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

I desire to express, on my own behalf and those for whom I speak, our very deep sense of appreciation to the Government for having given time for the discussion of this Bill. I hope the House will bear with me if for a few moments I review the normal development of the law on this subject. The law, as it appears in the Act which we are seeking to amend, namely, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, is not the first recognition by the legislature of this country of the rights of children. As far as I can ascertain, the first recognition appears in a consolidating and amending Act passed in 1861, and I will ask the House just to fix in mind that figure of 1861, and to consider for a moment what the condition of the child, and even of the woman, was in the eyes of the law at that time. Those who care to interest themselves in this matter have only to run through a long list of blue books, beginning as far back as 1817, that have inquired into the position of children. From then till 1867 there was one continual series of blue books relative to the condition of children, beginning with chimney sweeps, in 1817, and ending, in 1867, with children in agricultural gangs. These blue books provide literature of the most sensational character. A Commission was appointed in about 1842 to inquire generally into the physical and moral condition of children employed in industries in this country. That Commission published in 1843 no less than 5 volumes relative to the condition of children in this country in the eyes of the law, and they showed the extraordinary number of children who were then employed. In mines large numbers, from 8 to 9 years old,, and frequently 6 and 7 years old, girls, boys, young women, and married women worked mingled together commonly almost naked, and in the grossest degradation, for 12 hours a day and during the night. An hon. Member asks me what this has got to do with the Bill. My object is to show that we have reached a stage when, in the normal evolution of the law, we are taking a step which is in strict constitutional relationship with Acts germane to this subject which have been passed before. The Report in question goes on to show that in calico printing the children were put to work at 5 or 6 years of age, and they worked frequently for 14 consecutive hours. In the Wolverhampton region the Commissioners themselves say there was "general and almost incredible abuse." In Birmingham vice and child drunkenness prevailed, and the same stigma was applied to the Sheffield area. The Report deals also with millinery establishments in the Metropolis, and says that in Lancashire parents were in the habit of "sacrificing their children without hesitation" for what they could earn.

The first Statute was in 1861, a lapse of 19 years before the legislature of that day took legal note of the condition of children in this country, and in that Act of 1861 it was provided that anyone having unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under 10 years of age was liable to penal servitude for life. This was dealt with in an Act dealing with offences against the person which concerned a whole lot of penal capital offences. In the same Act, in the case of a child above 10 years and under 12 years, it was a misdemeanour with a penalty not exceeding two years' hard labour. In 1875 these ages have changed. The work of quickening public opinion as to the present position of children in the eyes of the law has begun to move, and Section 3 of the Act of 1875 provides that under 12 years the punishment of felony was attached, and in lieu of a margin of two years, namely, between 10 and 12 years, given in the earlier Act, the Act now provides that above 12 and under 13 it is a misdemeanour. Therefore, in the maximum age we have progressed in 14 years from 12 to 13 years of age. When we reach the year 1880, the defence of consent has been raised to the age of 13 years. The Act of 1885 progressed, but still left the law in a state which, to my mind, at all events, is some reproach to the public opinion of the time; but in the Act of 1885, up to the age of 13, it is a felony, and above 13, and under 16, a misdemeanour. There is a progressive tendency to increase the age in providing protection for the young child. The first real Children's Charter was in 1889. The first Act which was passed for the protection of children was in 1889, and, strangely enough, they fixed the age of childhood at 16 years, but they made a distinction between the age of a boy and that of a girl. In the Act of 1889, the boy ceased to be a child at the age of 14, and the girl ceased to be a child at the age of 16. In the Act of 1894 for the protection of children, that distinction between the boy and the girl was abolished, and both were put on the same footing, so that we have now, by an Act which is not a Criminal Law Amendment Act, but an Act devised in the true interests of the child, the age of 16 as the age of childhood, having progressively increased from the original age of 10 years.

I am rather suggesting in this a curious intermingling of the Statute Law with regard to sexual offences, and child protection. These two Acts are in strict constitutional relationship, and, in the Children Act of 1904, we boldly attacked the second proviso to Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which fixed three months as the limit of time in which an offence of this nature could be charged against a person. I would like the House to observe that the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, boldly invaded the Criminal Law Statute on that point, and made the period in which to accuse six months, instead of three. In the evolution of Statute law there is one other point to which I should like to draw attention. The question has revolved round the age of 16 as the age at which childhood is likely to have ceased. That is illustrated in the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, Section 27, which enacts that in the case of a girl over 16 consenting, punishment up to two years' hard labour can be imposed. I suggest, therefore, with regard to Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, that the chief point which we shall have to determine is at which particular year is the age of childhood to be fixed, and, if fixed at the age of 16, then, I think, it is right that the fullest protection of the law should be given to that period of childhood, no matter whether it has regard to sexual offences or to all those offences referred to in the Children Act. Therefore, I suggest that, if you have regard to the condition of child life up to the period I have stated, and you have regard to the public opinion of the time, and the legislation effected—if you regard 10, 12, and even 13 as the legislative reflex of the sound, hopeful thought of that time, then I suggest that, with a right sense of our obligations to the young of this country, we ought now to accept the age of 16 as a definite milestone.

Apart from the question of sexual relationship and as an evolutionary step in legislation, speaking as a doctor, I would venture to submit, with all respect, to this House certain views which I hold with regard to what I might call the biological or scientific aspect of this question. In the whole range of nature there is in the human mammal an abnormally long period of dependence of the child upon the parent for parental care, and it seems to me in a measure it is nature's penalty, or nature's price, for the qualities of latent and potential excellence with which the human race is endowed, and which our higher civilisation has cultivated. If it be agreed that there is an abnormally long period of dependence of the child on parental care, of which I am firmly convinced from my experience in medical and scientific life, then I suggest that, germane to the subject before this House, there is no period during that time of childhood so urgently calling for protection as the period between 13 and 16 years of age. It is the time when, strangely enough, the sex instinct is appearing in the blossom. That sex instinct gives an unconscious stimulus to the ego, a desire for independence, a seeking after individuality, a certain degree of rebellion against parental discipline. I suggest that, at that period, there is a certain hiatus between parental care and the needs of the child, and it is a time when the State should step in to exert every form of protection it can for the child during those tender years.

Apart from the two points which I have endeavoured to make, there is one aspect of this Bill which appeals very strongly to me, and that is what I might call the public health aspect. The very conditions in the last half century suggest to me that an enormous amount of physical disability which we found prevalent during the War in this country was directly traceable to the conditions of life during that past half century. I am perfectly certain that an enormous amount of the venereal disease which prevailed—I would go so far as to say 80 per cent.—was transmitted by children and very young persons. From the point of view of its relations to the past, the biological point of view, and in relation to public health, I seriously commend this view to the House. I am perfectly confident that no Measure will be more fraught with good for the prevention of not only prostitution, but that the whole thing will tend to bring home to the very young the nature of this matter, and will save them from embarking on a career of vice. I speak so from my medical experience. It will, to my mind, be also a Measure which will secure the prevention of the transmission of venereal disease to a greater extent than almost any other health Measure in the past. I commend this point to the hon. Members of the Anti-waste party; that the promotion of this health Measure, while it will help the public health will not give either the ratepayer or the taxpayer any additional burden.

There is the moral and religious aspect of this matter; but I will not go into them now, because I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I have endeavoured to confine myself to the scientific and medical aspects of the subject. I believe, however, that the attributes of a higher life and morality and religion are much more likely to be grounded upon a sure foundation given a clean, healthy body, than the reverse. I am perfectly convinced that the responsibilities of our race were never greater than at the present moment. Our domestic future, and in a great degree our international future, depends primarily upon the health of England. We won freedom in the seventeenth century. Britain had her triumphs of industrialism in the 18th and the 19th century. If we desire to carry the civilisation, the industry, and commerce of the nation to the uttermost parts of the earth, we must not forget on the one hand one very vital thing—and it seems to have been forgotten—and that is the soundness of the stock at home. England's breed, the culture of her race, the future destiny of this country depends to a great extent upon the culture of our race. This is a Bill for the protection of our race, and a stepping stone to a greater and a higher physical efficiency than we have secured in the past.

I beg to second the Motion. I want to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his very able, convincing, and human speech. Several of us have been associated, and one lady, in dealing wih the various Bills, of which this is the outcome, in a Joint Committee of this House and the House of Lords. There was a consensus of opinion that the law must be altered drastically, first for the protection of the innocent, and secondly made more severe for the punishment of the guilty. We had several Bills before us, and a great amount of evidence tendered, and a general desire was expressed, as we gathered from that evidence, on the part of all sections of the community that a Bill must be proceeded with. If I were to criticise this Bill the only criticism that I could offer against it is that it is too mild.

Hear, hear!

It does not go far enough. It does not deal fully with the great evil that exists, and I would gladly and more readily support a far more drastic Measure than this Bill. We have, however, to consider all the aspects of the case, and if we cannot get all that some of us might desire then we are compelled to support that which goes somewhat towards what we ought to arrive at subsequently. We are supporting this Bill which was known to us in the Committee as the Bishop of London's Bill. It is inconceivable to me that any opposition is is going to be put up against this Second Reading to-day. I may be wrong, but I assume that the attack is going to be very weak, and so I am going to be very brief. If, therefore, I do not bring out all the points that are in my mind so as to confuse my opponents the fault is not entirely mine, for I trust the general desire of this House to do all they can to protect our children and to punish those who are continuing in a career of evil. There are one or two Clauses in the Bill contentious, no doubt. Some cannot be contentious. I cannot conceive the possibility of contending against some of the Clauses in the Bill. Take for instance, the first Clause— body to oppose that Clause, to my mind, because the defence which has been used, and is being used, to defend acts of indecency against children must be removed. My experience as a magistrate for about 15 years has caused me to hear, I daresay, dozens of cases of a similar kind to this, and I assert that when I have looked upon the child and looked upon the evil person who had wrecked and ruined the future of that child, I felt that the penalty even such as this was not drastic as compared with the offence committed. To hear a grown-up man defend his evil act by saying there was consent is unthinkable. We want to remove that from the Statute Book. A more contentious Clause is the second one— risk. I say the time has come when with the great mass of evil in the world to-day we must adopt drastic measures to stop this evil continuing, and this defence if an abomination in itself, and ought not to exist. I support this Bill with all the strength I can put into it for that Clause alone, and for the first Clause, which takes away this as a cause of defence.

I wish to say a word with regard to Clause 5, which provides that Section 5 of the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, which requires that all proceedings under that Act are to be held in camera, is hereby repealed. I believe from conviction and experience that too much secrecy in dealing with these horrible offences is a mistake. I know quite well it is an unpleasant thing to have to hurt people s feelings with repeating and recounting some of these horrible things. It is not pleasant to stand up here and talk about a Bill of this kind, and it was a very much worse task to sit in the Committee Room of the House of Lords and listen to the evidence dealing with the worst features of immorality that exist. I am convinced that there should be more publicity in dealing with these cases, and I think that Clause should be repealed. Speaking with full confidence that there cannot be any serious opposition to the Second Reading of this important Bill, and with all the conviction that I can bear upon it, I most heartily second the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I trust it will have a rapid passage through the House, and become law in very quick time.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I rise to perform what is a very disagreeable and a very difficult task, but I will endeavour to do it from an equally strong sense of duty as that which has animated the Mover and Seconder of this Bill. I must say at the outset that I rejoice that this Bill is having an opportunity of being discussed on the Floor of the House. So long as it appeared on the Order Paper, and was called on after 11 o'clock at night, it was not open to those of us who object to the Bill in principle to explain to the House our reason. To-day we have our opportunity. Taking advantage of the privilege which a Second Reading Debate affords to hon. Members to discuss the policy of a Bill, I am going briefly to enlarge upon what I believe to be the wrong policy which is contained in this Bill.

Let me at the outset state what appears to me to be a measure of agreement between those who support the Bill and those who oppose it. We are all of us equally keen to secure greater morality and better health among the population, and we are all of us equally keen to see that young persons shall not have gross offences committed against them. Having arrived at that point, my hon. Friends and I take different roads. Those in favour of this Bill think that they can cure immorality by legislation, but I do not believe they can. I believe that the proper way to effect a cure for this type of immorality is by education and proper protection of the children by parents and guardians, and not by legislation which is directed to take away from an accused person practically his only defence. I am bound to say that I am amazed to find that the Government should have given facilities for this Bill, the first proposition of which goes directly contrary to the spirit of British law and justice. What is the intention? It is to prevent a, man accused of a certain offence from defending himself. That is what it comes to.

No.

The only defence I can see that a man can make in the case of Clause 2 is that he did not do the thing for which he is charged. The Seconder of this Bill says that for many years he has been a magistrate. I put to him, Is he prepared to treat every offence in the same way as he would treat this? We are not dealing with questions of morality, but with questions of crime. Is he prepared to treat crime in the same way in other respects as in this? Supposing by mistake an hon. Member picks up a cigarette case that does not belong to him and, thinking it is his own, puts it in his pocket, and ultimately gives it up. He is still, under my hon. Friend's conception of the law, a man who has committed an offence, because he has taken property which does not belong to him. Although he may have done so unintentionally he should still, according to my hon. Friend's conception of the law, be liable to a penalty for having stolen that cigarette case.

If the hon. and gallant Member appeals to me to answer that point, I say that there is no comparison between the case of a man tampering with young girls and another person taking up a cigarette case. There is no comparison whatever between the two things.

But this is criminal law. The hon. Member may think it very wrong for a man to have intercourse with a girl under 16, but that is not the point. He is here dealing with a criminal offence. I may remark that in certain States in the United States it is a crime to smoke.

It is not.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. There are States where a man can be fined.

There is not one.

I am no lawyer and I cannot profess to have a profound knowledge of the law, but, as everyone else, I have a common-sense view about these matters, and it seems to me that the intention is what makes a crime bad. If a man shoots off a gun and by mistake kills someone, that in the eyes of the. law is not murder. It is only if he shoots off his gun with intent to kill someone that it becomes murder. Intention, therefore, in the eyes of the law, is the worst part of a crime. Not only do the promoters of this Bill cut away from a man the defence that he had no intention to commit a crime, but at the same time they keep the penalty at the same level. The penalty, I have taken pains to verify, is two years' hard labour for a crime unintentionally committed. We are supposed in this House to be the guardians of justice and the makers of justice for every section in the country.

Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to suggest to the House that a sexual act is an unintentional act?

The intention is not in the sexual act itself, but in the committing of it on a person under 16 years of age. That is the point. Let us not stray away on sentimental and moral considerations. We are here considering a criminal Bill, and it has always been the pride of British justice to safeguard the interests of the accused. I maintain that the principles of this Bill cut at the right of an accused person to defend himself. I do not believe that this legislation or any legislation on similar lines can possibly cure the evil which it sets out to cure. I say so with experience, because during the War it was my lot to have to act in London as one of the military police, and unfortunately I had to see the very seamy side of life. It was my duty, as a military policeman, to have to come into contact with a good deal of the seamy side of London life. We found that certain measures which were taken by the Bishop of London and others who were interested in the matter to stop prostitution and the admittance of prostitutes into the London theatres had the most deleterious effect on morality in London. Immorality rose by leaps and bounds. That is merely an illustration, but I feel that the same applies to this Bill as applies to those measures then. It is like trying to stop a flow of water by putting a little putty into a crack. It only breaks out far worse in another place. It is my conviction that will happen with this particular Measure. My hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading in very interesting terms, said very little about the Bill, and I am sorry to see that there is nothing in it placing upon the parents and guardians of a young person a certain amount of responsibility. If there had been a certain amount of responsibility placed upon them, it would at least have given more balance to the Bill. It does not attempt to cure the thing from the root. It merely says that once you have got the man you are not to let him off, no matter what reasonable excuse he may have.

Clause 5 repeals Section 5 of the Incest Act, 1908. I understand that Clause is one which the High Court Judges are very anxious should be passed into law. I cannot say that I quite share that anxiety and I see reasons, strong reasons as I think, why this particular Section should not be repealed, but, if my opposition to the Bill were merely on that score, I can assure my hon. Friends that I should not be here opposing its Second Reading. It is a matter, obviously, where those most qualified to know should have the greatest say. Clause 4 relates to Scotland, and I should be b61d indeed if I entered the arena where the watchful Scot is always waiting. Clause 3, I understand—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—has the whole-hearted support of the Home Office and the police. They are anxious that it should be passed into law. I also understand that the law as it is at present is not carried out to the fullest extent. There are a great number of cases where prosecutions should be taken and where they are not taken and where there are no convictions. I very much doubt whether the increasing of the penalties will not have the effect of securing a smaller number of convictions than have been secured hitherto.

I am rather surprised that some of my hon. Friends who support the Bill should welcome the Home Secretary as their supporter in this particular Clause. I am rather suspicious of that support myself, because to me the Home Secretary is the personification of rules and regulations and continuation of rules and regulations and the imposition upon His Majesty's faithful and long suffering subjects of endless vexatious restrictions. I seem to remember voices raised on these benches on more than one occasion against the Homo Secretary's interference with the rights and liberties of the subject. Now, however, they are prepared to accept the support of the Home Secretary. I would just utter this one word of caution. They are elated because the Government have given them facilities for this Bill and because they think that they have the Government behind them. Let them cast their minds back to yesterday and see how the Government treats its own Measures. Let them not put their trust too much in the Government; for all they know, this will be one of the next Measures, if it be ever passed into law, that will be repealed.

My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill suggested that nobody could possibly have anything to say against Clause 1. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not the most contentious Clause in the Bill, but that nobody will have anything to say against it I cannot agree. I shall have something, it may be very little, to say on the subject. Clause 1 says it shall be no defence to a charge or indictment for an indecent assault on a child or young person under the age of 16 to prove that he or she consented to the act of indecency. I think some of my learned friends will agree with me there is nothing more striking in the Assizes held in this country than the horrible cases which come before the Courts in this particular respect. There is nothing more extraordinary than to find how young women have not only consented, but have actually incited men to commit the offence, and I believe it is the experience of lawyers in a great many cases that prosecutions under this head are brought by those who, with a curious kind of madness, have attempted to incite men to commit the offence and then are ready to turn on them and bring them to the Courts. Mark you, there is no question here of the age of the man and no question of the man's capabilities. It is taken for granted by my hon. Friend that man is an old designing brute. There are many men in this country with undeveloped intentions and over-developed passions. There are many men who, through no fault of their own, but through the fault of birth, are not quite level-headed on this subject and are afraid to fall into the temptation that girls over 16 over hold out to them. I think the House would do well to ponder on this matter before it takes it for granted that this Clause is as non-controversial as my hon. Friend would have us believe.

1.0 P.M.

I turn now to the most contentious and most dangerous Clause of the Bill, namely, Clause 2. I suppose that the desire is, apart altogether from the question of morality, and on that point I sympathise with hon. Members—to prevent men having intercourse with girls who have not reached a certain age. The age is fixed at 16. That is a very arbitrary age. It is not true that in all cases at 16 only does a girl reach the age of puberty. I was interested in looking up the history of England the other day, and what did I come across? I found that many marriages have taken place with ladies who had not by any means reached the age of 16. There was quite a list. Joanna, the youngest daughter of Henry II, at the age of 12, married to William II of Cicily, in 1176; Johnsmere Blanche of Castile married Louis, son of Philip II of France. He was 13 and she was 14. Henry III married Eleanor of Provence in 1236. She was 13. In 1308 Edward II married the youngest daughter of Philip the Fair, then 12 years old. There are plenty of these cases. Coming down to later days Charles I married Henrietta —who was barely 15 years of age in 1625. James II married Mary of Modena in 1673. She was barely 15 years of age. Surely my hon. Friend would scarcely go so far as to condemn these men as criminals because they married in this way. It is very largely a question of temperament and of nationality. There are in this country a large number of young aliens especially, and I say it without offence, a large number of young Jewish women, Italians and Southerners who are plying the trade of prostitutes on the streets of London. They have the appearance of English girls of the age of 18 or 19, or even 20, and it is a very strong order to say that a man may not raise as a defence for having had intercourse with a girl of that kind that, although she was not yet 16, she was from appearance a girl of very much greater age. Here is a curious thing that must and will happen. If a man has intercourse with a girl who is 15 years 364 days old he has committed an offence for which he is liable to two years' hard labour, but if, on the succeeding day, he has intercourse with the same girl, he will commit no offence and will not be charged because she will have reached the age of 16 years. Is it not manifestly absurd that if a man on one day commits an act which makes him a criminal on the next day he should be able to commit precisely the same act and it will make him in no way criminal in the eyes of the law, and in regard to it no accusation can be brought against him?

The reasonable course to my mind is this. The man who is charged with such an offence should have an opportunity of saying, "Let the jury see for themselves. Let them see the woman themselves and then they can decide." They should have before them in the box the woman against whom it is alleged the man has committed the offence, and if it is obvious to them that the woman is by no means a virtuous woman and that she has developed well beyond her years, they will not convict, and quite rightly so, because this is not a question of morals; it is a question of law and crime. I was told, and I believe it is probably the fact, that if this Bill becomes law there will be great difficulty in securing conviction before a jury. The giving a man no chance to defend himself will have its natural reaction on the jury. They will refuse to convict, although the evidence that the offence was committed may be fairly strong, because an English jury is the finest institution in this country. A man enters a jury box and becomes at once an impartial, fair-minded man, anxious to hear the case upon its merits, and not to do injustice to the accused, whatever his private and personal feelings on the matter may be. I believe that, as an ex-judge told me, the effect of this will be that convictions will not be secured, and then my hon. Friend's object will be further from attainment than it was before. It is an appalling thing that in this Bill no difference whatever is made between the girl who has fallen for the first time, through the dastardly act of some designing man who, by lavish promises or other means, persuades her to take a step which may lead to her ruin, and the girl who Has already adopted a life of prostitution, and who is probably herself diseased. Supposing— and there are many such cases—that a girl has intercourse under the age of 16 with a number of men. Prostitution leads undoubtedly to other forms of crime, it is very often but a step on the ladder of crime. It is easy for her to say, "I will make money out of this act; I will resort to blackmail," and those of her acquaintances whose names, addresses and circumstances she may happen to know, are fit subjects for her attack. What a temptation to her it will be to go to the man's parents, or to the man himself, and say, "Now, unless I receive a certain sum of money I shall lay an information against you." What a weapon in the hands of the blackmailer! And, as if that were not bad enough, Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 makes blackmail even more easy, because it extends from six to twelve months the time within which proceedings may be taken.

I believe that that extension of time has a purpose. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is that if it should happen that the girl gives birth to a child, she or her parents, or someone else on her behalf, may turn upon her seducer and say, "You were the man who did this, and who has got to pay the penalty." But I would point out that it is by no means only the girl who shall have intercourse for the first time who gives birth to a child. Prostitutes give birth to children. See what a weapon will be put into the hands of her guardians, or even of the girl herself, to go to one of the men who may have had intercourse with her, and say to him, " Now, unless you make provision for this child"—which may not be his—"unless you set me up for life, I am going to lay an information against you, and you may be liable to two years' hard labour. "I wish I could develop this point with something like eloquence. I feel very strongly about it. It has been said that behind this Bill there is the united opinion of women in this country. I do not believe it. I believe that the women of this country have as much common sense as the men, and in many cases more. I believe that when the mothers of this country realise the dangers to which this Bill exposes their sons, they will be as bitter upon the subject as are those who oppose it at the present time. A mother has not only daughters whom she seeks to protect; she has sons also; and it is foolish short sightedness—I say it with great respect— to suppose that a young man in all circumstances will remain absolutely pure. He will not. And who will be the first to come to that young man's help but his mother? Who will be the very first to try and get him out of his difficulties, and to curse the day when Parliament shall have passed this Bill into law, when she finds that her son's defence—which she, were she a jury woman, would herself be the first to recognise—has been taken out of his hands, and that either she has to pay large sums of money in order to buy for him the freedom to which he is entitled, or see her son go to prison? I do not believe the women of this country will stand it. I have spoken at some length, and I ask the indulgence of the House in regard to that; but I hope my hon. Friend will do me the justice to recognise that, if I have not put my case clearly, I have at least said sufficient to show that I am earnest upon the matter.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so because I think my hon. and gallant Friend is sound in his argument that a certain Clause in this Bill really strikes at the root of the principles upon which the criminal law of this country is based, and because I believe that there is a widespread feeling—which I am certain no one would regret more than the promoters of this Bill—that it is a rather dangerous matter to oppose this particular Bill, because Members who do so are liable to be accused of condoning immorality and are liable to misrepresentation in their constituencies. I feel most strongly that a Bill of this kind will in one respect enact legislation which would not receive the support of the Judges and the Bar of this country—who, after all, have more experience of the working of this law than anyone else—. and I think it would be more than wrong to let it go through unchallenged. With the arguments of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill I was in almost complete sympathy and it is only because I believe that he will not attain the end he seeks that I, for one, oppose strenuously Clause 2, at any rate.

Clause 2 is the only part of the Bill to which personally I object strongly. It says, as has been pointed out, that it shall no longer be a defence to say that the man or boy—because it is more often a boy than not—had reasonable cause for believing that the girl was over 16, or, in other words, that he had reasonable cause to believe that the facts were not such that he was committing a crime. The whole essence of the criminal law of this country, in regard to every single crime, is that there must be mens rea , there must be the guilty mind—not only the knowledge of the immorality, but the knowledge that the facts are such that a crime is constituted. It appears to me that if you remove that principle you are running the risk of committing the gravest possible injustice, even in the case of this particular type of crime. I can imagine myself supporting the Bill in this House with all the enthusiasm of which I was capable, if it did not so happen that I have over and over again seen lads and men in the dock on this charge, and have seen justice administered in those cases. What is the defence which will no longer be available—and which, after all, is a proper defence—if Clause 2 be allowed to pass into law? Hon. Members will recollect that this only applies to cases in which the girl is a consenting party. Were it otherwise it would not be this particular offence, but the offence of rape. What is the usual defence at assizes? It very frequently happens that the girl herself has contrived to lead the conversation round to her own particular age. She has definitely stated that she is 18 or 19. It often happens that she says, "I told him I was 18 years of age." She turns to the jury, and they see she looks it. She may say, moreover, "I tempted him." In a case of that description—and the defence is put up in very many cases— the jury would have no option whatever. They would say in effect, "This girl is only 15 years and 11 months of age, and you must be condemned of having committed the most atrocious crime known to the law. "The man has fallen, that is agreed. He has committed a moral offence. He has been tempted and on the spur of the moment he has fallen. But we are going to condemn him as a criminal to the end of his days. He is morally wrong, I agree; but we must hesitate, whatever our objects are, before we constitute a fresh crime and make a man a criminal. As we defend him or as we prosecute him—because it is prosecutors who oppose this Amendment—though feeling that he is wrong, we detest the task of branding him as a criminal.

There is the other case, on which I am sure all lawyers will feel very strongly, and that is the case of the extension of the time. It has well been said that there is no charge more easily to be brought than this particular charge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act and similar Acts. There is no charge that can be more lightly brought, that is in fact more often wrongly brought, and there is no charge which it is more difficult to disprove when it has been brought or that leaves a greater taint upon the man accused, even if he is completely innocent. I cannot see that it will be wise or safe to say, "We will brand a man as a criminal" in regard to an offence where a prosecution has not followed, at any rate within six months' time. There are such things as neurotic women. There are such things as women who invent these matters. There are such things, as is known to every lawyer, as women blackmailers. There is no particular type of crime that lends itself to blackmail more than this. This House will be most unwise if without great caution—and it is only caution I advocate—it opens the door wider still. Having referred to an offence which appears to me to be a proper offence as far as crime is concerned. I now refer to Clause 1, which strikes at a very tricky defence, and renders it impossible. In the offence of having carnal knowledge of a girl under 16, a very frequent defence, and a tricky defence, is that there was not carnal knowledge, but there was an indecent assault, and although I must acknowledge that I am not quite certain what the original law on this point is, I feel that the Clause is completely wise, and the fact that if it alone remains it would make it impossible for a girl to give her consent under 16 to an indecent assault, would very materially assist in stamping out that defence. But in regard to Clause 2, I have the very strongest possible feeling that it is highly dangerous.

In regard to Clause 5, and the Punishment of Incest Act, I have heard it frequently interjected in the course of the Debate, "Why are judges in favour of that particular Clause?" Of course the reason must be known to the majority of hon. Members. It is that, strange as it may seem, the very fact that incest is a very serious crime is not known, and the extraordinary care that is taken to carry out these proceedings in camera actually prevents the very severe punishments which are passed becoming known, and I believe it is the view of the very great majority of lawyers that it would be wise to abolish the provision of the law which enables those cases to be tried in camera . It is not necessarily true that an incest case, highly nauseating as it is, is more horrible than some of these cases of indecent assault and it frequently happens that a case of incest is tried in camera , and even the magistrate's clerk is turned out, whereas the next case is one of indecent assault or rape or some filthy case and the Court is absolutely packed. I am sure if the promoters of the Bill would give some kind of assurance that they are prepared to reconsider Clause 2 but would hang on to Clauses 1 and 5 my main objection would be gone. I think the hon. Member who had the courage to move the rejection of the Bill, whether he is right or wrong, is really in these days doing a courageous thing and a thing to be commended, because it must be wrong that Bills of this kind should go through with-out being challenged and without being most carefully examined. I hope women's organisations, of which I am a most firm supporter, will never allow themselves to be accused of using that horrible weapon of political intimidation.

I should like to voice the feeling, which I believe is a very general one in the House, of appreciation of the Government's action in allowing this Debate to take place at a reasonable time, and particularly at the beginning of the Sitting to-day. I hope that while I and other speakers who may feel very strongly in favour of the Bill may be encouraged by a good deal that is said against it to confute the arguments, the real support of the Bill to-day will be shown silently rather than vocally, because any Parliamentarian must be aware that full opportunity will occur in Grand Committee for a discussion of some of the points, which, indeed, already have been rather more Committee points than Second Reading points, and particularly affect the question, when the Bill comes back from Committee, whether we can again claim the indulgence of the Government in giving the opportunity for discussion which all speakers will agree, in a Bill like this, is much better than having it go through sub silentio , even if that is possible. It is well that it should be discussed on the Floor of the House. The Bill creates no fresh crime. It simply indicates one or two Amendments of procedure and evidence, which have been found, in the opinion of a great majority of the people of this country, and particularly of those more technically able to form a judgment, to have formed loopholes not for the conviction of the wrong people, but loopholes rendering nugatory what has been laid down by Parliament as the law of the land for the better administration of justice. In regard to Clause 2, the strongest point made by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill is that certain injustices might occur; but I think it can be shown that injustice can be avoided, and I believe in most cases the injustices are more imaginary than practical. We can, at any rate, deal with the point on the Committee stage. That is the stage for attempting to raise these questions.

I should not have the slightest hesitation in appealing to the women of the country as to their verdict upon this question. I regard it as significant that this should be practically one of the first Measures demanded, so far as one can judge very widely by the newly-constituted woman electorate of the country. It is only one of the many social reforms likely to come before the House, and I hope the House will deal with it in a broad spirit, and that we shall not be guilty of turning a deaf ear to Bills such as this and driving the women's vote, I was going to say into auction. It is not, however, a party question, and the movement is not political. It over-Tides all questions of party, and the Division Lobby to-day will show that not one party can claim pre-eminence in support of a Measure of this kind. It is a Measure of justice, and the women's voice has been heard most clearly in the matter.

It is one thing to clamour for reform of the law and another thing to clamour for social reform; but one of the things that irritates and causes more protests and more dissatisfaction than anything else is that there is a law and that the effect of that law can be evaded by loop-holes. These five simple. Clauses, which have been based upon the Joint Committee's Report, and have been passed by the other Chamber, have been strictly kept to the limit that I have indicated, and show a statesmanlike request to this House which I hope it will not neglect to accept. The difficulty of all social reform is often the over-enthusiasm of the supporters. If we look back upon the last generation or two, we must realise how many reforms have been defeated by the reformers themselves. The temperance question is only one of many which over and over again has been defeated by the reformers. Anybody who has to do with a question like this knows that the difficulty is not so much the opposition of a section of the opponents as to stop the enthusiasts from wanting to add all sorts of fresh conditions, and thereby frustrating the very object in view.

The object of this Bill is to secure a more fair administration of the existing law by removing certain obstacles in the way of justice. It is a step in the right direction. The Bill has been kept to very limited and very moderate propositions, so as to create as little opposition as possible, and behind it we realise that there is a question of taking up the cause of the weak against the strong, and of right against wrong. Let us give these young people, who are not able to protect themselves, a proper chance. We wish to see fair play. We do not wish to see injustice, but anyone who has had experience in our Courts must realise what is going on, and we desire to deal with it. The instances that have been mentionel will be few and far between. If there is a question of removing obstacles in the way of doing justice to those least able to help themselves, it is our duty to do it, and I. hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading and passed into law as early as possible.

I want to discuss this question, which is one of great importance and very considerable difficulty, from the point of view of one who has for 30 years become aware of certain aspects of this matter in the courts of justice. I hope I may be allowed to say that I am most grateful to the Government for giving facilities for this Bill to-day. However busy Parliament is, time ought to be found in each Session for careful and sympathetic ventilation of great social problems like this. We are all agreed on one thing, and that is the reason for the difficulty which attaches to this kind of legislation. We are all agreed that offences against children are not merely offences against morality, but they are crimes, and ought to be put down as such. We also know —who could fail to know if they have read any history or observed life—that offences between adults against morality can only in rare cases and under very special conditions be wholly treated as crimes. Over and over again there has been a tendency in some cases to make offences against morality and offences against the law the same thing. The difficulty of the problem is that you are dealing with people at an age which is neither complete childhood nor complete maturity. Therefore you are up against a problem the difficulty of which must remain.

That is why there is, and will be, a difference of opinion as to exactly where you are to draw the line and the exact procedure you should have. That is what gives to these discussions their real substance of honest disagreement which has been seen in this House before, and was seen to-day, and will occur again in future when the development of public opinion leads to further modification. It is also true that the development of citizenship among women, the organisation of women on matters of this kind, most properly leads it to be the duty of all who sit in Parliament to remember the women's point of view, which is just as worthy of consideration as the man's point of view. Neither has a monopoly of that most difficult of all things, the exact administration of justice, but those of us who are men have to remember that the women's point of view must be carefully considered, and no one can wonder that, as the years go on, there is more organisation, thought and action on these matters, and that therefore the law requires modification.

I would like now, in a few sentences, to bring the principle which I have laid down into relationship with the proposals of this Bill. It is not quite accurate for the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. J. W. Wilson) to say that no new crime is created. Clause 1 does create a new crime, because it makes willing indecency with a child over the age of 13 a crime which it is not at present. I wish to be scrupulously fair to my right hon. Friend and to say that I think there is a case there for increasing the age. Whether 16 is the exact age or not is a matter for discussion in Committee, but I have come to the conclusion that there is a case for bringing in a Clause like this and for supporting it on Second Reading. Then the second Clause, which has led to a great deal of pointed and proper criticism, deals with the abolition of a certain kind of defence. I am sure that not only all the previous speakers except one, but probably every speaker who follows, will fasten on that point which leads to discussion. I am not going further than to say that I would like to hear full discussion of the point in Committee. There is real argument on both sides. It is intolerable that a man who deliberately does grievous wrong to a girl who is practically a child should get off by any pretext. On the other hand, there are cases—I have seen them myself in Court over and over again—in which persons who were to all intents and purposes grown, mature women, have been the occasion of a charge being brought against a lad who apparently was less mature. All this wants careful weighing.

Another proposal is, altering the time for bringing the charge to a year. I make the most earnest appeal to those who are responsible for this Bill to consider very carefully whether that extension of time to a year is really wise or just or right. The problem is for a Court of Law to decide what happened on a particular date. It may be nearly 12 months before, and I say, though I sympathise with this Bill, that it is very difficult to be sure that you are getting hold of the truth when a charge is not brought until six month3 after the time, and if you allow a charge to be brought nearly 12 months after the time, it is still more difficult. I do not care how bad or how good people are, on this particular point it is the glory of our Courts and the pride of our system that we wish to be absolutely just to every kind of person, whatever his character or want of character. I am afraid that, in the case of a charge in a criminal court which dates back anything like 12 months, the difficulty of coming to a true and fair decision is so great that I do hope that the promoters of this Bill will not adhere to this alteration of the time to 12 months. If I am on the Committee I shall make certain suggestions and then perhaps shall have an opportunity of giving a more detailed statement and reasons on this point.

With regard to Clause 3, with which I cordially concur, these offences vary in heinousness one from the other, but there is no reason why more power should not be given to courts subject to the right of appeal which exists at present from a court of summary jurisdiction to a higher court. Lastly I come to the Clause with regard to cases of incest. When the Incest Act was first passed it happened to be my duty for some two or three years to conduct a considerable number of prosecutions, and the effect produced on my mind was that the provision for holding those cases in camera did not work well. The appalling ignorance of some persons as to what was a crime and what was not, the entire failure of a number of persons to realise how the other domestic relationship ought to make impossible such a crime, is an ignorance which still persists and which would be partly removed if these cases were public and were decently reported. Therefore I am in favour of that Clause, but in Committee I would move to put in a proviso that in any case where for special reasons it seemed right to the Court to sit in camera that power should be given. These cases are only tried by judges of the High Courts, and occasionally there are circumstances attaching to these cases which make it necessary that they should not be tried in public. I am sure that there is not one of His Majesty's judges who could not be trusted safely to exercise discretion on this question if it was laid down clearly that, as a rule, all cases save in exceptional instances should be tried in public. Having made these observations I shall vote for the Second Reading without hesitation. I attach great importance to the discussions in Committee. I hope it will not be thought impertinent if I say that it is of more consequence to get a certain amount of desirable change by common consent than it is to make changes by sharp Divisions. Public opinion grows and develops. Justice can be done only if it is in accord both with public opinion and with absolute consideration for any accused persons. A great deal of this Bill can safely be added to the Statute Book, and it will advance the cause of those whom everyone wishes to protect.

There are very few words I want to say. I am induced to speak by the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. Perhaps he would permit me to pay him a compliment for a speech which was based on his long experience and wide discretion in matters of this kind. I have been much impressed by what he said. Being in all these matters entirely independent, I can assure him that the result of his speech will be to make me vote for the Bill. I had grave doubts about the Bill, but they have been largely removed by my hon. and learned Friend. I will say a word about those doubts. Any Bill is either so very important or so unimportant that it cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House. We have constantly been told that Bills cannot be discussed because the matters with which they deal have been settled outside. Bills are brought in and we are told that details can be settled in Standing Committee. I resent that attitude on the part of supporters of Bills. The House should discuss every Bill on Second Reading.

The Noble Lord misunderstood me. I said I welcomed discussion, but many supporters of the Bill decided not to occupy too much time with their speeches. Hon. Members must not judge the support of the Bill by the length or number of the speeches made.

An irritating effect is produced on me and on many Members when the statement is made that a Bill has to be passed at once and not discussed fully on the Floor of the House. The House must discuss Bills here if it is to pass them. In these Debates we hear constantly appeals to the women of the country. I resent a sex appeal. I should have thought that after the experience of the War, any appeal made in this House would be made to the great people of this country, not to any section, men or women, but to all classes and conditions and all forms of opinion. I do not like these appeals to the women. We are told that such and such a Bill must be passed because the women demand it, or because injustice is being done to the women. A Bill should be passed to do justice to all the people and not to any section of them. More injury is done to reforms by the intemperance of the reformers than by anything else. The intemperate speeches of reformers have again and again ruined reform. My experience is that the reactionary's best friend is the intemperate speech of enthusiastic and not always very intelligent supporters of certain reforms.

I hope that any support which is given to this Bill will not be based on the ground that this is an immensely important reform which is demanded at once, and that anyone who is opposed to it is an enemy to true morality and true progress. I do not think that is a true ground. I believe that the Bill is necessary and that it is carrying out a necessary reform, and though I have some doubt about Clause 2, I think the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill because it is necessary. I hope the Second Reading will be given only on the ground of the good of the whole community and on the ground of justice. I say most emphatically that the greatest form of morality is justice; in other words, that there is nothing which is more important than justice. Not even to carry out reforms which are believed to be necessary are we justified in doing injustice. It is the greatest crime against God and man to do injustice. Believing that, I shall vote for the Bill only on the ground that it carries out the principle of justice. With necessary Amendments in Committee, I think the Bill should be passed. I have stated only my general views on the subject, but I believe those views are the views of the great majority of the people of. the country.

I think the House will agree that this has been a very interesting and very useful discussion. I quite agree that this is one of the subjects which ought to be thoroughly threshed out on the Floor of the House. I presume that there are present more opponents of this Measure than have already spoken, but I also presume that the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment have, at any rate, outlined what are the principal objections which this Measure will meet. No Member of the House can have the slightest doubt about the sincerity of purpose of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. They have performed a very difficult task with great courage and great tact and judgment. I disagree with them, but at the same time I admit that a difficult task has been very well performed by them. With the exception of the Mover of the Amendment, who did not appear to see any good in the Bill at all, other speakers have raised objections which seem to be Committee points. Let me remind the House that every single item in the Bill has been considered and approved by a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It is true that the Joint Committee also approved other Measures which it was feared would be more controversial than any contained in this Bill, but every single provision in this Bill has been threshed out before that Committee, and after evidence had been given by people of the widest and longest experience every provision of the Bill was approved.

The Mover of the Amendment said that you could never make people moral by Act of Parliament. I believe his words were that you could not cure immorality by legislation. No one has suggested that you could. You cannot change character by legislation, but what you can do is to prevent the immoral man. or woman from committing acts of immorality. You cannot make a person honest by Act of Parliament, but for that reason you would not repeal the whole of the Larceny Acts. This Bill does not seek to make people moral; it does not seek to exercise the functions of the teacher and the parent over the young. It does seek to prevent those who are immoral from carrying out their immoral practices at their own sweet will. We have also been told—this is more especially with regard to Clause 2—that it is-essential there should be the mens rea . That is rather a wide term and, if I may say so without offence, is constantly used very loosely indeed. It is not in the least essential to prove that a man has set out for the purpose of committing a particular crime. There is such a thing as recklessness, which might make him guilty of crime. If that be not so, how does it come about that people who drive recklessly without the slightest intention of doing harm to anybody may be found to have acted with such culpable negligence as makes them guilty of manslaughter?

Culpable negligence has already been provided for in the law Does not that provide against the recklessness to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?

No, Sir. I do not think that is at all relevant to the point I was raising. I was dealing with the arguments which were used against this particular provision and I was saying that you cannot employ the term mens rea in the narrow sense in which it has been used. The great objection raised has been to the removal of the defence in existence for so many years that if a man had reason to suppose a girl was over the age of 16, he was not guilty of any offence. Personally, I am strongly in favour of the removal of that defence. It is suggested to me that it prevents a man defending himself against such a charge, but that is such a misuse of terms that it is difficult to follow. A man may still set up the defence that he is not guilty, and if he does so, and satisfies the jury, he will get off in the ordinary way.

Not if her ago is proved.

2.0 P.M.

He will still have the defence that he did not do it. I do not say a word against enabling a man to defend himself, and there is nothing in this Bill which affects a man's absolute right when he goes into Court to say: "I am not guilty of the crime." I ask the House to consider what is the object of this legislation. The object of this legislation is to protect, not the good children who have good parents to look after them, but the bad children who are neglected by bad parents, and who have to be protected against themselves. The very children who need the greatest possible protection are these poor wretched children who have been absolutely neglected by their parents, and they are the very children whose protection is aimed at in these proposals. The children who have decent parents to look after them do not require the protection of the law. If there were no bad girls who mature too quickly, and go on the streets at the age of 15, there would be no necessity for legislation of this kind. If once you allow this defence in regard to girls who lead evil lives, which has such an effect upon them both in appearance and manners, in this respect, you defeat the object of your own law. We have heard a heartrending description given of the man who sees a young prostitute on the street who looks 18 or 19, and is led away by that into crime. If the girl were a bad girl and the man had been dining not wisely, but too well, the Courts would take that into consideration just as they would in a case of assault or any other offence. When you come to deal with the rights or wrongs of this defence, as a defence, consider what is the position of the man. A man goes out for an evil purpose, he knows perfectly well—or he is deemed to know—that the law says he must not commit immorality with any girl under 16, but knowing to start with that there is an age limit, and that if he goes with any girl under the age limit he is liable to punishment, he decides to take the risk; that is his own look-out. If a man intends to do this sort of thing in safety from the criminal law, he must take care that there is real maturity, and that the person is really an adult before he commits the act. If he does not choose to do that, then he is in exactly the same position as the man who chooses to drive a motor reck- lessly, not intending to do any harm, but in fact committing a crime by injuring some person. It is his business to protect himself. If you force a man to do that you are taking a very necessary and indeed an essential step in preventing, the young girl who goes wrong from finding a market upon the streets. You will never save that girl until you make it so dangerous for the man as to protect these girls against themselves. We are not legislating now to produce morality-as between adults. That is their lookout, but so far as children who require protection are concerned, I say it is defeating our own intention and defeating our own law if we allow any sympathy for the man, any appeals on the ground of any hardship to the man, to render less effective your protection of the child. So far as the other provisions are concerned, they do not seem to call for any particular remark, and therefore I will not go into them in detail. But I do ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. I feel that at any rate, even though there may be some Amendments introduced in Committee, the Bill itself, taken as a whole, is the result of very considered judgment, it is supported by many people of wide experience, and' every provision has been considered and approved by the Joint Committee of the two Houses. I myself consulted, through my Department, the Bishop of London, and we eliminated such provisions as we thought were more controversial than we could hope to get through, and I therefore ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. I feel that in doing so they are causing no hardship to anyone, but passing a Measure which is proved to be necessary for the protection just of those very girls, those bad and neglected girls who are found upon the streets, who are proved to be unable to protect themselves.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Joint Committee-took the evidence of people of experience,, can he say if the evidence of Judges of Assize was taken?

I am afraid I cannot answer that. I am not sure, but there are members of the Committee who will know that particular fact, and I know the Bishop of London quoted some statement by Mr. Justice McCardie.

With the object of this Bill everyone must be in sympathy. The whole question which we have to consider is whether the Bill would really carry out that which it is brought in to carry out. A moral nation must always be more prosperous than an immoral nation, but can you make a nation moral by Act of Parliament? My own impression, for what it is worth, is that you cannot do that. The only way that I know of by which you can make a nation moral is, first, by example and, secondly, by giving them so much to do that they have not time to think of anything else. I venture to say, with an experience, I am sorry to say, extending over a considerable number of years, that it is when a man or a woman have got very little to do that they begin to think of things which perhaps on the whole they had better not think of, and when they have got a great deal to do they are too tired in the evening to bother about other things, and their mind is upon their work and not upon other matters. I think myself that it is possible that it might be advantageous to increase the age of consent, but if the age is increased, I do not quite see what you want with the other provisions of the Bill. I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection of the Bill on his courage in doing so when such action might possibly be misrepresented. I am inclined to think that there is a great deal to be said for his statement that a girl of 16 —I think he limited his statement to Italian and Spanish women—

And Jewesses.

I think he might have extended that, because I think there are, even in this country, which, being a northern country, is not so far advanced as some of the southern countries, a very considerable number of girls who are 16 or under but who look quite 19 or 20, just as there are several women who are 35 or 40 who, by the modern dress, look something like 21 or 22. I do not know whether the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) agrees with that. That being so, I think you are putting a rather unjust penalty on one of the sexes. I am not sure that the men are the only people who are to blame. I am not sure that very often the women are not just as much to blame as the men, and yet under this Bill, if it becomes law, so far as I can gather, the woman will escape all punishment, and the whole of the punishment will be borne by the man. I do not think that is quite right. I do not think that in the happy days when votes were confined to men they ever abused their privileges, and I hope that in these more modern and, in my opinion, less happy days, my sisters will not abuse the power and privileges which they have got. Therefore, I think that while no one can deny that this sort of thing should be stopped as far as possible, if you are going to attempt to stop it by Act of Parliament, you should put just as great a penalty upon one consenting party as upon the other. Why was not the age extended to, say, 15 and the matter left there? It would be a far simpler proposal. I think it would be one to which no one would have objected, and it would have been much more likely to achieve the result that is desired and would have been passed in a very short time.

I am told—I do not know it of my own knowledge—that the Bishop of London is very largely responsible for this Bill. I would say to his Lordship that you cannot change human nature and that, much as we regret a great deal of what is going on, we can never stop what I may perhaps call a vice which has been in existence since the world began. Undoubtedly the War, amongst other evils, has contributed to an increase of immorality, and that is nothing new. I believe all wars have had that effect. You get a large number of men with, for the moment, unlimited power in their hands, entering into a town or a village, and though I believe I am right in saying that English soldiers are the best in the world on that particular point, still, if one reads history, one knows that men are apt to forget themselves under those circumstances, and I am afraid that that result extends to a period lasting after the declaration of peace. I had a case brought before me the other day of a girl, whose age, I think, was 12 or 13, and not only had she misconducted herself with a man—she was in service— but she left the service, and her father and mother allowed her to come into the house and took the man in as a lodger; it was not until some three or four months had elapsed that the police found it out, and the man has been com- mitted for trial at the Assizes. No one can doubt that cases of that sort are extremely bad, and I think in such a case, if it is proved, the man ought to be punished, because probably in that case, the girl being so young, he really was the offending person; but when you come to raise the age to 16, I am not at all sure that you will not find that the girl knows just as much as the man, sometimes more, and is equally an offending party. What are you going to do? You are never going to stop prostitution; I do not care how many Bishops say you will; but what are you going to do in the case which, I think, was cited by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, where a man quite innocently has illicit connection with a girl who looks 20 or 21 and who is, as a matter of fact, 15 years, 11 months, and 29 days? You are going to subject that man to a very severe penalty. I have often heard hon. Members opposite allude to the old penal laws and to the severity of the laws which were in existence 100 years ago, and which were supposed, instead of stopping crime, to encourage it. Now be careful that if you make this Bill too stringent you will not cause the effect which you desire to stop. That is speaking generally.

Now I come to the provisions of the Bill which the Home Secretary said have not been criticised. There are some Clauses which will require very considerable amendment. I will say nothing more about Clause 1, except that I think the. age should be 15, and not 16. The first part of Clause 2 seems to me to be wrong. I think that if a man could genuinely prove to the satisfaction of the Court or jury—and, after all, I presume a jury would know whether or not there was some ground for a man supposing a girl was over 16—I really do not see why he should be convicted. The second part of the Clause is much worse. Sub-section (2) says: unless you are going to put into the power of certain people the opportunity of blackmailing possibly quite innocent people. Therefore, I do think that when this Bill gets into Committee some alteration of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 should be made. I pass over Clause 3, and I come to the very curious Clause 4. I am glad there is certainly one Scottish hon. Member present. Clause 4 is the application of the Bill to Scotland. It says: in camera . I remember the passing of that Act. I think it was almost entirely owing to the exertions of Lord Lambourne that that Act was passed. He was a great personal friend of mine, and I did my best to assist him to pass that Act. I remember we had considerable consultation as to whether or not it was better to have the proceedings in public or private. There was a great deal to be said on both sides. I am rather inclined to think, in view of the experience which has been gained since that Act was passed, that, on the whole, it would be better to have the proceedings in public. I am rather inclined to think so, but there are very strong reasons against it. One has only got to look at the papers almost every day—perhaps that is an exaggeration, but certainly two or three times a month—to see that some young person has been brought up before the magistrate for having committed some minor or trivial offence, and sometimes more serious offence, the defence being that they saw something of the sort at the pictures, and then they did the same thing. If these cases are reported, they are certain to be reported at more or less length in a certain portion of the Press, and they are certain to be read by young people—and perhaps by old people. Now the fact of these things, of which they may not have thought, or been unaware, being brought to their notice, is, I am afraid, calculated to lead them to do the very thing we do not want them to do. That was the reason which, so far as my memory goes, actuated Lord Lambourne in putting in the Clause that the proceedings should be held in private, and although I am inclined to think that the publication of these proceedings will cause such disgust as to prevent people committing the offence, by the force of public opinion, though I think there is a good deal to be said for that, one must not forget the other side, namely, that the very publication of these things may produce the committal of further offences.

It is a very difficult question. I am rather inclined to think that, on the whole, publicity is better, but I do not think it is a question which can be decided off-hand without any consideration at all. Though I think, on the whole, I should vote for the retention of this Clause, I am inclined to think that very earnest consideration should be given to it in Committee. An hon. Friend says it might be left to the discretion of the judge to decide whether or not the proceedings should be in camera, and I think that is a very good suggestion. I think there should be some safeguard which could be enforced by our judges. They have very great experience, and I do not know that you could find a better body— they make mistakes, of course, as we all do, even hon. Members opposite—but they are, as far as human beings are concerned, the least likely to err of any body of human beings. I have endeavoured to put my views before the House. It is a very serious question. We may be doing good or we may be doing harm, and I am inclined to think that the best way is to trust more to moral persuasion and religious education—not so much to the education of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, whose continuation schools, so far as I can gather, consist in teaching people dancing and music, but the religion which we did get from the various religious bodies, but which, I am rather afraid, has been somewhat neglected for the last few years.

This is one of the Bills which does not appear to have created party dissension. The Bill deals with a subject which, I think, commands the attention of all right-thinking men of all parties. From that point of view I desire to say a few words in support of it. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Wignall) gave, I think, very adequate reasons why this Bill should become an Act, not merely in the interests of the persons concerned under the Bill, but in the interests of the community as a whole. Any opposition that has been offered to the Bill has been such as one could not characterise as whole-hearted. I am correct, I think, in saying that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill only has given whole-hearted opposition to the Measure. Other hon. Members' criticism has in some way or other indicated that, with the exception of certain parts of the Bill, they are in favour of its principle. All this seems to me to indicate that there should be no great difficulty in securing the speedy passage of this Bill. I recognise that in matters of this kind education should play an important part, but education is not all that is required. As the Home Secretary pointed out, very severe punishment should be added as something which will create individual hesitancy to do that which is altogether contrary to public morality and the public interest. One of those old-fashioned arguments which we sometimes hear in relation to proposals of this character was given to the House by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He said it would be a grievous hardship in relation to those of the age of 16, because the young person concerned might be only 15 years, 11 months and 12 days. If the age had been fixed at 15 in the Bill, I suggest that we should probably have had the same argument as to the difficulty and injustice of the matter, but the age would have been 14 years, 11 months and 12 days. Consequently, it is necessary to determine the age, and in the meantime no better age can be proposed than 16.

I want to say while I am in whole hearted sympathy with the intentions of the Bill it should be pointed out, especially on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, that we think the real remedies lie, not only in protection such as is in this Bill, but on entirely different lines. Environment plays a very great and important part in connection with these matters. The housing conditions of our country are responsible for not perhaps ignorance, but knowledge which does not tend in the right direction. The education of the people, too, is not altogether what it might be in relation to questions of this character. I myself sometimes feel that mothers do not discharge their full responsibility towards their daughters and fathers towards their sons in matters of this kind, but I also sometimes think that the fathers and mothers themselves, perhaps through some fault or other, are not quite conversant with all the potent evils that may arise if they do not give the necessary instruction to their children.

It has been argued—perhaps I am under a misapprehension—that that part of the Bill which limits the time to 12 months after the commission of the offence is far too long a period, and a shorter period has been suggested. I am under the impression that already under the law in relation to paternity cases there is a much longer period in which the woman is entitled to prove, if she can, that a certain individual is the father of her child; if she does, she is entitled to a decision in her favour There should be no great difficulty in this question, and it might be either nine or twelve months, or longer. This is not an attempt, as the Home Secretary has said, to make people moral by Act of Parliament. The Bill simply says to those who desire to be immoral that they must take care that they are immoral with people over a certain age who are not covered by this Bill, and those who will persist in immorality must take care in doing so not to contravene the law of the land which is laid down for the protection of young people. These young people, it may be, are the future mothers, the respected mothers of boys who may be called upon to render to their country great service in the days that lie ahead. They are young people who, not knowing the result of what they are committing, may find afterwards that their lives are blighted and their physical health destroyed, and if they themselves should at any time become married persons, what has transpired may be a cause of serious discord in their family life. For all these reasons I desire to support the Bill whole-heartedly. It goes a step in the right direction. In relation to Clause 3 I would have liked to see an even more drastic proposal. We find in relation to the keeping of brothels there may be three convictions, while the total fines may amount for those three convictions to £850, or 21 months' imprisonment. I should have thought that in the case of anyone who pursued for so long a criminal course the law of the land would lay it down that their recognisances should be extended, not merely for three months, but longer, or that their imprisonment should continue until they were prepared to give recognisances that they would not continue in the same malpractices in which they were engaged. We of the Labour party welcome this Measure wholeheartedly. In reply to the observations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) I am not aware that any of us object to this Measure; we are practically unanimous. At the same time we must put it forward as a solution of the problem that poverty and the housing question lie very largely at the bottom of the mischief, and until these are dealt with adequately we will not get that success in connection with an Act of Parliament like this that we desire.

When I see a combination between the Bishop of London and the Home Secretary and between the Bishops and the police, I am always, suspicious, and when Church and State get together it is time honest men looked after themselves. It is from that point of view that I look at this Bill. I am told that this is a morality Bill and the people who support it think that they can make people good by Act of Parliament. There have always been people in the world who think that if you only punish people severely enough you can stop acts of infmorality being committed. I look upon this new kind of legislation with some suspicion. It is true that this Bill has not got the worst elements of most of the previous legislation on this subject. It does not seek to pick out the unfortunate class and chivvy them off the streets.

There is one Clause dealing with brothels. It proposes to fine those who keep them more heavily. That, however, will not close brothels, but it will merely mean that the unfortunate women will have to pay a higher rate for the increased risks. You are not going to stop people keeping brothels by this Clause. All you will do will be to make the lives of those who use them a little more intolerable. Otherwise the Bill seems to be one about which we need not complain. I should have thought the hon. Member who last spoke would have been the last person to bless this expedient for remedying human ills. This Bill may stop to a certain extent those who go about the streets picking up young girls, because there will be the risk of going to prison. I know that hon. Members like the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) think that we really can by legislation make the world better, but if you are really going to stop this evil, you will have to get to "the root of it, and the root of it is poverty and bad education.

If we had brought in legislation to ensure that the Education Act passed in 1918 was made law and put into force, and if it had been in operation now, you would be doing much more to stop this sort of thing, which we all loathe, than you will do by Measures such as this. If you widen the minds of the people you make them into better men and women. When the children reach the age of 14 at the present time you do not give them any opportunity of widening their minds. Generally they take up the worst side of life and then when they do wrong you propose to put them into prison and punish them in order to stamp out that for which we ourselves are responsible. It is education first and then poverty and those are the enemies of morality, and to think that we can do any permanent good by trifling with the situation in the way this Bill does it not merely a waste of time, but a misdirection of the way we ought to go if we wish to permanently improve mankind.

I have been waiting in the hope of getting a lead from the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) to whom I look for guidance upon a Measure of this kind. This is an even more important matter than the question of beer. I want at once to say that putting all cant on one side, in so far as any Measure is capable of limiting, if not preventing, the pollution of the girlhood of this country, it would have the hearty support of all right-minded persons. It is on that ground alone that I should most heartily support Clauses of this kind. As regards the Clause limiting the age of consent to 16, if it could be carried out without injustice, I should heartily support it, but to say that these things can be dealt with in Committee and ought not to be raised on the Second Reading is rather absurd. At the present time if a man commits an offence with a girl whom he has every reason to believe is over the age of 16, the law says that that shall be a good defence and now you propose to take that defence away.

Not long ago I was present at the Derby Assizes, and heard there a remarkable case which I commend to the consideration of those who are supporting this Bill. A young girl with her hair down her back, wearing a short skirt, stepped into the box, and told a heartrending story of what had occurred between her and the prisoner in the dock. The judge, thinking that the prisoner probably had reason to believe that the girl was above the legal age, said to the girl, "Were you dressed exactly like that on the occasion you have referred?" The girl replied, "No, I was wearing some other clothes which my mother told me to put on." In view of these facts the judge adjourned the case for a couple of hours and sent the girl home to put on the clothes she was wearing on the night in question. She returned to the Court with her hair up, wearing another hat and a different dress, looking much older, and the jury unanimously acquitted the prisoner, because they were of opinion that from her appearance the prisoner had no reason to doubt that she was of the full legal age.

Therefore this provision may be the cause of very grave injustice and it is on that ground that I object to that particular Clause. Speaking of the Measure as I whole, I do not like it. It is a Bishop's Bill, and I have yet to learn that any Bishop's Bill in the history of this country ever did any good, and I remember a good many which have done a great deal of harm. I remember that during the great War the Bishop of London rose to the eminent height of inspiration and established what he called "a mission of repentance and hope," but we did the repentance and this is the realisation of our hopes. I would not have intervened at all in this Debate but for the remarkable speech of the Home Secretary. A more extraordinary justification of this Measure I am certain none of its sponsors ever anticipated, and if the right hon. Gentleman's view is correct then the proper title of this Bill ought to be "a Bad Girl's Protection Bill." This Measure is to punish the naughty girl on the pavement of Piccadilly. I do not think this Bill can have much effect with them because they have already gone too far. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about taking away the statutory defence under Section 2, I think he propounded a solution which must have alarmed some of the sponsors of this Bill. It simply means this: a man who has "dined not too wisely, but too well" meets a pretty lady in Piccadilly, and it afterwards turns out that she was under the legal age. When the jury are made acquainted with the fact that the prisoner was drunk, they can consider that as a defence. It might therefore be called the "Drunkard's Relief Bill." The Home Secretary says that he has no pity for the man who under the impulse of passion commits what is called an offence with a girl under 16, whatever the circumstances. The Home Secretary has no pity for anyone. That is his rule in life. Any phrenologist who examined him would find the bump of pity entirely omitted from his cranium.

Clause 1 might certainly be passed, but Clause 2 will require enormous amendment. There is not a supporter of the Bill who has not damned it with faint praise, but, according to them, our proper policy is to wait till the Committee stage and then move to leave out all the Clauses except that relating to Scotland. That is really the sum total of their criticism. I have been amazed to notice how one view of Clause 5 has entirely escaped attention. At present all incest charges have to be heard in camerâ. Hon. Members have said that it might be a good thing for the country to read the details of these things. Is no one else to be considered? What about the child? Why should you publish to all the world that she has been the victim of some unspeakable outrage and thus blight her whole life? It is said that the judges are in favour of repealing this Section. I do not know that any of them have been quoted in support of the Clause. It is urged that a judge in some special case may order it to be heard in camerâ, but frequently it is only when the case has developed that evidence comes out which it is undesirable to publish. I strongly oppose Clause 5, and, as regards the extension of the time limit for proceedings, provided in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, I regard that as the greatest possible danger. As soon as a girl becomes 16 years of age she has only to put this Sub-section into operation against every man who has been connected with her during the past year to provide herself with a nice dowry for the rest of her life, because all evidence may have disappeared in connection with an offence in which corroboration is never one of the features

I hope when the Bill gets into Committee that the very reasonable protection under the existing law will not be taken away by Clause 2. You cannot punish a man for committing a crime if he never had any intention to commit it. The law assumes that a man intends the consequences of his own act. If a man drives recklessly down the street, the law assumes that he contemplates the possibility of running over and killing somebody. A man who, in all innocence, becomes intimate with a woman apparently 18 or 19 years of age, does not intend to commit a crime, and to take away that defence is absolutely wrong and unjust. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend (Major C. Lowther), who has moved the rejection of this Bill in a speech to which so many compliments have been addressed, intends to go to a Division, or whether he will be content with the criticisms of the Bill's own friends and the hope of being able in Committee to take away some of its objectionable features, but if he goes to a Division I shall reluctantly, because I know how unpalatable opposition to a Bill of this kind is, and I am heartily in favour of it, and perhaps have done something to enforce some of its principles in ways which cannot be done by Act of Parliament, support him. If it goes to a Division, then we ought to have an understanding that those of us who support it only do so because we are in favour of the one great object of maintaining the purity of our motherhood. That is the only thing which appeals to me, and it is, of course, something which every decent-minded man is anxious to do. I want to make that quite clear. Otherwise, the Bill is so full of pitfalls, dangers, and infringements of the rights of the people that I shall feel justified in going into the Lobby against it, because I do not believe that in Committee we shall be able to put it into proper shape.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

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

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "premises," to insert the words "who is engaged in Service in the Defence Force, Territorial annual training, or in the Mercantile Marine."

The object of this Amendment is to bring the Clause into accord with the Memorandum, which says: facilities given to them because owing to their occupation they may be taken away from their homes, but I do not think it is desirable to introduce changes into the franchise law at the end of a long Session without two-thirds of the Members of the House knowing about it. The Bill was brought in only about a fortnight or three weeks ago. Seeing it down on the Order Paper, I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy. I carefully read the memorandum, and from it I gathered that the object of the Bill was to remedy a mistake which had arisen under previous Reform Acts by not providing for the absence from home of these particular men when on their annual training. I hoped, at any rate, that that would be the effect of the Bill. On looking at it. however, I found that the Bill did not extend certain facilities to these people only. It extended them to everybody. That may be right or it may be wrong, but there should be no great extension of the franchise, especially in view of the fact that we had an extension four years ago, without due and proper consideration and proper notice being given. I should rot oppose the Bill if it were limited to remedying the hardships which prevent members of His Majesty's Forces from exercising the franchise under the circumstances I have described. I agree that that ought to be dealt with, but I do not think we should go so far as this Bill goes, and I trust, therefore, the Government will accept my Motion which, after all, only brings their own Bill into conformity with their own Memorandum.

I think it is really a very serious thing that men who, in pursuit of their livelihood, are frequently away from home six weeks or two months at a time should be excluded from the operation of this Bill, and I therefore appeal to the right hon. Baronet who has moved the Amendment to see that fishermen are not deprived of their vote because they happen to be away sea fishing. Fishermen have to suffer enough nowadays without having any extra embargo put upon them, and whatever else is done I do most strongly appeal to the Home Secretary to make sure that if this Amendment is carried fishermen away from home in pursuit of their calling shall, at any rate, be brought within the purview of the Bill.

May I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the words I propose to put in have been taken from the Memorandum issued by the Government? Whether "mercantile marine" includes fishermen I do not know, but it would be easy to add words so as to include men who are away at sea earning their living by fishing.

3.0 P.M.

I am sorry that the right hon. Baronet is proposing to put such a reactionary Amendment into this Bill. What is the use of troubling about a twopenny-halfpenny piece of legislation of this sort? This is a small, trifling, piffling Amendment which is brought forward in order to keep out a few people who may have the misfortune, in pursuance of their trade, to be away from home three or four months at a time. If these men were at home idling the right hon. Baronet would no doubt be quite prepared to give them the vote, but because they go away from their home in order to earn their living the right hon. Gentleman is penalising them for their activity and diligence by refusing them this right to which I submit they are fully entitled. I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this latest development of his Toryism is not really needed. There are large sections of the fishing population of these islands who are away from home three and four months at a time—not merely fishermen but fish workers who travel from port to port in order to help provide nice fish for people in the City of London. Why should they be deprived of their votes when they could have them by staying at home and doing nothing but Tub their shoulders against a post? I know quite a number of people from fishing villages who during the winter time go into industrial centres in order to earn money. The economic conditions of their trade make it absolutely necessary that they should go away from home for certain months in the year. I hope the right hon. Baronet will withdraw this Amendment and allow all those to come within the franchise whom the Act is intended to cover.

I do not see why special exception should be made with regard to the men in the Defence Force, the Territorial Service, and the mercantile marine, but I think there is something in what the right hon. Baronet has said about the Memorandum being somewhat misleading. After all, however, the law is embodied in the Bill and not in the Memorandum, and if a man goes away from home to earn his living instead of staying idling at home and drawing the unemployment donation I do not see why the right hon. Baronet should want to disfranchise him, especially as if he had preferred idleness he would not have been disfranchised.

I have stated that I was mislead by the Memorandum. I admit that is has no force in it, but, looking at it, I naturally came to the conclusion that what was in the Memorandum would also be contained in the Bill. My point was, not that there was any hardship, but that a Franchise Bill should not be brought in without due and proper notice, and certainly not at this end of the Session.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, because there is bound to be a movement of the working population at the present time, owing to the quickening of so many industries, and if men are to be encouraged to get work where work is to be had, I do not see why they should be disfranchised. I have every sympathy with the mercantile marine, the fishing service, and the Army and Navy. They ought to have had votes long since, and I would do everything I could to get them votes; but why, because a man is not fortunate enough to get a berth in a ship, but is doing important work in a factory or elsewhere, he should be disfranchised, passes my comprehension.

I think that the Memorandum, so far from being at fault, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet, is singularly accurate and complete; but it is not complete if the right hon. Baronet takes one set of words and omits two very important letters which stand in front of them in the Memorandum. The words of the Memorandum are, "under conditions which preclude the possibility of return," and these are followed by two very important letters, namely, "e.g." —for example—"by service in the Defence Force, Territorial Annual Training, or service in the Mercantile Marine." It is not unfair or unwise or misleading to take as an example the largest class of people who will be affected; but, it being definitely stated that they are only taken as examples, surely it is not in accord with the great care which the right hon. Baronet always displays in dealing with these matters to maintain that the classes mentioned as examples are the only classes affected by the Bill, and that, therefore, the Bill or the Memorandum is misleading. The difficulty in which the hon. Baronet finds himself shows how unwise it would be to endeavour to restrict the Measure further than it is already restricted. With his well-known generosity he agreed that it would be most unfair to grant privileges to the Mercantile Marine and withhold them from fishermen who are carrying on analogous work, and so he at once asked leave to amend his Amendment.

There are many classes affected, and it is impossible to deal with them comprehensively unless you leave the wording as it is. There is one class particularly that I should like to point out to the right hon. Baronet, namely, the groom or servant. His master goes away, say, to Scotland and then to France, for a period of four months. The master retains his right to vote, but the servant who accompanies him loses his unless this Bill is passed in its present form. I am sure that that is not the right hon. Baronet's intention. Again, suppose that a man goes to South Africa on business. He is there on a contract. But for this Bill he might lose his right to vote. If, however, the same man went as a private traveller, ho would retain his right to vote. There are all kinds of anomalies which the Bill is designed to meet. I would call particular attention to the important word "only" in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. Sub-section (1) says: qualify him, and at the end of the Subsection says:

The hon. Baronet is quite correct in saying that I left out the two letters "e.g.", but any ordinary person looking at the Memorandum would at once think that the examples given were the cases which were to be dealt with. I am further fortified in that by what the Memorandum goes on to say, namely, that the Bill

"gives similar relief to that given before 1918 by the Electoral Disabilities Removal Act, 1891, and the Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1887."

The hon. Baronet said that if it is confined to these particular classes certain hardships will be created, and I do not doubt that that is true. No law, as far as I know, ever was or will be in existence that does not create hardships. Hardships and hard cases must occur. The old illustration of one side of a street being rated in one district while the other side of the street is in another district, and the rates in the one case being 10s. and in the other 15s., shows the same sort of thing. There must be hardships wherever the line is drawn. My criticism against this Bill is, first of all, that it goes farther than a reading of the Memorandum would lead one to suppose it was intended to go, and, secondly, that it practically does away with the residential qualification. The only provisions in the last Reform Act which caused it to differ from complete adult suffrage were the residential qualification and the age of women voters. Under that Act you have to be registered as being in occupation for a certain number of months. That is now taken away, and I think the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) will admit that very great anomalies might happen under this Bill if it became law. There is nothing, as I said on the Second Beading, to prevent an astute agent from causing some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to take lodgings in a certain place where there happened to be a considerable number of sensible people, namely, Tories, sending them away to sea, and then bring them back to overwhelm the real voting power and the real wishes of those Tories. Perhaps they do not do things of that kind in Scotland, but they do in Ireland, and they might do in England. We had a tremendously far-reaching Reform Act in 1918. Its provisions were before Mr. Speaker's Committee, of which at one time I was a member, for some months, and it was then discussed at great length in this House. I always thought myself that it was a bad Bill, but no one who supported it and thought it was a good Act can possibly have thought there were not mistakes in it. But surely this is not the time now—I will not use the word "surreptitiously," but it was really sprung upon the House and was sprung upon the country. I have a letter from a Conservative agent in one of the large industrial towns who hopes the Bill will be amended in the way I have proposed, saying, exactly as I thought, when he saw there was a Bill down he looked at it and, reading the memorandum, thought it did not very much matter and practically only concerned the forces of the Crown and the mercantile marine. I think he was right. If you are going to make a large alteration, as I contend this is, in the Franchise Act, due and proper notice should have been given. In these degenerate days I am afraid reason and logic do not count for very much. It may be necessary to have an Amending Bill—most Bills passed nowadays necessitate Amending Bills— due notice should be given of them, and I am not at all sure that if we have an Amending Bill we might not have, it in the opposite direction. I remember when I was on the Speaker's Committee I made a speech or moved an Amendment, and the Speaker asked me whether the object of the Committee was not to extend the franchise. I said, "No, the object of the Committee is to ascertain what changes should be made in the franchise. Therefore it will be quite possible to say that no one living in a house of under £20 a year should have the franchise," and I said then, as I say now, that that would have been a far better step and much more likely to secure a happy and prosperous country than the Measure which was passed. It is no use going into the Lobby by myself, and I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I certainly shall not withdraw the Amendment.

I have not studied the Bill and do not propose for a moment to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby, but perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us whether this is only a small matter of amendment affecting comparatively few voters, or whether it will really affect a very large number of voters quite outside the forces. If it really affects a very large number of people, possibly the House will think rather more notice ought to have been given to us of a substantial amendment in the franchise law.

It does not affect a large number of people. The whole circumstance arises out of the discovery that individuals serving in the Defence Force would lose their votes, and it was seen that other people might be in the same category, and for that purpose the Bill was framed in the terms now before us in order to remove any injustice which might be done. It is the exception and not the rule.

I wish to say a few words on behalf of a very important body of workers who will be affected by the right hon. Baronet's Amendment. I am surprised that the representative of the City of London should make himself responsible for such a proposition because the City of London is the headquarters of nearly all the great civil engineering contractors in the country. Victoria Street is full of their offices. These firms perform contracts, not merely in this country, but all over the world, and they have amongst their employés some of the finest and most skilled workers in the country, who are sent to superintend work—

Is Victoria Street in the City of London?

Queen Victoria Street. After all, the City of Westminster and the City of London are very closely related. The Bill would affect thousands of the best workers who are compelled almost perpetually to be away from their homes, and I do not think even the City of London wants to disfranchise men who are amongst the best workmen in the country and are not Bolsheviks. If the Amendment had been properly considered by those responsible for it, I think they would have been the last to bring it forward. Some of the most responsible workmen are compelled to travel all over the country to carry out their employment, and to disfranchise them would be a great injustice, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Before considering the Lords Amendments, I would point out to the House that nearly all of them, other than drafting ones, are in the nature of privileged Amendments. It is open to the House, should it so please, to waive its privilege. Should the House do so, I shall propose to make a special entry in the journals noting that fact, instead of dealing with the series of Amendments individually.

Do I understand that the House has agreed, after what you have said, to allow the privilege to be waived?

No, it will be for the House, in connection with each Amendment, to say whether it will accept the Amendment or not. It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these Amendments vary the conditions of payment out of the police funds, and therefore belong to a class of legislation with which this House has always claimed privilege against the other House.

Does that apply to them all?

Nearly all. The House has often agreed to waive its privilege, and then a special entry is made in the journals.

I think it would be to the advantage of all of us if the Home Secretary would first of all make a state- ment with regard to these nine pages of Amendments. They have only been available to-day in the Vote Office, and it is very difficult to go over the Bill in detail to see exactly what they mean. If the Home Secretary will make a preliminary statement telling us exactly what it is, we might be in a position to consider whether we are willing to waive our privilege.

It is not very easy to make a statement about a large number of Amendments like this. The large majority of them are drafting Amendments, though there are one or two which raise definite points of importance. There-is one which deals with the question of widows' pensions, about which no doubt we shall have some discussion, but it brings back the Bill to the position when it was first introduced, contrary to what was done in Committee here, and it is for the purpose of causing a very large saving in expenditure. There are others of similar effect. One or two arc Amendments put in after discussion with those who took particular interest in the Bill when it was in the House, and Amendments which were promised in Committee. The Bill came on very unexpectedly for Report stage and Third Reading. In order not to lose the Bill the House very kindly allowed it to go through those two stages, and I gave an undertaking that before the Bill was taken in the House of Lords I would discuss points which I had promised to discuss before the Report stage was reached. I have discussed those points, and some of the Amendments made in the House of Lords carry out decisions that were come to in that discussion. Of course, some of the things that were discussed I could not accept, and they are not included in these Amendments

Is everything included in the Lords Amendments that was promised by the Government would be considered? Have all the Amendments been dealt with?

My promise was to discuss certain points, to introduce necessary Amendments in the Lords, and everything that we agreed upon has been met by Amendments made in the Lords.

I could not hear all that the right hon. Gentleman said, but with regard to the Amendment which was carried in Committee upstairs against the Government, no objection or criticism was offered by the Government when the Bill came to the House for Report and Third Reading. The House of Commons passed it unanimously, and we are met to-day with a direct negative from the House of Lords. The spokesman in the House of Lords who moved the Amendments there where they were carried without criticism or discussion, said that he moved the Amendments for the Government. I should like to discuss this question, but I do not know whether I should be in order.

Is the hon. Member referring to one particular Amendment?

I am referring to the Amendment of which the Home Secretary has spoken.

The Question before the House at the moment is "That the Lords Amendment be now considered." After that has been disposed of we shall take the Amendments seriatim.

I am against that, if it mean that we are going to allow the Lords to interfere in the way they have done, and I beg to move that we do not give up our privilege.

There is no motion now on the question of privilege. When we have agreed to consider the Lords Amendments, I must put it to the House whether we agree or disagree with each Amendment.

The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was raised by misapprehension on his part. The mere fact that the House agrees to this Motion to consider the Lords Amendments does not prevent anyone from disagreeing with the Lords Amendments or your ruling them out of order, if they be not in accordance with the privilege of this House.

The House has complete liberty to agree or to disagree. The only question at this stage is whether we should take them into consideration.

Seeing that the House has had only a very short time to consider the Amendments, the Home Secretary would be well advised to postpone consideration of the Amendments to a later date. He would probably save time by doing so.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 3.—(Pensions and gratuities of widows.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act—

( a ) where a member of a police force who has completed live years' approved service, dies or has, on or before the date of the passing of this Act, died whilst serving in the force, or whilst in receipt of a pension from a police authority, or in consequence of any disease or injury on account of which he retired from a police force, his widow shall be entitled to a widow's ordinary pension; and

(2) Where a member of a police force dies whilst serving in the force and his widow is not entitled to a pension under this Act, his widow shall be entitled to a gratuity.

(3) Where a widow is entitled to a pension under this Act, the police authority may, at their discretion and with her consent, grant her a gratuity in lieu thereof.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1, a ), after the word "who" ["force who has"], insert "having joined the force after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment raises the question of the Amendment which was passed against the Government in Committee upstairs and passed without opposition by the Government on the Report stage and Third Reading. The action taken by the Committee has been entirely altered and negatived by the Home Secretary's Amendment which he sent to the House of Lords. Our Amendment put the widows of pensioners who died before the 1st September, 1918, on the same footing as regards pensions as the widows of those pensioners who died after the 1st September, 1918. The House may remember that the inclusion of the widows of men who were serving then was stipulated by the men who had gone out on strike as one of the conditions on which they would come back. The Noble Lord in the other place showed that he had not been properly briefed by the Home Secretary, because in his introduction of the Amendment he made several misleading statements. That would be confirmed by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) if he were present because he was responsible for trying to move this same Amendment when the 1918 agreement was arrived at, but he was told by the law officers that it was out of place and could not be entertained then.

When the Noble Lord said that the people in question have no claim whatever upon the fund, he did not understand the case. I will give an example. There were several men at the outset of the War who were due to retire on pension. They were kept on while younger men were released for active service. Others who had retired were called back and they rejoined. These men were not fit for ordinary police work, but they were kept on or retained during the War. Owing to the great strain of the War period, air raids, and other incidents of that terrible time, they broke down and had to retire just prior to the 1st September, 1918. Why should these men be put on a different footing from those who struck at that time because of the conditions under which they were serving, and who were induced to go back by the Government giving them better conditions of pay? Why should the men who had to retire before the 1st September under the circumstances I have described be treated on a different footing from the men who were serving on the 1st September? The case has only to be put to the House for the House to take a common-sense view and to see that the men who had to retire prior to that date should not be penalised as compared with those who retired later. What are the police to think of the tactics that go on in this House, when the Home Secretary raises no objection on our Amendment coming down from Committee for Report and Third Reading, but takes steps to see that the action of the House of Commons is repudiated by the other House?

Can they have any confidence in the procedure of this House when these tactics are followed, or any confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and his Department who are responsible? If we as Members of the House of Commons were subject to the same conditions we should feel no confidence and should be restless and discontented. No doubt we shall be told that the Government again have changed their mind and that they cannot afford this expense. What expense? In Committee the Undersecretary (Sir J. Baird) told us that this' is going to be an extravagant expenditure, that it would amount to £579,000 at once and that there were 20,000 pensioners. He did not say how many of those pensioners were widowers or bachelors or would come under the new scheme. Like other Departments of the Government, they are inclined to exaggerate. The Noble Lord in another place brought down the amount to £300,000. Perhaps if he inquires further he will find that it will come down still more. I do not believe that there is anything like the number of widows that it is said will come on the Exchequer, but even if there were and that the amount were anything like what the Home Secretary has told us I believe that this House would say that justice demands that these poor old souls should have this small amount of £30 a year for the few remaining years of their life.

What is your figure?

I gave 5,000 as the number who I thought would come under the extension scheme, and at £30 a year that would be £150,000. The Government have now come down to £300,000 as against £579,000.

No. What we have said is that under no possible calculation could it come below £300,000, but that in our opinion it will be a great deal nearer £500,000.

£579,000 was given by the Under-Secretary, and the Noble Lord in another place gave £300,000.

As an absolute minimum.

He did not say so. There is no use in the right hon. Gentleman getting cross. Let him read what was said and satisfy himself as to the facts. The House of Commons decided deliberately on Third Reading and on Report stage that it would support the Amendment sent down by the Committee upstairs. Is the House of Commons going to submit to treatment such as this on a question on which it has made up its mind? I hope that it will not.

I understand that the Home Secretary accepts responsibility for the Amendment which was inserted in another place. It is going very far to ignore the Third Reading and the Report stage in this House and the decision of a Committee, and then without the knowledge of this House to get an Amendment inserted in another place. I hope that hon. Members will reject the Lords Amendment. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances in which the Amendment has been inserted, to leave the matter to the free judgment of the House, in which case I have not the least doubt that they would restore the Bill to the state in which it was when it left this House. It is only fair that the widows of the constables included in the Bill when it left this House should be restored to their original position under the decision of the Committee upstairs. The Report stage and Third Reading raised hopes in the minds of those who thought that they were going to be entitled to a pension, which are now dashed to the ground. It is a disgrace to the Government of this country to go back on a decision of the House of Commons in this way.

I think that the House should consider this matter in two sections. The first section is the manner in which the Government have dealt with this matter. The second section is the merits of the question. As regards procedure, I happen to be a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this question, and remember what happened. The Committee decided by a substantial majority, I think, that the widows of police officers of various grades should receive uniform treatment as regards pensions. That is to say, that there should not be a definite line drawn from the 1st of September, 1918, which would leave the widow who became a widow on the 31st of August, 1918, outside the pension while the woman who became a widow on the following day would be entitled to a pension. The Committee after full consideration decided that that was just and right, and that it would be expedient that all widows should be dealt with on the same basis. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department, it is true, did oppose the Motion before the Committee to that effect, but the Committee was not persuaded by him. Then the Bill as amended came to this House on the Report stage and received the Third Reading, and there was not a word from my right hon. Friend or the Under-Secretary. They consented sub silentio to the decision of the Standing Committee. Then at the other end of the passage we have the change made upon the responsibility of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shortt) himself. There are many instances on record of differences between the two Houses of Parliament, but there is no instance on record of a difference arrived at in such a way, a difference arrived at behind the back of the House of Commons, when by three separate stages the House of Commons have practically arrived at a certain conclusion.

Now as to the merits. The question of a contented and efficient police force is of the utmost importance to the country at all times, and it was never more so than at present. I have had an opportunity of very close contact with representatives of the police force and I know that this question goes to the root of their minds and their hearts. It affects the widows. Many of these men look upon the welfare of the widow as quite as important as the welfare of themselves during their service. The figures that have been given vary very much—from £150,000 a year to £300,000 a year, and up to the extreme limit of £579,000 a year. For what reason has my right hon. Friend taken the course he has taken? It is the Government's stark, staring fear of the charge of waste and squander-mania. "Economy, economy, economy," is the cry of the Government on all subjects. The cry may not be substantially founded, but it is at least a cry. These questions of economy are largely questions for the House to decide. They are questions which the Government, having made its protest, as it has most thoroughly in this matter, might wisely leave to the House. When my right hon. Friend replies I do not believe he will have any reason to advance except that of economy. He will not say it is unjust that these widows should share; he will not say that it is inexpedient. He will admit the justice and the expediency. All he will say is that in these days the Government cannot afford the expendi- ture. Let the House decide. Let the Home Secretary announce that the Government Whips will not be put on, and let the House be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it will sanction the expenditure of this money in the interests of an efficient and contented police force, so very vital to the existence of society to-day.

Let me deal with the first of my hon. Friend's points, namely, procedure. It is true that a Committee of this House upstairs carried an Amendment including what we call the pre-1918 widow. It is equally true that that was opposed as strongly as it could be by the Government who, after all, are the most responsible body in this country for public economy. The Government were defeated, and technically my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to point a finger of scorn at me and to say that I let it go through, sub silentio, on Report and Third Reading. The House may or may not think that it is an excuse, but at least the House will agree that it is an explanation when I remind them that the Bill came on very late one night and quite unexpectedly and that it was intended to put down Amendments on the Report Stage.

We were waiting for a conference.

I had intended putting down an Amendment in this House instead of in another place. When the Bill was called on I asked the House to let us get the Bill through for fear that we lost it, it being of such importance to the police force both of this country and of Scotland. I asked the House to let the Bill go through these stages, and I undertook that we should have a discussion and that there would be the same opportunity of putting down Amendments from either side in the other House. The House may think that right or wrong or as an adequate or in ' adequate excuse, but it is the explanation why the Bill went through.

Am I not correct in saying that the promise made related to any further Amendments that there had not been time to put down. The right hon. Gentleman never so much as mentioned any Amendments of his own that he would put down, nor did he hint that he would promote an Amendment knock- ing out this particularly important provision.

That is not quite accurate. What I said in reply to the hon. Member was this:

"Of course, there is another place where Amendments can be moved. I will undertake at once to have a discussion with ho. Members. I know their points, and in regard to any arrangement which is come to I will then undertake to have Amendments moved in another place."

I undertook that, in fulfilment of any arrangement come to, the necessary Amendments would be moved in another place. In the same speech I said:

"I will not discuss the case of the widows' pensions to-night."

That confirms what I have said.

I think my hon. Friend might at least try to interpret correctly what I say. I have just told the House that I had intended to put down Amendments, and I have read a quotation showing that I said that I did not intend that night to discuss the widows' pension question. Why should I say I would not discuss the widows' pensions that night unless I intended to discuss the question at some time? The merits of the matter are what we have to consider. Pre-1918 widows have no claim whatever, as a right, upon the British taxpayer. They have no claim beyond that of pure compassion. I do not suppose there is a Member in this House who would for a moment deny that claim, if the country could afford it. We would all be only too glad to give these women more money if we could afford to pay it, but they have no more right than the widow of anybody else. They have no more right, as against the taxpayer, than the widow of the underpaid schoolmaster, the widow of the employé of any municipality, the widow of anyone employed in the public service, or indeed, the widow of anyone employed in any capacity at all.

Why the post-1918 widows?

In 1918 this House passed an Act dealing with pensions. The question was raised of including pre-1918 widows in the 1918 Act, and this House refused the extension. The House has already settled this question, or at any rate, a previous Parliament in 1918 settled it. That is why the pre-1918 widows are in their present position. It is the doing of Parliament. It has nothing to do with the Government or with the Home Office. The post-1918 widows are in the position they are in, and the pre-1918 widows are in a less fortunate position because of the action of this House.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the policeman's wife is not allowed to enter into any trade, so that when she becomes a widow she is thrown on the streets without having had any training whereby she can earn her own livelihood.

There are vast numbers of women who, when their husbands die, find themselves in the position of not being trained to earn their living. They cannot all come on the British taxpayer.

The point is that under the official regulations no policeman's wife may undertake work of any kind while he is on active service.

I follow the point perfectly well, but these men knew it when they became policemen, and it was part of their bargain, and so far as that goes their widows have no claim by right, but only a claim by compassion. They are in exactly the same position as any other women who are left widows without means and without training. With regard to the amount involved, we have made such inquiries as we can, and we have never reduced our estimate to £300,000 at all. We have never for one moment reduced the figure of the first cost in the initial year to £300,000. The extra cost involved by this in the initial year and judging by the best information we can get, will be somewhere about £500,000, and the very least that it can possibly be, is £300,000 in the first year. It may be wiped out in something like 30 years.

rose —

May I be allowed to proceed?

I desire to point out to the right hon. Gentleman—

I am pointing out that the very least we could get off with would be £300,000 in the first year, £290,000 in the second year, and so on, decreasing every year, but I am positive from the information we have got that it will be very much more than £300,000 in the first year. If we give that substantial amount to these widows, what answer are we to give to the widow of any other public servant? What answer are we to give to a widow who comes along and says, "I am wholly insufficiently provided for, and my husband did service to the State. Yet you have given to these policemen's widows this substantial amount, and, if so, you must give it to me"? We have no right to differentiate. Because this happens to be a particular case before the House, and because, like every other case of the kind, it appeals to one's sense of compassion, we have no right on that account to put the country to such expense. I have tried to explain how it is that the discussion in this House rises upon a Lords Amendment. I am also trying to deal with the merits of views, because the country and the taxpayer actually cannot afford to pay more than they are paying already. The police force are certainly not an underpaid body, and they are well provided for under the other provisions of this Bill, and I ask the House, realising the economic position, to support us.

The attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is not conducive to getting all of us into the Lobby to support the Government on this matter. I do think that out of courtesy he might have given way to me, when I took exception to a definite statement of fact which he was making. I would not have done so except for the fact that my hon. Friend (Sir J. Remnant) had already traversed the statement, and I got up with a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT in my hand to traverse it again. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have allowed me to proceed and thus saved discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was positive, and that it was a view taken by the Government that the sum of money involved would be nearer £500,000 than £300,000. In another place, the spokesman of the Government said these words:

"The payment of pensions at the rate proposed would involve an immediate cost of about £300,000 a year, gradually falling off as the pensioners died."

I am not going to repeat what has taken place in Committee upstairs, or when the Bill was before the House previously, beyond the fact that nothing was done. The Home Secretary's explanation answered that, but what I do complain of is, that in another place there was only one speech made on this subject, and that by the Earl of Onslow, who said:

"The Government cannot accept this principle,"

thus showing that he was acting as the spokesman of the Government. There was not a single other speech made, and the OFFICIAL REPORT goes on:

"Amendment moved: Clause 3, Page 3, Line 16,"

then quoting the words and concluding—

"On Question, Amendment agreed to."

That is the way in which the considered opinion of this House upon a question upon which there was great controversy and much feeling has been reversed in another place, and here we are being asked to waive our privilege and agree to it. I cannot consent.

4.0 P.M.

I, personally, am not at all concerned with the transactions which have taken place in Committee and elsewhere, and I do not think they are of the first importance, nor do I profess to be very well informed as to the past history of this question. But I have been trying to gain information from the speeches which have been made on the merits of the question. I was not altogether convinced by what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in answer to the questions which I put to him. He said this was really a matter of compassion, and that these particular widows had no more claim upon public compassion than any other widows. I feel very much the force of what he said with regard to the financial position of the country being such that, however much we may sympathise with any particular body, it is impossible for us to gratify that compassion at the expense of the Exchequer. Is this a matter of compassion, however? So far as I have been able to follow it, it is not merely a question of compassion but a question of equity. What is the essential difference between a pre-1918 widow, and a post-1918 widow. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain rights had been given to the post-1918 widow by an Act passed at the end of the last Parliament, but that does not touch the merits. Why was that distinction made? I cannot myself recall the Debate on that occasion, but merely to tell us that a distinction was in fact drawn by the Act of 1918, which gave certain rights to widows—if they were arbitrarily selected—does not touch the merits at all,

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not quite followed me. The Act of 1918 did not give rights to any widows existing at that time, but said that wives of men then in the police force or subsequently joining it who become widows should get pensions subject to the statutory conditions. That may have been right or wrong, but that is the distinction they made. There was no one class of widows singled out at that time.

That is what I had in mind though I may have expressed myself rather clumsily. I did not mean to use the word "arbitrarily" in that sense, that any particular class had been singled out. I do not see that there is any real equity in that. Why was that particular line drawn? There was considerable agitation about that time in the" police force, and one cannot help suspecting that this may have been a concession in order to get rid of that troublesome agitation and in order to quiet the minds of a certain class of the police; but there is no real equity and no real principle in that, and certainly, insofar as my feeling goes, if the widow of a man who has been serving for a certain length of time is entitled to a pension on account of her husband's service to the State, surely those who were widows before a certain date are just as much entitled as those who were widows afterwards. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman saying, "The financial position of the country is such that we cannot give pensions to widows at all." I can imagine his coming forward, as some of his colleagues have done, to propose to repeal the Act of 1918 on that very ground, that it had involved the State in a financial liability which, under present circumstances, we could not afford, and I am not at all prepared to say that I would not support the right hon. Gentleman if he made that proposal; but as I see it, he is proposing to perpetuate an injustice, or at any rate an inequality, which was created under special circumstances by the Act of three years ago.

There are certain changes made in this Bill in regard to service in the police which apply equally to men of long standing as to the others. In the first two Clauses men are subjected, for instance, to retirement—they are compulsorily retired at certain ages—and those people, but for this Bill, might have gone on serving and enjoying their pay apparently long after the age at which they will now be compelled to retire. Therefore, this Bill in such cases will put the widows of men who are now retired on a different footing from what it might have been if the men had continued to serve for a longer period. However, I only want to press upon my right hon. Friend the one point, that so far as the real merits of the case are concerned, apart from technicalities, I cannot see that he is justified in drawing a distinction between these two classes.

I quite agree with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), but I should carry the point further than he does. I fully agree with everything he said as to the question of equity, and I think that on that question, if I may use a colloquialism, the Government have not got a leg to stand on, but I am afraid that there is more than a question of equity at stake. It is a question of the good faith of the Government that is at stake. We must throw our minds back to the circumstances under which the pensions were originally granted to those who will get them even if this Amendment is accepted. The right hon. Gentleman said that no one has any legal right to these pensions, and it is true they had not until 1918, but why did they obtain that right in 1918? Was it because it suddenly dawned on the Government that they had a moral right to a pension? The House knows very well why the Government gave pensions to one lot of police widows and refused it to the others. It was because those who then formed the Police trade union followed the usual course of trade unions in these days and, caring nothing about the interests of those who were active members, got the best protection they could for those who were not, and therefore they gave these pensions. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh, but the facts are against them. They gave pensions, as a result of the pressure of the trade union movement in the police at that time, to one lot of police pensioners, quite arbitrarily chosen, and the Government now refuse to give them to the people who, from an economic point of view, are in exactly the same position.

Therefore, I say it is more than a question of equity, and that the good faith of the Government in this matter is at issue. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke about these people not having a right to pensions, and went on to take up the attitude that there are a lot of. widows who are in poor circumstances at the present time, and that it would be equally open to them to ask why they should not be given a pension. The answer is that these widows are in a less fortunate position, because they are not allowed to work in ordinary industry during the time their husbands are serving in the police force, the deliberate act of the Government having deprived them of the opportunity of fitting themselves for a livelihood in the event of the death of their husbands. There is no doubt that many of these people are in very poor circumstances, and there is no doubt that the addition of this pension, which this Bill, as it left this House, would have given, would have been a very valuable addition. On the ground of good faith, and on the ground of equity, the Government have a distinct question to answer, which they have not answered. With regard to the explanation why no action was taken by the Government, either on Report or Third Reading, to get the decision of the Committee altered, the right hon. Gentleman said that, owing to this Bill coining on somewhat unexpectedly late at night— which implied that neither he nor the Patronage Secretary have any power over the time at which Bills come on—neither he nor his Under-Secretary had put down any Amendment to carry out what the Lords have now carried out.

It is only another instance of the extraordinary manner in which some Government Departments do their business, but, even so, I think some explanation was needed from one of the representatives of the Government. Until my hon. and gallant Friend got up to object to this Amendment, the Government were proposing that it should pass sub silentio, and the Under-Secretary merely moved that the Lords Amendment be agreed to, though there was an obligation upon the Government to give an explanation to the House how it was they allowed this Bill to go through the Report and Third Beading stages, and then instructed their representatives in the House of Lords to oppose it. Lastly, as regards the merits of the case, I cannot conceive that the granting of pensions to these people would in any way be acting contrary to the very acute public conscience, or rather the conscience of this House and the Government, on the subject of economy at the present moment. I must say I do not think it outrages the public demand for economy. We are told that the Government cannot afford to give this extra money; yet only the other day we were asked to vote to civil servants a very large bonus, and there was no question about our being able to afford it; in fact the Government took the line that, at a time when the pressure of living was so heavy, it was not right to ask servants of the State to undergo greater hardship than they ought to undergo, and that, however difficult for the State to find money at the present time, it should not, at any rate, neglect its obligations towards its own servants.

If ever there was an argument to be made on the ground of justice and humanity it is this. If the State can afford to pay huge pensions to its existing civil servants it can equally afford—in some cases at all events, and in view of the starvation wages paid to some ex-civil servants—one of the most useful and meritorious classes of ex-civil servants, to see that they should not be in a worse position than other people of their own class. The real truth about this matter is that the Government has not formulated any clear policy in relation to economy in the public service. They have no policy. They are wafted hither and thither according as this House, or rather as the Press, dictates. There is no agitation in the Press over this particular question. Police pensioners are a small and unimportant class. The number of pennies they spend in buying the "Daily Mail" or the "Daily Express" is very small.

And the "Morning Post." Speak for your own Press.

Or the "Morning Post," and therefore they need not be considered. I have no doubt about it that had an agitation taken place, and it had been urged that you must not economise in relation to elderly pensioners who are relatives of servants of the State the Government would have found just as good an argument this afternoon for the opposite course to that which they are taking. On all these grounds I do not think the House ought to agree with the Lords Amendment. It is very reprehensible that the Lords should pass an Amendment of this kind, and under the circumstances in which they have done so; but I have not the least doubt that anything proposed by the Government will be carried by the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority.

It is always agreeable to dispense benefits to deserving people if the expense does not come out of one's own pocket. I have often heard complaints, and justifiable complaints, from Members of the Government that although they are often attacked for waste and extravagant expenditure they never get any support in resisting it. I feel disposed, therefore, in the absence of speeches from the members of the Anti-waste party to support the Government. Charges of breach of faith against the Government have been made, and it has been suggested, and apparently some are prepared to support the proposal, that we should repeal the pensions already given by the Act of 1918—which is an extraordinary attitude to take up. The Act of 1918 gave a number of benefits to-members of the police force, not only pensions for the widow, but increases of pay and other things. The pensions to the widows of those who joined after 1st September, 1918, was only one of the benefits which that Act gave. It did not make the benefits retrospective, and give pensions to widows of those who had joined before that date any more than it gave increases of wages or arrears of wages to the men themselves. My hon. Friend is now prepared to charge the Government with a breach of faith.

To whom is the hon. Gentleman referring?

I made no such suggestion in my observations. I never suggested breaking faith with anybody.

I am within the recollection of the House. The Noble Lord said he had been defending a Government which had committed a breach of faith. Perhaps that is only a rhetorical phrase. I certainly do not wish to attach any more meaning than the Noble Lord wishes. But I understood him to mean that he associated himself with the statement that he is prepared to repeal the pensions of 1918 if the Government said it was in the interests of economy, and he referred to the statement of my hon. Friend opposite that there was a breach of faith when additional pensions were not given or not promised.

My hon. Friend is not correctly representing what I said. I said nothing about a breach of faith. My argument was that the line drawn by the right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to be a perfectly arbitrary line, and if the Government desire to be consistent they should have followed the example of the Agriculture Act.

I am quite willing to accept that as a meaning of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. Why should it be said, however, that because the Government granted pensions to those who joined after the passing of the Act they must give pensions to everybody who joined before the Act was passed? We have to pass Acts every Session in which new conditions are introduced in one Department or another, but we do not always make them retrospective.

We are not always having strikes.

The framers of this Bill never contemplated such a condition. The Home Secretary stated that these women had no moral claim. One may argue that it would be hard on these widows that they should not have the same privileges as those who joined at a later date than their husbands, but there again you cannot distinguish in these cases in that way. Some of us have been trying to get increased allowances for certain pre-War Civil Service pensions and we have been refused, and very reluctantly we have had to accept that decision, although we felt their case was particularly hard because they saw many other people who had pre-War pensions who had had their pensions increased. How are you to maintain any consistency in your policy if you refuse to give increases to those people who-have exactly the same kind of claim as; those people you are now dealing with? We would all like to give these pensions to the widows, but if we are to maintain the financial position of the country we must defer these things until we get better times.

I should like to say a word or two as a London Member on this question. I represent a constituency which feels as strongly about economy as any constituency in the country, but I am confident that if this matter was put before my constituents they would say that whilst there are many other ways in which the Government can effect great economy—I can give the Home Secretary innumerable instances—they would not economise upon the pre-1918 pensions of the widows of police officers. It seems, to me a very simple issue. As long as the Government's own house is not set m order—the fact, for instance, that to-day the general staff of the War Office is three times as big as it was before the War and that there are four times as many officials in the Admiralty—

We must take each case on its merits. We cannot review the whole field of Government expenditure.

You have been good enough to allow me to give those two instances, and they are quite sufficient for the purposes of my argument. As. long as that kind of thing goes on, do not pinch upon the £300,000 or whatever be the small sum necessary to do justice to these poor widows. My hon. Friend (Earl Winterton) was perfectly right when he said that it was a very dangerous action for this House to give in to strikers and to put up the police pay and pensions because of the 1918 strike and then to withhold the advantages you give to those strikers from these widows. I very much hope, feeling strongly as I do about economy, but feeling none the less that justice must be done to these people, that the Government will yield to the general sentiments of the House and will take off the Whips for the Division. Let us have a free vote upon this issue, and let us see which Members wish to pinch upon the pensions of these poor widows and which Members, on the other hand, are prepared to do justice to public servants whether they strike or whether they do not.

Looking at this matter from the financial point of view, it seems to me that the House has great reason to complain of the procedure which is being followed. In effect it has come to this, that the House of Lords has been allowed to settle a very important part of the financial elements of this Bill. The question embodied in the Amendment ought to have been settled here and not there. The Home Secretary has given reasons for the procedure that has been followed, but I do not think that they are sufficient. Of course, we lose the inestimable advantage of not having heard what the Anti-Waste party have to say upon this matter. We should have had the presence of the solid phalanx of the Anti-Waste party represented here earlier this afternoon by one Member who has now retired. As to the merits of this question, it may be summed up in this: You have claims which are in no sense unequal, because I make no distinction between the claims pre-1918 and after 1918, and you measure out unequal treatment. I do not think that is worthy of this House. I object to the procedure that has been followed, and I object to the principle in which the decision has been come to.

I listened to the speech of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) with very great interest. I am quite in favour of everybody having pensions when the country can afford it, but I know jolly well that at the present time the country cannot afford it. To say that, because I promise a man in my employ a pension instead of increasing his salary, I must give pensions to everyone in my employ and the widows of everyone in my employ, is to say something which is impossible and it has only to be stated to show that what is true of the individual is equally true of the country. Because a Government decides that a certain number of men in 1918 were justly entitled, strike or no strike, to an increase in their pay, and, instead of increasing the pay adequately, agreed to give pensions to their widows as part of the pay, to say, because they took that line they thereby became responsible for giving pensions to the widows of all similar men who died in the years gone by appears to me to be absolutely indefensible. We are told that it is a simple issue—that it is only a question of £500,000 sterling. I have listened to many speeches from hon. Members of this House begging and praying the Government to economise. I am convinced it is absolutely necessary for this country to economise if we are going to find employment for the great mass of the people, and unless the Government do economise it will become necessary for a large number of people to emigrate. I do not believe in that. I consider it a mistake to say that the majority of this House is in favour of this proposed vast expenditure. I believe the best way to bring about economy in big matters is to introduce economy into small matters, and I hope that the Government will not be induced to give way to the very eloquent speech which we had just now from the Noble Lord.

The Home Secretary really based his case on the question of economy. An hon. Member who spoke from below the gangway on this said that those who were always urging economy on the Government never supported it when it expressed a desire to economise. Is that not due to the fact that the Government always choose a very unfortunate subject on which to economise? Yesterday we had a Liberal Minister asking for £27,000,000 for Mesopotamia. To-day we have a Liberal Minister trying to deprive policemen's widows of £300,000! Could there be anything more unfortunate than the subject which Government has chosen to economise upon. We know quite well that the Prime Minister is determined to outdo the Anti-Waste party at their own game, but if he continues to proceed on these lines we shall very soon see an end to this pretence, for it is nothing more. The House and the country do not believe in the Government professions of economy.

It has been alleged that the Government are not pursuing a fixed policy in this matter. What was the policy laid down in the Act of 1918? If hon. Members will look at the Act they will find that it is based throughout on that date, the 1st September, 1918. Section 1 says that where a man to whom the Section applies—giving a series of classes—is in the police force on the 1st September, 1918, and so on. It is all based on that. Whence was that derived." It came, I understand, from the Eeport of the Desborough Committee.

No.

At any rate, it was the decided opinion, not only of the Government, but of Parliament at the time. A number of hon. Members urge the Government to add to the expenses in the particular direction which they like. It is another instance of compounding for sins you are inclined to, by damning those you have no mind to.

Is it a sin to give widows pensions?

I know it is very unpopular to take such views, but here we are dealing with an attempt to increase expenditure. Who will bear the brunt of that? This matter will be forgotten when the Vote is taken. It will all come into the Civil Service Estimate, which it will swell accordingly, and the Government will have to bear the whole of the brunt of that expenditure. What is the use of leaving it to the House if the Government have determined to pursue the policy laid down in the Act of 1918, and arrived at after full discussion in Parliament?

I should like to say that I question the accuracy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's recollection—

The hon. and gallant Member may not speak twice.

I desire to associate myself with those hon. Members who oppose the Lords Amendment. Whether we are right or wrong, we are, at any rate, consistent, and those of us who are interested in these pension matters have always advocated that, whatever else you do in regard to pensions, you must be consistent. The point is precisely the same in the case of the contention of disabled soldiers of 1914 and 1918, that they should be treated exactly in the same way as other disabled soldiers who were wounded at other times. I cannot imagine anything that can cause more intense dissatisfaction than that the widow of an ex-policeman, who has lived on a small wage all her life, should be in the position of contrasting herself with the widow of a policeman since 1918, who has always had better wages, and to whom the grant was made, she will say, and I have no doubt does say, in order to quieten certain difficulties which excited the police force—difficulties the creation of which had not been shared in by her husband. I feel most intensely that those of us who are interested in this matter must fight for this consistency. It is a matter which has been passed by this. House. The House has shown its feeling on this point on two or three separate occasions, and I do hope that those hon. Members who have spoken will press the matter to a Division.

The real gravamen that hon. Members have this afternoon is against the method of the Government, and there is something which has not. been said which I think ought to be said about that method. Very few of us can by rotation serve on the Committees upstairs, and the only opportunity, therefore, that offers itself to us is to raise these points on the Report stage when these Committees bring down their Bills to the House. As has already been pointed out, the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill were taken on a day—I remember it quite well—when business fell through; and the Government got, by consent of the House, a privilege to which they had no right, and which the House would never have given if a large sum of money and an important question of this kind were to have been the topic of discussion. Then the Government go to the House of Lords, and come back to this House with the amended Bill, and they are practically in the position of being able to say to the House of Commons, "You either take this Amendment or lose the Bill." That is the position in which the Government can put themselves. They can force Members of this House, who have never had an opportunity of discussing the matter, to accept their Amendment or choose the alternative of losing the Bill. That is a ridiculous way in which to carry on the business of the country in this House. I hope the Government will not take their Whips off. This House is responsible for expenditure. Expenditure expresses policy and it is the Government policy, and if the Government were beaten on a question of policy expressed in money, they would have to consider their position, and if hon. Members are really quite honest about what they want to do in these matters the obvious thing to do is to defeat the Government and get rid of them. Therefore I hope the Government will keep on their Whips, and all those who express discontent will follow those of us

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1,

"or has, on or before the date of the passing of this Act, died."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

who are going to vote against the Government in order to get rid of them into the Lobby.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 68.

This is consequential on the same point that we have discussed on the previous Amendment.

I am not certain that I can accept what my right hon. Friend says as to this Amendment being consequential. The words we are asked to leave out are

"or has, on or before the date of the passing of this Act, died."

The Bill now reads:

"Where a member of a police force who, having joined the force after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and nineteen,"

dies, his widow shall be entitled to such and such a pension. If these words are omitted, as I read the Bill, it means that the widow of a man who joined the police force after the 1st of September, 1918, but dies before the passing of this Act, does not get a pension, and that the Amendment further narrows the benefit to the widows.

If these words are eliminated, it simply means that the widow of a man who joined the police force after the 1st day of September, 1918, will get a pension. If these words are retained it does not affect it in the slightest degree, because so long as the man joins before 1st September, 1918, his widow will get a pension, no matter when he dies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "(2) Where," and insert "and (c) Where." Agreed to.

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (3) and insert

"and ( d ) Where a widow is entitled to a pension under this Act not exceeding fifty pounds a year, and the police authority are satisfied that there are special reasons for the grant of a gratuity in lieu thereof, the police authority may, at their discretion and with her consent, grant her a gratuity accordingly."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is connected with a further Amendment in the First Schedule. The Bill as it leaves the House of Lords provides that there shall be for widows an alternative scale according to the length of service. In cases where a smaller scale is given, there is provision that if there are special circumstances and the authorities think it right, they can, if the widow consents, give her instead of her scale a gratuity so that she can, if she chooses, set up in business or do whatever she wishes. I think that the Amendment will be satisfactory to those who have been most interested in the Bill.

As I understand the Amendment it means that there will be a discretion with the authorities to give the widow a lump sum instead of continuing the pensions. With that I entirely disagree.

With the consent of the widow.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman includes me among those who are most interested in this Bill. If I had not been interested in it the Bill would have passed its Third Reading without a word of any kind. I raised some points and we got certain assurances. In reference to this proposal to allow a widow whose pension is below £50 to commute her pension, presumably to set up in business, why should you not allow this to be done in the case of pensions over £50? There may be a good reason for this differentiation, but I should be glad to know what it is.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the Minister of Pensions is present, because the subject of the commutation of pensions goes a great deal further than is contemplated by many hon. Members. In the case of sailors' and soldiers' wives there is no question of commuting pensions. If a soldier's or sailor's widow remarries she receives as a dowry something less than the equivalent of two years' pension, and no more. If commutation is to be allowed under this Bill it ought to be on a basis different from that proposed. I do not know what is the arrangement in London, but outside London it is the Watch Committee that deals with such matters, and in Scotland our city council is responsible. We are told that there will not be many cases, but the number may be much greater than that anticipated, judging by the figures stated by the Home Secretary as to the cost of making provision for pre-1918 widows. If commutation is allowed in the case of widows of policemen who die a natural death the problem will be much bigger. As this Bill will have to come before the House on another occasion I tope the Home Secretary and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will see that it is put down at a time when it can be discussed adequately. Those who have been members of the Standing Committee ought to be granted that privilege. The Government have had experience of the results of hurried legislation in recent weeks. If legislation goes through too quickly it has to be reversed.

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, 18th July.

Adjourned at One Minute after Five o'clock.