations visiting neighbouring bodies—and some of them only neighbours by a big stretch of imagination—they will see that in most cases these deputations have been increased three- and four-fold as compared with what they were before those gentlemen came into power.

Another very damaging admission, in my opinion, was that made in reference to boards of guardians. Reference was made to what they have done to humanise the Poor Law. I take very serious objection to that statement, because, perhaps, I know as much of the inner working of the Poor Law as any hon. Members. I am casting no reflection on hon. Members of this House, but I say that, instead of humanising the Poor Law, they have in many cases demoralised the Poor Law. I am thinking of the institution with which I was connected in my boyhood, and it was the custom in those times—and in my humble opinion it was a very right custom—that on certain days we touched our caps to our national emblem which was then flying. The very Gentlemen who are associated with the promoters of this Bill have forbidden that, and they are not only demoralising the Poor Law institutions, but going a long way towards demoralising our national life. That is one of the things, as I see it, behind the purport of this Bill. Again, I am not casting any aspersions on its promoters as individuals, but I would point out the growing agitation that has been going on for some time to do away with those wonderful institutions known as cottage homes. Some of the gentlemen connected with this Bill are for dismembering and disbanding those wonderful institutions, and are out for adopting the boarding-out system. At the present moment you have the children in one central spot, where some 20 children in one cottage.

May I point out that I was a member of a board of guardians for fifteen years, and have done a considerable amount of work in promoting cottage homes?

I am very glad to hear that my statement is correct. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I referred to some of the gentlemen connected with this Bill. He ought to know far better than I do the big agitation that has been stirred up in Poor Law authorities for the past fifteen years with this very aim in view. Instead of having the children centralised in one institution, you will have them scattered all over the community. Think of the expense of visiting all those children. It is too colossal to go into in an ordinary Debate like this, without the figures in front of one. One hon. Member referred to certain gentlemen acting on committees purely as delegates. An hon. Member associated with the promoters of this Bill repudiated the idea, but if the House will bear with me, I should like to give an illustration showing whether it is nonsense or whether it is practically in effect. I am not out to give a Soviet council a free advertisement. I am prepared to give the hon. Member not only the name of the council in question, but also the people connected with it, and the member of the council, no less a member than the chairman, who gave me the information. We have a council of this description within an hour's ride of London, and we find the custom which originated many years ago is still in practice there, where they go into the council chamber not as councillors, but merely as delegates, because the day that they are elected—and this was carried out no longer ago than last March—those delegates sign their resignation with the date blank, and hand it to the local Trade and Labour Council, and if those councillors do not do what the Trade and Labour Council direct them to do, the date is filled in and they are called upon to resign. I know it is an old story, but there is a case where it is actually in practice. I refer to it because an hon. Member opposite called it absolute nonsense.

So it is.

This Bill is rather more serious than I am afraid many of us are inclined to take it to be, because there is a tremendous lot behind it. If it was to be a permissive Bill there is something to be said for it, but even then I should feel inclined to vote against it, because if it passes we are no longer going to have the high-minded public servant who has brought our local administrative life up to its present high efficiency, so that we have the finest and most efficient local service that any country in the world possesses. People have done that out of pure love of local life, and not because they required any payment for their services. One of the very damaging admissions they have made—and I was surprised to hear it—is that the wives of the workers are best fitted to go on to these committees. I absolutely agree. But when the hon. Member pointed out that the wives of the workers have got to be paid for the public work they do, it is a different thing altogether. I would urge with all the power at my command that before the Bill is passed we should go into it very thoroughly and hear each side of the question, and unless the proposers of the measure can bring forward better arguments than they have done up to the present, I shall certainly vote against it.

4.0 P.M.

As a very old member of a board of guardians for 25 years, and other public bodies, I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman need have any alarm that the majority of members of local bodies are likely to make excuses to get money by serving on a large number of sub-committees. I have learned to value extremely the services rendered by members of these public bodies. A great number of them attend these meetings at great personal inconvenience and considerable loss, and I am certain that very few of them would make excuses for the purpose of filling their own pockets. At the same time, I cannot see in this Bill any proposal that they should be paid for their services. I cannot help thinking a mistake has been made. All that the Bill proposes is that the men or women who attend our public bodies shall not be actually out of pocket. It only provides that if a man could be earning, say, 5s. at his own work, he shall get 5s. while he is attending the public body. You cannot say he is to be paid for his services. All that is being done is that he is being paid his out-of-pocket expenses. There is a very great difference between that and saying we are going to pay a county councillor £100 a year and a district councillor £50 a year. In that case you might get people earning no money at all who would get more by being county councillors than by not being county councillors. It is said there would be several committees that members would have to attend. I look upon that as rather a two-edged argument. In my opinion, the more committee meetings a man has to attend, the stronger is the claim for the Bill. Speaking as a member of the Devon County Council, there are a large number of very important committee meetings which are bound to be held, and if a man is doing his duty on a public body, he ought to attend them regularly. No one is a greater drawback to any public body than the man who only attends a meeting every now and then. We want regular attendance. In many cases members of county councils covering a large area are £50, £70, or £100 and more a year out of pocket. I am not in favour of paying salaries to county or district councillors or representatives of boards of guardians, but I cannot see anything revolutionary or financially unsound in asking the ratepayers that their representatives shall not be out of pocket through serving them.

There is another point which we must consider very carefully. Are we going to shut the door of our public local life in the face of men who really cannot afford to lose £100 a year? That seems to me to be the essence of the whole thing. In my opinion instead of tending to extravagance I am not at all sure it may not in the long run even tend to economy if we could allow all classes to be represented. My experience of the ordinary ratepayer is that he by no means favours extravagance, and if he discovers that the rates go up he is just as likely to vote against the Labour man or anyone else. On the other hand I am not at all sure from a business point of view that it is wise really to have only well paid men on these committees. I have very often found that if you get hold of a man with a small income he would very often be the most careful to oppose any great rise in the rates. On the other hand a man of means might not be so careful.

I agree that this Bill, with all due respect to the hon. Member who introduced it, does require some important alterations and safeguards, and that if the view of the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) were adopted it would be a very good plan. The Bill might then go to a Committee and be, perhaps, further safeguarded and amended. If I happened to be a Member of that Committee, which is not likely, there is one Clause upon which I should look with suspicion. I do not care for the idea of leaving it to a public body to decide whether these payments should be made or not. That permissive Clause is one of the things to which I should object. I hardly think it is fair that at an election one candidate might be able to say, "If you vote for me I shall take no money," while, on the other hand, the other candi- date might have to take the money if he was elected. That is why I am opposed to any hon. Member not taking his salary. I do not think we ought to make this a permissive matter. The Clause covers the point. It does not say that every member shall receive the money. All it says is that he shall be entitled to it in the same way that applies in connection with the insurance committees. I have attended those meetings and I have never made any charge for attendance, although I might have done so. It would be a great mistake to leave it to the discretion of the county councils to decide a matter of that sort. If the hon. Member responsible for the Bill would follow the advice of the hon. Member for Thirsk, it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members being present—

I support this Bill. I have been a member of a county council for the last thirty years and I cannot recall during all that period, either on the county council itself or on any of the committees, that there has been a single one of the class with which this Bill would deal. It is not desirable in our civic authority that our local authority, which affects the social conditions of the people and is intimately bound up with all that affects the ratepayers of the country, should be composed entirely of one class. Therefore, if paying out-of-pocket expenses of members of county councils will enable the class which is now excluded to take its share in the work on the council it would be very desirable. I have some experience of work on insurance committees, and on these committees members are paid their travelling expenses. They are also paid an allowance for subsistence. If they are a certain number of hours absent from home to attend a meeting they get sufficient to pay for a meal. They are also paid for the loss of remunerative time. That only applies to the case of a workman who, through his attendance, loses a certain amount of time at his work and loses a certain amount of wages. He gets reimbursed that loss of wages. There is no making of a profit out of that.

It does not necessarily follow that a man with £3,000 a year, as the Minister indicated, will receive it. A man with £3,000 a year does not lose any part of his £3,000 in attending a meeting of the local authority. His salary goes on. This is only to meet the case of a workman who, in order to discharge his duties as a member of the local authority, has to leave his work and has his wages stopped. In that case he is reimbursed. That principle has been admitted in the case of insurance committees. In the case of local education authorities the same thing applies. Reference has been made to agricultural committees and also to advisory committees for Government Departments in which the principle is admitted. I have been amazed at the suggestion that under a Bill of this sort a man would enter a local authority to make a profit. Nothing of the kind could occur. It is most unfair if you find public-spirited workmen and women willing to give their services to local authorities, that this one class of the community should be prevented from doing so because of the great financial sacrifices which they would be required to make.

During my membership of a county council we have made it clear that we do not want to make anything, and we have paid our own expenses even on deputations, but when a county council, even in Scotland, does not represent all classes in its membership there is an element of danger that it may be weakened in its hold on the support and sympathy of the community. Every obstacle that prevents all classes, more especially the working classes, whose civic life is so bound up with those local authorities, from being represented should be removed, and this Bill, which will enable the working people to be more closely associated with our civic life, is a step in the right direction. Do not let us be carried away with the idea that you are going to set up under this Bill professional office seekers on local authorities and people who are going to make a profit out of it. All that is sought is that no man who represents the community on the local authority shall be unduly penalised or compelled to make sacrifices that are out of proportion to the sacrifices which men of leisure are called upon to make. We should welcome the interest that animates many of our working people who desire to play their part in civic life. I am surprised at the objections taken to the Bill by the Minister of Health. I think they were halting and unworthy of him. There is nothing in the Bill that need excite any alarm. If the promoters of the Bill care to modify its provisions, well and good. But I see nothing in the whole of the Bill to which objection need be taken.

I wish to support the Bill. I do not happen to be a member of the Labour party, but I am usually in the Lobby with them. It is quite easy for rich men opposite to argue against a proposal like this. Since 1894 I have sat on one or other of the local authorities and county authorities in Derbyshire and until 1917 I never received more than £2 a week in my life. I did my duty as far as I could, but the more I attended to my duty the more my family and myself had to suffer. It is because I want to remedy that state of affairs that I wish to see that men placed in the same position as myself shall find it possible to become members of these bodies. I was a member of the Derbyshire County Council and a member of several of its committees, which necessitated my visiting the county town twice a week at least, a train journey of 40 miles for each meeting. That was more than I could stand if I was to do my duty to my home. It may be contended that if I could not afford to pay my expenses for such public work, I should not accept membership of a local body. I disagree entirely. The only sure way to success is to have real, popular, democratic representation on the whole of our local and county bodies. My memory takes me back to many years before the passing of the Local Government Act of 1894, when the parson, the squire, and the farmer had at least six and sometimes more votes, when there was no ballot and the votes had to be collected. What was the consequence? The local bodies at time were composed entirely of one class of people. In reference to the Local Government Act of 1894 the late Lord Salisbury said that people would rather see a circus than be members of local bodies. That is entirely wrong. The people never had the opportunities they sought. It is only now, because they are educating themselves to it, that they are seeking to become members of local authorities and to take part in the civic government of the country. Boards of guardians have been spoken about by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee), but I want to say, with all respect, that he knew very little of what he was talking about. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members who dissent were not present to hear him and do not know what he said. He has been speaking about cottage homes and the boarding-out of children. In my constituency there are many children boarded out in small cottages. Does the House know that in many counties members have to travel to guardians' meetings, quite twenty miles, and they have to travel to county council meetings anything from 50 to 100 miles return journey? Do you expect a man who is poor, but is, perhaps, just as well fitted as the rich man to serve upon these bodies, to lose the time and employment and pay his own expenses while acting as a member? It is impossible for him to do so, however well he may be fitted for the discharge of public duties. I want to contend here, that the man at the bottom of the ladder is more admirably fitted to represent his parish or district on the county council or the board of guardians because of his intimate knowledge of the business and of the lives of the people than many of the Members across the House who preach to us that the Bill is revolutionary. I heard Members across the House objecting to organised labour and trades unions sending what they call "delegates" to these bodies. Do they not think that their action to-day in opposing the Bill only tends to increase the number of delegates, or at least denies the opportunity to men like myself to become members of county councils and boards of guardians because of the expense incurred? There is no other way in which the workers can be represented except by getting something towards their expenses on these local bodies. I want to support this Bill heartily as one who is possibly the poorest Member of this House—as poor as when I was only getting £2 a week—and I support it because I know there are men in my own rank who have the brains, the ability, and the practical experience to serve on these bodies, but are denied membership because they cannot afford to attend. As an hon. Member has said, this only represents out-of-pocket expenses. You are not going to make a man rich by these proposals. He is not going to leave his work more than is necessary because of them, and from my own personal knowledge, I have no hesitation in declaring my intention to go into the Lobby in support of this Bill.

I should like to point out that the hon. Member who has just spoken is quite correct as to what he said about delegates. As to that part of his speech, I endorse what he said regarding the effect of the Bill as to delegates.

I said that hon. Members opposite had spoken about the Bill as encouraging delegates.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those who spoke from this side and said the Bill would support delegates were mistaken. It is just the other way. It makes people independent. There was one other point on which he was not quite fair to the hon. Member for Woolwich. He said the hon. Member did not know what he was talking about when he discussed cottage homes. I think he himself thought cottage homes meant boarding-out in cottages. That is not the meaning of cottage homes. It is just the reverse. The cottage homes of which the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich spoke are quite a different thing, and so the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich knew more about it than he himself. I say this because I think it is unfortunate that any Member should say that another Member knows nothing about a subject. I was very anxious to hear from somebody in authority on the other side that they were prepared to meet us on two important questions. In the first place, there is a question, to which I attach enormous importance, and that is that this House should not give any mandate to any local authority to spend money. Not only the Government, not only individuals, but local authorities in every part of the country are in great difficulties in money matters, and I think it is a crime to pass a Bill which orders them to spend money. I think it should be left to them to do it. The other day this House passed a Bill which was rather restricting their powers of spending money, and there was a considerable majority in favour of it, because of this feeling of the absolute necessity of economy. This Bill says you "shall" do so and so. I would not vote for any Bill that ordered a local authority to spend money, in however good an object.

There is another point I want to put. It was strongly urged on this side that this was a most excellent Bill, in that it enabled men of poor means to be on the various local authorities. We are all in favour of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think almost everybody in this House is in favour of enabling working men to be on any council to which they are elected. But this Bill goes a little further. But, unfortunately, the Bill is so ordered that it does not say a man shall be paid for his lost remunerative time. It says for any time. A man's time may be perfectly worthless, and there are a good many people on local authorities whose time is not valuable elsewhere, but they would have to be paid under this Bill. This Bill does not say only that the man who loses his wages shall be paid, and it would certainly mean, if this Bill were carried out in the letter, that people with very much larger incomes should be paid for loss of time. I am Chairman of one of the Advisory Committees of the Ministry of Labour. Our difficulty there is not to get the representatives of labour to come, because they do get their lost time and expenses paid, and they come regularly. The difficulty is to get the busy business man. His time is very valuable, and I am sorry to say in that council we are very often at a loss for a representative business man, who is most valuable too. The reason he does not come is that he cannot afford to lose the time, and if you are going to pay him, which this Bill enables, you are going into a very large expenditure. I do not think those men ought to be paid for coming. I think enough rich men ought to be found to sacrifice some of their money and some of their time, and that this ought to be distinctly restricted to men who are really suffering grievous harm, that is to say, they and their family have to forego a considerable amount of necessary allowance if there is no remuneration for attending these meetings.

It is a very great pity this Bill was not in the form of the Bill introduced by the County Councils Association. It was a much wiser thing to do to give the travelling expenses, and I may say there was a very important limitation to the travelling expenses, which ought to be in this Bill too. That is to say, there should be travelling expenses for people who have to go more than seven miles, because most men nowadays ride a bicycle, and can go seven miles easily enough without any expense. I think, also, there ought to be some restrictions as to the number of meetings for which any man should be remunerated. I know men may have to go many times to a district council or its committees, or to a county council or its committees, but still there are some men who almost make a business of doing work, although it is not actually remunerative, and does not give them anything beyond their expenses, which, however, keep them very comfortable while they are at it. We do not want that sort of thing to creep into public expenditure, and we want it quite clear that the authors of this Bill are prepared to alter it fundamentally, because the first Clause will have to be remodelled to make it permissive instead of compulsory, and to put in the limitations that are absolutely necessary, so that it does not mean that an extravagant local authority could pay a rich man £50 for coming to their meeting, or something of that kind, and also to restrict the travelling expenses to distances over a certain number of miles—seven may be a mile or two too far—and to put the general restrictions which were in the County Councils Bill. Of course, the county councils may not have gone quite far enough, but this goes too far, not intentionally, I agree, because I think, to a great extent, the promoters of the Bill have not realised what they have put into the Bill. I hope, therefore, they will express their willingness to accept a more modified form, and to say that they will accept amendments in Committee. Then, I think, this Bill will have a real prospect of getting through the House.

I have listened to the Debate, to the speech of the Minister of Health, and also to the excellent speech delivered by the hon. Member opposite, and I have discussed the matter with my colleagues. We know there are certain Clauses for which some Members cannot vote, and we have decided to allow the Bill to be made permissive, and also to jettison some of the Clauses mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. I hope, with those concessions, the Bill will be allowed to go through.

I want to approach this Bill from the point of view of the over-burdened Londoner. I do not think the House quite realises what this Bill means to the people of the Metropolis. In some parts of London we pay a rate of over 22s. in the £. I have been a member of public bodies in London as far back as 30 years, and a member of the London County Council for 12 years, and I quite realise the difference in the circumstances in London and in other counties, but I want to bring this Bill home to the minds of those who have to consider the standpoint of the local ratepayer in the Metropolis. We have 29 borough councils in London, and we have 54 members on my borough council and 24 members on the board of guardians. The council meets in the evening, and the borough is only three miles long. We generally get three times as many candidates as there are vacancies at election time, and the fighting is very keen. Everyone regards it almost as an entertainment to be present at a borough council meeting, either in the body of the council or in the galleries, and it has been so for many years. No one troubles about getting paid for attending, and they are only too glad to have the opportunity of attending the council. If this Bill were passed, what would be the effect on my borough? We have a very large number of committees, and those committees would grow in course of time. I am a trade unionist myself, and have been for many years, but I am talking now from the standpoint of human nature, and those committees would no doubt gradually become more numerous, so far as their constitution is concerned, and their work would become much prolonged. There would be a gradual tendency to have daily meetings, instead of evening meetings, and in course of time we should find that the work of the borough council would take the whole of a man's time. In my borough we pay our unskilled workmen £4 a week, and if any man were a member of a borough council and putting in a long time, which would gradually evolve into nearly the whole of his time, he would think he was at least entitled to the same £4 a week as is given to an unskilled workman. If we are going to give our 54 borough councillors and nine aldermen, or 63 altogether, £4 a week, it will work out at £12,000 a year, just equal to a 3d. rate, and if you take the whole of the metropolitan boroughs it will work out at something between £300,000 and £500,000 a year. I do not think that at this particular period we should place such a responsibility on the ratepayers. If I had my way the metropolitan borough councils would disappear and their work would be handed over to that far more competent body, the London County Council; but I think the weapon contained in this Bill would place in the hands of a section not too deeply addicted to thinking the power to impose on the community a heavy toll, which would crush down the ratepayers, and that is not only to do something which is economically unsound, but something that 99 out of every 100 ratepayers would strongly resent. I shall certainly go into the Lobby against such an extravagant proposal.

I wish to ascertain if the promoters of the Bill have agreed to take out the word "shall" in the second line of Clause 1, and to put "may" in its place.

Yes.

I should also like to have seen the last words in Clause 3 taken out, namely, "time necessarily lost in attending such meetings," because I am bound to say, as was pointed out in the speech we have just heard, that the Clause as it stands means an enormous addition to the rates. I would like to know if the promoters of this Bill are willing to take out the words "time necessarily lost in attending such meetings." That means an enormous addition to the rates, and also to the contribution by Parliament. For some time we have all been on the saving principle, and now the first proposal in the other direction comes from the Labour party. I have been myself a member of a county council for many years, and I have always found that those who object to what have been described as joy rides have been the Members of the Labour party. On my council whenever there has been a proposal for anyone to attend a conference to consider something for the good of the community the first to oppose it were generally the Labour party. The Municipal Corporations Association agree with this Bill provided that the word "may" is substituted for "shall" and that the words relating to time lost are left out.

I have a sufficient knowledge of the work of county councils to know that they will do their duty and that they will avoid any unnecessary expense even under this Bill, because these matters as a rule are exceedingly well done. Looking at some of the provisions in the Bill, it does not look as if the hon. Member who introduced this measure and his friends had much faith in their fellows. The Memorandum states that

It will not make much difference whether the word "may" or "shall" is in the Bill, because obviously those councils in which Labour is in the majority will vote themselves this money. It is rather interesting to remember that last Friday we were considering a Bill named the Rates Restriction Bill. The Bill to-day might very well be termed the Rates Increases Bill. I admit that last week's Bill was not very strong, and will not accomplish very much, but the Bill this week will certainly accomplish something, and that is the increase of the rates at a time when the country cannot afford any increase whatever. We ought to pass measures not to increase the rates, but to endeavour to restrict them. Last week we had instances of rates up to 35s. in the £. What will be the effect of this Bill? It is quite obvious that this money will be voted, whether we have the word "may" or "shall," and that there will be a large expenditure under this head. It would be rather interesting if the promoters would try and tell us exactly what increase in the rates they expect on account of this Bill.

There will probably be a reduction in consequence of more efficient administration.

I suppose it is suggested that there will be economies effected in other directions, in order to provide for this fresh expenditure. From what I know of the councils, that is not very likely. This Bill is more likely to make for increased expenditure in other directions. The mere fact that the House of Commons has passed such a Bill will give them the impression that we do not care how high are the rates, and will encourage them in expenditure in other directions. We want to pass Measures like that of last week, the moral of which will be that we in this House seriously consider that the rates are too high, and that we are trying to find means whereby they can be reduced. I have no doubt that many other Members receive numerous letters asking: "Cannot you decrease my rates, especially the Poor rate?" I always reply, and I have no doubt other Members do also, that I am not responsible for the Poor rate, but that their representative on the county council is responsible and they should write to him. If, however, we vote for this Bill, we shall be responsible and must accept responsibility for an increase in the rates. I was very interested in an interjection by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who stated that he was present at a meeting of the County Councils Association which passed a resolution for economy at the same time that it passed a resolution in favour of some such measure as this.

The hon. Member must not say "some such measure as this."

Do not interrupt him. It is quite interesting to hear him giving these fables.

If this Bill increases the rates 1s. in the £ it will not be a fable.

You have not shown that it will.

A good many ratepayers in this country who have to pay poor and other rates find it very hard to do so. County council elections differ from the borough elections in this respect; in the boroughs there are nearly always contests, whereas, so far as county council elections in rural areas are concerned, they are generally uncontested, and these constituencies therefore have less control over their representation. County councils are consequently much more prone to indulge in extravagant measures than are borough councils and it is in an endeavour to curb the expenditure of county councils that I am opposing this Bill. One of the chief arguments advanced in favour of the Bill has been the long distances which members of county councils have to travel, but bearing in mind the fact that in some districts the rates have risen to 30s., 35s., and even 40s. in the £ I would ask how ratepayers who find it increasingly hard to bear these burdens can be expected to approve this Bill which will add still heavier burdens to the rates. This thing will not stop with this Bill. We shall, if it passes, get another Bill for the permanent payment of the members of councils. Surely we do not want to have to pay salaries to county and borough councillors. They ought to give their services free. They should have enough patriotism to give their best services, gratuitously. Are we going to turn them into officials? If you pay them you will necessarily put them on the same level as the officials of the authority, and then, too, you will have no curb whatever on their expenditure. If these councillors are not paid they will the better feel the burden of increasing rates; payment will only serve to help relieve them of this burden. It is admitted that the pay of Members of Parliament is much too low, and I am glad that it is as low as it is, because it will bring Members to their senses as regards expenditure and taxation much more quickly than would otherwise be the case. If members of a public body are paid, they do not mind what the taxation or the rating is, because they carry on in their private life very well without feeling the rates or taxes; whereas when they are not paid, they feel, as much as anyone else, any increased rates due to expenditure which they vote. That may be rather a narrow way of looking at the matter, but, after all, human nature does play a great part, and if members of a body realise that they are not getting anything for this work, they must realise the meaning of that expenditure in a double way. If there is one reform that is needed at the present time, it is a decrease in the taxes and rates. This is a Bill for reform, but we want to consider, not Bills promoting reforms that are going to increase rates or taxes, but Bills which have for their object the decrease of rates and taxes. We considered last week one such Bill, of which the House passed the Second Reading by a large majority. This week we are considering a Bill which would result in an increase in rates, and I am sure that, if it went to a Division, the House would reject it by an equally large majority. It is the duty of all Members of the House to protect the taxpayers, whom they represent. We rarely have the opportunity of defending the ratepayers, and we should make as good use as we can of the present one.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

The incomes of very many people of the professional classes have not been increased as those of other workers have. In fact, in many cases, they have been decreased, and these people have to fight against enormously increased taxation and also against enormously increased rates. It is not fair for this House to pass legislation which would in any way tend to increase rates, even to the extent of 1d. in the £.

It being Five of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next (9th May).

Adjourned at Two Minutes after Five o'clock, until Monday next, 9th May.