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

I must crave the indulgence of the House, because, although I cannot claim to address it for the first time, I am fully persuaded that I shall be quite unable to do justice to the Bill the Second Reading of which I now have the pleasure of proposing. At the same time, I hope I shall hear in mind the old saying that "Brevity is the soul of wit," and if I cannot display much wit, I can at least manifest some brevity. I should like first of all to say that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with divorce. I mention this fact because there are a certain number of people who imagine that any legislation that deals with separation or any orders of that description must have something to do with divorce. As a matter of fact, this Bill has nothing whatever to do with divorce from the beginning right through to the end, and I think I may quote, in, support of that fact, that among the many women's societies which support this Bill there is included the Catholic Women's Suffrage Society, which, I need hardly say, being a Roman Catholic Society, is not at all likely to support a Bill which in their opinion would be likely to pave the way to easier divorce. Of course, I know that there will be some who will bring forward the old argument that there may be nothing about divorce in this Bill, but that this Bill may lead to divorce. That is always the argument of the old reactionary school. Every reform that has ever been brought forward, from the days of Noah to the present day, has always been opposed by a certain number of people, not on its merits, but because they feared it would lead to something further in the future. I believe I am right in saying that that argument was brought forward against Mr. Wilberforce over a hundred years ago, when he endeavoured to abolish slavery.

With the permission of the House, I will merely refer to two or three of the main features of this Bill, and I hope, by so doing, I may give other members an opportunity of addressing the House if they wish to do so. I may say at once that this Bill is really an attempt to deal with the very poorest women of this community. I do not think it will affect the richer class in any degree whatever, because I believe they can get anything in this Bill without going to the Law Courts at all. The greater number of these separations they can effect by means of their family solicitors and in other ways than in court, but it is not so with the very poor classes, who have not their family solicitors and who have to resort, whether they like it or not, to the protection of the court. I should like to point out to the House that in one rather important matter this Bill does propose to alter the law as it stands at the present moment. Under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, it makes it necessary, before a woman can apply for any relief such as a maintenance order or a separation order, that she should leave her husband. Of course, the object is pretty obvious. It is probably with a view of trying to ensure that these applications shall be of abon fide nature, but whatever that may be in theory, in practice I believe it is proved to be quite otherwise. As a matter of fact, as the law stands at present, that proviso acts very hardly upon the good mother, whereas, on the other hand, it is not effective as far as the more indifferent mother is concerned. The good mother is naturally disinclined to leave her children and to break up her home, whereas, on the other hand, the more indifferent mother does not mind perhaps taking that action, and therefore, from that point of view, I think it undesirable that it should be necessary for a woman to have to leave her house before she actually takes proceedings.

That is not all, however. There is another difficulty in the way. I have heard it said on several occasions, when there has been perhaps some cruelty on the part of the husband, and it has been put to the wife that it was necessary for her to leave home before she could take proceedings, that the answer often is, "Where am I to go if I do leave home?" or, "But the house is mine," and matters of that sort. These things make it extremely difficult for a woman to leave her husband. I would also point out the fact, which I think we ought to bear in mind, that this Bill does not say what the magistrate shall do, but gives the magistrate a discretionary power, so that he might, if he thought fit, grant a summons and also proceed to grant an order, though technically the woman had not left her home. Perhaps, as a pound of fact is better than a ton of theory, the House will allow me to quote one case. There are probably many others, but I will quote just one that occurred less than three years ago within a few miles of where this House is sitting. An ex-service man had been treating his wife badly, and she decided to take action against him and apply for a separation order. She left him for that purpose and got a magistrate to grant her a summons. Before the summons came on she heard that her young child was ill. She said, "I must go back to see the child," and she went back. A day or so afterwards the case came before the magistrate, and the fact came out that she had returned home. By the law as it stands now, the magistrate was unable to give her any relief, and the case was dismissed. She returned to her husband, and in less than a week afterwards the man was standing in the dock before a magistrate charged with the wilful murder of his wife, whose throat, I believe, he had cut, and in due course he was hanged. That case would never have ended in that tragic manner, I venture to say, if the magistrate had had the discretionary power of granting the relief to the woman which she sought without actually having to prove that she had left her home.

Now I will take the other side of the picture. Supposing a woman did not want to go the length of getting a separation order, but wanted to try and impress upon her husband his duty towards her. There are cases of the poorest members of society living in very small houses, in a very cramped situation. A woman may possibly wish to have a husband who is not, I will not say vicious: he does not really want to be actually cruel to her, but he is rather indifferent. If she could take proceedings against him, and it could come before the magistrate —and I am not speaking of theory, but I have heard it on very good authority that there are many such cases—the magistrate could use his in- fluence to bring about a settlement. I think anybody who has had experience of stipendiary magistrates and other magistrates of our country will realise that they are doing their utmost in these cases, and very often they are the means of inspiring in the man a sense of his duty, and cases are patched up which, if the home had been broken up, would have been impossible.

Clause 3 proposes to extend the discretionary power of the magistrate. As the law stands at present, a woman is placed in a distinctly unfair position compared with a man. Let me give a case which might very easily occur, and, I believe, has occurred on more than one occasion. A man is a bad husband, not only cruel, but immoral. The wife obtains a separation order, and they separate. He goes off and lives with another woman publicly and freely. The wife herself may make one false step. I am not going for a moment to defend any women or any man who makes that false step, but, still, I say that woman may make a false step. What happens? The husband, who may be living in adultery with a woman, and may have been guilty of cruelty to his wife and even to his children, has only to go to the magistrate and say, "I hear that my wife has made a false step." Once he proves that, the magistrate, under the law as it stands, has no discretionary power whatever, and he is compelled to annul the separation order. What is the result? The order having been annulled, the husband again becomes the legal custodian and guardian of the children and, as the law stands, he may take the children from her, and even take them to the house where he is living with another woman. I am not suggesting there may not be means by which that may be prevented by some other process of law, but I am thinking at the present moment of those women who are not placed in the convenient way that some people are, who have more money at their disposal, and, therefore, can deal with these legal questions more effectually than an unfortunate woman who hardly knows how to make both ends meet. All that this Bill proposes is to give the magistrate the discretionary power of saying that he will vary the order, or annul it, or let it stand. In these cases discretionary power given to the magistrate is not only fair, but it is one with which they are capable of dealing, and in most cases, at any rate, forming a right and proper judgment.

May I refer to another possibility, and one which has, I believe, on more than one occasion occurred. An unscrupulous husband having had a separation order made against him, has before now been known to persuade the wife to let him come back for a day or two, with the idea of his turning over a new leaf, but really with the object of being again able to desert her, and then plead the fact that, as she had received him back, the maintenance order therefore lapsed. That, to my mind, it again a circumstance in which, at any rate, the magistrate should have a discretionary power as to whether he should vary the order, annul it or let it stand. Another Clause to which I should like the House to turn their attention is Clause 5, Sub-section (1), which proposes that, in the event of a man going to prison for non-compliance with an order, that fact does not necessarily wipe out the debt. I do not think imprisonment ought necessarily to allow a man to escape his financial liabilities towards his wife and family. Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 allows written evidence of the employer to be brought forward asprima facie evidence of the man's wages. That is not really an innovation, because, under the Children's Act, 1908, a similar provision, I believe, exists. I think the House will realise that it is an important matter in these maintenance orders, because it is sometimes extremely difficult for a woman actually to prove the means her husband possesses without the evidence of the employer. She may be in Liverpool, and her husband working in London. Of course, it is not always easy in such a case for a woman to gain sufficient evidence to prove the capability of the husband to contribute towards her maintenance. Therefore, I think it is very desirable that the written evidence of the employer should be accepted asprima facie evidence. At any rate, it is then up to a man to prove that the statement of the employer is not accurate. Of course, it may be argued by people who take a very strict view of the law, that she might call the employer to give evidence, but we know that that is not always an easy or a desirable thing to do.

There is only one other matter, I think, about which I need trespass upon the time of the House. It is proposed by the Bill to allow venereal disease to be treated as a ground for separation. I am not a lawyer, and I would not venture to say whether that does not even now constitute cruelty in regard to which an order can be made; but I think the House will agree that, whether that be the law of the land or not, it is certainly an eminently reasonable provision. The House will also see that there are certain provisions made for enforcing payment. I will not detain the House by dealing with these details. I may say, in conclusion, that of course there may be, and probably are, some parts of this Bill which might be improved. I need hardly say that I, and others who are promoting this Bill, would naturally take into consideration any suggestion that might be made in any quarter of the House or from the Government, in any way by which they think this Bill might be strengthened. I must apologise for having trespassed so long on the attention of the House, but I was anxious to place before hon. Members two or three of the principal points of the Bill. Being a layman, I hope they will take my explanation of the law as kindly as possible, because it is not easy for a layman to have to explain technicalities, especially one like myself, who may almost considered to be addressing the House for the first time I so seldom trespass upon the attention of the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

We all agree that it is a great misfortune that there is a necessity for introducing Bills of this kind. It is very regrettable that these Orders have to be granted. Nevertheless it is very, very necessary so long as the world is as it is and human nature what it is. If this Bill becomes an Act it will promote legislation which will in many cases benefit the men, women, and children of the country. The present law represents great inequality as between the rich and the poor. At present a rich couple can pay a solicitor to draw up a mutual agreement for separation; if a poor couple wish to separate they have to attend at the police court and be subjected to much publicity as to their domestic affairs, which have to be gone into very carefully, and perhaps sordid conditions under which that couple have been living possibly explained, the whole thing much to the detriment of the children.

This Bill suggests legislation which affects three classes of the community. Like the hon. Baronet, I do not feel that I am addressing hon. Members from the viewpoint of the law, but perhaps I may speak a little on the human aspect. The three sections of the community that the Bill affects are husbands, wives and children. I think some hon. Members present here will agree that the reform proposed in relation to each of the three will be acceptable and good legislation. Possibly some will think that only two of these sections need legislation, but I am quite sure everybody will agree that, at any rate the husband, will be glad of legislation. The present law as it stands says that the man can only secure separation from his wife or apply for separation from his wife if she is an habitual drunkard. But it is by no means only the drunken woman who makes her husband's home miserable or unendurable. The woman who neglects her home, illtreats her children, and mismanages generally the domestic affairs is a very serious handicap to a husband. The care of the home and the children is by law the wife's share in reasonable maintenance of the home. The only course left to the husband if his wife is neglectful or illtreats the children is desertion, and then he has no certainty of getting a formal separation. If the woman happens to be vicious and she applies for a separation order because he has deserted her he is no better off, and if he deserts her then he has the agony of feeling that he leaves his children with a woman who will probably be neglectful of them and illtreat them.

This Bill provides a great deal of protection for the husband. It allows him to obtain an order for separation on equal terms to his wife. The grounds upon which he can make this application are: if his wife deserts him, if she behaves cruelly to him or the children, that is if she damages his limbs or attempts to take his life, and also if the wife is afflicted with venereal disease, if she also neglects his home or children, and if she is an habitual drunkard. The man has much more protection by these added grounds in making his application.

As regards the wife under the present law she is also handicapped by many things. The present grounds upon which she can apply for an order are: if her husband deserts her, if he treats her with persistent cruelty, and if he does not provide reasonable maintenance for her; if he commits an aggravated assault upon her, and if he is an habitual drunkard. But perhaps the greatest injustice of all is the point referred to by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman). Before a wife can apply for an order for separation she must first leave her husband. Over and over again I have heard solicitors say that when women have come to them in great trouble and asked how they can get separation orders from their husbands, they have had to very regretfully say—as one of them put it to me—"I can do nothing for you until you actually leave your husband, and your children."

That acts very hardly on the woman for often she has no other home or good friends, and it means in a great many cases that she has to leave the children to, it may be, a brutal father. Then there is a shortage of housing at present, and altogether the case may be unfortunate because it is not very easy for a woman to obtain a house or live with any of her friends, and if the ease happens to fail she does not obtain her order, and she can then be accused of having voluntarily deserted her husband.

Again, under the present law, one act of adultery on her part prevents the order being given, while a man may commit adultery as often as be likes, and can keep as many women as he likes so long as he can maintain them. The Court can revoke this order for maintenance if the woman does commit one act of adultery, so that the children have to suffer because their mother has committed this one offence. This is very unfair on the children. Again, at present, if the husband leaves no address the woman has great difficulty in getting at him for maintenance. She can get a summons, but this is quite ineffective as a rule, and only means that she can take refuge in the workhouse and ask the guardians to issue a warrant for the arrest of the man, and obtain an order for maintenance against him.

Another thing, the law is unfair as between a rich woman and a poor woman. At present as the law stands—whether one agrees with it or not—a woman can pledge her husband's credit, and a rich woman can by that means, as they say, "get back on her husband." The poor man as a rule has no credit to pledge and the woman cannot in that way procure any redress. There are often cases where money slips away in a most unexpected manner. The man does not mean to be extravagant, but he is perhaps good-natured, and possibly rather more generous than he ought to be, and at the end of the week, or the beginning of it, when his wife should have her housekeeping allowance he gives her only a very small proportion of his earnings. Well, now the wife must apply both for a separation and a maintenance order together. She cannot apply only for maintenance, that is for part of his income to keep herself and her children. It is vitally important to enforce this payment because at the present time, following a general examination, it is proved that over 50 per cent. of the maintenance orders lapse after the first few weeks. The hon. Baronet has said that imprisonment wipes out the debt under the present law. Many men unfortunately find it is more convenient to go to prison than to pay these maintenance orders. There was a case the other day in one of the courts where 17 years' maintenance arrears were wiped out by one single month's imprisonment. Under the new Bill the wife can apply for an order on the same grounds as usual,i.e., for desertion, persistent cruelty, lack of reasonable maintenance, aggravated assault, or if he is an habitual drunkard, but with the addition of making the word "cruelty" a little wider, because in future under this Bill it will be cruelty if lie is cruel to the children as well. It is recognised as being cruelty if the cruelty is being inflicted in regard to the children, if not to the parent. Then there is the question of the man suffering from venereal disease, and that comes also under the head of cruelty.

The second alteration in the Bill is that the wife need not leave home before implying for a separation order. This is one of the most important features of the Bill. It means that there need not necessarily be any breaking up of the family, and it is often a very big step for a woman to take to leave her children in the hands of probably an unkind and in- different husband. Then the maintenance can always be applied for without necessarily having a separation and this means that the family need not necessarily be split up. As a rule the English workingman is a very law-abiding citizen, and if he knows that he is expected to maintain his wife and children, this will very often prevent a great deal of misery.

The maintenance order need not be revoked for one act of adultery. The magistrate has power to vary the order and the result will be that the children will not suffer. If the mother has sinned, the father must be responsible for the maintenance of the children. Any change in the address of the man is to be kept by the court and this is a great protection to the woman, because the court has the power of arresting the man and this prevents the necessity of the woman entering the workhouse before the warrant is issued. A written statement of earnings may be asked for from the employer and this will include all property, pensions and income from other sources. In the Bill of 1895 the maximum maintenance was fixed at £2 and it could never exceed that amount. The present Bill allows an order to be made according to the means of the man. A maximum of £2 is obviously unfair, because what could be done with £2 in 1895 cannot be done with it now on account of the increase in the cost of living, which is having a very serious effect on the homes of these women. As to arrears of maintenance, they will not be wiped out by imprisonment. If a man prefers to go to prison he can do so, but when he comes out he has to make up the arrears under the Maintenance Order. Just the same rule affects the woman.

To summarise the advantages afforded by this Bill, in the first place, homes will not be broken up; secondly, the wife will be able to trace her husband; thirdly, the wife and children will be kept according to the means of the father; and fourthly, the wife receives maintenance during her husband's imprisonment. As regards the children under the present law, the children of a separated couple are very often underfed, and the mother hesitates at taking the big step of leaving home. In 50 per cent. of these cases the orders are not enforced, and the result is that the woman has to earn the livelihood and the children have to go short be- cause she cannot earn sufficient. If under the present law the woman commits one act of adultery the order is revoked and the sins of the mother are visited on the children, and the moral effect is very bad indeed. Another point is that at present the husband must leave his wife before applying for a separation. The father may object to leaving his children in the hands of a brutal or neglectful mother, and he goes on very often when he would like to get a separation from his wife because he does not like to leave the children in such hands.

Under the new Bill cruelty to the husband or the wife includes cruelty to children. It includes venereal disease, and this in time is bound to become a method of reducing the number of children born with this wretched inheritance. It provides maintenance without separation, which means that the children will often be spared the unhappiness of a divided family life. Objection to this Bill has been raised on account of the effect it would have on the reform of the Divorce Laws. I think it would hasten, not retard, that reform. There is a large section in the country who would never wish to avail themselves of divorce because of religious principles, and this Bill does allow them to have a partially happy life. The assumption that the number of separations would be increased is quite unfounded; in fact, the reverse would be the case, because maintenance without leaving home would help to keep couples together.

In conclusion, I wish to say that there is a genuine necessity for the Bill. It relieves a real hardship which is not, perhaps, obvious to those citizens who are happily married. There is a real need to protect the husband from a negligent wife, and it also protects the wife who hesitates to leave home. It affords protection to the children who are unfortunate, and it makes provision for them in the case of a brutal father and a neglectful mother, and makes for a much better chance for them in their home life.

I believe that this Bill is going to do more to bring happiness into the homes of these men and women than any Bill which this House has considered for a very long time. If any hon. Member is thinking of objecting to this Measure, I would ask him to re- member that the Bill does not deal with those people who are in more affluent circumstances, and who, when matrimonial difficulties occur in their married life, invariably consult a solicitor.

That does not always bring happiness.

That is so, but my point is that it deals with people who are in the habit of going before the stipendiary magistrate as being the only authority who can protect them when the conditions of their home life become unbearable. Broadly speaking, the Bill recommends itself to the House on the following grounds. In the first place, it is a consolidation Bill, and from the point of view of legislation that is always good. If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule, they will see that three Acts are repealed altogether: The Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion) Act, 1896, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, 1920. In addition, certain sections of two further Acts are repealed. I submit that it is a good thing in any branch of the law to get that law in one consolidated Bill. In the second place—and this is most important —I believe that those stipendiary magistrates, who really come up against the difficulties of the law as it exists at present, are behind the Bill and would welcome it not only because it would simplify their task in dealing with the numerous cases that come before them, but because they are convinced that it would mean so much more happiness for the applicants. If hon. Members will stop for a moment to think of the psychology of the men and women who live in the poorest parts of our big cities and towns, they will remember that it is characteristic of that psychology that a man and a woman in the poorest circumstances will treat the law and the magistrate who dispenses it with a feeling of respect and with a desire to obey the law that is almost remarkable. Let us look at the other side of the picture. If the man or woman who is filled with this instinct of the law-abiding citizen comes before the Court and is turned away under circumstances which render the law unjust and inequitable, then surely this House should see to it that in future these law-abiding citizens can go to the Courts with the same chance of getting the same equity and justice as people who are rich and who can go to solicitors and other Courts and obtain it.

I want to put one point of view from the man's outlook on this question, and one point of view of the woman. Does the House realise, and does any hon. Member who is preparing to speak against this Bill realise, that under present conditions a man very often is forced to commit a matrimonial offence before he can obtain an Order from the Court.. If he has a wife who renders his home impossible or who is cruel to his children, he has to desert that wife and force her to bring a summons for desertion against him before he can obtain an Order from the Court. If this Bill does not contain the right remedy, the House of Commons, in my submission, ought to alter the actual details of the Bill in Committee, because it must consider the situation of that man and enable him to obtain an order for maintenance or separation upon grounds at least as equitable as those which are open to the woman. Both the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Bill have dealt at some length with the woman's point of view, but I want to make this point. As the law stands at present, and if the House be not prepared to alter the law, then a woman is placed in the most unenviable dilemma. She has either to desert her home for the time being and leave her children in the hands of the man from whom she desires to be separated or in respect of whom she wishes to obtain a maintenance order, or she has to forgo the chance of getting that separation or maintenance order. The last speaker, if I may say so, very admirably put the point that the law is all in favour of the woman of ill-repute and all against the woman who loves her home and children and who in these circumstances refuses and must refuse in most eases to apply for a maintenance or separation order.

There is one point which arises on Clause 1 about which I would like to say a word. This Bill is quite different from the legislation which has hitherto been passed upon the matter. Hon. Members will see from Sub-Section (1,d) that a married woman may apply to the Court on the ground that the man has com- mitted a violent assault upon her. The law, as it stands, does not say a "violent assault," but an "aggravated assault," and that word "aggravated" puts the stipendiary magistrate in a very difficult position, because it has a special legal meaning. It has been held to mean an assault of such a grave nature that a penalty of two months' imprisonment has to be imposed. Very often, the assault is not so aggravated as to come up to that definition of it. Therefore, in order to protect the woman from a series of small assaults and to protect her position generally, the Bill substitutes the word "violent" for the word "aggravated." Hon. Members who were in one of the Committee Rooms last week will remember how one stipendiary magistrate emphasised the enormous importance which he attached to this substitution of the word "violent" for the word "aggravated." Again, in Sub-section (1,c), hon. Members will notice that the word "cruelty" is used without any qualifying adjective. At present the words are persistent cruelty. The object of the Bill is to give a wider discretion to the court and not to limit the powers of the magistrate by qualifying adjectives before such words as "cruelty" and "assault."

I want to say a word about those hon. Members who may raise the objection that the Bill is going to increase separation. Under this Bill, for the first time, it will be possible in all cases to go before the court for a maintenance order alone. It stands to reason that if a man or woman can get a maintenance order the application for separation again and again will not arise. My last word is as regards the opposition to the Bill outside. As far as I can see it has been twofold. The "Church Times" has had an article against it on the ground that it interferes with ecclesiastical authority over matrimonial affairs. I can put my answer to that in one sentence. Let the Church Council take this one test: Is there or is there not a very great absence of charity in the present working of the law, and, if this Bill be filled with greater charity, is it not unthinkable that they should be against it? The second class of opposition outside this House is considerably more remarkable. It is an opposition expressed by the Divorce Law Reform Union. That organisation, in its journal, bases its opposition to the Bill on the ground that it affords no alleviation such as ought to be granted, in that it falls short of the reforms in the divorce law which they themselves are advocating. That ground of opposition has only to be stated in order to bring to the minds of hon. Members its utter inadequacy. Because you cannot get a whole loaf, are you never to be content with a half loaf? I submit that what we are considering to-day is a totally different problem. This is a problem which seeks to bring justice and equity to those people who live in poor circumstances, and who have no means of availing themselves of the law which is at the disposal of those who can afford to pay. I hope the House will, if possible with unanimity, give this Bill a Second Reading.

There is no doubt, I think, that the promoters of this Bill are filled with good intentions, but we know to where the path which is paved with good intentions leads. Let me for a moment take a commonsense view of this matter. Unfortunately, this world is composed of a very considerable number of foolish people as well as of a considerable number of wicked people—of all ranks. You are not going to make these foolish people wise or these wicked people better by taking them into a police court, and endeavouring to set them by the ears after they come out of the court. The hon. Baronet who introduced this Bill (Sir R. Newman) said first that all reforms had been opposed. But is this a reform? I do not think it is. I think it is a retrograde step and the very reverse of a reform, and, therefore, to my mind the hon. Baronet's argument does not hold good. Further he told us it was a law intended for the poorer classes. But why should the poorer classes be subjected to a law to which the richer classes are not subjected? Of all legislation in this House I dislike it is legislation intended either for the rich or for the poor.

May I point out to the right hon. Baronet—I apologise for interrupting him—that if any rich person choose to avail himself of this Bill, should it become law, he will be able to do so. If he prefer to go to a court of summary jurisdiction, instead of employing a solicitor and counsel, he will be at perfect liberty to do so.

I commenced my remarks by stating that this world consisted of a number of foolish people and of a number of wicked people. I am quite prepared to admit that I ought to include myself among the foolish people if I were not aware of what the hon. and gallant Member has just said. I repeat that the hon. Baronet who brought in the Bill said it was intended for the poorer classes. It is nothing of the sort. There is nothing to limit its application either to poor men or to rich men. It can be applied to anyone. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member is married or not, but if he is and if he happens to live in the Northern Division of Wiltshire it is quite possible his wife might summon him before me on the ground that he is wilfully not giving her a sufficient sum for maintenance. I may find out what his income is, and, having done so, I may say to his wife: "I quite agree. I think you ought to have at least £1,000 a year." I may make an order on the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he shall pay to his wife £1,000 a year. According to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that is going to make for happiness in his home, for he has told us that this Bill is one which is going to do more than any other Bill to introduce happiness into the home. Is there likely to be happiness between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his wife when I have decided that he should pay her £1,000 a year?

I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the right hon. Baronet, but if he had had seven years experience as a barrister and had been appointed a stipendiary magistrate, and I had to go before him and he made an order under the circumstances he has suggested, I should be able to reply that I should go back to my wife and try to do better in the future.

I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to neither of the classes to which I referred just now. He is one of those superior persons who having found out he has committed an error is prepared to acknowledge it and endeavour to do better in the future. Therefore he is not to be compared with the ordinary individual to whom this Bill is going to apply. He is on a pedestal by himself. He should be compared with the angels above rather than with the people below sitting round me. I have had something like 25 years' experience as a magistrate although I am not a stipendiary magistrate and am not learned in the law. I do not quite know what the law in Scotland is on this subject but if it is proposed by means of this Bill to extend happiness to homes in England why is it not proposed also to extend happiness to homes in Scotland? Why should Scotland particularly be excluded from this Bill?

We are better off in Scotland.

I do not know what that has to do with it. My own belief is that no Scotsman would allow anyone to interfere with him to the extent of saying how much money he shall spend. The hon. Member who seconded the Bill—and this perhaps falls in with the argument I have been using—asked "Suppose at the end of the week the husband is too generous"—that does not apply to Scotsmen—"and spends his money recklessly and has put by nothing for a rainy day?" Then the stipendiary magistrate or the ordinary justice of the peace can intervene and say, "No, in our opinion it is not necessary to put anything by for a rainy day; we are going to order you to give more than you consider necessary to your wife." There again, is that likely to conduce to happiness in the home, or to conduce to thrift, which, after all, is one of the greatest necessities of the present day? I admit that on the whole I think the women are inclined to be more thrifty than the men, but it is not so in every case. Very often it happens that you have a thrifty husband and an extravagant wife, and this is all playing into the hands of the extravagant wife.

The hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill said—I took down his words as well as I could; I am not sure if I have got them exactly, but he will correct me if I am wrong—as I understood him, he said that, if a woman wanted to inspire her husband with his duty, this Bill would enable her to do so. It is a very extraordinary way of inspiring a man with his duty to haul him into the police court. This is the first time I have heard that a police court was such a very nice and pleasant place that you should take people there to inspire them with their duty. That is rather at variance with the almost universal approval in this House of the Act which provides that, in the case of a child under the age of, I think, fourteen, the contamination of the police court is so great that that child must not be brought into it even to hear another case, but must be taken into another room for his case to be dealt with separately. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it has not been suggested that it should be even outside and away from the buildings of the police court, in order to avoid contamination. Which is right? I am rather inclined to think that the people who speak of the contamination of the police court are in the right, and I am not at all sure that it is not a good thing, because I think there are still in this country—although there is so much tendency to Bolshevism that perhaps it will not remain the case—I think there are still a good number of people who believe it to be a disgrace to be taken into the police court. I think it is a very good thing that they do.

I am afraid I have given the right hon. Baronet a wrong impression. What I said was that in the event of a husband being, not absolutely vicious, but merely a careless individual, then, through the fear of the law if you like, the knowledge that he might be brought before a magistrate—and magistrates in most cases are desirous of trying to reconcile the two parties—might often cause him to turn over a new leaf, whereas, as the law stands at present, the wife cannot do that unless she breaks up the home. It is to avoid that drastic necessity for breaking up the home that I suggest that these cases should be met by going before a magistrate.

It is very easy to argue on an isolated case. The hon. Baronet takes the case of a man who is not vicious, but careless, and then he says that this man, having been taken into the police court, will awake to the performance of his duties, and will turn over a new leaf and become another man. Will he? He is not vicious to begin with, but merely careless, and, I suppose we must add, stupid as well. Suppose that a man, who is really good-intentioned but is careless, is taken by his wife into the police court—and the hon. Baronet, as I understand, admits that there is a feeling against the police court—is that really going to make him inclined to be more agreeable to his wife? Is he not much more likely to say to her, "You have taken me to the police court, and have exposed what you admit is not vice, but merely carelessness, to all our neighbours; and, as I go through the streets of the town, people will say, Hullo, there's Joe, his wife has just had him in the police court.'" Is that going to conduce to happiness? I daresay I have had more experience of the world than either of the three hon. Members who have spoken, and I do think that my view of human nature is more correct than theirs. Then this Bill proposes to repeal the whole of the Act of 1886. That Act merely says that if a woman commits adultery she cannot obtain a maintenance allowance from her husband. This Bill says that if she can prove that her husband

"has wilfully neglected to provide maintenance for the applicant or her infant children,"

she can then get the magistrates to give her an allowance.

The word is "may."

Where is that?

In Clause 3.

I was dealing with the fact that if she has committed adultery, she may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for a summons on the ground that her husband has wilfully neglected to provide maintenance for herself and her infant children. We will suppose that a woman applies to a bench of magistrates or to a stipendiary for a summons on this ground. The magistrate has to grant that summons. When the summons is heard, she proves to the satisfaction of the magistrates that the sum allowed to her by her husband is not sufficient, or at any rate the magistrates think it is not, and then they have to grant an order.

They may.

Yes, that is quite true, but surely, when this comes before a magistrate, the Act will be put before him by the Clerk, and he sees that he may do so-and-so. Is it not a thousand to one that the magistrate will consider it to be his duty to carry out the Act? Otherwise, what is the good of the Act? Of course magistrates will consider that they should carry out the Act. Suppose that someone says, "This woman has committed adultery." Then I should not be surprised if there was a solicitor in the case. My hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think that all ills would be cured if you were able to employ a solicitor. I do not believe in that. I know solicitors appear in police court cases very often, and especially in country courts. If anyone says a woman has committed adultery, the solicitor appearing for her will point out that the whole of the Act is repealed, including the Clause which says maintenance cannot be granted. No magistrate will refuse to grant a separation order on the ground of adultery when the Act which deals with adultery has been specifically repealed. I do not attach any importance to the word "may." I do not think it has any effect.

I turn to the case of the evidence, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) will correct me if I am wrong. Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 says:

"In any proceedings under this Act a written statement purporting to be signed by the employer."

As I read that, the woman may produce a letter which is signed by a man who she says is her husband's employer, which makes a certain statement. Surely no court as at present constituted will take that as evidence. There must be some evidence that the letter really was written and signed by the person in question. It leaves the door open to all kinds of fraud, and it is worse for a poor man or woman than for a rich one, because how can a poor man or woman appeal and point out that the letter on which the magistrates founded their decision was never really signed by the employer? It means more proceedings in fact, in nine cases out of 10—I am not sure it does not include. Government Bills too—Bills introduced by private Members lead to increased litigation.

This very provision has been the law for 14 years. The words are identical with Section 124 of the Children Act.

I said I was not learned in the law, and it is possible I was mistaken, and I asked my hon. and learned Friend below me to put me right if I was wrong. He did not do so, so I supposed I was right. I remember the late Sir Charles Duke saying "It is no use quoting one bad precedent in order to establish another." It rather enforces my contention that all these Acts lead to litigation, and if there is a foolish Clause of that sort in the Children Act there is no reason why we should re-enact it. The hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) thought the Bill would compel a wife to look after the house and also compel the husband not to neglect the children. There is no necessity for this Bill to do that. Over and over again I have adjudicated in eases brought before the Court where I sit where women have neglected to maintain their children, and husbands have done the same, and in some cases we send them to prison. We did not want this Bill to do that. They are cases brought by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and sometimes by school board teachers.

Would it not be better for the father to take the responsibility to look after the children than send him to prison?

I did not quite catch that. I am getting a little deaf with advancing years. The fact remains that if a man or woman really neglect his or her children, there is a remedy at present under the law. Then the hon. Member went on to say that very often when a magistrate had granted an allowance of some kind, the defendant refused to pay and the only course was to commit him to prison. That is true, but this Bill will be open to the same objection. If a man will not pay, you can distrain on his goods. If he has no goods, you can only send him to prison, and I am certain, knowing the character of English men and women, that the result of this Bill will be to make them very angry with each other. A woman is nearly as bad as a man in this way. They will say "We are not going to do this. Harry or Mary, whichever the name is, has chosen to do this and I wilt see her somewhere before I do anything for her." That is the sort of spirit which will be engendered by the Bill. I think I have shown that a woman or a man who chooses to neglect her children can be punished under the existing law.

We come to the Clause which deals with venereal disease. At the present, as far as I know, either party communicating the disease to the other can be punished, and quite rightly, but I do not quite see how you are going to effect this. It is very difficult to find out whether the disease has been communicated. All men are subject to certain weaknesses which they ought not to be subject to. It is no use ignoring facts. We will presume that a man commits adultery and contracts disease. He is one of those men the hon. Member has alluded to. He is not vicious, but only careless. He informs his wife that this has happened, and she, perhaps in a moment of anger with him, goes to a police court and brings all this out. Is that likely to conduce to happiness? This Bill is founded on good intentions, and good intentions generally mean bad legislation.

The definition of "habitual drunkard" will be very difficult to interpret. It says:

"The expression 'habitual drunkard' means a person who habitually takes or uses any intoxicant, and while under the influence or in consequence of the effects thereof is at times dangerous or the cause of terror to himself."

How can any magistrate ascertain whether a man who has had too much to drink is a cause of terror to himself? I can well understand how he could be a terror or a nuisance to somebody else.

He may be subject to delirium tremens.

Oh. He may "see rats." There would have to be evidence of that. I do not think it is going to conduce to happiness in the home to prove that a man is a cause of terror to himself. I have dealt with the points which seem to me to make this Bill absolutely unworkable. I hope the House will be very careful before they accept these sentimental ideas which are so prevalent today, especially amongst societies. This Bill is the outcome, I suppose, of a certain society which has set itself to regenerate the world. These societies are generally all wrong, and they generally conduce to much more misery than at present exists. I do hope that we shall be content with having done as much mischief as we have during the present year by passing private Bills, and that we shall not pass this Bill. I do not think it is worth while moving that the Bill he read a second time upon this day six months, because we can always vote against the Main Question, which I shall certainly do if I can find any section of the House who are willing to support me.

After the half-humorous manner in which the right hon. Baronet has criticised the Bill, the House may feel convinced that there is need for the Bill to become law. Humour, even in a halfhearted way, is not always fair criticism of a Bill. To exaggerate, as the right hon. Baronet has done, all the possibilities that may arise if this Bill becomes law does not prove that the Bill is bad or even that it is good. The right hon. Baronet's general style of debate in trying to be humorous at the expense of the promoters of the Bill itself, does not convince, but very often leaves one desirous of examining the measure more closely. I support the Bill because it removes certain inequalities and brings about a condition of equality as between husband and wife. I have gathered some knowledge from having acted as a magistrate for nearly twenty years, and as one who has followed the course of events closely and has seen something of the difficulties of the law as it exists to-day I support the Bill. For many years, in common with others, I have felt that there was room for improvement and alteration in many respects.

There are some things in the Bill that may cause alarm or suspicion, but there is no reason why we should not proceed with the Bill because one or two points in it do not meet with approval. On the Second Reading we have to deal with the Bill as a whole, and when it goes to Committee we shall have opportunities of dealing with various points of weakness or disagreement. There is one point upon which I am not whole-heartedly a supporter of the Bill, and that is the Clause with regard to the woman committing an act of adultery. That is a very serious Clause, but it does not destroy the value of the Bill. That Clause will have to be very fully examined before it becomes law. I am a firm believer in equality as between man and wife, and if adultery is to be an offence on the part of the wife to the extent of depriving her of certain rights, it should equally be an offence on the part of the man. Notwithstanding the attempt of the right hon. Baronet to minimise the offence of a man committing adultery, I am a firm believer in the view that if it is an offence on the one side, it should be an offence on the other, and both parties should be treated alike.

The Clause which gives the woman the right to claim maintenance without having to leave her home is very important. I have many times sat on the bench as a magistrate, and we have asked the woman: "Did you leave your home?" She has replied, "No." Then we have asked her: "Why did not you leave the home?" She would reply, "Where could I go? I could not go on to the streets. I had no place to go to, and I had to put up with the brutality or go out into a cold bitter winter's night." The case would be proved up to the hilt, but the fact was there that the woman was still at home, and she had no claim. For other offences a man can be prosecuted, but I am dealing now with a claim for separation, and the necessity imposed upon a woman of having to leave the horns before she can claim. On the question of imprisonment and wiping out the debt, I have often felt that that is a mistake in the law as it stands to-day. We have seen a poor woman brought from the workhouse in charge of the relieving officer and we have seen the husband in the dock. I have seen cases where the police have- had to search all over the country to find the man, and have incurred considerable expense in bringing him to the court, and an order has been made. He has to pay in so many days or go to prison for a month. He goes to prison for a month and wipes out his debt. The country is put to the extra cost of sending police to look for him and paying his train fare and keeping him in prison, and the woman has to go back to the workhouse. It is true that the debt begins again when the man enters prison, but the bulk of it is wiped out, and nobody is benefited by what happens.

Perhaps it will not improve the position if the debt remains. If you come in contact with a man who is determined not to pay, it does not matter whether the debt is £1 or £100. It means that you have to commit and re-commit him and keep him in prison continuously. Still, I think that the law can be altered to some extent so as to make it impossible for a man to clear out and be free of the burden of his debt. It should follow him wherever he goes. There are three parties concerned—the husband, the wife, and the children. The party that concerns me most is the children. All the faults do not rest with the male sex. If there is equality of claim under the Bill we must recognise that there is an equality of offence in the sexes. I can remember the case of a man being brought up and ordered to pay, with the option of a month in prison. He looked at the wife in the box and said, "I will take the month," and I was bound to admire his choice. That, like some of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, is a somewhat exaggerated case, but, nevertheless, it is true. We have got to deal with these things exactly as they are. The man or the woman may have committed an offence, but the children are innocent, and whatever provision is made for punishing the offending party, the main thing in the whole business is to provide for the defence and protection of the children.

We have to be careful in dealing with questions of this kind, because we are often troubled with frivolous cases of young married people seeking separation orders. I have heard many cases in which a good, sound thrashing for both of them would do far more good, before they settle down and realised what life really means. The wife is jealous of her husband because he has gone to a dancing class, or the husband is jealous of the wife because she went to a picture show. They have a squabble and the one summons the other. Very often the wife summons the husband for desertion, and they occupy the time of the court. These are trifling things and irritating things that occupy the time of magistrates in courts. They should never be encouraged. These people should be taught the lesson that they took each other for better or worse, and they have got to stand the consequences and to live their life as they ought to. It has been said to-day that this is a Bill to benefit the poor. I do not look at it from that standpoint. I look at it strictly in the sense that it gives facilities for adjusting the mistakes that very often happen among the working classes.

But I do not want to convey the idea that there is more wrong done among the working classes than among the middle or wealthy classes. I say from my knowledge and observation that when I remember the poverty and the slumdom and the misery in which the majority of the poorer people have to live, the devotion with which men and women stand by each other and also the struggle to maintain their little home and benefit the children, admiration is excited, and it is one of the things which make us glad that we are Britishers because there is real heroism, real self-sacrifice and devotion in sticking together through troubles, poverty and misery and doing the best they can for the children, and that applies to the general mass of the working classes of this country. Of course there are exceptions among them the same as among the other sections of the community. We are not all born with an angelic temperament like the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It might be exaggerated, but it is true nevertheless, that we have the exalted opinion based upon the arguments of the right hon. Baronet. We sometimes feel like saying nasty things, but we say kind things. But we have got to deal with people in the mass, and with things as they come along, and I support the Bill because there are features in it which should be supported. There is the removal of inequality. There is given to the husband the chance of dealing with the faults of the wife as well as to the wife the chance of dealing with the faults of the husband. Taking the whole Bill I give it my hearty support though I reserve to myself the right to criticise one or two clauses and perhaps have them amended on the Committee stage.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) said that Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 of this Bill was taken verbatim from the Children Act, 1908. I have looked at that Act and I find one material difference between it and the Clause in the Bill which we are now discussing. That is the word "purporting," which is not in the Children Act. The section of the Bill we are now considering reads:

"In any proceedings under this Act a written statement, purporting to be signed by the employer or by any responsible person in his employ, shall beprimâ facie evidence that the wages therein stated as having been paid to any person, have in fact been so paid."

I suggest that even if there were a provision of this kind in the Children Act it is a most objectionable thing to put into an Act of Parliament. I can understand the drafters of Bill insisting that the employer, or some responsible person employed by the employer, should make a statutory declaration that the wages paid were the wages received by the man, because that would bring the person making such a declaration into a position of responsibility. I do not think the House should give a Second reading to a Bill with a loose section of this kind. I do not propose to vote against the Second reading, but a protest should be made against loose legislation of this kind being passed. If the Bill receives a Second reading I hope the promoters will see that a better form of words is adopted. In Clause 2 I notice that the word "may" is introduced in the first sentence. The House knows that the word "may" has been held by the courts at various times to be mandatory. Let me mention an experience I had yesterday. In the Standing Committee upstairs on the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill this particular point was raised by myself, and I was told by the Chief Secretary that the word "may" was mandatory and not permissive. The Chief Secretary is a counsel learned in the law, and one must respect the opinion which he expresses. I suggest that the word "may" here should be taken as obligatory and not merely permissive, and we should consider whether the form of word should be altered.

I am not sure whether there is anything precisely similar elsewhere to Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 of this Bill, to which the last speaker referred: but there is no doubt that there have been many cases of evidence being allowed under circumstances almost identical. My hon. Friend will recollect the case of the bankers' books. Previous to the passage of the Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act it was necessary that the particular book should be produced in court. My hon. Friend will recollect that for the purpose of convenience, just as this Clause is introduced for the convenience, an official in charge of the books, who himself had taken the particular extract, might produce the extract in Court under a certificate that it was a proper extract from the book.

In the case mentioned I imagine that if the official had taken from the books wrong information, he would have been committed for perjury. This Bill says that a statement may be put before the court without any witness.

I agree that that is a point which should be examined in Committee. I cannot think that it is a serious defect in the Bill. Under this Clause a written statement purporting to be signed by the employer, or by any responsible person in his employ, shall beprimâ facie evidence. Of course, it cannot be more thanprimâ facie evidence of the earnings of a man. It is open to the man to get up and to say that his wages were nothing of the kind. In that event I am sure the particular extract would not be worth the paper upon which it was written. It is a point to be examined in Committee whether the method of producing this particular evidence is satisfactory or not. Let me deal with one or two ponits made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The right hon. Gentleman has constituted to himself a kind of official opposition to almost all private Bills. If he will allow me most respectfully to say so, I think most hon. Members realise that the position the right hon. Baronet takes up is that there should be something to be said for thestatus quo, for a state of affairs that has continued over a long period of time. The right hon. Baronet always insists that a Bill shall be most carefully scrutinised before he will give his consent to a Second Reading. I do not know anyone more skilful in opposing a Bill than the right hon. Baronet. The value of his opposition is that it enables the House to see a Bill scrutinised by an expert. There are cases when the effect of opposition must be to strengthen the Bill.

This Bill has been scrutinised and has have criticised. I am sure the effect on the minds of members to-day must be that if the right hon. Baronet cannot criticise the Bill more effectively and more destructively than he has succeeded in doing, there must really be something to be said for the Second Reading. The right hon. Baronet referred to paragraph (b) of Clause 1, which relates to the case where a man has wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant or her infant children. He ridiculed the idea that that should be any ground for a separation order. We all know that in fact the wilful and malicious refusal by a husband to provide maintenance for his wife and children is actually at the moment allowed in evidence in separation cases. It is almost invariably given as additional evidence of cruelty, and the only effect of this clause is to regularise that procedure. It might be a form of the most vicious cruelty deliberately to attempt to starve a wife, and it is obvious that this particular form of cruelty should be regularised. The other point made by the right hon. Baronet and the final point with which I shall deal is that this particular Bill has gone out of its way to enable the wife to get her maintenance allowance. Sub-section (5) of Clause 5 is a most highly important provision:

Where a person for the time being required to make payments under a maintenance order, has any property or receives any pension or income (other than wages) the court may order in the event of the failure of any such person to make this payment that such part as the court think fit of any such pension or income or other property be attached and paid to the officer of the court on behalf of the persons specified in the order.

That is a vital Clause and however open to objection it may be on other grounds, I am sure the right hon. Baronet will bear it mind that the Courts always view with considerable suspicion these garnishee orders, and they will only be given after the closest examination, and I think in that way every protection is afforded in this respect.

May I point out that the hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading said this Bill was intended for the poorer classes.

I did not quite say that. If the right hon. Baronet will allow me to explain, what I endeavoured to point out was that this was a Bill, of which as an Act of Parliament, anybody could take advantage, but that it was more especially meant to help claimants from the poorer classes, because richer people had other means at their disposal.

This is a Bill which is very likely to raise difficulties. There are a great number of people who have, neither got. pensions nor property, and that a difficulty will confront magistrates in connection with a man who may be working at one period, say, at Battersea, and who then goes up to Scotland—who moves about according to where he can get work.

This Bill does not do everything. It only purports to do something, and at any rate the promoters of the Bill may say this, that whether it is quite clear or not on all points, it is a great advance, and if it is a great advance, that is something. The Bill has received most careful scrutiny, and it has the support of practically all the women societies throughout the country, as well as of the right hon. Baronet's own party and of every party. The women's societies have scrutinised and examined these matters as affecting women, and the status of women in the life of our country, and in so doing have been of very great service. This has been a most carefully scrutinised measure in that respect, and I think very few Members will be found to vote against the Bill going upstairs.

The case for the Bill has been so fully, so ably, and so temperately put by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman), and the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham), as well as by other speakers, that I do not propose to detain the House at length. I did not think there would be anybody to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I had temporarily forgotten the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, who, of course, always makes it his business on Friday afternoons to oppose every private Bill brought forward with the possible exception of the Dogs Protection Bill and the Trade Disputes Act (Repeal) Bill. He made a very amusing speech, and introduced the note of comedy. We do not complain of that, but the cases which this Bill is designed to meet are unfortunately not comedies; they are cases of the deepest tragedy. They are cases such as that quoted by the hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading. That was the case of a woman who, if she had been a bad mother, would not have troubled to go back to her children, but because she was a good mother and went back to them, the magistrate had to inform her she could not have a separation order, and all he could say to the husband and wife was that they should go back together and try to make the best of it. In two days that woman was dead—murdered—and the man was hanged shortly afterwards. Those two lives might have been saved had this Bill been in operation.

Something has been said outside on the question of the relation of this Bill to divorce. There are a large number of people in the country—and I am not sure I am not one of them—who do not wish to see a vastly increased number of divorces. I think we have enough already. We hope this Bill will not increase divorces but will have the opposite effect. Instead of being a divorce Bill, it gives people a chance of once more coming together again and perhaps making happy homes and happy lives. I was very glad to hear that the Church of which the bon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) is a member, the Catholic Church, as a whole, supports the principle of the Bill, that the Anglican High Church—with the exception of 'one organ, the "Church Times," but the great bulk of the English High Church party—support the Bill. These are the bodies chiefly opposed to any further facilities being granted in connection with the English divorce law. I think that the Bill, in this respect will do good rather than harm. I thought I heard a laugh from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London when my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby) said it was supported by all the women's societies in the country. It is of course mainly a women's Bill and meant mainly to benefit women, but he will have noticed that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 there is a paragraph which gives for the first time some sort of assistance to men in these cases, though I understood the right hon. Baronet to say the matters referred to were delicate matters to deal with and very difficult to prove and that the provision might do more harm than good. In all however there is an advance in that respect. Personally I consider that while some points in connection with it may be arguable, it is on the whole a wise provision, not only for the happiness and the health of the parties concerned, but I may say even more for the health and well- being of the nation as a whole, for anything we can do to check the spread of venereal disease should be done.

With regard to the point raised by an hon. Member on Clause 5, Sub-section (4), I admit that the wording of that Sub-section requires revision in Committee. The reason why it was put in at all was that if it had been a matter of the employer being always summoned to the court to give evidence as to the wages of his employé, there was a risk of an employer saying, "I cannot give up the whole of my day in coming to the court," or, "I do not want to be bothered with this matter," or, "I will get a workman who does not have such a troublesome wife;" therefore, to avoid a risk of that sort, this question of a written certificate was brought in. We want to avoid, if possible, that difficulty of an employer being actually summoned to the court. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I am sure that with careful revision in Committee it will prove to be, not only a useful and workable Bill, but one which will be of untold benefit to a very great number of people in this country.

I have listened to this most interesting and instructive debate, and I am afraid I was slightly shocked by one or two remarks that fell from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I do not propose to follow him into his arguments against the Bill, but I had always understood that according to him, private legislation—any legislation, but private legislation in particular—was bad. He had some slight argument with the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Capt. Bowyer), on the subject of the Children Act, and he said that if a particular Clause in that Bill was bad he would amend it. But surely that is departing from the principle which he holds so well, that all legislation is bad. I take another point from him. If legislation of any sort is bad, surely the Trade Disputes Act (Repeal) Bill is bad. I am not certain as to the position which he took up with regard to that particular Bill.

That Bill repeals legislation, therefore it is good.

Then why not bring in one Bill to repeal the whole legislation of this country which would be complete Bolshevism? However, I have no real desire to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Baronet, because my object in rising is to support a Bill which I believe to be a genuine endeavour to place the two sexes on an equality in these matters. I have another reason, and that is that I do really appreciate the work and' trouble which the hon. Baronet the Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) has put, not only into his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, but in many other directions in this connection. I, as a West country Member, believe in standing by my fellow West country Members if I possibly can, and rise particularly to support the hon. Baronet in his action to-day. The next point I wish to make is that, as far as I understand this Bill—it is rather a long one—the most important and effectual provision in it is that contained in Clause 2, where for a man or for a woman to get an order they no longer have to cease to cohabit with each other. It seems in the interests particularly of the children if you can, by any possible means, prevent a real break between the parties, and if you can get a case settled, so that the wife, or the father for that matter, may continue to be in the home with the children. If you can do that, you will have done something, and we shall not have wasted our time on this Friday afternoon. I am not so much interested in either the man or the woman. It, seems to me that in legislation of this kind we ought to concentrate, as the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) said, on the future of the children.

I was endeavouring to emphasise a point which had been made earlier in the Debate, and the main reason I have for supporting the Bill is that it is essential, not only to bring in equality between the sexes, but more so, if it is possible, to endeavour to put the position of the children in a, sounder position than it is at the present time. Before sitting down, there are two points of criticism which I would like to make in regard to the Bill. I do not make them in any other than a friendly spirit, but I think, as far as Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 is concerned, which enables you to get a certificate from an employer, that is a point which obviously in many cases will be of advantage. It is obviously of advantage if you can save trouble, time, and cost to individuals in these cases, but at the same time, when the Bill comes into Committee, we shall have to be particularly careful that it does not set up too much interference or the possibility of a magistrate or others going to employers or other people and making trouble in that respect. I believe I can remember hearing cases by Members of the Labour party in the past bringing up this particular point in another connection, where they have objected to a man or a wife being able to get a certificate from the employer. It is a very difficult point, and I would say to those who have charge of the Bill that it is a point into which they will have to go very carefully before the Bill passes into law. As far as Clause 8 is concerned, I do not pretend to go into the principles of it. It is very complicated and requires legal explanation, but I think we might at any rate be told by the Government exactly where they stand in regard to that Clause, and ask them to give us a very full legal interpretation thereof. The last point I wish to make is as far as Clause 11 is concerned. I fully appreciate that Ireland should be left out of the Bill, but why Scotland. I do not know if there be any Scotsmen here. There are occasionally Scotsmen in this House, but I should like to hear the whole position so far as Scotland is concerned, because I would not like it to be said that we in England have better legislation than they have. I think Scotland should be given every chance to benefit in the good things which, I believe, are in this Bill, which, I hope, this House will consent to make into an Act.

The promoters of this Measure do not claim that this is a perfect Bill, and I think everyone will agree that there are many points which will require examination in Committee. But with the general object of the Bill the overwhelming majority of Members who are in the House are certainly in sympathy. Although I cannot speak officially on the point, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite may take it I think that one reason why this Bill does not apply to Scotland is possibly because the Act of 1895, which it repeals, does not apply to Scotland. There may be other reasons.

Can this point be cleared up before the Committee stage, so that we may then be absolutely certain?

I will take note of my hon. and gallant Friend's desire. Of course, the Government are not responsible in any sort of way.

Does the Act of 1895 apply to Ireland?

No, Sir; it neither applies to Scotland nor to Ireland. We are bound to face the fact that this Bill undoubtedly authorises a considerable interference, and a fresh interference, by the Judiciary in the private affairs of individuals, and before consenting to such interference I think Members in every part of the House, having regard to their responsibilities to their constituents, must be extremely careful in seeing, not only that that interference is justifiable, but that it is desirable, and that it is exercised to the smallest possible extent. Those are the ideas which, I think, will have to guide Members when the Bill goes to a Standing Committee. The Government will, at any rate, offer no opposition to that course. The Bill repeals the Section in the Act of 1895 which obliges a woman to leave her house before she can get a separation order. There is absolute unanimity as to the glaring injustice of that provision, but it may be said the object could be achieved without embarking upon so comprehensive and ambitious a Measure. Supporters of the Bill have frankly admitted the far-reaching nature of some of the other provisions of the Bill, but it would be wasting the time of the House to co through them now, as they can be fully examined in Committee.

Perhaps I might indicate one or two provisions of the Bill in particular which seem to require special attention. For instance, there is the power which, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, is conferred upon a court of summary jurisdiction to compel a man to pay £1,000 a year to his wife. I think it is a serious consideration whether a court of that character ought not to be limited in the amount it can order to be paid. It is surely a consideration whether we dare agree to such wide powers being conferred on such a tribunal, and whether, in cases above a certain limit, which could easily be fixed in Committee, it is not desirable that appeal should lie to a higher tribunal. There is also, of course, the question of venereal disease. Hon. Members will readily imagine that the difficulties which surround that are very great, but that, again, is a matter which can be left to the Committee. Subject to the view that the Bill comprises so many fresh extensions of interference with the liberty of the subject by the Courts—for that is what it really amounts to, desirable though it may be in the interests of justice—everybody will agree that even more than usual care will have to be given to the consideration of this Bill if, as I hope, it goes to a Committee upstairs.

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

I understand there is an arrangement made between His Majesty's Government and another place to deal with this matter by means of a Joint Committee, or something of that sort. That is all I have risen to say.

I beg to second the Motion.

This Bill covers an extremely difficult series of legal questions, and the Government has taken it into very careful consideration, in conjunction with the promoters of the Bill. A similar Bill has been introduced into another place, and we feel that the only satisfactory way of dealing with so complicated a matter, having possibly far-reaching effects, would be to have it examined by a Committee of both Houses. A message is on its way from another place asking this House to adopt that view. We would recommend that course to the House, and, in view of that, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion.

I gladly do so.

Perhaps the most convenient course would be to move the Adjournment of the Debate.

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

It. has been suggested that, in view of another Bill relating to joint self-government for Scotland and Wales which has been introduced into this House, that the Bill now before us might have been deferred. I think, however, we should take every opportunity of ventilating this very important subject in the House, and in addition to that fact the privilege of debating exclusively Scottish subjects is so rare that it is not to be lightly sacrificed. I hope that ere long hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will have among them a representative from Scotland who will be able to speak for the Government on this Bill. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is unavoidably absent in Edinburgh, but had he been here he would to-day have been one of my most enthusiastic supporters in the proposal I am now making to the House. I am aware that Scottish Members are not quite unanimous on this subject. I can, however, claim that the majority of Scottish Members in this House are not only in principle favourable to Home Rule for Scotland but are definitely pledged on the question to their constituents. I can assure the House that behind the Scottish Home Rule movement there is a rising tide of well-informed and resolute Scottish opinion. I feel sure that at the next General Election—let that interesting event come when it may—the test question for all Parliamentary candidates in Scotland will be the question of Home Rule. This subject, I feel sure, has assumed much greater importance since 1914 than it had in pre War days. It is no longer a party question. Before the War in any Debate on Scottish Home Rule in this House Conservatives voted against the Measure while all Liberals voted in its favour. To-day, whether it is the benign influence of Coalition principles or whether we have advanced in political wisdom, that cleavage no longer exists, and we have now Members of this House who are Conservative in principle but who also are in favour of the principle of Scottish Home Rule. Our demand belongs to no particular class and to no particular party. It is the demand of a great body of people to-day in Scotland.

What are the governing considerations behind this question? There are two. We demand a Scottish Parliament, firstly, on national grounds, and secondly, on the ground of legislative efficiency. I am aware that certain Scottish colleagues of my own are not in favour of the advocacy of nationalism in any form. They believe that the advocacy of nationalism is pernicious and has the worst possible effect from the standpoint of the interests of the nation. But surely that must depend upon the kind of nationalism you advocate, and also upon the sphere in which that nationalism desires to find expression. I am quite aware of the infinite mischief wrought on the Continent of Europe by that narrow, bigoted, nationalism of which we have heard so much. There you have not the nationalism that I have in mind. You have there the fostering of racial prejudice, you have small States with their armies and their tariff walls choking the channels of trade and commerce, and constituting a continual menace to the peace of Europe. I do not support that kind of nationalism any more than some of my hon. Friends who oppose me in this matter. But surely it will not be contended that these elements are present at all in our idea of Scottish nationalism? Some of my hon. Friends are content that the old lines of demarcation should disappear, and that political considerations alone should decide delimitation. I should be the last to decry the importance of economic considerations, but we must put them in their proper place, and I suggest that if we concentrate upon the material and ignore the political and the spiritual, we shall commit a profound blunder. It is my belief that a healthy nationalism, a healthy competition between nations, develop inherent capacities and add virility to the races of mankind. I do suggest, however, to those who oppose Scottish Home Rule, that if there is any nation under Heaven which is peculiarly fitted to govern itself it is the country that lies north of the Tweed. I am not here praising my own country; that were a work of supererogation. But I do claim that we possess in our own national ideals and characteristics the elements that go to make up good government.

In my view the nationalism of Scotland to-day, in spite of many adverse circumstances, stands out as strongly as it ever did. The Treaty of Union was passed in 1707. That Treaty was meant to be an incorporating union. It was intended to make Scotland an English province, which would gradually become Anglicized. Although 250 years have passed the nationalism of Scotland stands out to-day as pronounced, as rugged, and as indestructible as ever. Over two centuries have run their course, but all our essential national characteristics still survive and the thistle steadfastly refuses to become a rose. We still retain our own judicial system, our own marriage and land laws, our own ecclesiastical laws, and these have not the remotest chance of ever becoming assimilated to similar laws in England. Let no one imagine for a moment that I advocate the abrogation of the Treaty of Union. That Treaty brought Scotland many advantages and disadvantages, but I should be the last to question the benefits we have received from that Union.

We are poor in this world's goods, but fairly equipped with intellectual endowments, and our association with a country like England, rich beyond the dreams of avarice and with intellectual powers not to be despised, has really conferred on Scotland benefits for which we are in every way grateful. My point is that national point of view still survives, and we claim the right to govern ourselves along the lines of our own history and traditions. You cannot unify the races of mankind, and in this connection I am reminded of a quotation from a very dis- tinguished Scotsman—Sir Walter Scott—who said:

"The degree of national diversity between different countries is but an instance of that general variety which Nature seems to have adopted as a principle through all her works, as anxious, apparently, to avoid, as modern statesmen to enforce, anything like an approach to absolute uniformity."

Another well-known Scotsman, long since gone to his rest, said on this same question something which we ought to keep in our minds. John Stuart Blackie said:

"As an independent kingdom, inheriting its own historic traditions, using its own laws, boasting its own Church, and marked by a distinctive type of character and culture Scotland has a right to demand that her public business shall be conducted seriously on Scottish ground, in a Scottish atmosphere, and under Scottish influences, not hustled and slurred over hastily in an Imperial Parliament."

The historical differences between the two countries still exist and they form what I regard as a firm foundation for this demand for self-government. We ask for a Scottish legislature, a Scottish Executive, administration by Scottish officials, and provision by Scottish Estimates. I do not claim that the Bill now before us is perfect. It has had a chequered career. It has passed through many vicissitudes. What I insist upon in this House to-clay is that we shall, if possible, agree to the principle and not necessarily to the provisions of the Bill. I wish also to emphasise the fact that the introduction of this Measure is not indicative of any slackening of loyalty either to the Throne or to the Empire. Our allegiance to the Throne requires no demonstration and our desire to play a worthy part in the development of the Empire cannot be questioned. Our desire in this Bill is not to sever but to strengthen and cement the bonds which unite us, and we believe that this result can best be achieved by legislative efficiency. It is a far cry to those days when Lord Rosebery adopted efficiency as his political watchword, but I recollect that he was an enthusiastic Home Ruler. I am not aware of any distinguished statesman of modern times who opposes the principle of Home Rule for Scotland. The present Prime Minister is in its favour, and I believe his three predecessors in office have all announced that they are in favour of granting self-government to Scotland. We base our claim for this legislative efficiency as being necessary to Scotland on the ground that efficiency under present conditions is absolutely impossible in this House. If there wan any substance in that statement, and it has been made for the last fifty years, if there was any substance in it before the; War then it applies with ten-fold force to-day. For good or ill this country is becoming more deeply involved than ever in international questions, and for a long time to come our interests will be inextricably bound up with those of countries outside these islands, and there will be less time devoted here to our domestic affairs. It is surely an, elementary principle which requires no demonstration that the more perfect our internal system of legislation is, the more fitted we are to play a worthy part the council of the nations. I have referred to the fact that the present Prime Minister and his predecessors favour self-government for Scotland. If there is one right hon. Gentleman in this House who has a better right than another to speak on this subject from this point of view it is the right hon. Member the Secretary for Scotland. He has time and again informed us that it is quite impossible to have Scottish business adequately transacted in this House, and he speaks from an experience of something like ten years. As he is not here to-day I take the liberty of repeating what he said only two years ago on this subject. Speaking in the House of Commons on 16th April, 1920, he said:

"I was in favour of the principle (of Home Rule for Scotland) long before I entered this House, but I am bound to say that my experience as a Member of the House has greatly strengthened my belief in the principle, and my experience as a Minister has strengthened my belief in the principle still further. The endeavour by the Minister to control a number of Boards which are situated 400 miles from London, in addition to discharging the ordinary Parliamentary and Departmental duties which fall to his lot here, involves a task of difficulty which no one who has not had actual experience of it can comprehend.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1920; col. 2069, Vol. 127.]

I shall not give any more quotations, although I could read them for hours. The testimony is all along the same line. It is quite impossible under present conditions adequately to deal with Scottish affairs or, indeed, with any affairs connected with the United Kingdom. It is sometimes said that if we pass a Measure of Home Rule for Scotland we shall create a huge bureaucracy. I do not believe there is the slightest foundation for that statement. We have our administrative offices at the present time. We have our Board of Education, our Board of Agriculture, our Fisheries Board, our Board of Health, our Board of Control and several other Boards. We have all the administrative offices we require, and we believe they are managed by highly qualified men, but the trouble is that they are all legislatively controlled through the narrow bottle-neck of Westminster. Acts of Parliament which originally were never meant to apply to Scotland, and which were drafted for English requirements, are simply extended to Scotland by an application Clause. This House will never get at the realities of the question until they thoroughly understand that the ideas and requirements of Scotland are not on parallel lines with those of England. If they are parallel, then how comes it that there is so much confusion and trouble which is so strongly resented in Scotland to-day? It is only when the Scottish Estimates are on that we can get a discussion on Scottish affairs. We suggest that if we had a Scottish Parliament we should not only have our business done better but, if I may say so, with all respect, it would be done by better men than those we have representing Scotland to-day. The area of choice would be considerably enlarged, because there are hundreds of patriotic, able and brilliant Scotsmen, and, if necessary, Scotswomen, who would regard it as a high privilege to sit in a Scottish Parliament, but who find it quite impossible to attend the Imperial Parliament here. My case can be very easily summed up. We say that on the combined grounds of our nationalism and legislative efficiency our demand is urgent, just, and irresistible. We wish to be governed along the lines of our own traditions and our own native genius, and we contend that that can only be achieved by the setting up of a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. You would there have men whom it is impossible to have in the House of Commons as it is now constituted, and we should have Scottish business transacted in something like a worthy manner.

Hear, hear!

I am glad to have the approval of my right hon. Friend. We have urgent national problems which can only be solved by ourselves, and I contend that not only in Scotland's interest but in the highest Imperial interests self-government should be conferred upon our country. I have purposely refrained from any exposition of the provisions of the Bill and for a very good reason. My right hon. Friend who professes a benign ignorance on this subject—

No, no!

He knows perfectly well the history of the Bill now before us, and I have refrained from examining its provisions deliberately on this occasion because my one desire Le-day is to take advantage of this opportunity to have the principle of home rule for Scotland discussed, and not the provisions of a private Member's Bill which my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well cannot be adopted by the Government.

Hear, hear!

I have said that Scotsmen are loyal to King and Empire, and I might add that this demand for Scottish Home Rule will proceed on constitutional lines. We feel that we have a just case, and we are also convinced there is a strong volume of Scottish opinion, continually increasing, which I am quite sure will gain strength, in spite of the opposition of hon. Members, who, like the right hon. Gentleman—I do not wish to say a word of which he will not approve—I may say are somewhat reactionary politicians so far as modern democratic ideas are concerned. I feel that the elements of justice in our cause will hasten the granting of that self-government so necessary but so long delayed.

I have great pleasure in seconding the motion and particular pleasure because I feel that in doing so I am interpreting the wishes of the Government. Scotland is represented in the Government by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and this Bill, I beg to remind him, through the Lord Advocate, is his Bill. Therefore, I think, we may with some confidence look to the adoption of this Bill by His Majesty's Government at no distant date as a Measure which they pro- pose to carry through this House, in spite of the reactionary opposition confined to certain small although vocal sections, with all the means at their disposal. I regret that the Secretary for Scotland is unable for public reasons which we all know to be present to-day. We are glad that the Lord Advocate has done us the honour of being present, and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), whose record and sympathy in this cause are so well known, for sacrificing his lunch in order to be present. A great many supporters of the Prime Minister are necessarily otherwise engaged, and that no doubt explains the depleted condition of the benches on this side of the House.

And I suppose the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and others.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley is absent on grounds which will be explained to my right hon. Friend if he seeks to make any party capital out of it. The sympathy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley in this matter has been publicly expressed and has never been doubted. A great deal of nonsense has lately been talked on this subject of Scottish Home Rule. I am glad my hon. Friend took the line that he did. There is no desire in Scotland, except on the part of half a dozen hot-heads, for separation, and there is no idea of interfering with the smooth operation of common services. Although my hon. Friend has not referred to the details of the Bill, hon. Members should know that the Post Office, the currency and exchange and lighthouses remain common services. Trade marks, collection of Imperial taxes, Customs and Excise and all external trade relations remain, in fact, under the control of this House, as I think they ought to do.

The Memorandum says exactly the opposite. It says:

"The power of varying Imperial taxes, excepting Customs and Excise, is conferred upon the Scots Parliament, which will, in addition, have the exclusive power of levying the existing Imperial taxes on heritable property in Scotland. Provision is made for the payment by the Imperial Exchequer to the Scottish Exchequer, out of the proceeds of Scottish taxes, of an annual sum towards defraying the cost of Scottish services. A joint Exchequer Board is established to determine all questions arising under the financial provisions."

If my right hon. Friend will study the Bill, and if he will listen to the actual words, he will know that lie is misrepresenting this Measure, and also misrepresenting the clear words which I used. The Bill bears out the statement that the collection of Imperial taxes remains in the same hands as at the present time. It it true that there are certain powers of variation, and that some adjustment may be necessary, but the machinery for collection remains the same. After all, my right hon. Friend belongs to a small class of excellent, but somewhat reactionary, politicians, but I would remind him that his predecessors were those who agreed to the union. I desire to pay the right hon. Gentleman due respect. and courtesy, but perhaps I may be permitted to apply to him the words used by our national poet of those gentlemen who, for reasons of their own, acquiesced in a union which has proved partly calamitous and partly beneficial:

Farweel to a' our Scottish fame,

Fareweel our ancient glory,

Fareweel even to the Scottish name

Sae famed in martial story!

Now Sark rins o'er the Solway sands,

And Tweed rins to the ocean,

To mark where England's province stands—

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

The hon. Member has not suggested any modifications, and unless he can state what the modifications are he is out of order.

I think the modification would be found in the word "rogues," and I would rather wish to substitute for that word "political reactionaries." I think, however, that there are some other modifications. The poet proceeds:

"What force or guile could not subdue,

Through many warlike ages,

Is wrought now by a coward few

For hireling traitors' wages."

—I do not for a moment suggest that the motives of my right hon. Friend are mercenary—

"The English steel we could disdain,

Secure in valour's station;

But English gold has been our bane—

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"

That seems to be the real danger, which is two-fold in Scotland itself. Firstly, from extremists, whose wild vapourings have been heard even in Scotland: and secondly, from a small benighted section of political reactionaries, who throw cold water upon this Bill, and upon Scottish home rule, and who try to count out the House of Commons on all possible occasions in order to prevent Scottish business being transacted. This Bill proposes a single House of Representatives for Scotland consisting of 148 members, sitting with the same qualifications for membership as are required in the Imperial Parliament. It provides the same constituency, except that in each there will be two Members instead of one, and in Dundee, instead of two there will be four Members. The Scottish representatives in the Imperial Parliament will, of course, remain the same, because in Scotland we do not want to cut ourselves off from the Empire, and therefore when Imperial legislation is going forward, it is only right and necessary that Scotland should be represented. That single House of Representatives follows the Scottish precedent which had beneficial results before in legislation while it lasted. Here I would like to quote the words of that great Conservative historian, Sir Archibald Alison, who, writing in 1834, and speaking of the work done by the Scottish Parliament, says:

"The whole Scottish Acts of Parliament, clown to the Union, are contained in three duo-decimo volumes. And yet in these little volumes, we hesitate not to say, is to be found more of the spirit of real freedom, more wise resolution and practically beneficent legislation, better provision for the liberty of the subject, than is to be found in the whole 30 quarto volumes of the Statutes at large, and all the efforts of English freedom, from Magna Charta to the Reform Bill. If the English legislators shall continue the course of wise and practical legal improvement, they will perhaps obtain by the year 1900 mast of those advantages which the old Scottish Parliament had secured for their country two centuries before."

It is one of the tragedies of history that in the endeavour to prevent the abuses which were creeping in, and the imminent dangers to the United Kingdom in 1707, there was swept away from Scotland the right of looking after purely Scottish affairs. Now the course of succeeding years has shown how we can maintain the indivisible control of the Crown, and it has brought into being all sorts of ideas of federal union, and swept away the danger which then existed of Customs barriers between the two nations. I will allude to some of the wild talk that has been going on in Scotland, notably in Glasgow, on this subject. There is the purely sentimental talk. Some people talk as if Scotland is an oppressed and down-trodden country and even talk as if Scotland were Ireland, or Armenia, quite oblivious of the fact that Scotland is not an oppressed nation. It is very deplorable that we should have a slavish copying of the language and ideas of Sinn Fein. I assure the House there is no real response to talk of that kind amongst Scottish people.

2.0 P.M.

The whole history of Scotland differs from the history of Ireland. Scotland is not a conquered country. It was not Scotland that was annexed to England but it was Scotland which annexed England, and the results were most disastrous, because our very distinguished line of Stuart kings in the person of James VI. came here. That very fine and distinguished line of monarchs came south to England and became corrupted—corruptio optimi pessima. Unfortunately, you had to cut off his son's head. He lost his head, and his son, again, was in the habit of losing his heart. Since that time the relations between the two countries have Very greatly altered, and my right hon. Friend will, I think, have difficulty in convincing the House of Commons that a moderate Measure for enabling Scotland to look after its purely Scottish concerns is not a busines proposition of a very practical kind. There is also going on in Scotland a certain amount of wild and revolutionary talk about confiscation, and that is what is really at the back of ray right hon. Friend's objection to this Bill. He assents to that proposition. He is afraid, because some very advanced politicians talk rather wildly of what they will do in the Scottish Parliament, that the Scottish Parliament will be a dangerous thing. As he assented to the former proposition, I suppose he will also assent to that. An attempt is being made by certain wild men to make their public platform respectable by trying to get hold of a monopoly on this subject of Scottish Home Rule. I have no doubt that their opinions would be repudiated by Scotland, and that Scotland will give a lead in legislation, not in the direction of wild and socialistic experiments, but in the direction of sound reform based on Scottish experience and dictated by cautious Scottish common sense. My right hon. Friend, therefore, need not be afraid to entrust the destinies of his fellow countrymen to his fellow countrymen themselves.

We approach this Bill, not from the point of view of sentiment, although we do urge the House to consider that. We believe that through Scottish legislative machinery the historic genius of the Scottish nation can make its best contribution to the common stock of the Empire. We approach it from that point of view, and not from the Irish point of view at all. We believe that if you give us our own legislative machinery, we shall be able to set a good example to England. It is true that we may go on in advance of England in 'many particulars, but I believe that in all those particulars we shall be guided by Scottish experience as to the conditions, and also, as I have said, by Scottish common sense. May I give the House just one practical example of the sort of thing which Scottish Members in this House have to put up with? We advocate this Bill as a Measure of justice to England, as well as to Scotland—as a Measure of justice to this Imperial Parliament. Business here is too congested, and, until you can have some measure of devolution—you may not agree with this, but you will be driven to it—neither English business nor Imperial business will obtain a proper amount of attention. But what of Scottish business? We see the condition of the benches to-day, and we know the slender chances that Scottish Bills have. We know the exiguous chances of any Scottish question having an opportunity of being discussed in this House.

What happened only last year, at the close of the Session of Parliament? There were fired at our heads at the last moment two Scottish Measures of great importance, one of them a Measure which revolutionised in some respects the criminal procedure of Scotland. There were provisions in that Bill to which almost every Scottish Member objected—provisions of a very serious kind. We discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs, and what were we told? We were told, "Oh, you may be quite right about this, and the Bill may be quite wrong, but if you insert an Amendment in the Bill, then you will have to have a Report stage." I think they were wrong about that, because there had to be a Report stage in any case, but that is what we were told by the late Lord Advocate, for whom the House had great respect. That was not said to us by the present Lord Advocate, who would not have made the same slip. We were told, "If you insist on amending this Bill, you will wreck it, because we are in the closing days of the Session. In that case you will have Scottish opinion to face, and you will have this sin to answer for." We were told that almost in the language of menace, both in public and in private. We were dared to amend the Bill in this most vital and necessary particular, because, if we did so, owing to the shortness of the time available for Scottish business, the Bill would be wrecked and lost altogether. In a Scottish Parliament that Bill would have been considered and thoroughly discussed, and would never have passed into law in the highly unsatisfactory and highly dangerous condition in which it remains on the Statute Book to-day. In saying that, which I most sincerely believe, I should like to acknowledge that the learned Lord Advocate had no part in the transactions which resulted in that Bill leaving this House and the House of Lords in so objectionable a form. There is no doubt in our minds that in this matter we are placing before the British House of Commons a business proposition. We approach it entirely from that point of view, and not from the point of view of washy sentiment; not from the point of view of ill-treatment by the predominant partner, but from the point of view of practical business men who desire to create practical business machinery for attending to our Scottish interests, and who desire, above all, some means of giving to the general stock that full contribution flowing from the character and historic genius of the Scottish race which we believe can well be given through this Bill.

It is somewhat instructive, having listened to these two speeches, delivered in the very best and most genial tone possible, that it was only in the last sentences of the speech of my Lon Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) that his voice seemed to quiver with excitement and indignation at a real wrong that had been done to Scotland. That wrong was that the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill had been passed in the Committee upstairs.

That was an example.

Yes, but that was the only time when my hon. Friend roused himself to serious indignation and felt that a wrong had been done. One comes down here rather disposed to be out of temper at being brought here, when there are other attractions on a sunny afternoon, in order to cudgel one's brains for arguments that have been used over and over again to meet Bills of this kind. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading said that no doubt I knew all about the history of these Bills. I do know it, and it is because know the history of these Bills that I am not disposed to be too hard upon this poor Bill now. It will follow its many predecessors into oblivion, and it will not be regretted. There has been a long history of these Bills, which almost reminds one of the catalogue of the deaths of kings in Richard II. Some have been slain in war—those are they which were defeated in a plain Debate. Some have been deposed—they have been set aside and others have been taken in their place as substitutes. Some have been haunted by the ghosts they have deposed, and if you read these various Bills you will find wandering disembodied spectres from Bills which have been brought in in previous years and then have disappeared into space. Some have been, sleeping, killed—that has been when a drowsy and weary House, utterly apathetic, allowed itself to be counted out. They were all murdered, and have gone to their fate, as I have said, without the slightest lamentation. It would, therefore, be rather hard to treat them too seriously and work oneself up into indignation about them.

I wanted to know what the provisions of this special sample of Home Rule were, but my hon. Friend would not enter upon that and the hon. Member who seconded accused me of not having understood the Bill. The Memorandum says the power of varying Imperial taxes is conferred upon the Scots Parliament, which will in addition have the exclusive power of levying the existing Imperial taxes. I think before we were told we knew nothing about it we might have had seine explanation from the Mover and Seconder of the sample of Home Rule which they are now offering. The hon. Member tells me that being a reactionary, as I am told I am—he does not mean it in an uncomplimentary sense—I know nothing about the real feeling of Scotland. What an expression of the real feeling of Scotland and Scottish Members is exhibited by these benches. Here we have the aspiration of a nation, that which is to redress the wrongs of centuries, that which is to wipe away all these evils. We have this fight going on and we have about as many Members from Scotland as I could count upon one hand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Rogge) was not present during the speeches of the Mover and Seconder.

Yes, I was.

You are wrong. There are six Scottish Members.

Whether there are six or seven or 12, it shows how their bosoms thrill with patriotic enthusiasm for what is to wipe away the stains inflicted upon our country. Do you think we are not as proud of our country as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace)? Do you think we have not loved it as much'? Do you think Scottish patriotism and enthusiasm are centred in a demand to he represented by a provincial Parliament meeting in Edinburgh? Do you think we depend upon a Parliamentary Committee drawing up rules as to the precise division of functions for maintaining our nationality? I should like to tell the House how it is that so many Members, even those who, I suppose, are reactionary like myself, dropped into it. A Member goes down with the ambition of serving Parliament for a particular locality. He finds the best thing possible is to let an election meeting go through as smoothly as possible without any opposition. There is sure to be a back bench at these meetings. The village crank generally finds the most attractive subject in politics is this question of Scottish. Home Rule. He asks the aspiring candidate if he is in favour of Scottish Home Rule. There are loud cheers in order to encourage the village crank, and the Member finds it easiest to say, "Yes, I am altogether in favour of Scottish Home Rule."

Have you ever met any electors in Scotland?

Oh, yes. I have heckled the right hon. Gentleman.

When the two hon. Members opposite have settled their differences of opinion—

I want to defend my own Member.

I am sure whatever action the bon. Member takes during an election, when he has his representative here he will stand up for him. I am rather struck by the fact that both the Mover and the Seconder are a little hard on their supporters. You must not mind if they are carried away a little too far. I remember when my hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) introduced a Bill with this object. I referred to a speech of one of his supporters in Glasgow and he said, "The man is off his head." That is rather hard. Their Allies are carried away in an impulse of patriotism. A Noble Marquess in Scotland was lately persuaded to take the chair at a meeting. I have the greatest respect for him, though I do not know that he has much experience of politics, and for the family to which he belongs, which is intertwined with the romance of the history of Scotland. Fortunately for the Noble Lord he found out those who were to compose his platform at that meeting. He withdrew from the giddy honour of presiding and wrote a letter of apology.

I take it the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Marquess of Graham, who declined to take the chair at a particular meeting, but a fortnight later spoke on the same platform as myself in Edinburgh and made an excellent speech on Scottish Home Rule, which refutes every word my right hon. Friend is saying now.

I am very glad the Noble Marquess found himself on this occasion in good company. The meeting took place and the presiding spirit was a gentleman who bore a very distinctively South Irish name and whose sympathies may probably go far in the direction of Sinn Fein. So much for the methods and temptations which are open to ambitious candidates. The hon. Member who moved the Bill told us this would be the deciding question at the next election. A strange utterance! We are immersed in tremendous European questions, constitutional questions of the first moment, and the hon. Member says the only question of real moment at the next election is to be whether we are to have a provincial Parliament for the representation of Scotland. Is that really what the hon. Member means? I would never tamper for one moment with this absurd thing. My constituents never would elect me as a supporter of this ludicrous proposal. I am quite ready, if this is going to be a test question, to take the verdict of my constituents.

I am told that I am a reactionary, that I am in a small minority, but I am sure that on this matter I am speaking the real feelings of the people of Scotland. Do you think that Glasgow, linked as it is with Manchester, with branches of great businesses in Manchester, and branches in London, in daily communication with those great centres, with visits between Manchester and Glasgow probably once or twice a week—do you think that this enormous mart and centre of mercantile affairs is going to allow its affairs to be handed over from the Imperial Parliament to a little provincial Parliament in Edinburgh, for which it has no great respect.

Why a little provincial Parliament?

As soon as this question is taken seriously, it will give rise to very different opinions from the serious people of Scotland. They think it a good joke now. They think it is a nice thing to hear about. They think it amusing to hear the wild speeches made in its favour. It. is all very well for the hon. Member who seconded the Motion to deprecate these wild speeches, but they will go on. They are a great asset to this movement. If it was supported in Scotland in the saber language used by the hon. Member the thing would be a slump. It is only the extreme speeches that bring it any attention at all. They suggest that they will find salvation in the establishment of this new Parliament. Will they? We are only a few selected people who are sent from Scotland to this House, and Scotland finds it difficult to get 74 Members of the, calibre of the present Scottish Members, yet, in addition to the 74, they are to elect 148. Do you think that so many representative Scotsmen will be attracted by the pros- pect of sitting in a small provincial Parliament?

What about the expense? The hon. Member for Dunfermline is a notable exponent of the necessity of curtailing expenditure. I suppose these 148 members are to get £400 a year each, or perhaps more. There is an expense of something like £60,000 at once. You would have to provide a House for them. You could not do that under £500,000. You would have to have a staff of officers. You must have all the paraphernalia of Parliament. What will Scotland have to say about this from the point of view of expenditure? Is this a specimen of what the hon. Member wishes to press upon this House and the Government? Is that the sort of economy which we are to adopt? The hon. Member will find that when he comes to analyse this proposal, and when he goes to his constituents to arouse them, and his colleagues go to their constituents under this great banner of Home Rule for Scotland, which is to be the one banner that they are to follow through thick and thin, regardless of all the Imperial interests, he will find that the Scottish lion will begin to turn, and it will not merely look with amusement upon the wild utterances used, not by the hon. Members who have supported this. Motion, but by their more enthusiastic followers. The people of Scotland will say that if this is a really serious business you had better put it down. It is a dying cause.

The hon. Member quoted some words used by the Prime Minister yesterday about the exaggeration of nationalistic feeling. There may be such an exaggeration. For the moment this cry of nationalism seems to be the right thing, but it is a passing phase. We have lived for more than 200 years under the benevolent influence of this Imperial Parliament, and we shall be very ill-advised if we change it. The hon. Member is very mistaken if he thinks that the calm, deliberate and sober judgment of Scotland is going to commit itself in any way to this scheme, which is nothing more than a jest, or an object of conversation on empty benches for a Friday afternoon. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that he hoped the example of the old Scottish Parliament would be imitated in the new Parliament, and that centuries of legislation would be summed up in three,duo decimo volumes.

I did not suggest that modern conditions would not require more legislation than would be contained, over hundreds of years, in threeduo decimo volumes, but I gave the illustration as showing the brief compass and the well-considered nature of legislation in Scotland when she had her own Parliament.

The hon. Member quoted Sir Archibald Alison, a famous historian, in support of his case. I knew Sir Archibald Alison very well. My hon. Friend was denouncing me as a reactionary. Does he know that Sir Archibald Alison has been immortalised by Disraeli as Mr. Prosy, who wrote a history in 40 volumes to prove that Providence was always on the side of the Tories? Whilst denouncing me as the most outstanding reactionary in the representation of Scotland, it is singular that he should have had to refer to the authority of that famous historian, who thought that Providence is on the side of the reactionary. I come now to another point. What would you gain? You would gain an expenditure of several million pounds. You would gain the thraldom, the trouble and the irritation of having to elect ever so many more Members of Parliament. You would gain the constant repetition of useless Debate. The Debates here are of so little importance that the Press will not report them, and it will certainly not report the speeches that will flow from a Provincial Parliament of 148 Members. Does the hon. Member think that the ambition, the energies, and the keenness of Scotland are going to be circumscribed to the area beyond the Tweed? Do you think that if you establish this little vestry, you will not be issuing a notice to England, "We are going to keep Scotland for ourselves," and will not England very likely and very naturally and reasonably say, "Very well, we shall keep England for ourselves"? We provide England at present with Prime Ministers, Lord Chancellors, Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and Scotsmen have almost a monopoly of all the highest positions.

You did not provide the Prime Minister.

We have filled almost all the two front benches. Are we going to be separated now and to carry on business by ourselves? I wish that hon. Members would look at these things in the face. I wonder if the business interests and the chief occupations of the hon. Member for Partick or of the hon. Baronet the Member for Morayshire (Sir A. Williamson) are in Scotland or in London?

He would not be elected.

Or take the case of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir C. Barrie). They are men of business, patriotic Scotsmen, but with enormous interests of their own in London, attracted to and living in London, and doing good to their country from the fact that they have these interests. If such men did not occupy these positions you would lose an enormous deal. I would ask the House to give a little more consideration to the more serious aspect of the question. You are arousing by artificial and, as I think, by camouflaged methods a cry in Scotland, which is really not understood, for Home Rule. Have you considered what that is likely to lead to? You will arouse in Scotland some of that dread, pernicious, fatal feeling which Home Rule has aroused in Ireland. Do you want to see the same bitterness of feeling, the same tragedy, the same destruction of life and property springing up in Scotland as you have in Ireland? Do not think because you are merely making moderate speeches here, and deprecate exaggerated feeling in Scotland, that. you can limit the extent to which this feeling once aroused must go. You may be guilty, and you may realise your guilt too late, when you have aroused ruthless anger, and provoked people who will be glad to take this great opportunity of fighting for anarchical purposes. You are sowing seeds that may yield a deadly fruit. I hope that Scotland, too indulgent as she has been to the phantasies and figments of home rulers who claim to represent that country, will, while laughing at their vagaries, also turn a very earnest eye to the great evil which they are preparing to bring about.

The debate this afternoon has been conducted with large unoccupied spaces in the House. The reason is that in Parliament the unexpected always happens. Nobody who looked at the Order Paper two or three days ago, and saw three important Measures in front of this Bill would have thought it could have been taken to-day.

Only two days ago I understood it would be the second Order of the day.

I usually hear what is going on in these matters. That fact is accountable for the absence of all Members of the Government who ought to be here to-day and of the Secretary for Scotland himself. Why did not my right hon. Friend impart the most important information to the Secretary for Scotland that this Bill was in all probability likely to be the second Order of the day. It must have been a very dark secret. Otherwise, in discharge of his duty, he would have been here. I make no complaint of his absence. We have listened to three very excellent speeches, of which Members of all parties in Scotland are capable at the shortest moment. My right hon. Friend in speaking of the non-necessity of Home Rule for Scotland said that Scotsmen achieved positions of distinction and power in all parts of the world, particularly in England. I attended a meeting not long ago at which this question of Home Rule was the subject of a resolution. It was moved in an excellent speech and supported in an admirable oration by a gentleman who had a thorough grasp of his subject. But he wound up his address by telling me—I was in the Chair—

"Nobody knows what may be the scope of the Measure which will ultimately be granted, but we will never give up our domination of England."

The Measure before us has very wide and sweeping powers, which would have to be subjected to careful scrutiny in Committee. I agree that the extreme positions which are taken up in Scotland with regard to Home Rule are doing the movement no good. They are frightening away from it moderate-minded people, people, who hitherto have taken a very decided position in its favour. But the proposal is one which is necessary if Scottish interests are to receive anything approaching adequate legislative and administrative consideration. Anyone who has had experience in this House cannot help being impressed by the Fact that Scottish business is hurried through and is not effectively debated. I agree that within its limits the Scottish Grand Committee has a sufficient oppor- tunity for discussion. But that is by no means enough. The Committee work should be accompanied, as it is accompanied here, by the presence of those assisting Members engaged in the Debate—those who have first-hand knowledge of the subject. Take a Scottish Bill in Grand Committee. Various interests are affected by it. In our complex society to-day you can scarcely make any legislative proposal which does not affect very large number of interests. It is only when you get into close examination of a proposal, that you understand how wide, and, indeed, sometimes injurious, the effects of legislation can be. If any Scottish interest be effected, whether it be an individual interest or a public interest, it means that by way of helping Members people have to travel down from Scotland and spend days in London at great expense.

There is the example of the Housing Bill for Scotland. Among the representatives of Scotland here there were the clerks of the county councils and the chairmen of the county councils, and I imagine that there must have been very little short of fifty or sixty of the most highly-placed officials in Scotland in attendance at Westminster. There were the town clerks of places like Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee staying here week after week. Such a Bill as that ought to have been considered in Edinburgh, where you could have brought to bear not only the experience of the Members of a Scottish legislative House, but Scottish opinion could have been brought to bear in a way that would have been much more efficiently and economically expressed. Then there are the Bills which from time to time are brought to this House and have some reference to Scotland. Scotland is brought in by a Clause at the end which says, "This Bill shall apply to Scotland with certain emendations." They are often carried out in a way that Scottish Members have no control over at all. It is done from the Scottish Office. On the whole it is done with considerable efficiency but it is not done as well as it might be done.

Take the discussions on the Estimates for Scotland Sometimes they take place in a comparatively empty House. Take education. By the time the Secretary for Scotland has finished his opening state-me it of an hour, and two or three other Members with special knowledge of the subject have spoken, the time has gone and the ordinary Scottish Member has very little chance of getting into the Debate at all. Then on the same night we may have the question of the Board of Agriculture or the Fisheries and the whole range of Scottish interests has to be completed in one day in Committee of Supply. The thing is frankly ridiculous. The marvel is that on the whole things proceed as well as they do. There is no doubt that the general feeling in Scotland, irrespective of party, is in favour of devolution of parliamentary powers to Scotland, where the work can be done by Scotsmen in the Parliament House of Edinburgh.

No, no!

I am not speaking of notable and distinguished exceptions.

I am thinking of the serious feeling of the country.

That must be matter of opinion. If anyone cares to look through the election addresses at the last General Election, or will bear in mind the election addresses which will be issued at the coming election, it will be found that there is a very remarkable expression of opinion by candidates of all parties that the time has arrived for legislative and administrative devolution to Scotland. I am reminded that the right hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me has six or seven constituents in this House. I ask him, is one of them opposed to the proposal1 There is no doubt that there has been a very remarkable change in public opinion in Scotland in favour of the principle of the proposal now before the House. The time has come, and Parliament has recognised it in the case of Ireland, when this Parliament must be relieved of its ever growing burden.

Have we relieved ourselves of the Irish burden by giving Ireland Home Rule?

When the bon. and gallant Gentleman has had time to consider these things calmly, he, will perhaps realise that the real cause of the difficulty in Ireland is that we did not give Home Rule to Ireland years ago. It is the delayed recognition of what statesmanship demanded that has caused most of our troubles there. Hon. Members should reflect that they may be causing a situation in Scotland with which at no distant date it will be very difficult to deal. I will give hon. Members an example. There have been, within the last year, three or four instances of men seizing land in Scotland. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if there had been a legislative assembly in Scotland to deal with the land question it would have been settled long ago. I ask the House to take warning in time.

There is the Scottish Board of Agriculture.

There you have a bureaucratic body which is not in touch with the real public opinion of the country. The only way in which we can deal with these matters here, is by putting down questions and getting answers and then living in the hope that a month or six weeks, or perhaps two months afterwards, we may have half-an-hour or an hour to discuss these questions on the day set apart for Scottish Estimates. There could not be a clearer example than that which I have given of the evils of repressing the expression of public opinion on matters of this kind in the place where the trouble arises. Take the question of education. Education was a matter of national interest in Scotland long before it became a real national question of deep and wide general interest in England. It has been a tradition of the country for centuries. Questions with regard to teachers and their superannuation, and all the wide range of interests connected with education, are dealt with, as far as Scotland is concerned, by putting down from time to time, questions addressed, not to a Minister for Education, but to an over-worked and overburdened Secretary for Scotland, who answers questions on every subject, legislative and administrative. Such questions should be dealt with in Scotland, and they would be much more efficiently handled. There has been an administrative change lately, and one of the chief officials of the Education Department is in Edinburgh, but the people of Scotland—

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that to separate the administration of education from this House and to make it independent is the worst blunder that has been made for a long time?

Scottish education should be dealt with by a representative body of Scotsmen in Scotland. You cannot get away from the force of the logic of that proposition. The idea that it can be efficiently dealt with here is a perfect delusion. This is an ever-increasing burden. Every department of Scottish national life is increasing in its interests, in its operations, and in its general ramifications. The same development is going on in Scotland as in other countries. It should not be left to occasional questions in this House; to a one-day discussion on Estimates; to a Clause appended at the back of a Bill; to a Standing Committee upstairs and to a fleeting opportunity of discussions on report or Third Reading to deal with these important matters. They should have fair, ample, sufficient and able consideration within the boundaries of the kingdom of Scotland.

I make no apology whatever for intervening in the Debate this afternoon, though it applies to what is, I suppose, the kingdom of Scotland—and to the Shetlands and the Ilebrides—I presume they are all included. If one could think that Englishmen would become nationalists like Scotsmen as the result of this Debate, then I should regard it as a very fine thing, for, as has been suggested by the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), while Scotsmen are claiming to exclude Englishmen from having any hand whatever in the management of Scottish affairs, they still insist that they are going to keep their hands on the throat of England so far as its public affairs are concerned. I am in favour of this Bill if an Amend-merit can be introduced to keep Scotsmen to Scottish business and keep them out of England. If a Clause of that description be inserted I will vote for the Bill as many times as is necessary to make it law. If the discussion by Scottish Members in this House, from their peculiar local and national point of view, of Scottish subjects, as apart from the rest of the Empire, can instil into the English mind a similar nationalism, so that Englishmen will begin to think of controlling England and keeping Scotsmen out of the best positions in England—if we could only get a nationalism of that description generated in England, it would be all right, but apparently Englishmen can only think of the British race. They can only think of the Empire and the whole race to which we all belong.

Who made the Empire?

Why, the English. The Scotsmen have only looked upon it for the purpose of exploiting it. The history of the Empire is the history of English endeavour, enterprise and adventure.

Read your history again.

I will do so to please my hon. Friend, but that is my point of view, gathered from all my knowledge and reading on the subject. We are told that it is absolutely impossible for this House or for Englishmen to understand Scottish questions, and I confess there may be some subjects, purely Scottish in character, which bear no relation in any way to the ordinary affairs of England, and where it is necessary that the Scottish should have the control and management themselves. If they will only, in a Bill, make a general system of devolution, especially putting in Clauses as to who shall be the electors, that nobody except those of real Scottish origin shall vote for a Scottish Member of Parliament., and that only an Englishman shall vote for an English Member of Parliament in England, and if we can get the Welshmen to come on with the same sort of nationalism, it will be well; but they are too cute, and they will have nothing of that, we may be sure. I think we shall not suffer, but that we shall get most of the advantage out of this Bill. Take the question of education, for instance. An hon. Member who has spoken wants a more expensive system than they still have. Well, that would be delightful if the expense came out of Scottish pockets, and I should have no objection to that at all.

There is one thing that one cannot help thinking about in these discussions, and that is that Scotchmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen look at these things from an entirely different point of view from that of the ordinary Englishman. I look at them, I suppose, from as purely an English point of view as it is possible to have. We rarely speak of ourselves as Englishmen, and we rarely refer to England. We refer to the British as including all, or we refer to the British Empire as including all, and when one Englishman now and again happens, by chance, to let out, as by a slip of the tongue, that he is English, or that such and such a subject is an English subject, they immediately pounce upon him and say, "What about Wales?" or "What about Scotland?" or "What about Ireland?" We unquestionably are not nationalists in the narrow sense represented by this Bill, and I am afraid we never can be, for the idea of union, the psychology of union, is really in the blood of the English, and they can no longer look upon themselves as a separate and distinct entity among the race that goes to make up the British, and it is a surprising thing to me, as an Englishman, boy, it is that this narrow sectionalism is continued in all other parts of the Kingdom, and how men, who are otherwise apparently politically sane and reasonable, still want to go back to these old tribal feelings. I cannot understand it. I do not think it leads to the greatness of any section of the British community to be never thinking about anything except the little people to which they themselves belong. For instance, Scotland is no doubt entitled to a Parliament on the suggestion of my hon. Friends who have spoken to-day. There are something like 4,000,000 people in Scotland. There are about 7,000,000 English and others in London.

They are all Scotsmen.

That is the whole point, and that reminds me that that seems to have been an ancient grievance as against those travelling down from the North continually to the South and dominating the affairs of the Southerner. I think it was in Boswell's "Life of Johnson" that I read some years ago that the only good thing that Scotsmen saw was the road to England, and the unfortunate part of the business is that it is not they alone who come and stay; they generally go back and get their brothers and all their friends to come as well. You come into England, on your own admission, to take part in our affairs, and you never find any ill-feeling. The English people do not care what part makes up the British race, who occupies the Prime Ministership or any other ship, so long as it is the best man. We do not care where the man comes from, but others ask, "Is he a Scotsman?" or "Is he a Welshman?" While I am in favour of the principles of the Bill, I do not agree with the way in which it is advocated. There is the pretence that an Englishman does not look after things which relate to Scotland with fairness, and that, so long as Englishmen have the slightest power to interfere in Scottish affairs, there will never be that great and personal attention applied to them that there would be if they were handed over entirely to Scotland. Do not think anything of the kind. When you come to transact our business, you take good care to interfere in all the details. We are not less intelligent than you, and when we discuss your affairs we give our best attention. Indeed, during the greater part of this Debate there have been more Englishmen than Scotsmen present. The Scotsmen numbered six during the first few speeches. There were about 14 Members present, and I was thinking of counting out the House. There were only six Scotsmen, and, as a matter of fact, the English were paying more attention to this Bill than the Scotsmen were.

All manner of excuses have been made by the right hon. Member for Peebles as to why Scotsmen could not attend. There was a lunch somewhere in the City. Then there were two or three Motions before this Bill, and it was never dreamt that the Scottish Bill would come on. The fact is, about three parts of the Scottish representatives do not believe in the principle of this Bill, and any excuse to stay away and not give a direct vote on the subject, is good enough on a Friday afternoon. I have been in favour of Home Rule, and voted for it. ever since I have been in public life, both for Ireland and Scotland; but the way in which it is here advocated, the narrow sectionalism which wants to break up all the elements into their component parts again, into warring elements, Border raids—the same as you have established in Ireland—I say is a retrograde step altogether. There cannot be any hostility between people so closely connected as the Scottish, English and Welsh. Why, therefore, try to create all these barriers? Why should the intelligent part of any of these races try to show the enormous difference there is between the character and ability of one section as compared with the other? You have not the Imperial idea. You have not the race idea. It is just a tribal idea that you have stuck to, and which, it seems, you will ever stick to. While I am quite agreeable to give my support to this Bill, I shall do it absolutely in order that, if it be carried, and finally becomes law, there will be some Clause inserted before passing to that stage by which the English once again may have control of their own affairs in their own country.

The hon. Member who moved this Bill justified his introduction of it at the present moment on the ground that it dealt with purely Scottish questions. I do not think this Bill is a purely Scottish Measure. The English Members may, perhaps, be allowed to express some interest in it. I propose to devote myself, as well as I can, to a point that has been ignored so far, namely, the Bill itself before the House. We have heard of the Scottish Home Rule movement what it proceeds from, what forces are behind it, but we have heard very little about the Bill. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) that this Bill is in the interest of England as well as of Scotland. I propose to oppose the Measure in the interests of Scotland as well as of England, mainly on grounds that reminds me of a somewhat regrettable incident which happened a couple of hundred years ago when the Scottish came across the border and stole—as was their custom—some very good Northumbrian sheep, which, however, had the the scab. Subsequently the Scotsmen came again, seized a Northumbrian, took him back and hanged him on the other side of the border. On his breast they pinned a notice, "That when gentlemen came across the border for sheep, they should not be 'scabbit.'"

When Scottish gentlemen come to London with a Home Rule Bill it is important the document they bring with them should not be imperfect. I am afraid this document is. The Bill has been put forward for Scotland as a slavish imitation of ourselves, but this Bill seems to me to be a mere slavish imitation of the Home Rule Bill of 1914. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the Home Rule Bill of 1914, as applied to Ireland. There were special conditions there. There was a special history. There were special claims. But to take the Government of Ireland Bill as a general precedent for the establishment of what the Mover and Seconder want, a Federal Constitution, betrays the most extraordinary idea of our Constitution. The Government of Ireland Bill, purely as a principle and as a constitutional Measure, as an attempt at a Federal Constitution, was a monster. It looked very nice, but it reminds me of the lady of classical times—Scylla, who was a woman upwards from the waist and a fish downwards. The Home Rule Bill of 1914 might have looked very beautiful in some parts, but it was extremely fishy in its constitutional limbs. What is just the defect of that Government of Ireland Act and of this Bill, looked at from the point of view of constitutional principle, and of the setting up of a sound Federal Constitution? It sets up a provincial Parliament and it provides no sort of constitutional connection between that provincial Parliament and the Imperial Parliament, of which it is supposed to be in some way a limb or member—no connection whatever. Under every sound Federal constitution the province or State is represented corporally in some special way in the Senate of the United States, in the Bundcrsrath of Germany, and so on. Under this Bill you are to have a Federal Parliament with no sort of connection whatsoever with the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member opposite could not see the relevance of a question of mine as to whether the election of an Imperial Parliament and the provincial Parliament in Scotland would take, place at the same time, but I think it has very great relevance. If you have these elections simultaneously you will find the electors voting all in one direction, but the experience of every federal constitution is that, if you have the provincial elections at a different time from the federal elections, it is almost certain that the electors will send to the Imperial Parliament a strong conservative majority, while the provincial elections will go strongly radical. How is this difficulty to be solved? This Bill provides the most incoherent system it is possible to conceive, which is absolutely inapplicable to any scheme such as the Mover and Seconder of this Bill professed to desire of Home Rule all round. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote against this Bill.

I feel, however, that it is most important that this House should not regard this recurring question of Scottish Home Rule entirely as a joke. It is not a joke, because it is serious from two points of view. One of those points of view has been put forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), and it is not a joke from the point of view that the Bill tends to stir up an increasing agitation which is not really wanted. The other point is that nobody can possibly say that the Constitution of the United Kingdom, as it exists, is adequate in all ways for the efficient discharge of business, and no one who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) will be prepared to say that Scottish Members and Scottish interests do not suffer in many ways by the way in which Scottish business is presented to this House. I am sure that English Members suffer from the way in which English business is done here. I confess that, in principle, I am a Home Euler all round if you can get a practical and possible scheme. Scotland at the present moment—I speak humbly in the presence of Welshmen—is the touchstone of a workable and efficient scheme, and until the Government get down to a real consideration of what is needed in the way of practical devolution, so long shall we have thrown at us Bills of which kind, which repesent no constitutional knowledge and no deep thought on the difficulty and the problem of founding a new Constitution.

I am quite sure the Noble Lord would not use such strong adjectives if he knew that this Bill was the product of the present Secretary for Scotland.

I have no doubt that great legal knowledge was devoted to drawing it up and that it may be legally watertight, but my point is that from the point of view of historical and constitutional experience it is an absolutely impossible and unworkable system. My hon. Friend, I think, was not here at the beginning of my speech when I said that, as the basis for a general federal constitution, it sinned against every principle on which any sound federal constitution has ever been based in the past. We shall continue to have Bills of this kind presented to us until we really get down to a serious consideration of devolution on these business lines to which the Mover and Seconder attach so much importance. I would press that point; because, unless we do, it will, I believe, be impossible to check the growing agitation which will find expression in ways, if possible, even more undesirable than those of the present Bill.

I am glad to acknowledge the moderation of the opposition of the Noble Lord. If I may say so, he has made a most interesting contribution to the Debate, because I should have expected from him a little traditional, hereditary opposition to anything favouring Scotland in view of the quarrel between the border robbers on one side or the other. Now that question about sheep has been settled long ago. I am glad that the Noble Lord has not carried that hereditary opposition to a great extent, because I realise that he is prepared to support a big all-round Home Rule scheme. I should like to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), and may I say that the most interesting speeches on this question have been made by English Members, including the hon. and gallant Member. He wanted to make sure that in the provisions of this Bill we should have some guarantee that Scotsmen, to put it bluntly, would keep their own side of the border. Scotsmen are said to be a hard and cruel people, but I do not believe that they would be so cruel as to leave the English people to themselves. We have been trying to train them in the art of government for the last 300 years, but I should be quite prepared, if I could be assured that they could govern themselves without our help, to try the experiment for a while, and I should have no objection to a proviso of that sort in the Bill. I quite agree with the main burden of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. The English are a great and hospitable people. They do not worry themselves where people come from. Some of us who come from the other side of the Border have acknowledged the fact. It is from no narrow spirit, and it is not that we object to English people, that we want Scottish affairs managed by ourselves, but it is largely from a practical point of view. I admit that there is a sentimental element in it, but that national sentiment is quite consistent with a catholicity of spirit. If my hon. and gallant Friend had continued his historical researches he would have discovered that Scotsmen were the pioneers as well as the successful leaders of men in the cases of all our Colonies, whereas Englishmen came in to reap the reward of the work of the pioneers.

I got up, however, chiefly to refer to one of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), in a speech which made me more proud than ever that I am one of his constituents, although I do not agree with everything he said. The right hon. Gentleman's strongest point against this Bill was that there was not at the back of it any strong public feeling or agitation. I rather think that one of the reasons why we should pass the Bill is that the atmosphere is so calm. It is better for the House to pass it now than to be coerced into passing it later on. Evidently my right hon. Friend will not think there is any good reason for this Measure until our ancient castles in Scotland are being burned down, as in Ireland, until the people are up in arms, until they are burning each other's houses, and until they are shooting each other all over the place. Evidently that is the only kind of evidence which my right hon. Friend will admit would justify this House in passing a Home Rule Bill for Scotland. It reminds me of an Irish story. There was an Englishman who, while travelling in Ireland, was overtaken by a shower of rain and sought shelter in an Irish tavern. He saw an Irishman smoking in a corner of the room. Rain was pouring through the roof and he asked the man: "Is this your house?" The reply was in the affirmative, and he then inquired: "Why don't you thatch your roof?" The answer was: "You would not expect a man to work in this sort of weather, would you?" He rejoined: "Why not do it when the weather is fine?" and the Irishman's answer to that was, "It is not required then." That seems to be the philosophy of my right hon. Friend. The weather is fair and dry. To my mind that is a good reason for passing this Bill. I say, "Don't wait until the rain comes. Don't wait until bombs are being thrown and torches are being applied to the ancient castles of Scotland; don't wait until you are absolutely compelled to pass the Bill, but do it now while the weather is dry."

I rise to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. There are two classes of people in this country who advocate Home Rule. There is one class who advocate it on separatist grounds; they are dissatisfied with the Union. There is another class, to which I have the honour to belong, the business class in this country, who advocate devolution on the ground that, to carry on the business of this great country of ours, it is necessary to have devolution in our domestic affairs, in order to relieve congestion in the Imperial Parliament. We have no quarrel with the Union. We believe that the Union is essential for the safety and the progress of the British Empire. We do not belong to the first class to which I have referred. There is another class, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. Gould) belongs, who do not believe in devolution on any ground whatever. My hon. Friend believes it to be a danger to the State. I differ from him also. I am sufficiently democratic to trust the good common sense of the majority of the people of Scotland and of Wales to avoid or to overthrow any extremist elements that there may be in either the one country or the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace) has introduced a Bill on his own account. I introduced a Bill a few weeks ago on behalf of the Welsh National party, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—the arch-destructor of all private Members' Bills—talked that little Bill of mine out.

I have something to my credit.

The right hon. Baronet may possibly contemplate adding another scalp to his belt to-day; I do not know; but what I wish to do to-day is to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate to make, on behalf of the Government, a promise to the Scottish and Welsh Members that time will be given for their joint Bill. I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself or the Government. The Welsh Members in this House advocated a Secretaryship for Wales, and we introduced last Session a Bill to create a Secretaryship for Wales, so that Wales might be a separate entity, and so that we might have from time to time separate legislation to meet the special requirements of Wales. We had a meeting with the Prime Minister, and he advised us to drop the Bill. We had a full party meeting—

At a dinner.

That is an unnecessary aspersion to make. I think the Prime Minister was well aware of what he was recommending to the Welsh Members on that occasion at a dinner and the Prime Minister recommended that the Secretary for Wales Bill should be dropped, and that we should concentrate, during the Recess, upon a scheme of devolution for Wales; and he advised the Welsh Members to ballot at the commencement of this Session for a place. That was done. During the, Recess the Welsh Members appointed a Committee. The Chairman was the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, and the Minister of Health, the Chairman of the Welsh National party, and the Chairman of the Welsh Liberal party, were members of that Committee. We drafted a Bill on the lines of what—

I do not, see anything about Wales in this Bill.

I am sorry I have transgressed. My only object was to impress upon the Lord Advocate the necessity for the appeal I am going to make to him. I want the Lord Advocate to realise that what Scottish and Welsh Members are doing is something which the Prime Minister has recommended us do. He recommended us to draw up a Bill, which we have done, and the Bill has been introduced on the lines of the Speaker's Conference. The only hope we have for that to be adequately discussed is if the Government gives us time. We think our case is sufficiently strong. Surely if the Prime Minister—

He is not a dictator.

He is an adviser. I am not speaking of a dictator. You are a dictator, or you try to be. The Prime Minister has given his advice. We have acted upon that advice. Surely the House will give us time to discuss a Measure which has been brought in on the advice of the Prime Minister. That is my appeal to the Lord Advocate, and if he agrees after the Whitsun holidays to submit to the Government this strong appeal that time may be given at an early date for this joint. Measure, I am assured by my hon. Friend who introduced the Bill to-day that he is willing to withdraw it, and I have withdrawn mine in favour of the joint Bill on the same lines. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that the Government will at an early date give us an opportunity for adequate discussion of the joint Measure.

The Debate has gone from Scotland to Wales in the last few minutes. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill said he did not propose to deal with its details, but sought the decision of the House on the principle of Scottish Home Rule, and that is the reply to the Noble Lord who commented on the fact that the purpose of the Bill had not been explained. It would be quite impossible to do justice to the Bill in the short time that is left, especially as it did not come on till after one o'clock. I know something about public opinion in Scotland. I am connected with many public bodies in Scotland. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), for whom I have the utmost admiration, is out of touch with the living forces of Scotland and is not coming into close contact with public life there. Take the Convention of Burghs in Scotland. [Interruption.] A living force. It does not come well from the mouth of Scottish Members to sneer at such a representative body as the Convention of Burghs. The Convention of Burghs has declared in favour of Scottish Home Rule. My right hon. Friend has referred to an organisation in Scotland which he says is bringing Scottish Home Rule into disrepute. I know all about that organisation. I know that there are extreme men in that organisation, and that they have expressed wild revolutionary ideas as to the basis upon which Scottish self-government should be founded; but I also know that a great many business people in Scotland, to whom the name of Home Rule is not very sweet, have come to the conclusion that the administration of Scottish affairs is so badly done, and so little attention is given to Scottish business, that the time has arrived when the Scottish people should be brought into closer association with the administration of their own affairs.

The right hon. Gentleman will find that the ordinary business and public-spirited men in Scotland desire that they should be associated more closely with the administration of Scottish affairs, that Scottish business should be done in Scottish ways, and that the Scottish people should have more control than they have at the present time. If you disregard peaceful methods of that sort and the expression of moderate opinion, you will play into the hands of the extremists, and you will teach people that the only way to get a reform which is agitating the minds of the people of Scotland is to emulate the example of the people of the sister isle. So many reforms have been got in this country by means of violence that you should not play with fire. The duty of this House, more especially having regard to the concessions of self-government given elsewhere, is to meet the Scottish demand, and do something that will bring the Scottish people more closely into contact with the administration of their own local affairs. We do not want to break away from the Union. We are as proud of the Union and the Empire as the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward), who does less than the justice due to the Scottish people if he refuses to acknowledge that Scottish people have been among the pioneers in building up the Empire, and have been proud to be associated with England in building the Empire.

If I made any such suggestion, I withdraw it.

I am glad to hear that. My hon. and gallant Friend said that it was English people that did it.

The other hon. Members were saying that it was the Scotsmen who did it. I was merely repudiating that suggestion, which was equally untrue.

I accept that. It is improper to say that it is the Scotsmen who have built up the Empire. The Scottish people have been equally associated with the great mass of generous English people in building up the British Empire. Although I have, a good deal more to say on Scottish Home Rule I will not stand between the House and the lord Advocate.

I had not intended to intervene upon the merits of this Bill, in view of the fact that a number of other Scottish Members were present and desired to speak; but two points have been put. An observation has been made about the absence of the Secretary for Scotland. Had my right hon. Friend been here present, he would have spoken as he has previously done on this subject. I am sure he would desire me to say that he regrets that he is not present, because on previous occasions he has spoken in sympathetic terms of other Bills with a similar purpose. My other object in intervening at this stage is to reply to the personal appeal made by an hon. Member. I have no authority, either on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, with whom I have been unable to communicate to-day—and I know that the Bill was not expected to be reached, or I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend would have been present—or on behalf of the Government to give any such undertaking, and I do not know if I had such authority that my Scottish colleagues would welcome such an undertaking. Accordingly, I cannot give, either on behalf of my right hon. Friend or of the Government, any such undertaking. In the circumstances, I can do no more than undertake to represent to the Secretary for Scotland that it is desired that he should consider whether he should not approach the Government with that view. Beyond that I cannot go.

As one who has been a convinced devolutionist for Scotland for a long time I am now unfortunately in the position of being unable to support this Bill. The arguments advanced by the various hon. Members who have spoken have and always will have a great deal of substance in them, but there is a time for all things and we have to regard the situation as it at present exists in Scotland from two points of view, the point of view of our financial conditions and that of our relationship with the island across the Channel, Ireland. From the financial point of view I do not believe that Scotsmen as a whole to-day would desire to take part in instituting a form of Home Rule for Scotland which was going to cost a great deal of money. I remember that at the Speaker's Devolution Conference two years ago the question of finance was carefully considered, and it was determined that it would cost at least £1,000,000 to set up devolution in Scotland. That did not take into account the question of buildings, etc. which would require to be worthy of the dignity of a country like Scotland. Therefore it would cost £2,000,000 or even £3,000,000 to set up such a constitution.

I find moreover that in the Bill there is power to vary Imperial taxes, excepting Customs and Excise. That would give the power to impose additional Income Tax, for instance. We all know what has happened in America. In America there is a Federal Income Tax and a State Income Tax, which together operate very harshly on the taxpayer, and though I, personally, would be prepared at a suitable time to face additional Income Tax for the purpose of having our own local institutions in Scotland, it is not a time to come to Scotsmen and ask them to pay additional taxation to set up this Constitution, however desirable it may be. Then there is the question of Ireland. What is the state of Ireland to-day? This is not the time when England and Scotland should separate in any degree, because we do not know what we may have to face together in the near future. Those are the main reasons why I cannot support this Bill. Turning to the details of the Bill I see that it provides for a single-chamber Parliament. I am entirely opposed to that proposal. I hold that we ought to maintain any local Constitution for Scotland on the same lines as the Constitution of the United Kingdom, namely, on a two-chamber basis. These then are the main reasons why I cannot support this Bill.

This is by no manner of means a Scottish question only or a British question only; it is a European Question and a world question. This Bill is more of the fearful poison of nationalism which is wrecking the world just now. That a crowd of professedly liberal-minded men should come here and attempt to hurl more of these flaming torches into the world is one of the most ridiculous things that any body in a progressive nation could do. Surely we have had enough of this foolery in the past seven years. Have we not had enough of the word "self-determination"? We have had experience of the coining of phrases to lure to destruction. "Self-determination" will have ten million human lives on its head, and I do not know how many more. If you ask Scottish Members what they really want when they are talking business, do they say Home Rule? I remember when there was a chance of a Division and a discussion about Home Rule, and hon. Members opposite were offered Home Rule for their railways. With one accord every one of them said, "Never, never, will we desert Mr. Micawber." It is fantastic for the Liberal party, which refused Home Rule in the matter of railways, and for the Labour party, which refused miners' Home Rule, to come down here and force the hated subject on the country.

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

This is not the time of day to put forward the fantastic proposal that Scotland should revert to the tribalism from which she emerged successfully centuries ago.

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