Commons Sitting of 22 April 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barnsley Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed.
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Inverness Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction Act, 1913, relating to Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction." Presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Order, dated 16th April, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Employment under Local and Public Authorities) Amendment Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
Copy presented of Accounts showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court
896
of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 194.]

LAND REGISTRY.
Account presented of Receipts and Payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended 31st March, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]
PERSIA (No. 1, 1914).
Copy presented of further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Persia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Copy presented of proposed Scheme for the application of the Teachers' Salaries Grant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order No. 9079, dated 16th April, 1914, revoking the Liverpool (Birkenhead) Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1914 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.
Copy presented of Correspondence ralating to the recent General Strike in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURT RULES.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of the County Court Rules, 1914, dated 6th April, 1914 [by Act].

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
Return ordered of the amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1914, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 146, of Session 1913):—

£2½ per Cent. Consols.

£2¾ per Cent. Annuities (1905).

£2½ per Cent. Annuities.

Local Loans £3 per Cent. Stock.

£2¾ per Cent. Guaranteed Land Stock (1891).

Guaranteed £2¾ per Cent. Stock (1903).

Guaranteed £3 per Cent. Stock (1909).

Other Securities.

Total (excluding Annuities).

Annuities for Terms of Years.

Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.

—[Mr. Montagu.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    DOCKYARDS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is possible, either by enlarging or constructing now slips, to build more capital ships in the Royal dockyards than can de done in existing conditions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir; I believe it would be possible.
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when a reply will be given to the petition presented by the yard craft men of His Majesty's dockyards last year?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that I cannot forecast the date, as a very large number of questions will require full consideration in connection with the report.
    Mr. WHELER: Do I understand that the yard craft men have not had an answer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: True. When the petitions were received it was intended to appoint a Committee to explore the whole field of service and conditions A good many questions are involved in that I cannot forecast the date of the report.
    Mr. WHELER: May we take it that the reply will be given in this year's answers to petitions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee was appointed in October, 1912, and we shall use all expedition Whether we can get the replies out in time to include them in this year's answers to petitions I do not know, but it is my hope—I cannot say definitely—and every endeavour will be made to do so.

    DETACHABLE BUOYS ON SUBMARINES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision had yet been arrived at with regard to the use of detachable buoys on submarines while exercising at sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been decided that no change should be made in the existing practice.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make some use of these buoys in future as regards submarines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer I have-given is that of expert naval opinion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am sorry, but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.

    MARRIED MEN (PAY).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he can now say when it is proposed to make the additions to the pay of married men of the lower deck serving in His Majesty's Navy, in accordance with the promise held out by him on behalf of the Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no statement to make on the subject.

    IMPERIAL NAVAL DEFENCE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the statement on Imperial naval defence made by Mr. Millen, Minister of Defence in the Commonwealth Government; and whether, in view of the fact that the statement in question asserts that the naval policy of His Majesty's Government involves the destruction of the basis upon which the Australian Navy is organised, he will consider the advisability of making a further statement to the House on the subject?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether

    899
    the policy of the Admiralty, as announced by him, constitutes a violation of the naval agreement of 1909; whether any modifications of that agreement have been undertaken after the submission of the proposals to the Commonwealth and with the concurrence of the Minister of Defence; and (2) whether, in his interpretation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance as affecting the defence of Australia, he contemplates the possibility of that defence depending at any time on Japanese ships; whether he is aware that the Minister of Defence refuses to accept his interpretation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance in as far as regards Australian defence; and whether the attitude of Australia, in insisting on the naval agreement of 1909 in a sense contrary to his own, will produce any corresponding modification of the naval policy indicated by him?
    Mr. F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Australian Commonwealth Minister of Defence foreshadowing the adoption by the Commonwealth of an independent naval policy, in view of the departure by the Admiralty from the arrangements already agreed upon as regards the disposition of the Imperial Navy as between Home waters and the Pacific and other foreign stations; and if he will lay upon the Table copies of any communications which have passed between the Imperial and the Commonwealth Governments on this question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is one which it would be proper and desirable to debate when Navy Estimates are under discussion, but it is not possible for me to deal adequately with issues of such importance at Question Time.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he was in his place the other day, gave me an answer to this question entirely different from that which the right hon. Gentleman has given to-day?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he has received a communication of the statement of Senator Millen, Minister of Defence for the Commonwealth of Australia; and, if so, whether he will place it upon the Table of the House? I should like to say that I was expressly asked to postpone this
    900
    question until to-day in order that we might have an answer from the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is that these are matters which could not not be adequately discussed by question and answer now, but should be raised on the Navy Estimates As to the hon. Member's question, it is that no such communication has been received.

    BRITISH AND GERMAN FLEETS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present strength of the German High Sea Fleet in fully commissioned battleships and battle cruisers; and what is the corresponding strength of the Home Fleet in ships based upon Home ports?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The present strength of the German High Sea Fleet in fully commissioned battleships and battle cruisers is:—

    "Dreadnought" battleships

    13

    Pre-"Dreadnought" battleships

    8

    Battle cruisers

    4

    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Do those figures show the 60 per cent. superiority such as the right hon. Gentleman promised us in Home waters?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, more than 60 per cent. of superiority in "Dreadnoughts" at the present time Owing to the absence of the three German ships to which I have referred, the British numbers will be greater than those of Germany.
    Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the three German ships are?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: One is in the Mediterranean, and the other two are, I think, off South America.

    NATIONAL HARBOUR, DOVER.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the naval harbour at Dover was completed; what

    901
    was its total cost; what is the berthing accommodation provided; and how many battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, respectively, have visited the harbour during the last six months?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The main harbour works were completed about the end of 1909 at a total cost of approximately £3,500,000. Certain subsidiary works, of which the cost is approximately £400,000, are still in hand and are expected to be completed by September, 1915. Eight large ships and fourteen destroyers can at present be moored or anchored, and under certain conditions seven more large ships can lie alongside. Another trot for destroyers is about to be laid and a basin for submarines is under construction The ships that have visited it during the past six (winter) months are cruisers of all sizes, 18; destroyers, 28; torpedo boats, 10; submarines, 7.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to undertake any work to make the harbour more useful?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The future of Dover Harbour has been carefully considered, and no doubt in the future some works will be undertaken to improve the character of the protection for the vessels which enter it At present the only new work on which we are engaged is increasing the height of the parapet of the detached mole.

    ACCOUNTANT BRANCH COMMITTEE.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee under the presidency of Rear-Admiral Thursby, appointed to inquire into questions affecting the accountant branch of the Navy, has yet presented its Report; whether this will be made public; whether its recommendations will be acted upon; and, if so, when they will be put into operation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Plymouth on the 3rd of this month.

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, CHATHAM.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the Sunday working hours of the kitchen staff at the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, with a view to increasing the staff of trained cooks in order that each one may have one
    902
    Sunday off in four, without the necessity of employing untrained men or increasing the already long hours of the existing kitchen staff?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will make inquiry into the matter; but I would remind my hon. Friend that under the existing arrangements one of the cooks concerned gets two afternoons off each week as well as Sunday afternoons, that two others get two afternoons each week as well as a Sunday afternoon fortnightly, and that the fourth gets a certain amount of time off each week-day afternoon as well as a rather longer period on Sundays.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: How many hours do they work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that question.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has been consulted regarding the scheme which the surgeon-general at the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, proposes to introduce whereby untrained men from other sections of the hospital are to be placed in the kitchen for Sunday duty with increased working hours and no extra pay, instead of employing qualified men for the position and paying them the recognised rates for a seven-day week on this class of work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that a seven-day labourer, paid at seven-day rate, is detailed for labourer's work in the main kitchen on Sundays, as the regular duty man is a six-day man No new scheme has been adopted.

    H.M.S. "CHATHAM."
    Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has made any inquiry or received any report as to the alleged insubordination on board His Majesty ship "Chatham"; and will he state the result of any information he may now have on the subject?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No inquiry has been made, but the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, on reading in the Press that a question had been asked in Parliament on the 25th of March on this subject, telegraphed that "there is at present no more contented and efficient ship under my command than the "Chatham." He has since confirmed this by letter. It appears, however, that in October, 1913,

    903
    there was some discontent leading to intentional leave-breaking in this ship as the result of which the Commander was, after a careful inquiry, superseded The incidents which led to this action are probably the basis of the original question.

  Albania.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information with regard to the mobilisation of Montenegrin troops on the Albanian frontier; and if he is aware that the Five Banner tribes are pledged to resist the invasion of their homes and that the territory in question has the smallest possible commercial value from the Montenegrin point of view and the highest possible value, as constituting their ancestral homes, from the Albanian point of view?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I am informed that the Montenegrin Government are proceeding to occupy the districts of Hoti and Gruda up to the boundary as determined by the Convention of London I have no knowledge of any pledges taken among themselves by the Five Banner tribes, nor am I in a position to measure the value attaching to the territory in question from the Montenegrin or Albanian point of view, but I shall be glad of any information on the subject that the hon. Member can give me.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of re calling to the memory of the King of Montenegro a declaration which he made when his troops invaded Albanian territory to the effect—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.

  Consular Service.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked what is the number of those who hold appointments as Consuls or Vice-Consuls who are not British subjects?
  Mr. ACLAND: All salaried posts in His Majesty's Consular Service are filled by British subjects According to the latest Returns the number of unsalaried posts filled by persons who are not British subjects is 287. These appointments are only made when no suitable British subject is available for the post.

  Mexico (Mr. Benton's Death).
  Mr. F. HALLasked if any fresh information is available as to the manner in which Mr. Benton met his death in Mexico, or if further inquiries in regard thereto are contemplated; and what further steps are proposed to be taken in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: The conclusions drawn by Mr. Perceval, after taking a number of depositions, are that there appears to be little room for doubt that Mr. Benton entered Villa's house about 11 a.m. on February 17th and that he was unarmed That there is no certainty as to what occurred after Mr. Benton entered the house, and that there seems to be strong reason to believe that some extremely untoward occurrence had happened there before noon, and probably soon after 11 a.m. If Mr. Benton was killed during his interview there is no room for doubt that Villa is responsible for his death, although it may have been actually inflicted by others; further, that it must have been caused by stabbing, as there is no evidence that shots were heard Nor is there evidence as to the disposal of the body. There is, however, great room for doubt whether it was ever taken to Chihuahua, and it is quite possible that it was burnt I do not consider that any further information could be obtained and do not contemplate any further inquiries As I have already stated, although it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to take any action at present, we do not intend to let the matter rest, and, as soon as by any change of circumstances it is in our power to carry the matter further, we shall take whatever steps may be practicable.

  British East Africa (Native Labour).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of Mr. Rodwell before the British East Africa Commission on Native Labour, stating that the labour recruited for the coast was entrained in a manner which, if applied to the trucking of sheep, would be considered cruelty to animals; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this condition of affairs?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir, and I notice that in Section 105 of their Report the Committee recommend that steps should be taken to place matters on a

  905
  better basis. The Governor states that he is looking into the matter with the general manager of the railway and will report further.

  Burao (Reoccupation).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the instructions given to the commander of the Camel Corps which is to reoccupy Burao; and whether it is proposed that the re-occupation shall be temporary or permanent?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No instructions have yet been given, and when they are issued they will be issued to the officer in command of the whole of the military force in the Protectorate, including both Camel Corps and Indian troops I shall be happy to lay a copy of them upon the Table in due course, but the officer in question has not yet been appointed The reoccupation will be for an indefinite time, but for so long as may hereafter seem necessary.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. FITZROYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent Report of the Departmental Committee on Local and Imperial Taxation and of the Report made last July of the Land Conference, he will without delay appoint an impartial Committee, before whom expert witnesses can be called, to inquire into the policy and working of the scheme of land valuation and taxation set up by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Government have repeatedly offered to appoint an expert Committee to inquire into the administration of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, but the hon. Member and his Friends have never seen their way to accept the proposal. I further stated, over a year ago, when last this matter was before the House, that the Government were then prepared to consider the question of the appointment of a second Committee of a different character to inquire into the policy of the Act, but this suggestion also met with no response.

  School Accommodation.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has noted that in the case of King's Lynn there is,
  906
  according to the latest published figures, an overcrowding of elementary children in seven departments; and whether any action is to be urged on the local education authority?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): According to the latest Returns in the possession of the Board, which are for the school years ended in 1913, the average attendance does not exceed the recognised accommodation in any of the departments of the public elementary schools in King's Lynn. In these circumstances I do not propose to take any action.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in the recently issued list of schools, the figures given in respect of Charlton, St. Bartholomew, and St. Mary Church of England schools show that in six departments of these three schools overcrowding exists, and in one case the overcrowding amounts to nearly 20 per cent.; and whether he will issue an urgent warning to the Dover local authority that adequate school accommodation must be provided forthwith?
  Mr. PEASE: According to the latest Returns in the possession of the Board, which are for the school year ended November, 1913, the recognised accommodation exceeds the average attendance in all departments of the schools referred to by the hon. Member. The pressure in these schools has been relieved by the opening of the girls' department of the Barton Road Council School in September, 1912, and the enlargement of a neighbouring non-provided school. In the circumstances I do not propose to take any action.
  Mr. KING: In view of the very large number of overcrowding cases in Dover, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct an inspector to go down there and really see what is going on?
  Mr. PEASE: I think we are fully informed as to what is going on. If my hon. Friend desires to draw my attention to any particular school I shall be glad to see what can be done.
  Mr. KINGasked whether His Majesty's inspector condemned the school at Ewell, Surrey, in his Report for the year ending 30th April, 1904, and instructed the managers on 29th June, 1904, to make improvements without delay;

  907
  whether these condemnations and warnings have been repeated frequently in subsequent years; whether in January, 1908, the local education authority informed the Board that they were ready to provide a new school; whether the Board decided in November. 1909, not to recognise the school in its existing premises after 10th April, 1911, and to pay no further Grant; whether on 22nd July, 1913, it was officially promised that the school would be put right in three or four months; whether the school still continues in exactly the same condition as eleven years ago; and whether the Board of Education is now prepared to call on the local education authority to supply proper school accommodation in Ewell?
  Mr. PEASE: The statements contained in the hon. Member's question are substantially correct. The delay in adapting the premises of the church school as a school for boys is due to the fact that the work cannot be proceeded with until the completion of the new council school for girls and infants. There has been some difficulty in obtaining a suitable site for the council school, but a site has now been approved by the Board, and I understand that the plans will shortly be submitted. The authority have been warned that the payment of the Grant for the current year and the continued recognition of the church school premises will depend on the progress made with the erection of the new council school.
  Mr. KING: In view of the fact that those warnings have been going on for ten years, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better now to proceed to action, otherwise the authority will only be laughed at?
  Mr. PEASE: We are proceeding on action as contained in the last paragraph of my reply.
  Mr. KINGasked how many of the 6,000 school places in Birmingham which were promised a year ago have been provided; and for what number of those not yet provided have plans been approved and tenders accepted?
  Mr. PEASE: Within the last year 2,100 new school places have been provided in Birmingham. Plans have been finally approved for 266 further places, preliminary plans have been approved for, 1,800 more, and sites have been approved
  908
  for a further 2,200. I am unable to say in what cases tenders have been accepted. The Board also have before them proposals involving the provision of 3,050 places in addition to those which I have mentioned.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether ho is aware that the overcrowding of the Church of England school at High Town, Crewe, is shown by th latest figures published to be still continuing; and whether the reduction of Grant threatened a year ago, if the overcrowding continued, has been carried out?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Grant has been suspended, and the Board are awaiting a further communication from the local education authority with regard to the provision of the new council school before they come to a decision as to the terms upon which the Grant can be paid.
  Mr. KING: As to these various answers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are only a few that have really the required amount of accommodation, that a very large number are overcrowded, and that in consequence a very great scandal exists, and whether he will look further into the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: I have already looked into the question all over the country, and I understand that the hon. Member is doing the same thing.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of the country prefer that their children should be educated in church schools rather than in council schools?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not accept that.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is so.

  Burmah (Judicial Administration).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Buddhist province of Burmah, where there is believed to be a wider extension of education among the masses of the people than in any other part of India, the number of capital sentences and of whippings in comparison with the population is invariably much in excess of the number of such sentences passed in other provinces; and whether inquiry will be

  909
  made into the methods of judicial administration in Burmah which lead to such a result?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): As regards whipping, I would beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 17th February. With regard to the rest of the question, serious crimes are exceptionally numerous in Burmah and are on the increase. The Secretary of State sees no sufficient reason for the suggested inquiry.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether, with a view to improving the method of judicial administration in Burmah, the Secretary of State will take into his consideration the advisability of establishing a High Court in that province, with a barrister as chief justice, in place of the existing Chief Court, in which the chief judge is ordinarily a civilian promoted from the executive branch of the service?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State sees no reason for modifying the decision on this point which has been more than once expressed to the House. The present Chief Judge of the Lower Burma Chief Court is a barrister, and not an Indian civilian.

  Railway Construction (Madras).
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked how many district boards in the Madras presidency are availing, or have availed, themselves of the power to levy a railway cess for the construction of narrow gauge branch lines to open out their districts; what is the mileage concerned; are these feeder-branches guaranteed a minimum rate of interest by Government, and, if so, what is that rate; and, if the net profits of these lines exceed the amount of the Government guarantee, will the district boards receive the whole of those net profits?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Ten district boards in Madras have levied a railway cess for the construction of railways. The total mileage contemplated is 491 miles, of which 155 have been constructed, and fifty more are under construction, or sanctioned. No guarantee of interest has been given by the Government in any case; but in respect of two lines aggregating seventy-four miles, rebate is given by the main line towards interest at 3½ per cent. on the cost of the
  910
  branch line. The district boards retain the whole of the net receipts, except in the case of one line of twenty-two miles, in which the net receipts above 3½ per cent. are to be shared equally between the district board and the working agency.

  Stafford (Lancaster) House.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if the name of Stafford House is to be changed to Lancaster House; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the architectural features of the museum to be more seen by the public than at present through opening up a view to the south by thinning the plantation of shrubs and throwing the two plots of ground into one, and to the west and cast by substituting an open railing for the present closed iron paling on the one side and for the present brick wall on the other?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord Of the Treasury): The change in name mentioned by my hon. Friend has been made with the assent of the King. The suggestions of my hon. Friend will be considered by the First Commissioner.

  Piracy China.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether the British mails, while being carried by the Norwegian steamer "Childar," were looted when that steamer was recently pirated in South China; has any satisfaction been obtained from the Chinese Government whose subjects effected the piracy; and whether, in view of the unsettled condition of the West River and the Canton delta, the Admiralty can see their way to expedite as far as possible the construction of the two river gunboats foreshadowed in the Naval Estimates of 1911–12, 1912–13, and 1913–14, but not so far proceeded with?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that nothing is known at the Admiralty or the Foreign Office of the pirating of the "Childar" beyond what has appeared in the Press. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Birmingham on the first of this month.
  Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year a French steamer was pirated on the West River and another steamer was also pirated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The two river gunboats to which the second part of the question refers were not for the West River at all, but for the Yangtse.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether any compensation has been claimed from the Chinese Government for property lost by British officers on board the steamers "Shui-on," pirated in 1911, on the "Tai-on," pirated in 1913 in South China; and whether any compensation has been claimed for the dependents of the chief officer of the "Shui-on" who lost his life, and whose mother is in poor circumstances?
  Mr. ACLAND: In the case of the "Shui-on," His Majesty's Government claimed the following sums from the Chinese Government:—
  $299.77 for the damage to the vessel.
  £1,000 for injury to the health of the master, Captain Johnston.
  $166 for the funeral expenses of the chief officer, Mr. Nicholson.
  No claim was made on behalf of Mr. Nicholson's relatives, as the representatives of his family stated that no one had been directly dependent on him, and that he had not been in the habit of remitting any portion of his earnings to his relatives. No other claims were put forward by the officers of the "Shui-on." In the case of the steamship "Tai-on," the pirates had embarked as ordinary passengers in British territory, and the circumstances disclosed no ground upon which any claim against the Chinese Government could be founded.
  Mr. STEWART: If these Chinese pirates get it into their heads that British officers may be shot and mail-looted with impunity will it advantage us much in that part of the world?
  Mr. ACLAND: I hope they will not get it into their heads.

  Housing Accommodation (Great Britain).
  Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that since the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the average annual increase in the number of houses in Great Britain has fallen by one-half, and in view of the consequent shortage of workmen's dwellings and cottages and of the urgency of the housing problem, he will, without delay, appoint an impartial Committee to inquire into the cause of this shortage and
  912
  the best method of again stimulating private enterprise that has hitherto housed 97 per cent. of the population?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Government are not prepared to appoint a further Committee on housing, as they consider they have already in their possession the information on this subject which such a Committee would be likely to obtain. My right hon. Friend has, however, set on foot extensive local inquiries, both in urban and rural districts, with a view to ascertaining the dimensions of the problem to be solved in each locality.
  Mr. ROYDS: My question was directed to the cause of the shortage.
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: asked the names of the urban districts in which, as the result of formal complaints under Section 10 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, or of inspections by the Board's officers, the councils had, prior to the 1st January last, been urged by the Board to build houses under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and have not yet agreed to do so; and whether, as regards cases of formal complaints, a mandamus has been applied for in any instance; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: As the answer is somewhat long, it will, with my hon. Friend's permission, be circulated with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Civil Service (Educational Facilities).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been given to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which has recommended that greater facilities should be given, especially in England, for progress from primary to secondary schools and thence to the universities; and whether he intends to initiate measures to attain this object?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I hope that the legislative measures which I contemplate introducing will contribute materially towards the object of the Royal Commission's recommendation.

  London and North Western Railway (Driver Crowsley).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent developments, he will approach the London and North Western Railway Company with a view to securing the reinstatement of Driver Crowsley, who was dismissed their service because he distributed leaflets urging soldiers not to shoot their fellows if ordered to do so?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): I am not in a position to approach the railway company on such a matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    WORKMEN'S UNEMPLOYMENT BOOKS.
    Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether employers who have knowingly or unknowingly omitted to carry out their obligations under Part II. of the National Insurance Act by failing to affix stamps at the prescribed periods to workmen's unemployment books, and are subsequently called upon to pay arrears of contributions, are entitled to deduct one-half the amount of such arrears from the workmen's wages?
    Mr. BURNS: In any case where contributions under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, have fallen into arrear and the employer subsequently pays all the contributions outstanding, I am advised that he would not be precluded by the Act or the present Regulations thereunder from recovering half the amount so paid by deducting reasonable instalments from the workmen's wages. The question of amending the Regulations is now under consideration.
    Lord A. THYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any limit to the amount that may be deducted as a reasonable instalment from the weekly wages in this respect?
    Mr. BURNS: No. After considering the amendment of the Regulations I may be able to inform the Noble Lord.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS' OFFICES (ASSISTANT CLERKS).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many assistant clerks (new class) are employed in the National Health Insurance Commissioners'
    914
    offices in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, respectively; how many supervising assistant clerks are employed in these departments; and if the Treasury has made any regulations governing the proportion of supervising assistant clerks to assistant clerks?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate with the Votes the figures which he desires and send him a copy of the statement. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Mortality of Seamen (British Ships).
  Mr. M'GHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statistics relating to mortality amongst seamen on British ships; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the statistics to which my hon. Friend refers, and by my direction, the whole question of seamen's mortality is now being investigated by officers of my Department in consultation with representatives of the Local Government Board and the General Register Office.

  Children Emigrated to Canada.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a letter from the South end and District Trades Council with reference to the exportation of young children to Canada by the Southend Board of Guardians; if he is aware that young children, eight years of age, have been taken before the local magistrates with a view of finding out if they are willing to go to Canada; and if he intends taking any action so as to prevent young children being sent away to other countries?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Local Government Board have received a letter on this subject from the Southend Branch of the National Union of Gasworkers and General Labourers. The law requires that children who are to be emigrated should be taken before the local magistrates with a view to their consent being obtained. The Local Government Board, in the absence of special circumstances, raise no objection to the emigration to Canada of orphan and deserted children

  915
  above the age of seven years. There is a complete system of official inspection of child emigrants in the Dominion.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that Commissioner Lamb, who, I understand, is a member of the Salvation Army, was at the board of guardians advising and giving evidence in regard to this particular matter, and whether he is aware that in consequence of paying £20 per head they were to give a child in return?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I cannot say what, if any, payment is made in respect of children who are emigrated.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can give any assurance that these children who are emigrated to Canada will be well cared for?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Yes, the inspection in Canada is extremely careful, and every means is taken to see that the children are properly treated.

  Confectionery Trade (Wages Board).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the names of the representatives appointed in the formation of the wages board for the confectionery trade; and what organisations, if any, they each represent?
  Mr. BURNS: I am sending my hon. Friend a complete list of the members of the Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving Trade Board for Great Britain. The Regulations for the Trade Board do not provide specifically for the representations of organisations, but the representative members were selected after consideration of all names received, including those rceived from organisations of employers and workpeople.

  Postal Service (Engineerships).
  Mr. HANCOCKasked the Post master-General whether, seeing that a higher standard of qualifications has been stated to be required for the new classes created under the revision, he is aware that among the rejected officers were men who had but recently passed a Civil Service examination for second-class engineerships, whilst among the officers promoted were many who held no such certificate,
  916
  but yet are recognised as efficient assistant engineers, and that in very many cases the controlling officers in charge of the redundant engineers have all along been prepared to testify as to their efficiency and general suitability for advancement; in these circumstances will he say why vacancies which have been filled from other sources during the past two years were not given to these men?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The Civil Service examination referred to was held to afford members of the redundant class of sub-engineers an opportunity of qualifying for the old second class of engineers. It was not of the same character as that for the new class of assistant engineers, for which a higher standard of qualifications is required. Two of the officers who qualified at the Civil Service examination have been promoted to the class of assistant engineers, and the claims of the remainder will continue to be considered as suitable vacancies arise. It was necessary, however, in the interests of the services, to recruit a certain number of officers through the examination for assistant engineers.

  Glenfarne Post Office.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General if a Protestant storekeeper was some time ago appointed postmaster at Glenfarne, county Leitrim; if, owing to the opposition raised by the Roman Catholics in the district, a Post Office clerk was detailed to act temporarily as postmaster; if, ultimately, another person was appointed; on whose report or advice this action was taken; and if he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the matter?
  Captain NORTON: The appointment of sub-postmaster at Glenfarne was recently conferred on the manager of a provision store who was considered to be the most suitable of the applicants for the vacant position, but he subsequently declined the appointment and, pending the selection of another candidate, it was necessary to send a sorting clerk and telegraphist to take charge of the office. A fresh appointment has now been made. The case has received exhaustive consideration, both locally and at headquarters, and I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, the best arrangements possible have been made. I consider it unnecessary to lay upon the Table the relative Papers.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand that there is no truth in the allegation in the question I have put that the opposition was raised by the Roman Catholics of the district?
  Captain NORTON: We know of no religious persuasion in the Post Office.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Post Office has made inquiry as to why the man they appointed was not allowed to carry on, if the man was denounced by the local association of the Order of Hibernians and the United Irish League, who allowed no business to be done in Glenfarne while he was there, and if then the Post Office surrendered to the Order?
  Captain NORTON: We made full inquiries, and the man who originally accepted the appointment was a servant of the man who held the premises who declined to allow him to continue in the office.
  Mr. MOORE: Was the man first appointed a Protestant, and were public resolutions not passed and printed in the newspapers denouncing the appointment on the sole ground that he was a Protestant?
  Captain NORTON: I have already stated that we make no inquiry into the religion of a man.
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask if the House is to understand that no notice is taken of the religious principles of those who apply for the position of postmaster?
  Captain NORTON: Certainly. I have already made that statement.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the employer of this man, who was appointed, increased his salary in order to induce him to devote his time to his business, and that he had not sufficient time to look after the post office?
  Captain NORTON: I am not aware of that.

  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, consequent on the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, renewed demands have been expressed for the need of the reform of the Universities of Oxford
  918
  and Cambridge from without, with the object of making these bodies more directly serve the welfare of the State; and whether he is now in a position to announce what steps will be taken to attain this?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I think it only right that the authorities of the universities referred to should have a reasonable opportunity of considering the question in the light of the recent Report.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has noted that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service has recommended that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether the scheme of examination for Class I. of the Civil Service specially favours the older universities and handicaps the newer universities; and whether he will promise that such a committee will be appointed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The recommendation will be carefully considered along with the other recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    MOVEMENTS OF TROOPS (ULSTER).
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister when he intends officially to notify General Gough of the fact that the assurance conveyed to him in the War Office Memorandum on 23rd March has been repudiated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, I do not consider any further notification necessary.
    Mr. AMERY: Are we then to understand that the repudiation of 25th March was a pure piece of Parliamentary stage management?
    Captain WILSON: Are we to understand that General Gough and his officers serving under him may now be employed to crush political opposition to Home Rule?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the answer that has been given.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether officers of the Army are in future to interpret any official instructions or memoranda

    919
    which they may receive from the Army Council in the light of such speeches as may subsequently be made in Parliament by Cabinet Ministers, and, if so, by the speeches of which Ministers; and if they are to regard such speeches as superseding the instructions received by them through the proper official channels?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The circumstances of the case were obviously exceptional, and cannot be taken as a precedent.
    Captain WILSONasked under which paragraph in the King's Regulations authority is given to officers commanding units to allow officers or men to go on leave when the unit to which they belong is ordered to a district to assist the civil authority in which such officers and men are domiciled?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Such occasions are exceptional, and have each to be considered on their merits. It is therefore impossible to cover them by Regulations.
    Captain WILSON: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself alluded to this option as a Regulation, does not he think it desirable that it should be embodied in the Regulations which govern the conduct and discipline of the Army?
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Irish Commander-in-Chief, on the 20th March, informed certain of his officers that the Belfast police would have orders to seize some concealed depots of arms belonging to the Ulster Volunteers and to take forcible possession of the old town hall at Belfast; and whether any and, if any, what orders were given to the police in regard to the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Arthur Paget denies that he made any such statement; no orders of the kind were ever given to the police.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider that, in justice to the great body of
    920
    loyal soldiers, steps should be taken to ascertain who were the informers who supplied these fantastic stories to the Opposition?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Would not the simplest way to obtain the information be to have a judicial inquiry?
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister if the battalion of the Dorset Regiment which was marched out from Belfast to Holywood on the 20th March with its stores and ammunition is now back in Victoria Barracks, Belfast; and, if so, on what date the move back was begun and by what date it was completed?
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister, considering that no howitzer batteries were under orders to be ready to move in Ireland between the 14th and 23rd March, why it was that no less than thirty tons of howitzer ammunition was rushed up North from Dublin on Thursday, 19th March, or Friday, 20th March, by passenger train; what was the cause of this howitzer ammunition being so urgently required that it had to be dispatched by passenger train; what was the extra cost involved; and under what Vote will this be shown?
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the only howitzers in Ireland were at the Curragh between 14th and 23rd March of this year, and that between those dates the officers of the howitzer batteries were given orders to be ready to move at short notice, and that the mobilisation equipment was actually drawn from the Curragh and the men confined to barracks, he can say for what purpose it was intended to use howitzers in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I received the following telegram this morning from the Irish Command:—
    "Number 16623, reply to your telegram this date: Firstly, the battalion of the Dorset Regiment is still at Holywood and no orders have been issued for its return to Belfast. Part of this regiment will probably proceed to Bally Kinlar Camp in May, temporarily for musketry practice. Secondly, the only howitzer batteries in Ireland are at Kildare, Fethard, Clonmel and Kilkenny. None of them have been ordered to be ready to move at short notice this year; no mobilisation

    921
    equipment has been drawn nor have the men been confined to barracks by any order from headquarters. Thirdly, no howitzer ammunition was moved north on the dates named nor on any other date this year. Generally, nothing whatever is known at the Irish Command headquarters of any movement of troops or stores as is suggested in these questions."
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: When is it proposed again to occupy the barracks in Belfast?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have direct evidence from officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]— that the statements made in question number 82 are true that the officers of the howitzer batteries were given orders to be ready to move at short notice, and that the mobilisation equipment was actually drawn from the Curragh, and that the men were confined to barracks? In view of that will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have inquired, and I have given the answer which I have received from the commanding officer.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: If any officer has communicated any military information as suggested by the hon. Member, is not such military officer liable to be tried by court-martial?
    Mr. HUNT: If the Minister will not give correct information is not that all the more reason that British officers should?
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition stated in the House the other day that neither he nor any of his Friends had received that kind of information?
    Mr. CROFT: If the hon. Gentleman is making inquiries into this matter will he also consider any communications made to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to any other of his colleagues?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is a purely military matter.
    Mr. AMERYasked if any decision of the Army Council has been taken rescinding the Memorandum of the 23rd
    922
    March containing the assurance to General Gough; and, if so, whether he will publish the Minute or Memorandum containing the decision in question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. AMERY: Are we to understand, if no decision has been taken by the Army Council, that the assurance of 23rd March still holds good in its entirety?
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister if he will state from whom the reports were received by the Government to the effect that attempts were apprehended to raid Government stores in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government were kept informed on this matter by confidential reports from the police.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In what way are those reports more confidential than the documents which have been already published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that we have already gone very far in the way of publishing documents.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister if the Army Council is collectively responsible for any order issued in the name of the Army Council over the signatures of any three members of the Army Council?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the Letters Patent constituting the first Army Council, and to the Orders in Council (Cd. 2251) of 10th August, 1904.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House on what date and at what time on that date he was informed that a strong force of battleships and destroyers would be used to take extra pre cautions for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster; and whether he will inform the House on what date and at what time on that date he was informed that all strategical positions around Belfast were to be occupied by military forces for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There was never any intention of using the battleships and destroyers for the purpose of guarding military stores in Ulster, nor of occupying all strategical positions around Belfast.
    Mr. AMERY: Arising out of that answer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that time is getting on and there are a number of questions on the Paper to be asked.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister why the instructions issued to General Paget with reference to the movement of troops in Ireland were given verbally and not in writing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The written instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget in the letter of the 14th March were orally supplemented by directions to safeguard Dundalk, where there were three batteries without escort, and by the authority given to him by my right hon. Friend to grant exemption to domiciled officers.
    Mr. SANDYS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman now think that it would have been far better if his instructions had been given in writing?
    Mr. HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state fully upon what statement of General Gough's the Army Council came to the conclusion that there had been a misunderstanding; whether he has now ascertained how it was that General Gough and other officers were under the impression that active operations were to be undertaken against Ulster; whether he has called for reports from General Gough and the other officers concerned as to who gave them this impression, when, and in what words; and whether, if he has not called for such re ports, he will now do so, with a view of laying them before the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no further information than has already been given, and, in my opinion, no good purpose would be served by prosecuting further inquiries.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman, state who first discovered the misunderstanding?
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he will state on what date he first became aware of the telegram from the Admiralty to the Vice Admiral commanding the Third Battle Squadron, dated the 19th March, and the telegram from the Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleets, dated the 20th March?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I became aware that these orders had been given on the morning of the 21st, and at my suggestion they were countermanded.
    Mr. AMERY: Telling lies on Sunday.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for Birmingham (South) not to shout out offensive remarks.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Churchill used the word "hellish" the other day, but I got him yesterday.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman wants to say offensive things, he had better go out into the Lobby.
    Mr. GRANTasked the Prime Minister if the detachments of Royal Engineers which were recently sent to Holywood have returned to their former stations in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that one section of a signal company from Carlow and one section of a field company Royal Engineers from Curragh (or a total of two officers and fifty men) were sent to Holywood on 21st March for technical work, and returned to their permanent stations on completion of this duty on 8th April.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Shaftesbury has been present at various reviews and inspections of a body styled the Ulster Volunteer Force, brought into existence to resist the enforcement of laws passed or to be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom; whether Lord Shaftes-

    925
    bury has granted the use of his grounds at or near Belfast for the training or drilling of this force; whether this training and drilling is contrary to the existing laws of Ireland; and whether, seeing that Lord Shaftesbury holds an appointment at Court, the Government intends to take any action in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that Lord Shaftesbury has been present at various reviews and inspections of the Ulster Volunteers. I have seen a statement in the Press that Lord Shaftesbury lent a training ground at Belfast Castle to the Ulster Volunteers, and I am informed that on the 5th instant a number of these Volunteers entered Lord Shaftesbury's demesne, but the police did not enter the grounds, and there is no evidence to show that any illegal drilling took place, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary for War if General Sir Arthur Pagt said what he did say to the commanding officers in Dublin and at the Curragh on 20th March with the sanction of the then Secretary of State for War or without his sanction?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend explained the substance of the verbal instruction on 25th March, and this was all that was sanctioned by him.
    Sir C. HUNTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen General Paget during the last few days, and is he now able to state what General Paget did say to the troops?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen General Paget. I think the hon. Member had better wait until the White Paper is issued.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Was anything more sanctioned by any other Member of the Cabinet arising out of that?
    Mr. F. HALLasked when the extra precautions referred to by the Under-Secretary of State for War in a recent speech at Coventry for the protection of military stores in Ulster were recommended by Sir Arthur Paget; if he
    926
    will lay upon the Table a copy of the letter or report containing Sir Arthur Paget's first recommendations on the subject and the reply sent thereto; if the steps taken for naval co-operation in connection with the military advance on Ulster were taken on Sir Arthur Paget's advice; and, if so, when, to whom, and in what manner, whether by written communication or orally, such advice was given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the speeches made by my right hon. Friends on 25th March. All relevant Papers on the subjects referred to will appear in the White Paper.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that will be in our hands to-morrow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope about dinner-time to-night.

    SUGGESTION STAGE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to make any suggestions for concessions regarding the Clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill which affect Great Britain and touch the lives of the loyalists in the South of Ireland, or whether his concessions are simply with a view to meeting the Ulster difficulty?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already stated in the House on this subject.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister what is to be the procedure at the Suggestion stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, and particularly whether any suggested Amendments, which are not to be inserted in the Bill but are to be in the form of suggestions to the House of Lords, are to be proposed as Resolutions of the House or are to be discussed in Committee; whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing these suggestions as a whole or only as separate Resolutions; and whether they will be discussed only in the House, or will thereafter be subject to detailed discussion in Committee, to a Report stage, and to Third Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope shortly to make a statement on this subject, and I am not prepared to anticipate it.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If a compromise is possible to avoid civil strife, is it not essential that this House should be informed of the steps that are to be taken?
    Mr. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what will be the date on which the Suggestion stage will be taken in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot say that.

    ULSTER UNIONIST COUNCIL.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the allegation that sworn testimony is in existence to prove the absolute accuracy of the Ulster Unionist Council's account of recent proceedings in Ireland, and, if necessary, to arraign every Member of the Cabinet on a charge of high treason; that such sworn testimony is alleged to have been given by dozens of Army, Navy, and Irish Constabulary officers; whether such officers are entitled to give such sworn evidence to any political party; and what disciplinary proceedings he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen what has appeared on this subject in the public Press, but I have no further information on the subject. I should be loath, in the absence of conclusive proof, to believe that any officer in the Services referred to had been guilty of a breach of confidence.

  Imperial Defence.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a statement by the Defence Minister of New Zealand to the effect that it is a serious question whether New Zealand should continue to pay a certain sum yearly if she has no voice in Imperial defence; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen what has appeared in the Press with regard to the speech referred to, but no
  928
  official communication has, so far as I am aware, been received. The subject is not, suitable for discussion by question and answer.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that no official communication has been received with regard to this matter on which a question has just now been asked?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said so.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It is untrue.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will state whether his attention has been called to a statement by the Minister of Defence for the Commonwealth of Australia to the effect that the references made in the First Lord of the Admiralty's speech on the Navy Estimates were destructive of the basis on which the Australian Navy was organised; and if he proposes to do anything in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to this question is the same as that I have given to the previous question.

  Cancer Research.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if, seeing that the disease of cancer had nearly doubled itself in the thirty years ending in 1910 and that the solution of the disease is very costly, he will apportion a certain sum yearly for cancer research?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. Very large sums are being expended from voluntary sources for this purpose, and, as at present advised, my right hon. Friend is not inclined to propose to the Treasury a State Grant. He would, however, be glad to consider any representations on the subject which may be made by the hon. Member or others.
  Mr. LEE: Is the Government giving no financial assistance whatever?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: As I have said, very large sums are provided now from private sources, and my right hon. Friend is perfectly prepared to receive any representations on the subject.
  Mr. LEE: Would the hon. Gentleman answer my question. Is the Government giving no financial assistance whatever?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I think not.

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. WHELERasked the Prime Minister whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now sufficiently restored to health to carry out the duties of his office; and, if so, when it is proposed to find him a seat in the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I hope to see the right hon. Gentleman back in the House shortly.
  Mr. WHELER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to wait until the next General Election?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not name any period.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WINCHESTER DEPOT.
    Major BARINGasked the Secretary for War when it is proposed to commence building the new married quarters at the Winchester depot?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The plans have been settled but the purchase of the site, although far advanced, is not yet completed. Bills of quantities have to be prepared and tenders invited. The building will be begun as soon as possible.
    Major BARING: Can the hon. Gentleman not give me a definite date in order to put an end to this great and growing scandal in my Constituency?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is very difficult to fix a date, but I will use every endeavour in connection with the matter.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for War whether the expenses incurred during training are as heavy for non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Horse Artillery, Territorial Force, as for the Yeomanry; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of granting them the bounty of 30s. which the Yeomanry in future are to receive?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply I gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 30th ultimo. It is not intended to increase the bounty in the case of the Royal Horse Artillery, Territorial Force.
    An HON. MEMBER: Docs the hon. Gentleman think it fair that a man in the Territorial Royal Horse Artillery should have to look after two horses, riding and driving, and get the same grant as other men?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is asking a question which should be raised during the discussion in Supply.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for War what is the nature of the musketry qualifications which will in future years be required of Territorial soldiers to entitle them to draw the bounty after attending camp for fifteen days, and why this qualification is not to be insisted upon till next year?
    Mr. BAKER: The musketry qualifications are laid down in the Special Army Order of the 8th instant. As those who fired the musketry practices and tests last year were, of course, unaware of the special qualifications in connection with the bounty, it is not insisted on for this year.

    NORTH CHINA (REDUCTION OF BRITISH GARRISON).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that there is a widespread belief among the British residents in North China that a reduction of the British garrison is contemplated in the near future; that, in view of the very un settled state of the country, the British residents consider such a reduction as fraught with possibilities of danger to the interests and trade of this country; if he will say whether any reduction of the garrison is contemplated; and, if so, to what extent; and what is the reason for it?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not considered that the conditions warrant the retention of the whole of the present garrison. All relevant considerations will be taken into account before any final orders for the withdrawal of the troops are given.
    Colonel YATE: Is it intended to reduce the European or the Indian?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think only the Indian.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for War whether inquiries have been set on foot amongst the officers of the Royal Flying Corps to find out who

    931
    supplied information regarding the condition of the machines to the hon. Member for Brentford; and by whom were such inquiries authorised?
    Mr. BAKER: In the interests of discipline, certain inquiries have been made as a result of the hon. Member's speech on the 24th ultimo. They were authorised—and I think quite properly—by the Director-General of Military Aeronautics.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Am I to understand that in an important matter affecting the safety of officers of the Army, they are not allowed in this democratic age to communicate with Members of the House of Commons?
    Mr. BAKER: That does not arise out of the answer. Inquiries were made because the hon. Gentleman made in this House statements which were very serious, and which, if true, ought to have been reported by the officers to their squadron commanders. It further appears, I very much regret to say, from the inquiry, the hon. Member has been writing and asking officers for information.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When is the Secretary of State going to answer the charges that I made and discuss them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for War whether he accepts the obligations entered into by his predecessor with this House; and, if so, when he proposes to make a full statement, in answer to the hon. Member for Brentford, regarding the Royal Flying Corps, as promised by his predecessor on the 24th March?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A full statement will be made when an opportunity arises.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an early opportunity for a discussion on the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into it. It is new to me.
    Mr. LEE: And will the right hon. Gentleman look into several other obligations entered into in regard to other subjects?
    The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Flying Corps has recently ordered any German aeroplanes; and, if so, will he say how many, and why?
    Mr. BAKER: No German aeroplanes have been ordered by the War Office.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he has obtained any reports on the Russian aeroplane which is said to carry successfully upwards of sixteen passengers; and if he is sending over any officer to look into the matter on behalf of the War Office?
    Mr. BAKER: Reports have been obtained. It is not intended to send any officer to Russia to inspect this machine.
    Mr. FELL: Has any information been obtained with regard to this matter?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes; very full information.

    CHIEF OF STAFF AND INSPECTOR-GENERAL.
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary for War if he will state whether the Chief of the Staff or the Inspector-General holds the senior and most important position in the Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

    YEOMANRY REGIMENTS (HORSE RUGS).
    Mr. SANDERSasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to Circular Memorandum No. 483, dealing with the issue of horse rugs to Yeomanry regiments; whether he is aware that in many such regiments no horses are obtained from contractors and that in those regiments the Memorandum will cause inconvenience; and whether he can see his way either to withdraw the said Memorandum or to confine its operation to the London district?
    Mr. BAKER: I have been informed that some inconvenience is anticipated, and I am taking steps to avoid it if possible.

    BASTARDY ORDER (SOLDIER'S LIABILITY).
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a case which came before the York magistrates in December, 1913, when a bastardy order was made against a sergeant, and to the fact that, although the sergeant was in England when the case was tried and his solicitor did not

    933
    deny the paternity, yet the War Office authorities decline to order that the amount shall be deducted from his pay on the ground that the sergeant was under orders for service beyond the seas; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to amend the Regulations of the Army Act so that such action will be impossible in future?
    Mr. TENNANT: No official report has been made to the War Office on this case. In the circumstances described, the War Office have no power to stop the soldier's pay. This particular case will be further investigated, and the general question referred to in the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's question will receive careful consideration.

    HORSES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what is the present total strength of the mounted Territorial regiments and of the Regular Cavalry; and what is the total number of horses available for their use?
    Mr. TENNANT: The strength of noncommissioned officers and men of the Yeomanry on 1st April was 24,457, and of noncommissioned officers and men of the Regular Cavalry at Home 11,634. For the latter the present strength of troop horses is 10,270. No permanent establishment of horses is maintained for the Yeomanry, but as I stated in reply to the hon. Member yesterday, sufficient horses could be obtained on mobilisation.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the horses can be obtained from?
    Mr. TENNANT: All over the country.

  Motor Traffic.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider, either by regulations or legislation, restricting the number of trucks and the weight drawn by motor or steam engines using the public roads?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The matters referred to are already the subject of considerable restrictions, but my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider any suggestions which may be made to him.

  West Ham Union.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now received the information from the West Ham Union previously promised?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend is informed that the guardians gave a week's notice determining the engagements of certain classes of their employés, re-engaging them from day to day, instead of subject to a week's notice, but otherwise on the same conditions of employment as before. No officer or servant working under a monthly agreement of service has been affected, and the interests, under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, of the employés concerned are not disturbed by the new arrangement.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if ho can state definitely when the port of Dublin will be open for the exportation of cattle to England from Queen's County and other unaffected counties south of the Departmental line?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I hope it may be possible to open Dublin Port on Monday next for the export of fat cattle for slaughter on arrival.
  Mr. DELANYasked who will have to pay the cost of the eighteen days' detention and observation which store cattle from Ireland will be subjected to on this side under the new Order; and what the cost per head per diem is likely to be?
  Mr. RUSSELL: In the case of store cattle shipped under the Order the cost of the four days' detention at the British landing places will have to be paid by the owner of the animals. The fourteen days' subsequent detention will be at the place of destination and will not be a source of charge. The Department cannot say what the expense of detention per day at any of the landing places is likely to amount to. It will probably vary at different ports. When the time of detention was twelve hours, 2s. per head for this period to cover lairage, bedding, fodder, etc., was the usual charge.
  Mr. DELANYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, as the Dublin market is to be reopened on Thursday next, the Dublin port will be also opened for the export of fat cattle for immediate slaughter on that date?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer is in the negative.

  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of money granted to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society in Ireland by the Development Commissioners; for what purposes this money has been granted; whether the Development Commissioners have appointed any members to act on the governing body of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; and, if so, can he state the names of the members so appointed; and what means are adopted by the Development Commissioners to assure themselves that the money granted to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is devoted to the purposes for which it was granted?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Commissioners have recommended, and the Treasury have sanctioned, advances to a maximum amount of £7,500 to the Irish Agricultural Organisation. Society in aid of the society's work in organising agricultural co-operation in Ireland. They nominated some time ago the following members of the committee of the society: Two Commissioners (Mr. Vaughan Nash and Mr. A. D. Hall), a member of their staff (Lord Basil Blackwood), and three gentlemen not holding any official position, namely, Mr. Stephen Brown, Mr. T. G. Griffin, and Mr. T. L. Esmonde—of whom, I understand, Mr. Griffin has recently died. The presence of these gentlemen on the committee, with the same access to the society's accounts, records and reports and the same knowledge of its proceedings as any other member of the committee would appear to afford adequate guarantee, if any special security is needed, that the society is applying the money to the purposes for which it is granted.
  Mr. DILLON: Do I understand from that answer that the Commissioners do not require any special audit to ensure that the money is being spent for the purposes for which it is being granted?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the presence of the representatives on the committee is sufficient.

  Suffragist Outrages.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the large number of recent outbreaks
  936
  of fire, suspected to have been caused by militant supporters of Women Suffrage; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps to ensure that the law is enforced and property adequately safeguarded?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question last Monday.

  Cattle Driving (King's County).
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any information has been received by him as to a theft of cattle, numbering some hundreds, from certain farmers in King's County on 12th April, or about that date; if this incident was political in its origin; if any attempt has yet been made to secure the arrest of those concerned; and, if so, with what result?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The police authorities inform me that in the early morning of the 12th instant 235 cattle and 59 sheep were driven off the lands of certain farmers in the King's County, but that all the animals were recovered within two days. Every effort has been made to obtain evidence as to the persons who drove the cattle, but so far without success.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is this a proof of the friendly relations which exist between the Nationalist party and the Orangemen?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 20th May, to the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Pointer, for Mr. Tyson Wilson.]
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 20th May, to the public milk supply, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. James Mason.]
  LEADER OF OPPOSITION.
  To call attention upon Wednesday, 20th May, to the "indiscreet and indiscriminate utterances of the Leader of the Opposition," and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. James Hogge.]

RELIGIOUS CENSUS (WALES) BILL.
Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for taking a Religious Census in Wales and Monmouthshire."
I introduced this Bill two years ago and it was then carried by a very large majority, and practically every Member of the Front Government Bench voted for it. It is a Bill to take at once a religious census in Wales. I ventured to say when I brought it in two years ago that this Bill was a necessary preliminary to proceeding with the Established Church (Wales) Bill. If it was a necessary preliminary then, it is even more necessary at the present time, when the attempt is being made to carry that Bill under the provisions of the Parliament Act. I cannot understand why the Government, having allowed the Bill to be read a second time two years ago, refused to give further facilities. May I remind the House that when the Irish Church Bill was carried in 1869 there had been a religious census, and we knew exactly what was the proportion between the members of the Church in Ireland and the members of other denominations. I say it is absolutely necessary we should have some information now before we proceed under the Parliament Act to carry the Welsh Bill. We get nothing but bald statements made as to the proportion between Church and Nonconformists—statements which are untrue and unchecked, but which could be checked if you had a religious census. I utterly fail to understand why, if a religious census was permitted in Ireland, and has been
950
taken in Ireland decennially ever since, there should be any objection to a religious census in Wales and Monmouthshire. We have the extraordinary fact that a few years ago, when the Census Bill was before Parliament, hon. Members opposite from Wales refused to have such a census in England and Wales, but immediately voted for a census in Ireland. What is the reason for refusing it in Wales? Simply because they know that the statements they have made about the weakness of the Church will not bear investigation, and they are afraid of the result. As things stand, we are in a state of absolute uncertainty. We only know one fact, and that is that whatever the number of Nonconformists in Wales may be, 104,000 of them are opposed to the provisions of the Established Church (Wales) Bill. Therefore, we want to know what the actual proportion is. If we did know, we should have a much better opportunity of giving an impartial consideration to the measure.
At the present moment we have what I may call guesswork figures. We have the figures of the Royal Commission, which are unsatisfactory, but which, at all events, prove that the Church is by far the strongest body in the Principality numerically, and the only body which is making progress at the present time. We have further guesswork figures deduced from the Year Books of the various Nonconformist denominations, many of which are admittedly inaccurate. But, taking those figures, we find that the Nonconformists in Wales, although they undoubtedly claim as many as they possibly can, do not claim more than 40 per cent. of the entire population, adding together both members and adherents. They claim less than a majority of the population, and we ask for an opportunity of testing the figures in order to see how we really stand. I have heard only one objection to this proposal. It was stated two years ago that we would not abide by the result. I want to know what hon. Members mean by that. If they mean that we would not necessarily say that if there was a bare majority of Nonconformists we would at once support the Established Church (Wales) Bill in its entirety, I quite agree. And I should be right in taking that position, because the figures that we have gathered since two years ago show that a large proportion of the Non-conformists—104,000 adults—are opposed to the Bill. But I do undoubtedly say that

951
if we had these figures they would give a clear indication as to the state of religious feeling in Wales, and there is not a Member on this side of the House whose attitude to the measure would not be profoundly affected if the figures were in any way comparable with the statements put forward by supporters of the Bill in this House and outside. We only want to test the matter; we want to get the facts. I understand that hon. Members opposite say now that they are in favour of having the Census. If so, I trust they will, in the first place, allow me to reintroduce this Bill. But that is not all. We want a greater indication of their sincerity than that. The Government ought to give us facilities for carrying the Bill. If they do not, their professions are obviously insincere, and it is perfectly clear that they are still afraid of testing their figures, because they know very well that the statements they have made about the weakness of the Church and about the Welsh people being a nation of Nonconformists and all the rest of it, will not stand the test of scientific investigation. That is the reason and the only reason why they refuse to allow us to proceed with this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Mount, and Mr. Ormsby-Gore. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

COUNTY POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSON: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to assimilate the control of the police in the counties of England and Wales with the control of the police in the boroughs."
The object of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act, 1888, so as to abolish the standing joint committee, and to transfer their powers and duties to the county councils of England and Wales, and to add the powers and duties now performed by the borough councils in connection with the control of the police. I think the time has come when some change should be made, so as to give the people in the counties the same control over the police whom they provide and pay for as the people in the boroughs have. For twenty-five years I have been a member
952
of the standing joint committee of Warwickshire and also of the sub-police committee, so that I know the disadvantages under which we have to perform our duties. I think that this ought to be an uncontroversial Bill. An experience or an apprenticeship of twenty-five years is, I think, sufficient to teach us our duties. No doubt under the Local Government Act, 1888, the Court of Quarter Sessions, who managed the police in those days, thought it better that they should keep control of and educate the new members of the county councils. But I do not think it was intended by the Local Government Act, 1888, that the control of the police by the standing joint committee should be a permanent institution. I think it was intended that for a time at least it should go on in that way. But twenty-five years have passed, and, although the arrangement may have been useful at first, I think the time has now come when the people in the counties should have the same right to control the police as they have in the boroughs. I do not wish to use any offensive word, but the chief constable to-day is an autocrat. We have no power over him in many ways.
4.0 P.M.
The first thing that this Bill would do would be to give the county council in the counties the power to appoint their own clerk and fix his salary. They have no such power to-day. The standing joint committee have the power, and the county council have to find the money. That is a thing which cannot go on for ever. The next thing is that the standing joint committees have to consider increases of wages for the police, administer police buildings, purchase clothing, give out contracts, and pass pensions under the Police Pensions Act. It is time that that passed away, and the county council had full power over these matters. The chief point, however, is the control of the police, absolutely and autocratically, by the chief constable. We have no power whatever over him in the performance of his duties, no matter what they may be. The people ask, therefore, in the first place, that they shall have a free voice and choice in the management of the police by the county council and a Watch Committee; and, secondly, that they shall have control over the chief constable. The chief constable at present is an autocrat. He may be partial, or he may be impartial, in promotion from one rank to another, but no one is allowed to

953
dictate, or to say, except by private influence, who the best men in the force is for promotion. I am not sure that the chief constable always knows that. The Watch Committee would have the power in this matter that they have in the boroughs, so that they could see that the best man is chosen for promotion and for the higher position. It is in the interests of the police that this should be done. We shall never have an efficient police force until it has been done, so that every man will know that he will be treated on his merits in the performance of his duties, and in virtue of his good conduct. Lastly, we ask that in the matter of fines, punishment, and dismissal, the constable, who has no appeal against the chief constable at present, should have one. The chief constable at present decides, and no one has a word to say in the matter. We ask for this right for the officer. At present a constable, if charged and dealt with, if he appeals, has to have the charge written down, with his reply in another paragraph, while a third paragraph contains the allegations of the officer that has made the charge. This is all, as I say, written down, and this is the last chance that a constable has of stating his appeal. In the case of a Watch Committee these men would be dealt with on the merits of their case, and would be able to state their defence the same as any other Englishman can do. I think the appointment of clerk and the fixing of his salary should be by the county council, who also should have power to curb the autocratic power of the chief constable. For these various reasons, and with an experience of twenty-five years in Warwickshire, I ask leave to introduce this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Burt, Sir Robert Price, Mr. Alden, Mr. Wiles, Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. Albert Stanley, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Ellis Davies, and Mr. Stephen Walsh. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

HOTELS (CHARGES FOR COMPENSATION LEVY).
Viscount DUNCANNON: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the rate of Charge for Compensation Levy in the case of certain Hotels."
954
I desire to draw attention to what I think will be generally admitted to be an unjust anomaly in the Licensing Law. It arises in connection with the levy for the fund for compensation for licences—licences which the justices decide shall not be renewed, and in respect of which the licensees are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act. Hon. Members are aware that the Compensation Fund which was first established by the Licensing Act of 1904 is now re-enacted by the Act of 1910. It is maintained by imposing an annual charge on all licensed premises. The charge is created according to the full value of the premises, the rates, for instance, on premises of the annual value of £900 or over being £100 a year. The new Schedule provides for a reduction in certain cases, namely, in the case of a hotel, restaurant, and other places of which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. It is in connection with this reduced charge that the anomaly which I wish to draw attention to arises. The Schedule in the present Act states, first of all, that "The rate of charge in the case of hotel as defined for the purpose of this provision shall be one-third of the full charge; secondly, that the rate of charge in regard to premises other than hotels which are certified by the licensing justices to be used only as public gardens, picture galleries, exhibitions, restaurants, and so forth, or for any other purposes for which the holding of a licence is purely auxiliary, shall be at such reduced rates as the justices think proper under the circumstances, and this reduced rate is not to be less than one-third of the full charge."
There are a number of hotels all over the country which do not conform to the definition. A decision which has been made in the Courts as to this meaning shows that they do not come within the provision either one way or the other. The definition of a hotel for the purposes of the provision means "premises of the value of £50 and upwards, which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to be structurally adapted for use as an inn or hotel, and are mainly so used, and for which no portion of the premises is used or set apart and used as an ordinary public-house for the sale and consumption of liquor, or which portion used or set apart does not exceed the annual value of £25." The effect of the wording of this provision in regard to an hotel which comes within the definition is that the charge is automatic-

955
ally reduced to one-third. In regard to premises other than hotels as defined, power is given to the licensing justices to make the same reduction—that is, by such amount as they think proper—to the same extent of two-thirds. But it has been decided by the Courts in connection with a similar provision of the Licensing Act of 1904 that they must either come within the definition or pay the full charge. Any licensed house, although structurally adapted for use as an hotel, and actually so used, is not within the definition if it has a bar of the annual value of £25 and upwards, yet because, though not according to the definition, but as a matter of fact and in reality it is a bonâ-fide hotel, it does not come within the provision relating to other similar premises, the licensing justices have no power to grant any reduction at all.
Perhaps the point will be plainer if I give an example. Take the First Avenue Hotel, London. That is excluded from the definition of an hotel because it had a buffet bar that is worth more than £25 per year. It is really and in fact an hotel, but, as I have pointed out, it is excluded from the discretion of the justices, while premises perhaps close by, exactly of the same kind with a buffet bar, are entitled to and do apply to the justices for a reduction of the charge. The only difference between the hotel and a restaurant is that the hotel has bedrooms and the restaurant has not. By reason of these bedrooms such an hotel, as I have mentioned, is obliged to pay three times the amount of the contribution to the compensation fund than it would have to pay if it had no bedrooms and was classed as a restaurant. This very point was brought up by the Government in the Act of 1908. The anomaly that I have referred to was remedied in that Act, and it was done without any opposition from any quarter of the House. The Bill which I am asking the leave of the House to introduce does exactly the same thing as the provision in the Government Bill in 1908, namely, merely gives the discretion and the right to the magistrate to grant the same abatement in the case of a bonâ-fide hotel, although it does not strictly comply with the definition given, as in the case of a restaurant and other places which hold a licence merely as an auxiliary. There is only one more thing for me to add, that this Bill has the approval of the Home Secretary, who has undertaken, if it is sufficiently successful
956
on the Second Reading, that he will do what he can in the subsequent stages to enable it to become law.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Duncannon, Mr. Goulding, Sir Robert Price, Mr. George Roberts, and Sir George Younger. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

PRIVATE BILLS.
Private Bills (Group C),
Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at a quarter before Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 3),
Mr. Soames reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act to be in Force for Specified Times).
    (1) The Army Act shall be and remain in force during the periods hereinafter mentioned, and no longer, unless otherwise provided by Parliament (that is to say):—

    (a) Within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, from the thirtieth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, to the thirtieth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, both inclusive; and

    957

    (b) Elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's Dominions, from the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, to the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, both inclusive.

    (2) The Army Act, while in force, shall apply to persons subject to military law, whether within or without His Majesty's Dominions.
    (3) A person subject to miltary law shall not be exempted from the provisions of the Army Act by reason only that the number of the forces for the time being in the service of His Majesty, exclusive of the Marine forces, is either greater or less than the number hereinbefore mentioned.
    Mr. F. HALLhad on the Order Paper the following Amendment: At end of Clause to add—
    (4) Persons subject to military law shall be required to obey all orders given to them by duly authorised persons for the purpose of maintaining law and order and to support the civil power in the ordinary execution of its duty; provided always that such persons shall not be called upon to render any service for the purpose of overcoming opposition to or enforcing the policy or principle of any particular legislative measure in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or in any British Colony or Possession.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich does not appertain to Clause 2. If the hon. Member brings up a new Clause I will consider it.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 115 of the Army Act relating to the Impressment of Carriages and Horses).
    In Section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act, which relates to the impressment of carriages and horses, the following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):—
    (3A) A requisition of emergency may authorise any officer mentioned therein to require any carriages and horses furnished in pursuance of this Section to be delivered at such place (not being more than one hundred miles in the case of a motor car or other locomotive, and not being more than ten miles in the case of any other carriage or horse, from the premises of the owner) and at such time as may be specified by any officer mentioned in the requisition, and in such case it shall be the duty of a constable executing a warrant
    958
    issued by a justice of the peace under this Section upon the demand of an officer producing the requisition of emergency to insert in his order such time and place for delivery of any vehicle or horse to which the order relates as may be specified by such officer, and the obligation of owners to furnish carnages and horses shall include an obligation to deliver the carriages and horses at such place and time as may be specified in such order, and the provisions of this Act shall have effect as if references therein to the furnishing of carnages and horses included, as respects any such carriage or horse as aforesaid, delivery at such time and place as aforesaid.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I beg to move in Subsection (3A), to leave out the words "more than one hundred miles in the case of a motor car or other locomotive, and not being," and to insert instead thereof the words, "in the case of an aircraft two hundred miles, in the case of a motor car or other locomotive that can attain a maximum speed of more than thirty miles per hour one hundred miles, in the case of a motor car or other locomotive whose maximum speed does not exceed thirty miles per hour fifty miles, and in the case of any barge, sailing vessel, other carriage, or horse."
    This Amendment appertains to a matter of some little importance. As Members of the Committee know, Clause 4 places, on owners of vehicles of all descriptions a new duty. Up to now owners of carriages, including motor cars, could have their motor cars requisitioned by the military authorities in case of emergency, but the military authorities have to go round and collect these cars or other vehicles. This new Clause puts on owners of carriages or vehicles the duty of delivering the carriages, etc., requisitioned at some convenient centre. Of course, I quite see why this is done by the War Office, and why the War Office have to put in this new Clause. It is perfectly obvious that to go round in case of emergency to some depot or garage or aerodrome where there are aeroplanes, monoplanes or seaplanes, would be useless unless you had a pilot to take them against the enemy. It is obviously useless to have your motor car without a driver. If you are to insist in having a motor car or aircraft or locomotive delivered at a certain place, your main difficulty is overcome. In this particular Clause aircraft is not mentioned at all. I think it is a pity it

    959
    is not. I think in this Clause 4, line 14, the words should be "any aircraft, carriages and horses," and that would make it plain. As a matter of fact, anyone who studies the Army Act will see that by Section 115, Sub-section (3), it is plain that "carriages" does apply to aircraft. Therefore, when we talk about carriages, we talk about aircraft. Of course, there is no difference in the old Schedules of the Army Act, but Section 4 of this Army (Annual) Bill does recognise aircraft. Hon. Members will see that a motor car may not be requisitioned from a distance of more than 100 miles, and an ordinary horse-drawn vehicle not more than ten miles. My Amendment starts by trying to carry the distinction a little further.
    I want to differentiate between a motor car and aircraft, and, again, between a traction vehicle, like a motor lorry going slowly, and a fast-going motor car. Of course, for the moment, we have only begun to see the possibilities of aircraft. We hardly know what they can do now, and we cannot possibly estimate what they will do in the future, but we do know broadly and accurately what a motor car can do. We know perfectly well that the ordinary motor lorry, costing about £200, only travelled at a speed of from ten to twelve miles an hour, and we know that a car, such as the Rolls-Royce, can travel at from forty to fifty miles an hour. To travel a hundred miles in a motor lorry would be a day's journey, but a hundred miles in a Rolls-Royce car would be but a joy ride. We are bound to differentiate between the two. A motor car covering 100 miles is very common, but a motor lorry covering that distance is comparatively rare. Now take aircraft. Aircraft covering 200 miles is nothing, and I propose to insert 200 miles in my Amendment instead of 100. The other day a German officer flew at the rate of 100 miles an hour in an aeroplane. He did that on two occasions, and with ordinary lucky conditions 200 miles would be covered in something like two and a half hours. Then, again, the places where you can get these aircraft are few and far between. If you wanted an aircraft on the East Coast, and you sent to Hendon for it, it would be more than 100 miles. You would be precluded under this Clause from requisitioning your craft in such circumstances. Therefore, I contend that 200 miles would be more correct to put into the Bill. That is my Amendment. I want simply to differentiate between the
    960
    various vehicles. Of course, we have moved fast since the days contemplated in the Third Schedule of the Army Act. All that we had to do with then were wagons drawn by horses and oxen. We have gone far beyond that, and therefore I suggest the Secretary of State for War should accept this Amendment.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the contention of this Section is good, and would be an improvement in the law. There is no doubt, I think, that the obligation to furnish vehicles to use that word as a generic term also includes the obligation to deliver them within reasonable limits to the places where they are wanted. The hon. Member referred to the Third Schedule of the Army Act, which is very archaic and does not apply to this class of cases at all. We are dealing here with an emergency proceeding, not with ordinary purposes, for the carriage, baggage, and ammunition and so forth, and the Third Schedule is not relevant to our discussion. The present provision in regard to emergency is contained in the fourth Sub-section of Section 115 of the Army Act, and applies to all classes of vehicles, carriages, and aircraft, and provides, and I think wisely provides, that the price to be paid shall not be determined in accordance with any fixed rate described in the Schedule, but if there is a difference between the War Office and the persons for whom vehicles are required, it is to be determined by the County Court judge having jurisdiction either in the place where the carriage is furnished from or in the place to which it travels. There is a good deal of force in what the hon. Gentleman said about the difference in the different classes of motor propelled vehicles, whether in the air or on the earth, and I think it would be an obviously unreasonable thing that the same rate of payment should be included for any vehicle falling within the generic description when applied to motor cars with their consumption of petrol. But I submit to the hon. Gentleman that it is much better to leave the matter in the elastic state in which it is at present by the provisions of the Army Act to be determined in case of difference by the County Court judge who must have regard to all the considerations that are relevant, and not to introduce any new fixed limit either as to power or pay. The Third Schedule may very soon become obsolete and be abandoned in favour of other changes and conditions. I

    961
    think, therefore, we ought not to make any hard and fast rule. It is better that the matter should be left as now to the County Court judge, who may be trusted to have regard to all the circumstances.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite understand the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member—before the word "such" ["to deliver the carriages and horses at such place"], to insert the word "about." Perhaps the hon. Member would explain.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Here again arises a question of aeroplanes. If an aeroplane has got to be delivered at a certain place, difficulty will arise. A man may have to fly from Hendon to some particular village or hamlet on the East coast of England to deliver the aircraft there. Aircraft can only be delivered in certain places, and therefore it is better to put in the word "about." A man may have to deliver an aeroplane to some crusty colonel of Infantry, and he may not be able to land at the particular spot. If an aeroplane could be landed anywhere it would be all right. But at present they can only be landed in certain places, and this Amendment is intended to protect the owners if they are not able to alight on the particular specified spot.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the hon. Member will not press this, because it would destroy the utility of the provision altogether. This Amendment applies, not merely to aircraft, but to all forms of vehicles, and if the obligation is merely to deliver them at "about such a places" it would give enormous latitude of interpretation which would make it practically almost unworkable. The hon. Member will agree with me it is eminently desirable that the military authorities should be able in requisitioning to prescribe both the time and the place at which these things would be delivered. To put in the word "about" is merely to give to all persons almost indefinite latitude in complying with the requisition. As requisitions are only resorted to in cases of emergency, it is obviously of the utmost importance that there should be some certainty as to where and when the vehicles should be delivered.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I entirely agree that the right hon. Gentleman has made a good case in reference to motor cars. No doubt they can be delivered at exactly the spot
    962
    mentioned by the local military authorities; but, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have evaded the point, and I think a sound one, made by my hon. Friend, that you cannot undertake to deliver an aeroplane at a certain place. There are only certain places available, and, therefore, I think some words ought to be found which, while insisting that a motor car or carriage should be delivered exactly at the hamlet or spot indicated, which would give some latitude in the case of an aeroplane and other kinds of flying machines, and it should be provided that they should be delivered more or less on the spot, but not confined to a particular hamlet.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a little difficulty in this matter. There is a scheme on foot for aeroplane landing stages which the War Office and the Admiralty have under consideration—
    The PRIME MINISTER: This Clause does not apply to aircraft at all. It only applies to carriages and horses. If the hon. Member will observe the language he will see that the Clause applies only to the impressment of carriages and horses. At at present drawn the Clause does not apply to any animals at all, and therefore his Amendment is unnecessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, dealing with the matter of payment for the vehicles which may not be requisitioned, is not in order.
    Mr. NEWMAN: My idea in putting down this Amendment was to provide a datum line for the guidance of the County Court judge in deciding the amount of payment for these vehicles when requisitioned.
    The CHAIRMAN: In the form in which the Amendment appears on the Paper, it will not do.
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move to add at the end of Sub-section (3 A.) the following new Sub-section:—
    (b) And the said justice of the peace at the demand of such officer as aforesaid shall issue a notice to all persons whose names appear in the annual list made under the provisions of section one hundred and fourteen of this Act to have their

    963
    horses and carriages in their respective stables and premises on the day and at the hour to be specified in the said notice, and to keep the same there until the same shall have been inspected by the officer appointed to determine whether the same or any of them are required for the purposes of this section.
    Provided always that such notice shall not apply to any horses or carriages directly employed in food distribution, and that reasonable compensation shall be made to any such person for any loss or damage that he may have incurred in consequence of such notice, any difference respecting the amount thereof to Be determined by the County Court judge mentioned in sub-section four of this section.
    The Government have already in this Bill amended Section 115 of the Army Act by requiring horses and carriages, which are requisitioned in case of an emergency, to be delivered—an obligation which they were not under before. The Amendment I have put down is a very practicable and desirable one, because it saves at least a day or two in the time required in requisitioning and actually getting hold of the horses. In case of an emergency mobilisation, that, of course, would be of the utmost importance, and it might prevent a raid from becoming an invasion, or a raid being prolonged to such an extent as to cause the loss of millions of money to the people of this country. No mounted units can move until the horses are procured, and this would include the horses required for Artillery, Cavalry, the Army Service Corps, and the whole of the Territorials, because at the present time they have no horses to speak of at all. The difficulty arises in purchasing these horses. Mobilisation would probably take place in the winter time, and during the daylight a raid would probably take place, and the horses would be out with their carts doing their ordinary work, and, consequently, the purchasing officer would have to purchase in the dark, either before the carts had gone out before daylight, or after they had come in at night. Therefore, it would be a very bad thing if the purchasing officer was practically limited to inspecting these horses during the hours of darkness. The great point is that the middle part of the day is lost by the purchasing officer for the selection of these horses. As a rule this officer has got a
    964
    very large area over which to collect, and what I propose is that when the appointed officer goes to a justice of the peace and asks for a warrant to give him authority under Section 115 of the Army Act to requisition the necessary horses, he shall at the same time get a notice signed by the same justice of the peace directed to the various owners of these horses who are already scheduled, that they shall keep those horses in the stables on a certain day at a certain hour until the purchasing officer can inspect them. Those hours will be so arranged that the minimum of inconvenience will be caused to the owner. In that way it is most likely that a day, or two days, or perhaps three days, may be saved in the mobilisation of the troops, and that in an emergency would be of the greatest possible value to the country.
    This Clause has been very well thought out, and it really supplies the one link which will make our mobilisation as effective as it possibly can be. These annual lists of horses are made out under Section 115 of the Army Act, and in practice, the man who has only one or two horses is not put on the list at all. If a man has four horses, as a rule they will put two of them on the list. They do not put the owner's name on the annual list unless he has about ten horses, and the rule is to put on the list about half the horses owned in each case. Consequently, there would not be such an immense amount of inconvenience, because this notice would be limited to those on the list of horses that can be taken. Of course, there would be a certain amount of dislocation of trade, but it would soon be over if carried out systematically, and the horses would be collected in a shorter time, and therefore the dislocation of trade in case of an emergency, raid or invasion is comparatively a small matter. Of course, in case of an emergency, everybody would be ready to help the country in time of need. There are two important provisos in this Clause, and one is the exemption of any horses or carriages directly employed in food distribution, and the other provides that reasonable compensation shall be made to all owners who have had to keep their horses in during daylight hours and have suffered loss or damage in consequence. The compensation is to be agreed upon between the purchasing officer and the owner, and in case of dispute the amount will be determined by the County Court judge. I think I have now sufficiently stated

    965
    what this Clause contains and its object, and I commend it to the favourable consideration of the Government.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Speaking on behalf of the War Office, I may say that we have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member's object, and we should hardly venture to propose such a drastic Amendment as the hon. Member has suggested. The provisions of this new Clause are somewhat drastic in their obligations on those who come under Section 115. Those who have to do with mobilisation would be very glad to see such provisions carried into law, but they think a little more consideration ought to be given to the subject, because these proposals might lead to a certain amount of dislocation of trade, and eases of hardship might arise. I gladly recognise on the part of the War Office the patriotic way in which this obligation is fulfilled in all parts of the country, but I hope the hon. Member will allow us to reconsider this point, with a view to some amendment on this point next year. What the hon. Member has said will be carefully considered, and if we can carry out his suggestion without causing any undue dislocation of trade, we shall be very glad to achieve the object he has in view.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think there would be any very great hardship if this proviso applied to a particular hour on a particular day. I confess, however, that I do not like the Amendment as it stands, because it might lead to owners having to keep their animals and carriages idle for a considerable time. There is nothing to compel the inspector to go and inspect the horses and carriages on the day specified, and the animals and carriages might have to be kept idle for some considerable time. I do not think there would be any very great difficulty if it could be specified that if the Government officials did not come at, the hour of the day appointed the necessity to hold these animals in readiness would no longer apply.
    Earl WINTERTON: In my capacity as a Yeomanry officer, I was one of those responsible for collecting horses on mobilisation, and, therefore, I should like to put one or two points to the Secretary of State for War. Without referring to confidential information connected with mobilisation, there are two points I might properly put. The case with which I am acquainted is one which would apply generally to a Yeomanry regiment, and it
    966
    is the great difficulty experienced in obtaining the horses in sufficient time. In the case which I will call A, with which I am acquainted, the recruiting area for the horses for one particular squadron covers something like a radius of 15 miles. It has been laid down that those horses have each to be examined by a veterinary surgeon, and there is only one veterinary officer for each regiment. Consequently, it would be necessary on mobilisation to obtain the services of other veterinary surgeons outside the veterinary officer of the regiment, and I suggest that there are several difficulties which it is not possible for me to go into very freely, because to do so would disclose confidential information. If my Noble Friend's suggestion were adopted that the horses should be kept in on a certain day at a certain hour, the matter would be much easier to deal with. May I be allowed to say that I think, from my knowledge of the arrangements for collecting horses, there is a necessity for tightening up the Regulations so as to make it easier to collect the horses at any given time. I would suggest that the whole chance of being able to obtain sufficient horses for a Yeomanry regiment, which in any case is rather a slender one, depends upon being able to get the horses within a reasonable time.
    Mr. BUTCHER: It may very well be that Section 115 of the Act needs some strengthening, but I certainly think that the Clause of my hon. Friend is far too drastic, because the owners of the horses and carriages are not only to be compelled to keep them in the stable on the day and hour specified in the notice, but they have to keep them there until they have been inspected by the officer. No time is fixed for his inspection, and they may have to keep their horses and carriages there for a month. Just think of the hardship to tradesmen. Tradesmen and their customers would be put to great inconvenience if such a Clause were adopted. Then look at the farmer. The farmer has horses which he works at the plough, and at other agricultural operations, and, if this Clause were adopted, he would have to keep his horses in the stable for an indefinite time until the inspector came. Therefore, while it may be desirable to have some strengthening of the original Section, I think it would require some serious consideration before putting the owners of the horses to such inconvenience as would follow from the adoption of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. DENNISS: The officer would only take about forty-eight or seventy-two hours at the outside to get in the whole of the horses, and it is not contemplated by the Clause that the horse would be kept there for longer. Of course, I see, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has pointed out, that the words would bear that interpretation, and I agree that they would have to be limited to some extent. Still, the object of the Amendment is, I think, pretty well admitted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The War Office have proposed this year to somewhat strengthen the liability of the subject in cases of emergency. I, for one, do not object to that, but I want to get some definition from the right hon. Gentleman of the emergency in which he contemplates that Section 115 of the Army Act would come into force. Of course, we quite understand if it is a question of the threatened invasion of this country, when every man available of all the Forces, both Regular and auxiliary, has to be immediately mobilised, that then no measure to impress horses and vehicles and animals of all kinds can be too strong; but I want to know whether it is possible to bring into force the words of Section 115 on a lesser emergency than a threatened invasion. Supposing, for instance, the striking force of the Regular Army were to be sent abroad, it would be possible for the Government, as a precautionary measure, to mobilise the Territorial Force, but I do not think that for an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force, when there is some war being carried on abroad and the striking force is absent; but when at the moment there is no possibility of invasion—take the case of a war like the South African War—these extreme powers contained in Section 115 ought to be put in force. I think that on an occasion like that it ought to be able to mobilise the Territorial Force without putting in force these extreme powers. Supposing the Territorial Force were mobilised under such circumstances, I do not think that the country in any way realises that trade would be put to the great inconvenience to which it would be put if Section 115 were put into force. It seems to me that this is a reserve power which it is very necessary that the Government should have, but I think great care ought
    968
    to be taken as to the occasions on which they would exercise that power, and the War Office ought to make arrangements whereby they can mobilise the Territorial Force in the absence of the striking force without putting into force these compulsory powers. It seems to me to be rather shirking a difficulty which faces them not making other arrangements on a voluntary basis which ought to be made, and which the Government ought to be quite capable of making. I shall be glad to have some expression from the right hon. Gentleman as to what emergency is contemplated, and whether I have correctly described the circumstances as to what happens on mobilisation of the Territorial Force apart from a threatened invasion.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The point raised is no doubt one of great interest and importance, but I should very much deprecate our inserting in an Act of Parliament anything in the nature of a definition. I think that considerable latitude must be allowed to the Executive of the day, subject, of course, to the control of Parliament. The Territorial Force, as the Noble Lord knows, can only be embodied on a Proclamation calling out the Reserves, and that Proclamation would only be issued on occasions of imminent national danger or great emergency.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Would the South African war have come under that definition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether the prefix word "great" adds anything to the force of the word "emergency." I remember in the old days, when I used to practise in law, that there was a question of what was the difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence," and some learned judge said that "gross negligence" was "negligence with some vituperative evidence." I suspect that the difference between an "emergency" and a "great emergency" is an adjectival difference. I think it is very undesirable to insert in an Act of Parliament any specific definition of what the word "emergency" means. It must be better to leave it to be interpreted in accordance with circumstances which may arise, and which we cannot foresee. I do not think that there is any real danger that any Government, to whatever party it belonged, would try to exercise these emergency powers unless there was really such a state of things internationally as to justify it. I think on

    969
    reflection that the Noble Lord will agree that it is better to leave it vague than perhaps to preclude the possibility of exercising this power in a condition of things which may arise, and which, if it did arise, we should all agree was an emergency in the real sense of the word.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that Parliament has nothing whatever to do with the Order creating the state of emergency. I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be subject to the control of Parliament. I do not think that it is. I think that any Secretary of State might make the Order. I rather agree that there will be no advantage in putting in the word "great." The real thing turns upon whether we are satisfied that the Order would not be made unless there was a case of great emergency. I think we may take it that it is not likely that the Order would be made unless there was a real case of emergency. I cannot quite understand the particular necessity for this new Clause. Why should we not leave it as it was before? The only difference I can see is that the owner of a horse or motor car would have to send his horse or motor car ten or one hundred miles. I am not the owner of a motor car, but I am rather concerned with what happens to horses and with the fact that the majority of owners of horses are poor men, and are therefore entitled to consideration which should not be shown to those richer men who are owners of motor cars. It is rather hard that a man who is perhaps using his horse as a means of livelihood should be compelled to take it away from its own stable and place it in another stable ten miles off. I should have thought that it would be better to requisition the horse, leave it in the owner's stable, and then fetch it when the necessity arose. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain why the horse should be taken out of its stable, and taken ten miles away.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Merely for the expedition of mobilisation. It is obvious if you have the horses sent to a central place, that it is much easier for the authorities to deal with horses so collected than to have to go all round the country and collect them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is all very well, but some consideration ought to be extended to the unfortunate owner of the horse.
    Mr. TENNANT: He is paid.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That does not cover it in the least. There is the danger that the horse may be injured. If a motor car is sent to a central depot and put on one side, it does not matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, does not it?"] It cannot be injured, except that a little bit of paint may be scraped off. After all, it is a question of expense, and, the owners of motor cars being rich men, I am not concerned with them. A horse requisitioned and sent ten miles away may not be wanted for a day or two, and, in the meantime, it is left to the tender mercies of the officials. One may be fond of a horse, and it may be quiet. It would be subject to all sorts of liabilities, and you might not be able to replace it. I do not yield to anybody in patriotism, and I should be only too glad to assist the Government in any way if such an occasion arose, but I do not see the object of this Clause. I should have preferred it if the Government had left out the provision as to the necessity of the horse being sent to a depot. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider my few remarks between now and the Report stage, if there is to be a Report stage. I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman has already made up his mind that there will not be a Report stage. Will he kindly inaugurate his new position, if possible, by giving effect to the arguments, weighty, I think, which I have advanced?
    5.0 P.M.
    Earl WINTERTON: There is a rather more important point involved in this Clause. It is, I think, one of more importance than that raised by the hon. Baronet. It is the question of the efficiency of the British Empire in time of war, and this is a matter of real interest to one who may be responsible, as an officer, for mobilisation. My Noble Friend referred to the fact that there are not sufficient horses in the country. That, of course, is a matter of common knowledge. We all know there are not. There will not be, and there cannot be, under the present system a sufficiency of horses in this country for mobilisation; therefore it is not to the point to consider whether the feelings of owners of horses may be offended. Instead of there being less compulsion, there should, in my opinion, be more. The Government in this case have found a mountain which it is very difficult to get through, and, unfortunately, it is prepared to take the easier course of meandering round it instead of cutting through it. The only way of dealing with

    971
    this horse question, and the only way of getting the necessary horses for the Army, is to throw upon the owners of horses a legal liability to supply the animals in time of war, and to have them collected at some central point, as is done in France and Germany, and, indeed, in the case of every Continental nation, every year for inspection, and for the purpose of being certified whether or not they are fit for military duty. But what is the present attitude of the Government? I will tell the Committee what they do. They send round an officer—he was formerly an adjutant in a Territorial regiment, who was already greatly overburdened with the necessary work of his regiment—I believe a remount officer has since been appointed—and they go to the stables, it may be of a rich man with several hunters, or of a poor man with one or two horses used for the purposes of his trade, and they ask for information as to the age of the animals. They have direct instructions from the War Office to make the examination as easy as possible for the owner of the horses, and to avoid in every possible way exciting his fears as to what may happen in the event of war breaking out. I have no hesitation in saying that not one in every ten of these men has the slightest knowledge that, on an outbreak of war, which makes it necessary to have horses, every horse he has will be required of him.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a little too wide for the present discussion, which is upon a Clause proposing to amend Section 115 of the Army Act in respect of bringing horses to a centre instead of being collected. The Noble Lord's argument would be pertinent to a Debate on the Army Estimates.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is not my Noble Friend dealing with the necessity for strengthening the powers of the authorities in the case of emergency, and is it not a question as to the extent of the emergency, and what is justifiable in consequence?
    The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but the Noble Lord is not entitled to enter into the whole question of the method of dealing with horses requisitioned for the Army.
    Earl WINTERTON: I only wish to impress upon the Committee the necessity for making this requisition more stringent
    972
    rather than less strong. We should make it as strong as possible. There is another point I wish to touch upon, and which comes within the scope of this Clause. I am convinced that there are in the country very few horses which it would be possible to use for military purposes. On the outbreak of any war that involved the dispatch of an Expeditionary Force, it would, of course, be necessary to obtain horses under this Act, and, therefore, the emergency referred to in this Amendment is one which should really be interpreted as an occasion on which this country is at war. I hope the Committee realises the fact, of which I am absolutely certain, that if such a war does break out the horseowners of the country will be considerably disillusioned as to the duty that devolves on them. I, for one, am convinced it will be necessary to put this Clause into operation and to obtain every single horse in the country, and even then I do not believe you will get anything like the number of horses required.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I think everyone will agree that it is not desirable to enforce the drastic provisions of Section 115 as modified by this proposed Clause, except when a serious occasion has arisen. There are two reasons for that. The first is that it would be a great inconvenience to horse owners, traders, farmers, and others to have their horses taken; and, secondly, that most of the animals you would get under this Clause would not be so well suited for military purposes as horses trained for the work. For instance, a horse may be taken out of a cart and put into a military wagon. But to be of any use it would be necessary for it to have some training; therefore, I submit this Clause and the original Section of the Act ought not to be put into operation unless grave cause has arisen. That brings me to the word "emergency." It may not be possible to define it so as to include all occasions on which the Section would be put into operation, but I do suggest to the Prime Minister that the word is really far too vague at present. Suppose it was necessary to mobilise a part of the Regular Army with a view to sending a small Expeditionary Force out of this country, not for a serious war, not for a war involving grave national peril, but for a small war. The Secretary for War for the time being might find there was an insufficiency of horses in the Army and might have to get more. I should like to know would he be justified in treating that as an emergency

    973
    within the meaning of the Section and putting into operation its drastic provisions? I think it would be exceedingly unfortunate if he were. I could understand in the case of an invasion where there might be grave danger the Section would very probably be put into operation, but where there is no national danger and the only real emergency is a shortage of horses at a particular moment, I think the Prime Minister will probably agree that in such a case the Section should not be brought into operation. Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of putting down, on Report, an Amendment which will in some way limit the enormously vague and wide application of the word "emergency," and confine it to such cases as have been referred to?
    Colonel GREIG: It is very seldom we hear anything in what the Noble Lord says with which we can agree, and we are quite relieved, therefore, that we can on this occasion endorse some of his remarks. The time is rapidly coming when something further must be done in the matter of the registration of horses. It is a question for the agricultural community, as a whole, to consider. But it is evident, if we are to have our minds set at rest on this subject, we must adopt in this country some thing like the system which obtains in France or Germany, and I hope that hon. Members on that side who claim that they are more concerned for the agricultural community than some of us, although, as a matter of fact, there are representatives of agricultural constituencies on these benches, will do something to spread the idea among the community that there would be no harm in having this registration. On the next point raised by the Noble Lord, as to the sufficiency of horses in this country, I cannot agree with him. I think the evidence points to the fact that there are sufficient horses in the country, notwithstanding the enormous diminution—
    The CHAIRMAN: That really is a matter for Committee of Supply, and there are other opportunities on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss the question.
    Colonel GREIG: I would like to put at rest the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London with regard to the payment to be made to owners for loss or otherwise. There is provision an the Act that the Secretary of State shall
    974
    cause due payment to be made for carriages and horses furnished in pursuance of the Section, and, if the owner is not satisfied with the sum suggested he can appeal to the County Court Judge.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think the Prime Minister quite appreciated what I was driving at. I do not suggest it would be wise to define "emergency" in the Act of Parliament, but I do suggest that the Government should not contemplate using this provision for an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some assurance that other arrangements will be made. It would be far more satisfactory to the country to know that on an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force, this requisition will not be made.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will give the point consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of s. 145 of the Army Act).
    In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, which relates to the liability of a soldier of the Regular Forces to have deductions made from his pay on account of his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age whom he has deserted or left in destitute circumstances without reasonable cause, for the words "under fourteen years of age," there shall be substituted the words "under sixteen years of age."
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words:—
    "In Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act, which relates to the liability of a soldier of the Regular Forces to have deductions made from his pay on account of his wife or any of his legitimate children under fourteen years of age whom he has deserted or left in destitute circumstances without reason able cause, there shall be inserted at the beginning thereof the words, 'any officer or,' and at the end of the Section there shall be inserted, as a new Sub section,"—
    The Amendment, which, I hope, will receive the support of the Committee, although it appears to be somewhat formidable upon the Paper, embodies a very simple principle, and I will endeavour to

    975
    make my arguments on behalf of it as brief as possible. Section 145 commences:—
    "A soldier of the Regular forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children,"
    and so forth, and the only object of the three Amendments I have put down is to make that obligation apply all round—to make it applicable to all ranks in the Army, and not merely, as at present, to a private soldier or a non-commissioned officer. I admit that my interest in this matter has been aroused by a very hard individual case which came to my notice in my own Constituency—the case of the wife of a retired colonel who has been deserted by her husband for some years. The husband is now living with another woman. He is drawing a large pension from the Government, and yet he contributes nothing whatever to the support of his wife, who he left in destitute circumstances. I do not suggest we should base a change of the general law upon an individual case. I only mention that case, the details of which I shall be only too glad to give to the War Office if necessary, in order to have an opportunity of reading to the Committee extracts from correspondence which took place with regard to it some time ago between lawyers representing the lady in question and the War Office, in which the War Office stated the principle upon which its action in this case was based. This inquiry was addressed to the War Office by the firm of solicitors:
    "We shall be much obliged if you will kindly let us know whether, in the event of the lady obtaining an order for the payment of alimony or maintenance against an officer on half-pay, the Office will act on that order and deduct the alimony or maintenance from the pay or whether they will disregard the order."
    The reply given by the Adjutant-General at that time was:—
    "I beg to inform yon that if is not in accordance with our Regulations to take account of the payment of alimony or maintenance, or to deduct such alimony or maintenance from an officer's pay."
    [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the date of that?"] 1910. The War Office were asked whether it made any difference whether the officer was on half-pay or on the retired list, and the further letter from the Adjutant-General said:—
    "It makes no difference whether the officer is on half-pay or on the retired list, as it is not in accordance with our Regulations to take any action in such cases."
    That appears to be the attitude taken up by the War Office at the present time. I cannot help feeling that apart from the
    976
    fact that it is a very real hardship that any individual wife, whether the wife of a private soldier or the wife of an officer, should be deserted in these circumstances, that she should know her husband is drawing a considerable income from the State, but that it should be considered as sacred from an order of the Court. It is a hardship that he cannot be made to provide for her maintenance, and that the War Office should take up the position of protecting the officer or soldier, as the case may be, against the order of the Court and from making any provision for his deserted wife. The right hon. Gentleman the new Secretary of State for War said just now that in looking at a portion of the Army Act it had a very archaic look to him. When he has been long enough at the War Office he will find many other things which bear a rather archaic look, and I hope he will not hesitate to lay the axe to the root of the tree.
    In this particular case the attitude of the War Office is not merely archaic, but almost primeval; at any rate it is exceedingly undemocratic. I must frankly say that I am not quite sure whether the exact wording of my Amendment will efficiently carry out my purpose. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am in other respects a beginner, and I do not know that I have ever before drafted, entirely unaided, an Amendment to any Bill before the House. It is quite possible that the wording may not be entirely water-tight. In that case I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the War Office are willing to concede the principle, whether he will not consider some words which are more effective to carry it out and have them moved on the Report stage. I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the principle, which I think I have made sufficiently clear, and which is simply this: That the obligation laid by the words at the beginning of the Section on a soldier in the Regular forces to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and children under the circumstances specified, shall be taken in the broad sense that the word "soldier" shall apply to all ranks and more particularly, that the Regulations shall provide that while the pay of any soldier can be drawn upon for this purpose that the pay of an officer should not be exempted.
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir John-Simon): I agree that we should deal with the first Amendment first. The hon.

    977
    Gentleman will see that, supposing his proposal were accepted, we should have to make a consequential change a few sentences lower down. The question he has raised is not one to be disposed of by any technicality. I will try to deal with it on broad and common-sense lines. He has not, perhaps, quite appreciated the justification for the form in which the Statute at present stands. The Section to which he has referred is Section 145 of the Army Act, and, as he says, that Section begins:—
    "A soldier of the Regular forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and his children—"
    The hon. Member in his speech stopped there, and from what he said it might have been inferred from this Section of the Army Act that soldiers were to be liable to certain consequences to which other persons, officers or civilians, are not liable. It is not so at all. The effect of the Section is exactly the other way about. If I may summarise it, the effect of the Section is this: It provides in the case of a soldier, as distinguished from the officer, that though a soldier is liable on the desertion of his wife to maintain her, or liable on an affiliation summons, if it is proved that he is the father of the child, still, since he is a soldier, he is not on that account to have to suffer the ordinary penalties of the law, but special arrangements are made by which certain stoppages can be made out of his pay. That is substituted for the ordinary law in the case of a soldier. No such provision is made in the case of an officer, not because officers are exempt from the duty of maintaining their wives or from being answerable to an affiliation summons, if such summons is well founded, because the ordinary law applies to them. The hon. Gentleman will see that the provision in Section 145 is not really some special penalty which is attached to the common soldier in order that officers may be treated more favourably. On the contrary, it is a provision made in view of the special hardships of the life of the common soldier, and, it may be, the special difficulty of bringing the common soldier from a distance, and dealing with him like an ordinary citizen who has to answer an ordinary summons. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am making a technical point, because that is really the explanation of the matter. I will read the Section of the Army Act as
    978
    it stands, then I will indicate the change which the present Army (Annual) Bill proposes, and then I will refer to his Amendment. The Section in the Army Act says:—
    "A soldier—"
    That is, as distinguished from an officer—
    "shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife and of his children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father, to the same extent as if he were not a soldier; but execution in respect of any such liability, or of any order or decree in respect of such maintenance shall not issue against his person, pay, arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, regimental necessaries or clothing; nor shall he be liable to be punished for the offence of deserting or neglecting to maintain his wife or family, or any member thereof, or of leaving her or them chargeable to any union, parish, or place."
    So far it is plain. That is by way of exempting the common soldier from a law which does apply to the rest of the community. Then the Section goes on to provide in view of that, supposing the proceedings were taken against a soldier and an order were made under which he had to maintain his wife or child, or to pay maintenance in respect of a bastard child, then that order is to be communicated to the Army Council or an officer deputed by them, and, upon the Army Council or the officer so deputed being satisfied, then an order is to be made which will involve a deduction from his pay. That is an alternative procedure to the ordinary procedure of the law. If it were not for that the ordinary soldier in His Majesty's Army would be liable to have his pay, person, and anything that belonged to him dealt with under the ordinary law for this purpose. It is really a misapprehension to suppose that this Clause which the hon. Gentleman criticises confers some special favour on officers and puts a severe penalty on soldiers. So far as it goes, it is rather the other way about. Then the hon. Gentleman puts a case of which I am for the moment assuming the facts. Assuming such facts as he is instructed to put forward, it is obviously a case which everybody must feel is a very hard case on the lady concerned. But I must point out these two things—first, that the hardship of that case is not due to the fact that the husband who deserted her is a retired

    979
    officer. It is due to the fact that whatever proceedings a deserted wife may take, she can only make those proceedings effective and only get paid if the process of the law enables her to extract payment from the defendant. That is natural enough. In the second place, I point out that if it be true that in this case that the retired colonel has any kind of means except his retired pay, the lady, of course, can certainly execute process against anything else he has got—furniture, clothing, moveables, anything which is valuable and can be turned into money.
    Mr. LEE: He is in India.
    Sir J. SIMON: That is the same difficulty over again. If his only money is his retired pay, that is not peculiar to the Army Act. It may be that the House of Commons should consider whether or not the law ought to be altered, but the law at present—it is quite a general law—says that pensions which are paid to persons in respect of services to the State are not attachable. For instance, no charge can be given on such a pension to a moneylender. In the same way it is not possible, under the existing law, to execute a judgment against such a pension. It may be that it would be right to alter the law, but the hon. Gentleman will see that it cannot be altered under this Section of the Act of Parliament. There is another Section in the Act of Parliament under which the question may, perhaps, have to be considered. That is Section 136, which provides that
    "the pay of an officer or soldier of His Majesty's Regular forces shall be paid without any deduction other than the deductions authorised by this or any other Act or by any Royal Warrant for the time being."
    I think it right to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to that, because a deduction authorised by the Army Act might conceivably include a deduction in some cases not yet specified. While I am authorised to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he would consider most sympathetically any suggestion for the amendment of the law in this regard, I think I have said enough to show the hon. Gentleman that it really cannot be raised in the way he suggests, and that really and truly the law as it stands at present is not a law which confers a privilege on an officer at the expense of the common
    980
    soldier, but, so far as it goes, the Section under review has rather the reverse effect.
    Mr. LEE: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for the explanation he has given, and I quite admit that he has made it quite clear that my Amendment in its present form is impossible under the circumstances. I am quite prepared to kiss the Rod in regard to that point. I am more cheered by the closing remarks which he made, in which he very kindly referred me to Clauses 136 and 137. I think that Clause 137, about which I made an interjection, gives a list of penal deductions which may be made from the pay due to an officer, and I cannot help feeling that that list of deductions might be extended to cover a case of this kind, and whilst I do not wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to commit himself on this point, I would ask him to consider it carefully, with a view to either putting down an Amendment on the Report stage, if possible, in regard to one of these two Clauses, and he would then perhaps be able to give a more favourable reply, I only feel that, in view of the attitude which has been taken up by the War Office in regard to the document which I have read, he will see that it takes up a somewhat uncompromising and hostile attitude, in appearance at any rate, towards the victim in a case of this kind. I shall be glad if he will consider it and give me an opportunity of moving a more suitable Amendment on the Report stage.
    Sir J. SIMON: I should not like to make any promise about the Report stage, but, if the hon. Gentleman will meet me, perhaps he will allow me to communicate with him.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I do not think the Committee ought to let this important question of general principle go without discussing it a little further, because I do not think my hon. Friend (Mr. Lee) raised this question so much as a case of favour shown to an officer as compared with a man, but he rather raised it as an instance to show that a wife in this country who has been badly treated might, if her husband was an officer, and had no other means except his Army pay, be left entirely penniless upon the world, and this Army officer might enjoy his pay and his pension without contributing one penny to the upkeep of his wife or to any of his children under fourteen years of

    981
    age. That seems to me, whether it is the general rule of the and or not, a very wrong system indeed, and if we here in Committee can mitigate the general injustice which the law says now exists, namely, that no pay or pension of a public official shall be attached in order that the wife and children may be kept from starvation, in a small way, by a change with regard to Army officers, we ought to try and do so as soon as possible. It is no answer to say that, because there is a general evil, you ought to leave all that evil unredressed because you cannot redress it all at the same time. If you cannot redress it all at once, let us try if we can redress part of the evil which now presses upon a wife and children who are badly treated. None of the Committee can think it right that a man in any station of life, who is receiving £1,000, £500 or £300 a year from the State, whether it be in pay or pension or retired pay, should, if it comes from the State and he has no private means, be in a position to laugh at any Order of the Court made against him for the maintenance of his wife and children. It seems to me to be a scandalous state of affairs, and if that is the general law, the sooner we alter it, as we have the opportunity now in regard to the Army officer, the better. But there is one point which we have to consider. If I read the Section aright, at present only the daily pay of the private soldier can be attached to hand over to his wife and children and not his pension. My hon. Friend goes further, and says that not only the pay of an officer, but also his pension should be attached. If we had to do justice we should have to attach the pension of the private soldier as well as the pension of the Army officer. I appeal to the Committee not to allow this to pass, but to insist that this grave injustice which exists in regard to the wives and children of Army officers should be put right, and that the Government should be pressed by their own side to put this right on the Report stage.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I heartily endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend and I think the Committee ought not to part with this question without getting some direct assurance from the Government that they would deal with the matter on Report, because undoubtedly a case of very grave and serious grievance may exist under the present law. There may be an order or a judgment made against an officer for the maintenance of his wife or children, or an order under an affiliation summons, for
    982
    which the officer is theoretically liable to the last shilling which is available, but when a person who is entitled to get the money comes to try and execute the order and get the fruits of the judgment there may be very great difficulty in getting anything at all. He may be abroad, for one thing, and, according to the existing law, it is quite impossible to get paid out of the officer's pay, because the Act says that only certain deductions may be made. Therefore, if the officer has nothing but his pay, the person may be entirely deprived of the fruits of his or her judgment, because the pay is not to be made available or attachable. In the same way, if an officer is only in receipt of a pension, the existing law precludes that pension being attached in the case of an officer as in the case of many other public servants. That is a very large question, but I think that in that case, just the same as in the case of the officer who is in the active service of the Army, there ought to be some provision by which a man ought to be prevented from deserting his wife and children and then saying that the provision as to his pension relieves him from making any payment for which he is liable. Therefore I hope, just as in the case of the private soldier, there are provisions for the Army authorities to deduct sums from his pay in order to meet these smaller liabilities, so in the case of the officer provision should be made that his pay, if he is on the active list, or possibly his pension if he has retired from the active list, should be made available to a certain extent, at all events, for meeting these undoubted liabilities.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are two questions before the Committee. The first is whether or not an officer who is on active service and on full pay and who fails to maintain his wife and children should, or should not, have a certain sum deducted from his pay for the purpose of paying his wife and children. I was not quite certain, but I rather gathered from the Attorney-General that that practically should be provided for at present.
    Sir J. SIMON: I did not wish to affirm that.
    Sir F. BANBURY: At any rate I gather that the Attorney-General will consider that point at a later stage. The other point is whether or not an officer who is on retired pay should have that retired pay attached. That, I think, raises a very

    983
    important question, but I do not think it is a question which ought to be raised now, nor do I think it is a question which should be settled by one isolated case. Hard cases make bad law. The law, as I understand it at present, is that the pay of Civil servants is not attachable. There is a very great number of excellent reasons why that provision should not be altered, but it is evident to anyone who has studied the question that that is a very important provision. If that provision is to be altered it should be altered to meet the ease not only of the officer, but of the Civil servant, and everybody else who is in receipt of a pension from the State. It is much more important that it should be altered generally, because, as a matter of fact, the pensions of officers are about the smallest which are given to anyone, and the larger pensions certainly make the worst cases—where a man is really in receipt of £500 or £800 or £1,000 a year, and does not provide for his wife and children, is worse than where a man is only getting £150 or £200, as is very often the case with retired officers. Therefore, the Solicitor-General is absolutely right, and this is not the opportunity or the time when we ought to consider this. It ought to be considered on the general question. Whether or not some amendment of the general law that attachment should be made in the case of the maintenance of wives and children is advisable, I do not know. Perhaps it is, but that is a question which should be met by the general law and not in the Army (Annual) Act.
    Mr. CAWLEY: I hope the Government will consider this point and will agree to alter the law as it exists as regards officers on Report. I agree that an alteration should, if possible, be made as regards Civil servants, too. It is very hard to get legislation passed in this House, and the chance of getting a general alteration of the law is, I believe, small. If we cannot get the whole, there is no reason why we should not get a part. Because we cannot get the law put right as regards Civil servants, I see no reason why it should not be put right as regards officers.
    Mr. LEE: I withdraw my Amendment now on the understanding that I may be allowed to confer with the Attorney-General with a view to bringing forward an Amendment on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "And for the words 'a portion not exceeding, in respect of a wife and children, one shilling and six pence, and in respect of a bastard child one shilling, of the daily pay of a warrant officer not holding an honorary commission, and not exceeding, in respect of a wife or children, one shilling, and in respect of a bastard child seven pence, of the daily pay of a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of sergeant, and not exceeding, in respect of a wife or children, six pence, and in respect of a bastard child four pence, of the daily pay of any other soldier, to be deducted from such daily pay, there-shall be substituted the words 'such amount as the Army Council may from time to time prescribe to be deducted from the daily pay of the soldier,' and at the end of the cited Sub-section there shall be added the following provisions, namely:—
    The power to prescribe the amount to be deducted under this Sub-section from the pay of a soldier shall include a power to prescribe different amounts in different cases, and a power to prescribe different amounts from time to time in the same case.
    Where an amount is deducted under this Sub-section from the pay of a soldier no arrears shall accrue in consequence of any difference between the amount so deducted and the amount duo under the order or decree sent as aforesaid."
    I have attempted now for four years running, I think, to effect some alteration in Section 145 of the Army Act. I am proud to think that each year proposals which have emanated from below the Gangway have been accepted the year after by the Treasury Bench, and have been put into force with the general consent. I should like to thank the War Office for the sympathetic way in which it has accepted, or at any rate regarded, my proposal. They have altered the amount which may be deducted from the non-commissioned officer or private by raising the sum; they have also allowed costs which are incurred in certain proceedings to be paid by deductions from the pay of soldiers; and they have also, by the Bill which we are now discussing, raised the age of the children from fourteen to sixteen, and that is the age in respect of which a soldier is bound to support his

    985
    legitimate child. On this occasion I move an Amendment which rather alters the whole condition of Clause 145. According to Clause 145 a soldier who has had an order made against him by the local Courts for the support of a wife and children, or an illegitimate child, pays by having deductions made through the commanding officer, and the deductions, when made, are sent direct to the woman or guardian of the child. They are made according to a certain scale which provides that in the case of a wife and children a deduction of 1s. 6d. may be made, and in the case of an illegitimate child 1s. In a case where the soldier is a non-commissioned officer who is not below the rank of a sergeant, a deduction of a 1s. may be made to support a wife or children, and of 7d. in respect of an order to support an illegitimate child. The amounts are 6d. and 4d. respectively in the case of a private.
    I come forward to-day with a proposal which, I believe, possesses one or two points which will be valuable, and ought to be accepted by all parties concerned. My proposal is that instead of having a fixed scale of deduction, it should be left to the Army Council to prescribe how much in each case should be deducted from a soldier's pay. In many cases this proposal would have very strong advantages. One is this. In many cases the amount deducted is much less than what the soldier could pay. Take the case of a soldier below the rank of a sergeant. If he is a trooper in a Household Cavalry regiment he is receiving 14s. a week—that is 2s. a day. But if he is only a private in an Infantry regiment he is receiving only 1s. a day. Therefore, you may say that the rule as to deductions which applies to one who has just twice as much pay as the other does not work out fairly, or, at any rate, equally. If power were given to the Army Council to prescribe the scale, or to take the circumstances in each case into consideration, much more fairness and equity would be done. Then there is the further point that, under the present law, if the deductions amount at the end of the week to a less sum than has been awarded by the Court, arrears begin to accumulate, and the soldier when he leaves the Army is faced with a considerable amount of arrears, for which he may be sued, and, in fact, often is put in prison. Let me give an illustration, because I think this is a most important point. Suppose a soldier is the father of
    986
    an illegitimate child in respect of which he has been ordered by the Court to pay 3s. 6d. a week, if he is under the rank of a sergeant deductions are only made to the extent of 4d. a day, or 2s. 4d. a week, and arrears are therefore mounting up in this case at the rate of 1s. 2d. a week. At the end of the year he is £3 9s. in arrears, and at the end of three years he is over £10 in arrears, and when he leaves the Army, hoping to get some place, suppose the woman has handed over her interest to some of these lawyers who are out to get as much as they can, and to take their costs out of what they can get, that man may be persecuted, and often is persecuted. He may be put in prison, and he may have the conditions of his employment rendered so impossible that he may have to leave a good employer.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Member quote any instance of a soldier being ordered to pay 3s. 6d. a week? Is not 2s. 6d. generally the amount?
    Mr. KING: I know of cases where the order has been for more than that. I have seen the papers to-day in regard to the case of a soldier who was ordered to pay 4s. a week. There are many soldiers—for instance, sergeants and troopers in Household regiments—who are receiving quite enough money to pay that sum. Although it is not often, I know that soldiers are sometimes adjudged to pay more than 2s. 6d. or 3s.
    Colonel YATE: When I say soldiers I refer to privates.
    Mr. KING: I know cases in which it might be justifiable that he should pay what I have said. Especially in view of the efforts that are now being made by the War Office to give soldiers when they leave the Army steady and good employment, I think this Amendment should be accepted. It has been approved by many people to whom I have submitted it, and who have much more experience than I have myself. I believe that if next year it could be arranged to sweep away all the statutory deductions, and leave it within the power of the Army Council, or even the commanding officer, in each case to judge the amount to be deducted from the man's pay, very considerable benefit would accrue to all parties: and if with that you sweep away the principle of arrears mounting up on the soldier all the time when he is paying what he is supposed by law to pay, you would help the soldier in such cases.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must recognise that the efforts he has made in previous years in connection with this branch of our Army law with the object of making it more humane and reasonable have been sympathetically received by the War Office, and that considerable progress has been made in that direction. He is trying to take another step this year on the progress he has made in the past, and while I do not wish to express any conclusive opinion in opposition to the proposal—on the contrary, I believe further advance will be made before we finish with regard to these matters—I must just for a moment examine the argument he has put forward, and state what seem to me the prima facie objections. So far as I appreciate his argument, it is this, that the fixed and inflexible scale should be repealed, and that certain discretion should be allowed to the Army Council or the commanding officers. There is a certain amount prima facie of justice in that. On the other hand, my hon. Friend seems to overlook that while obliterating the fixed scale, and leaving it entirely to the Army Council to exercise in particular eases what is their view of justice, he would create the possibility of great difficulties in this matter. I am not at all sure that the common soldier would desire the arrangement he proposes in respect of his wife and family, or even his illegitimate children. I am not sure that the common soldier would not prefer to know in advance what are his liabilities in respect of any such misadventures in future, rather than that he should be exposed to the uncertain arbitrament of the Army Council, which may be composed at different times of different people who may have somewhat varying standards on questions of moral rectitude. It is possible that the private soldier would say that he would rather know for certainty what are his liabilities if temptation should overcome him, than be left in the position of complete uncertainty in which he would be left if this Amendment were carried. I am rather disposed to think that this matter had better receive a little further consideration before we commit ourselves upon it one way or the other.
    Sir J. D. REES: I would like to say, as one who has acted in the position of a magistrate, how rightfully the view of the common private soldier has been stated by the Prime Minister, and how erroneous
    988
    is the view of his hon. follower. If there is one thing the private soldier would dislike in this matter, it is the change proposed by the hon. Member. I do not believe that anyone could more accurately express the feeling of the private soldier in such a matter than the Prime Minister has done. It may seem rather bold of me to get up and say so, but probably there are not many Members of the House who, from experience as a magistrate, know the feelings of the private soldier better than I do. I am sincerely glad that the Government will not accept the Amendment.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: Nobody, not even the Prime Minister, has referred to my plea that soldiers should be let off arrears. I suggest that a soldier, when he has paid what he is supposed to pay by law, should not go out of the Army with £10 arrears hanging round his neck. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) did not do me the honour of listening to my speech, and therefore he was all the more certain that I was wrong. But I must insist that the Committee will not judge my proposal aright unless it takes into account this question of arrears. The sweeping away of arrears which I propose would be a decided gain, to balance what I admit might be, as pointed out in the Prime Minister's speech, regarded as a loss by the soldier, and it is a matter, I think, to which, on the whole, the soldier would agree.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: The passing of this Amendment would throw a lot of work upon the Army Council, whose energies, I think, ought to be employed on greater things. I think it also has the effect of making the liability of the soldier uncertain. As for letting him off with the arrears, what are the ratepayers going to say about that? It seems to rather give the soldier a kind of preferential treatment in regard to these matters, both of legitimacy and illegitimacy, by enabling him to go away without paying his arrears, whilst many other people less able to do so have to pay for the maintenance or their derelict wife or children. I do not think that is a good principle. I think if a soldier incurs these liabilities he ought to pay up, and I feel sure that if the liability for arrears be taken away from him, it would be objected to by the large class of people outside who would be called upon to make up the deficiency.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert,
    "(2) So much of Sub-section (3) of the cited Section as provides that in certain cases service of process shall not be valid unless there be left therewith in the hands of the commanding officer a certain sum of money shall not apply where the proceeding is in respect of a matter of bastardy and the soldier either admits or does not deny to the commanding officer paternity of the child in respect of whom the proceeding is instituted."
    This Amendment is in respect to the practice of providing a sum of money to cover the cost of the service of process in cases where a soldier has to be brought to the Courts. If he has moved or happens to be outside the jurisdiction of the Court where the process is being taken against him the cost of the process has to be found by the woman or the person who is suing, and very often it becomes a very great hardship and difficulty. In cases where a soldier has been removed, say, from London to Edinburgh or Ireland, it makes it practically impossible to bring him to Court, because the cost of his journey from where he is situated to the Court and back again has to be provided before the summons can be returned. The Amendment I propose is of a simple character, and I hope it will do no injustice to anybody. It simply proposes that where the man who is summoned admits to his commanding officer the paternity of the child there should be no necessity to provide the service money. In cases like this it is very often unnecescary for the soldier to attend, and it is obviously to his advantage that the costs which may be given against him, and may be recovered by deduction from his pay, should be as little as possible. My proposal is that n certain circumstances the conduct money need not be found and provided in the case of a summons served upon a commanding officer.
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this matter. I was very glad to hear his remarks in moving the other Amendment upon the manner in which his proposals had been received in other matters, and I think he had good reason for taking pride in the action he has taken. In regard to the Amendment it is not an unreasonable thing to ask that these costs should be provided. It is very difficult to know what an admission or a denial means exactly.
    990
    In these circumstances I would urge my hon. Friend not to press this to a Division.
    Mr. KING: After the sympathetic words which have fallen front the Under-Secretary of State for War, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to insert,
    "(2) In Sub-section (3) of the cited Section there shall be substituted for the words 'under orders for service' the words 'under orders for active service."'
    This Amendment is also a simple one, and one in which, I think, I shall certainly get a good deal of sympathy from all quarters of the House. The law at present is that if a soldier is summoned in respect of a bastard child, and if, at the time of the service of the summons, he is under orders to go abroad, the summons is invalid and cannot be served, and he cannot be brought to justice. It is a strange coincidence that on the Question Paper to-day there appears question No. 77, which shows a very clear case of the operation of this provision. I can well understand that where a soldier is under orders for active service abroad nothing in the way of any sort of legal proceeding should prevent his going abroad to do the duty which his country expects of him. But in view of the fact that this provision can be, and often is, made the ground of actual injustice, I think that to alter it to make it apply only to soldiers tinder orders for active service is a very good and reasonable suggestion. Supposing that a soldier sees that a trouble of this kind is before him, he can apply for transfer into another regiment which he knows is going abroad, and as soon as he is under orders to go abroad he can get out of his responsibility in this matter. That is a ruse, or dodge, which to my own knowledge has actually been pursued. It is, I am sure, the cause of great injustice, and many soldiers get out of their responsibilities in this way by pleading that they are under orders for service abroad. I think the point is quite clear, and, if not, I am ready to try to make it plainer later on. I hope I shall get some sympathy in respect to this proposal.
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter raised by this Amendment of my hon. Friend is one the importance of which I am the last to deny. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend stated, that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) asked a questions

    991
    to-day about a similar instance; where an apparent injustice, and possibly a real injustice, has been done through the operation of the existing law. But I would point out to the Committee how the remedy offered in this case is not the best one. The sending of troops abroad is not an uncommon event. Soldiers may be sent for five or seven years to foreign stations. If we allowed them to be detained for reasons of this kind, a large number of them might have to be sent straight home, and the drafts could not go to the stations in full. That is the practical difficulty in considering whether such an Amendment should be incorporated in the Army Act. I am very willing to consider such a reform as my hon. Friend puts forward, but I must remind the Committee that this matter has been before the Imperial Conference in another form, namely, whether exactions or deductions from pay shall be made in all quarters of His Majesty's Dominions. I believe that is one of the, recommendations made by the Imperial Conference. Since the Amendment appeared upon the Paper I have not had time to consult the Colonial Office, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I will make this promise to my hon. Friend, that I will consult my right hon. Friend and ascertain whether it is not desirable to make it possible that deductions and exactions from the pay of the soldier shall be made no matter what part of His Majesty's Dominions he may be serving in. I think that is the best method of overcoming the difficulty which my hon. Friend has brought forward.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I hope that the War Office will be able to do something without much delay in this matter. There was a case in York which has excited consider able attention, and which I think shows how a grave injustice may be done in the existing circumstances. A girl gave birth to an illegitimate child on the 14th November last year. The sergeant, who was the father of the child, and so far as I can understand there was no denial of the fact—
    Mr. TENNANT: Was there an admission?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: There was not an admission, but there was no denial, and I believe the fact is that within four days of the birth of the child, the sergeant was asked to go to the room to see the child.
    992
    The girl gave birth to the child on the 14th November, and the sergeant was placed under orders to go abroad on the 22nd November. He was served with a bastardy summons in the early part of December before the girl had the remotest idea that he was placed under orders for service beyond the seas, and the summons was brought before the magistrates' Court at York on Monday, the 15th December. When the case was brought up, the solicitor, on behalf of the defendant, urged that the provisions of the Army Act prevented the magistrates from dealing with the case, as the defendant was ordered abroad. That contention was overruled by the magistrates, and an order of 3s. 6d. a week was granted to the girl, but the War Office felt that they must accept the contention of the solicitor, and they have not enforced the order. What I mean is this: The case was put before the War Office, and the reply was:—
    "I am afraid that there is no doubt that in view of the very precise provisions, of the Army Act there is no other course open to the War Office than to accept the contention of the sergeant's solicitor"
    The War Office have perfectly frankly desired to treat this case sympathetically, but they feel that the provisions of the Act are such that it is impossible to enforce the order made in the magistrates' Court. I want to urge very strongly that really a grave injustice has been done to this woman. As a matter of fact the sergeant was within ten minutes' walk of the Court when this ease was tried, and it seems to me perfectly clear that something does want to be done to ensure that justice shall prevail in cases like this. I recognise fully that the object of the Section clearly is to prevent a soldier from being compelled to attend the Court at a time when it might seriously interfere with his regimental duties, or prevent his going abroad with his regiment. But if that is the case I think it is perfectly clear that something wants doing in the direction of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but I am not sure that even that would go far enough, because I suppose a man might be under orders to go abroad for active service and yet might remain some weeks in the country before actually going abroad; so that I am not quite sure that the Amendment would meet the case. I desire to say again that I recognise that the War Office wants to meet cases like this. I think it is perfectly clear that some change is absolutely necessary unless injustice is going to be done, and I do hope that it is possible, before the Report stage, for the

    993
    Government to see their way to bring forward some Amendment which will enable cases of this kind to be met.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add
    "(2) The following Sub-section shall be inserted at the end of the cited Section, namely:—
    (4) Where a soldier has consented to any stoppage of pay in respect of any matter of bastardy, such stoppage may continue notwithstanding that he withdraws his consent, if the Army Council, or any officer deputed by them for the purpose, so direct.
    For the purposes of the Sub-section so inserted it shall be immaterial whether the consent therein referred to was before or after the commencement of this Act."
    This Amendment is of a perfectly clear and plain character. The soldier who has obligations to his wife and child, or illegitimate child, agrees to a stoppage from his payment. Very often proceedings are not taken, and the stoppage of payment is acted on, the money being sent for the benefit of the wife or child. But it sometimes happens that a man withdraws his consent when he goes abroad. Two cases of this character have come under my notice, where soldiers have been paying while in England, and, when they have gone abroad, they have withdrawn their consent to their pay being stopped, leaving the woman and child unable to obtain any redress. This is obviously a mean thing to do, and I think in such cases something might be agreed upon. I shall not press my Amendment, of course, but I wish to bring the case to the notice of the War Office authorities with the object of securing that the soldier, when once he has consented to a stoppage of his pay, shall not be allowed to go abroad and get out of his responsibility by withdrawing his consent. I hope I shall get some promise from the representative of the War Office that, at any rate, the matter will be considered.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am uncertain whether, in regard to the Section to which this Amendment refers, anything is really required to effect the object which my hon. Friend has in his mind. But I engage to consider the point with my legal adviser with a view to seeing if any action is necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 5 and remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    TRADE DISPUTES (EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY).
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), I see that there are two other new Clauses dealing with the same subject, namely, the employment of troops during trade disputes in aid of the civil power, and as it would be difficult to prevent the Debate overlapping, perhaps it will be agreeable to hon. Members to take the Debate on the three new Clauses together.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of Troops during Trade Disputes.)
    It shall be unlawful to employ troops in the case of any disturbance arising out of a trade dispute until all the available police forces, ordinary and special, both in the immediate and surrounding districts, have been called into requisition, and, in any case, no troops shall be so employed without the consent or application of three magistrates resident in the town or district in which the disturbance occurs.—[Mr. Keir Hardie.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I am very glad that the Chairman has suggested the arrangement of debating the three new Clauses together, otherwise the discussion would have overlapped and would have caused inconvenience. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman is a good one, and it is acceptable to us. I desire to move this Amendment in as non-controversial spirit as possible, and I shall only refer to passing events in so far as it is necessary to illustrate my argument. It is now a matter of common knowledge that the employment of troops in connection with civil disturbances, whether connected with trade disputes or ordinary rioting, is only permissible when the resources of the civil authorities have failed or are in danger of being overpowered. That is the law and the theory, I believe. But our complaint is that the law is not always so observed. A classic case in support of that statement was the great railway dispute of 1911. On that occasion some 86,000 soldiers were ordered out before the I strike took place, and when there was no

    995
    disturbance or threat of disturbance as far as anybody knew of any kind. Not only so, but the theory of the law is that when soldiers are called out in connection with a civil disturbance, it shall only be at the request of the duly appointed magistrate, and that the troops, when brought out, shall be more or less under his control and direction. The chief magistrate in boroughs and the justices of the peace in counties have this power. It has never been repudiated, as far as I know, and it therefore stands at present, that not only where the military, in the case to which I have referred, called out before the strike took place, but they were not placed under the control of the proper civil authority. A well-known illustration of that is the case of Manchester, where the civil authorities were opposed to the troops being brought to the city, and where the troops were brought in without the chief magistrate, the chief constable, or any local authority being either consulted or having their favourable opinion obtained. The first part of the new Clause deals with that state of affairs, and proposes that troops should not be called out in connection with civil disputes, or rather industrial trade disputes—because we confine ourselves to that here—until all the available police forces, ordinary and special, both in the immediate and surrounding districts, have been called into requisition.
    Those of us who are familiar with trade disputes and with disturbances in connection therewith can testify from our own personal experience that when there is a serious disturbance it is, as often as not, the result of soldiers being called in, and the danger arises from that as much as from any other cause. Therefore I suggest to the War Office that they should so amend the Act that some proof would require to be forthcoming that all the available civil forces have proved, or are likely to prove insufficient before the military are requisitioned. At the present time troops may be requisitioned by one magistrate, and we submit that that is too great a power to place in the hands of one man. There is the case of Featherstone, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Asquith) will recollect, and in which troops were requisitioned at the request of one magistrate, who, I understand, was the colliery owner. There was a strike at the colliery; there was some dispute about men loading coal, and one of the owners of that colliery, or
    996
    the adjoining colliery, as a magistrate, requisitioned for troops to be sent. If it had been an offence under the Mines Regulation Act the magistrate could not have sat on the bench to try the case, because the law provides that no interested person shall try a case. We submit that means should be adopted to prevent one man—who is very likely biassed and prejudiced, or is under nervous strain caused by his fearing damage being done by strikers—from having this power which magistrates now possess; and we, therefore, advise in this new Clause that no troops shall be employed in connection with trade disputes—that is to say, that no troops shall be employed without the consent or application of three magistrates resident in the town or district in which the disturbance occurs. We submit that that would safeguard the position, and prevent the ready resort to troops which of late has become far too common both in this country and in South Africa.
    Under your ruling, Sir, I may also refer to the second Amendment, which deals with the equipment of troops during trade disputes. The armed forces of the State are there for the purpose of resisting the invasion of armed troops from some other country. If war is to be engaged in at all, that cannot be objected to. The invaders coming are armed, and those engaged to resist them are therefore entitled to use lethal weapons also, but in the case of a trade dispute, or disturbance arising therefrom, the so-called rioters or strikers are not armed, and therefore what we propose is that when it is necessary to call out the, forces of the Crown, to meet an unarmed mob of people that they shall not use such deadly weapons as modern rifles are known to be. It has happened on two occasions within my recollection that when troops have been called out in connection with a trade dispute, and where shooting has taken place, on both occasions the persons who were killed by shots fired by a soldier were neither strikers nor rioters. The present Secretary for War will remember the case of the two men who were killed at Featherstone. They were a considerable distance away from the scene of the disturbance, and, as a matter of fact, were returning home from a prayer meeting, one of them carrying his Bible under his arm. One of those two men was killed outright and the other died subsequently from his injuries.
    In the other case where firing took place, once more the victims were not strikers or mixed up with the crowd. One

    997
    man was sitting on the wall of his own garden looking on at what was happening, and both men were shot dead. What we submit is that on an occasion such as that, when disturbance is either going on or is threatened, the troops called out should not be armed with rifles and other deadly weapons, but should be armed after the manner of the police. The batons used by the police are sufficient to quell or suppress any rioting that there is likely to be. We further suggest that when troops are so employed they shall not be subjected to military law, but shall be part and parcel of the ordinary civil force, and if they commit an offence that they shall not be tried by military court-martial, but by the ordinary law Courts of the land. We put forward these proposals, not to deprive the Government of its necessary power for suppressing disturbances where those exist, but we ask that instead of the force so used being military, with all that that implies, that it shall be civil. We believe we are thereby humanising the administration of the law, and I hope that whoever replies on behalf of the War Office will be able to give us an assurance that consideration will be given to the proposals which we are submitting, and that, if not now at this moment, at least at some no distant date, such reforms may be indicated as will give effect to the proposals which we are now submitting. I beg to move.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The point which my hon. Friend has raised, and which is raised by one or two subsequent Amendments, is one the importance of which it is very difficult to exaggerate. As he has reminded me, I have had myself a very painful experience in regard to this matter. When I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, now a great many years ago, a disturbance took place in the West Riding of Yorkshire in connection with an industrial dispute, and the military were called in, the civil power in its ordinary resources being unable to cope with the situation, with the result that I think two persons lost their lives and three were injured. Some of them, at any rate, not only had no complicity in the rioting itself which was going on, but were innocent spectators. I had very little to do with the matter, although, and my hon. Friend has forgotten it now, for some years afterwards he used to lose no opportunity in his genial and agreeable way of describing me on the public platform as an assassin.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have not changed my mind on that event.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Apart from that, it is a most serious and difficult question—that is to say, first of all, What are the occasions on which it is lawful and expedient for the civil power to invoke military assistance; and next, What are the duties and responsibilities of the military when, in response to such a call, they appear upon the scene of the disturbance? Now, Sir, I do not think the law, the common law, on the subject is at present in any doubt. It was stated very clearly in the Report of the Commission, which I appointed after that unfortunate disturbance at Featherstone about twenty years ago, on the authority of one of the greatest lawyers of our time, the late Lord Bowen, who was assisted also by the present Lord Chancellor (Lord Haldane), and I think it is, all lawyers will agree, locus classicus. I am not going to read many extracts, but the effect of their Report was this, and it puts the matter more clearly than it was put before or since:—
    "By the law of this country everyone is bound to aid in the suppression of riotous assemblages."
    Not of course in the suppression of trade disputes. It does not matter what may be the occasion that has led to the gathering and the action of that riotous assembly.
    "The degree of force which may be used in their suppression depends on the nature of each riot, for the force used must always be moderated and proportioned to the circumstances of the case, and to the end to be attained."
    That is the general principle. Then as regards the military.
    "Officers and soldiers are under no special privileges, and subject to no special responsibilities, as regards this principle of the law. A soldier for the purpose of establishing civil order is only a citizen armed in a particular manner. He cannot, because he is a soldier, excuse himself if without, any necessity he takes human life. The duty of magistrates and peace officers to summon or to abstain from summoning the assistance of the military depends in like manner on the necessities of the case. A soldier can only act by using his arms. The weapons he carries are deadly. To call for assistance against rioters from those who can only interpose tinder such grave conditions ought, of course, to be the last expedient of the civil authorities."
    I pause there to point out to my hon. Friend that in so far as this Amendment is intended to assert the doctrine, that if and so long and so far as the ordinary police resources at the disposal of the civil authority are reasonably adequate for the purpose, the military ought not to be called in, that is a mere affirmation of the common law, which does not require any statutory recognition or sanction. The law is, and always has been the same. On the other hand regrettable, and happily

    999
    exceptional as are the circumstances under which the aid of the military can be invoked, I must say I regard it as of great importance that it should never be supposed that they are exempt from the duty which lies on all citizens in this country to render assistance to the civil power, if and when the public peace is disturbed. It is a duty, as the Commissioners pointed out, imposed on them not as soldiers but as citizens. It is not because of their military status, it might almost be said despite their military status, but it is a duty which their military status does not absolve them from discharging. They must discharge it, if and when the occasion arises, like every other citizen to the best of their ability and with all the resources at their disposal.
    Mr. WARDLE: If the military are called in, does not the officer then take charge, and has the military officer not the power to order his men to fire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Very grave responsibility is thrown on the officer, but it is not enough for the magistrate to say to the military "shoot, use your lethal weapons against this crowd," to absolve the military officer from subsequent civil or even criminal proceedings. Very grave responsibility is thrown upon him, and he must exercise his own judgment, his independent judgment, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Of course, I agree the position of the soldier, who is subject to military law is one of the what has always been regarded, I will not call it an inconvenience, but is one of the incidents of the case. Technically, no doubt, a soldier qua citizen is entitled to exercise the same judgment. The fact that he is subject, to military law makes him, when he is obeying a command from the officer and imposes on him what you may call a double burden of responsibility, which in conceivable circumstances it might be very difficult for him adequately to discharge. But the truth is, in practice, these difficulties between officers and soldiers do not arise, or rarely, happily very rarely, and I do not think that any statutory definition could really render the law plainer or more equitable, or, in the long run, more humane than the law as it has been established by the practice of centuries in this country. In this matter we are all of us really on common
    1000
    ground. We deprecate the employment of the military as a thing which ought not to be resorted to except in the last extremity. On the other hand, salus populi suprema lex, and if disturbances leading to destruction of property and menace to life cannot be quelled in any other way by the ordinary resources at the disposal of the civil authority, I think in the whole interests of every class of the community it is in the highest degree undesirable to question the sanctity of the immemorial duty of soldiers as well as citizens to take their share in what is really a common burden.
    Then my hon. Friend suggests that soldiers ought not to be armed with their ordinary weapons unless they are dealing with a riotous assembly which is similarly equipped. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ulster!"] Do not let us go into particulars. Let us deal with the thing, as far as we know it, in a general way. I confess I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It would be perfectly impracticable to carry it out. You might have a crowd of which a comparatively small number were armed with revolvers and so forth. Is the soldier then to say, "Only 10 per cent. of these people are armed like myself; therefore, I must not fire"? Or you might have a crowd armed with weapons which, though not small arms and ammunition, are quite as dangerous to life and limb—scythes, knives, and all sorts of things—or resorting, as unfortunately not infrequently happens, to arson on a large scale, burning houses and factories and shops. To say that when persons are engaged in these dangerous and, to the public, most injurious operations, the mere fact that they are not armed themselves or not wholly armed with lethal weapons should prevent the soldier from resorting to such means as are at his dispoal for the purpose of restoring peace, is, in my opinion, in point of reason, absolutely illogical, and, in point of practice, completely unworkable. Therefore, I do not think it is in the interests of any part of the community that a new practice of this kind should be established or recognised by the Statute law of the country. But while I say that, I associate myself, and I am sure we all do in every quarter of the House without any distinction of party, with the desire that the intervention of the military in civil affairs and civil disputes should be as rare and as exceptional as possible.

    1001
    In this country it is the business of the civil power and of Parliament, which sustains the civil power, to provide adequate resources for maintaining the peace. The police force of this country is happily a very different and a much more efficient thing than it was fifty or a hundred years ago, when most of the cases which are recorded in our books occurred. The power which the law now gives by Statute to the police authority in cases of emergency to borrow police force from other authorities, not only adjacent, but throughout the country, is a power which, when I was at the Home Office, I used constantly to urge on local authorities as the proper means of escape from the difficult situation they were in, and one which, I hope and believe, will be increasingly invoked and exercised by them. We all desire to sec the military kept out as far as possible, and as long as possible, from any intervention in civil affairs; but in the last resort it would be, in the interest of the community at large and of every class of the community, a great mistake to relieve those of our fellow citizens who are soldiers, and subject to the obligations of military law, of the obligations which rest upon every subject of the King in case of necessity to aid the civil power in the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.
    I hope my hon. Friend will not press the new Clause. I think he is very well entitled to move it for the purpose of raising discussion and eliciting opinion; but, apart from the merits of the case, it is not really relevant to the Army (Annual) Act. We are dealing here with the discipline of the Army. Although you, Sir, have allowed the new Clause to be taken—and we must assume that it is within the ambit of the laws of order—if any new principle of this kind is to be thought desirable it should not be laid down in the Army Act, but should form the subject of a special enactment having regard to all the circumstances and contingencies which affect the subject-matter. I do not think, however, that this would be the proper time or place to introduce such an innovation. Apart from this more or less technical objection, I think my hon. Friend will agree that the doctrines I have laid down, which are sanctioned by all the great authorities on our common law, are doctrines which, if properly carried out, are intended to protect, and have the effect of protecting, on the one hand, the soldier from unnecessary intervention in civil strife, and, on the other hand, the community,
    1002
    which, if the soldier could not in the last resort be called in, might find itself at the mercy of mischievously disposed persons. I do not think that the law in this respect could be more satisfactorily formulated than it is at present, though I agree that the execution of it requires on the part, both of the central and of the local authority, the utmost delicacy of adjustment and discretion.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The Prime Minister has given us, as he always does, a very clear exposition of the existing law and of the rights of soldiers, and civilians. If I may borrow his own phraseology, we take note of the phrase that the military should be used only in the last possible resort. That, indeed, is the view held in all quarters of the House. Hon. Members opposite have sometimes seemed to accuse the Opposition of being not adverse to the use of troops in times of industrial disputes. That is a great libel on the Unionist party. When I heard an hon. Member on the Labour Benches the other day say that officers had no objection to shooting down trade unionists I had a very strong feeling of indignation at what, I am sure, was the grossest libel. Everyone objects to the use of troops in industrial disputes, except in case of gravest emergency and direst necessity. We all agree that in civil disturbances it is the police force which ought primarily to be used, and that the troops should be brought in only when it is absolutely essential. The Prime Minister has sketched very clearly the grave responsibility which rests upon officers and men in the Army when called out under these circumstances. It ought to be borne in mind that the higher the rank of the officer the greater is his responsibility, because he is responsible not only for his own actions, but also for the orders which be gives to his subordinates. Therefore, although the individual soldier has a degree of responsibility in the exercise of the force which he possesses—that is, by firing the rifle which is in his hand—the sergeant has a greater responsibility than the private, the captain than the sergeant, the colonel than the captain, and so on, because they are ordering a far greater use of force than any one individual can employ. In these circumstances, officers are put in a very difficult position indeed.
    The Prime Minister did not make it quite clear what would be the position of, say, a junior officer who thought that excessive force was contemplated by his senior

    1003
    officer. If the junior officer refused to fire, I do not know whether he would be subject to court-martial, or, if he fired and it was afterwards found that excessive force had been used, whether he would be subject to civil law. If that is the case, and I believe it is, there can be no doubt that officers and men alike are in all matters of this kind in circumstances of great difficulty and responsibility. That being so, I think there is a great deal to be said for the argument raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) that the force which they are called upon to exercise should, in the first instance, be limited. It is quite possible that the police, if there were a sufficient number of them, would in ordinary cases be able to cope with the rioting. The difficulty is in most cases that a sufficient number cannot be got on the spot in time, or that they cannot be kept in sufficient strength during the whole of the time—twenty-four or forty-eight hours, or whatever it may be—over which disturbances may take place, and therefore there is sudden need for relief. It seems to me that the calling in of the military, with all the force which the possession of the modern rifle with its very low trajectory involves, with nothing intermediate between the police force with their batons and the soldiers with their rifles, is a weakness, and unnecessarily puts officers and men into a position where they are faced with this great difficulty and responsibility.
    It may be, and probably is necessary in the long run, to have the power up your sleeve, or in reserve, of calling upon the soldiers, with their weapons, in case of arson on a large scale, and things of that kind. But I see no reason why the law should not be so modified that that power would be kept in reserve and only brought up at the last extremity. If you had some provision such as the hon. Member suggests for arming the forces with something other than the modern rifle—I do not say whether batons or some other weapon would be the most appropriate arm—it would be more in the way of reinforcing the police force, and the officers would not be faced with the great difficulty of deciding whether or not to shoot. No one can deny that a force of disciplined men using any weapon whatever, even a stick, is probably able to cope with a considerably larger number of rioters, even though they are throwing bottles and glass, and missiles of that kind. I do not think that anything I have said really goes beyond what
    1004
    the Prime Minister stated. It cannot be controverted that the State must have the ultimate right to use every force in its power to maintain order, but I think it is well worth the consideration of the Government whether this intermediate step could not be taken, so that soldiers, when employed to reinforce the police, might in the first place be armed with weapons less powerful, less destructive, and rather more discriminating than the modern rifle.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WARDLE: As the Prime Minister has justly observed, there is a certain amount of inconvenience in taking this proposal on the Army (Annual) Bill, but this was our only opportunity of raising what, I think, has become a grave problem in these islands. The question is not exactly on all fours with what it used to be, or was in the days when Lord Justice Bowen gave the dicta to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Recent events have added a good deal of weight to the opinion, expressed by the Noble Lord opposite amongst others, that when you are dealing with questions of civil disturbance it is not sufficient to point to the fact that the law has said so-and-so for centuries, and that it is inconvenient to alter it at the present time. I cannot conceive even how on the Prime Minister's own statement he can leave the position where it is at the present time. When is the last resort? Who is to decide when the military are to be called in? That is one of the most important parts of the whole question. The Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary for War, this afternoon has not touched that point. At present one single magistrate can read the Riot Act and can call in the military. When he has called in the military he has ceased his connection with the dispute, and the whole question with the maintenance of order or of preventing disturbance is handed over to the military commander, with all the responsibility to which the Noble Lord opposite referred. From the point of view of the soldier, the officer, and the community, it seems to me that a change in the law is eminently desirable. This is not exactly a new question. It has been before the House on many occasions during the past few years. I moved a Resolution on one occasion on the Army Estimates which led to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the use of the military in trade disputes. It led to an Order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, being

    1005
    given—that is, that all the available police should be brought in in order to quell disturbances. We have still left the anachronism that one single magistrate can call up the military and be the means by which they can be called up. We have the soldier and the officer put in the anomalous position, a position of exceeding great difficulty—in which they have my utmost sympathy—although they have never yet, so far as I know, been called upon to face the consequences of their actions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes!"] I do not know one single instance where a soldier or an officer has been put on trial for the use of unnecessary force, either in a trade dispute or in other similar disturbances. There may have been; I do not know.
    Mr. J. WARD: Not in the last twenty years.
    Mr. WARDLE: Therefore, from the point, of view of the officer and the soldier, and from the point of view of everybody concerned, it seems to me desirable that the law should be inquired into, and altered. There is the further point, that although firearms have been used in trade disputes and civil disturbances of recent times it has always been the innocent person who has been the sufferer. Very seldom indeed have even the rioters, so to speak, come to suffer any penalty for any disturbances; it has been the innocent persons who have had to suffer. It seems to me that if by bringing this matter forward to-day we can convince the Government, and the House, that a change in the law is absolutely necessary in regard to this question of trade disputes and civil disputes of all kinds, we shall have done a most useful service both to the House, to the soldiers and officers, and to the community. It seems difficult to bring anyone to book under the present law as defined by Lord Justice Bowen, and also so eloquently by the Prime Minister this afternoon. Take the case of the railway dispute referred to by my hon. Friend. There the soldiers were brought out without a magistrate, without any disturbance, without any provocation of any kind whatever. Actually two days before the strike itself broke out, soldiers were planted all over the country against the wish and desire of many of the local authorities, notably in Manchester. If it be said that there was a twofold object in that, well and good. But the other object was never allowed to appear on the surface—not, at
    1006
    any rate, in that dispute. They were not used for the conveyance of food or of passengers. They were simply used for the protection of property.
    We say that in that case the law was broken. It was broken by the Government by moving troops before there was a disturbance, before there was any provocation, before they had been requisitioned at all. If modern Governments are to support that principle and carry it out in practice in trade disputes, then we shall see the military becoming a force to quell trade disputes. The case I refer to is the only one where I know that it has been done, but having been done in that one case, if it is allowed to become a precedent, we do not know how often, and in what circumstances, troops may be used to overawe strikers or to prevent industrial disputes arising. What, then, is to be the deciding factor as to when troops shall be called in? We quite admit that our Amendment which says that three magistrates shall be consulted may not be an ideal suggestion, but it is certainly better than one magistrate, which is the present law. We submit that this whole question, involving as it has done the lives of innocent persons, and involving as it does the question of civil disturbance in these islands, is one which demands the attention of this House. We say that the military ought not to be called in unless it is absolutely impossible to quell disturbances otherwise, and that when they are called in, they shall not use these murderous firearms to kill innocent people who perhaps come from a distance and have nothing whatever to do with the dispute. It is perfectly true that this House must always reserve to itself the right to quell riot—we have never disputed that—when there are riots, and when there are disturbances force must be used—but let the force used be one which is not armed like soldiers to fire on unarmed mobs.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: I thoroughly agree with what the Prime Minister has said as to the impossibility of embodying any provision that when troops meet rioters they should not be armed unless the rioters were themselves armed. I am quite aware, and I am sure that everybody in the House is aware, of the danger of the small arms weapon of the present day being used in suppressing riots when it becomes necessary to use force. The lower the trajectory the greater the danger—not always perhaps. It is unfortunately the case that the men who

    1007
    have been killed in the few cases were men—at all events, some of them perfectly innocent. In one case it was a man who was in his own garden. In another, I believe, the man was returning from public worship. I venture to suggest, however, one subject that might be considered by the central authority, and it is this: Never to employ Infantry if that can possibly be avoided. Cavalry should always be used against a mob and turbulent persons. To begin with, the Cavalry frighten the mob, and the little weapon in their hands is not so dangerous as the small-arm rifle. A smaller number of Cavalry are more effective than a larger number of Infantry armed with rifles. I confess I am not sure that this rightly conies under the Army (Annual) Act, but seeing that this discussion has been allowed, the subject I am referring to is one that I have often thought ought to be impressed upon the authorities when they call upon the military to assist them. Again, I would urge that the central authority should, if possible, invariably use Cavalry in preference to Infantry.
    Mr. WARD: The discussion has been extremely interesting. What makes it more interesting than any previous discussion of similar questions is the peculiar conditions that prevail to-day. We have had on some sixteen occasions, I think, of recent years, the military brought out for the purpose of interfering in civil disturbances. On no one of these sixteen occasions has there been the slightest objection on the part of the officers to use the military to shoot the crowd. No one has ever suggested in this House during the whole of the sixteen occasions that the officers were not doing their duty, a duty they were bound to perform! On each of these sixteen occasions it was poor men that were fired at. Recently—and that is what makes this discussion so interesting—it has been possible that the soldiers might be brought out to fire upon other than poor men.
    The CHAIRMAN: This makes me very doubtful whether I was right in permitting this Clause to be moved. I confess I was guided by a precedent of some years ago. Clearly, I could be proved to be wrong, and perhaps ought not to have allowed the Clause to be put, especially if the Debate goes into matters not pertinent to the Army (Annual) Bill—matters which come up for review in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. WARD'I only want, Mr. Whitley, to make this point as to the different circumstances prevailing to-day. I am not going into details at all in any way, except to make the point of the extraordinary importance of this discussion on this occasion, because on the sixteen previous occasions in which the military has been brought out no objection has been offered by anybody to their being employed to shoot down those who disturb the peace. Recently, however, a different opinion has prevailed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] —and that is what makes this occasion so interesting. There is no doubt that it is interesting further because, as my two hon. Friends have already stated, this seems to be a regular policy of introducing the military into civil disputes. I do not agree with the Resolution that is proposed because I do not see any difference between a labour disturbance and other disturbances. Why these Resolutions are being put to-day is that there does appear to be a policy of calling upon the military to interfere in labour disputes on almost every possible occasion. On 5th July we had the Manchester transit dispute. Police were sent from London and from Birmingham on the day of the dispute. A day later the C Squadron of the Scots Greys, stationed at York, were dispatched by special train without anyone asking for them. Clearly, it must be military heads who decide now what the military shall do.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly not—the Home Secretary is responsible.
    Mr. WARD: As a matter of fact, on this occasion, the local authorities protested against the soldiers being introduced, yet they were sent there. A discussion took place in this House, and the Home Secretary said it was not with his assent. If hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORTS they will see that the Secretary of State for War took the whole responsibility upon himself. Then, in another case, on the 10th July, two squadrons of the i6th Lancers were sent—and it is interesting to know that the 16th Lancers were sent, and that there was no conscientious objection then. In the case of the great London strike, which began on the 11th August, 10,000 troops were held in readiness at Aldershot, and included the 19th Hussars and Irish Rifles, and three battalions of the Worcester regiment. A discussion took place in this House on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the

    1009
    Member for East Worcester, censuring the Government for not sending the soldiers sooner. That is the answer to the Noble Lord opposite, who suggests that the party to which he belongs are not favourable to the employment of soldiers. In this case the right hon. Gentleman was protesting that soldiers were not sent in greater numbers. On the 14th August, again, there was difficulty in the case of Liverpool. A street disturbance took place, and Cavalry were sent there in great numbers, and there were some 200 casualties.
    The CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be purely a matter for Committee of Supply, as the hon. Member is criticising the action of the War Secretary or of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. WARD: I am drawing attention to a question of policy, and it seems to me I should be almost certain to be ruled out of order if I raised this question on the Estimates. I have said all I want to say about it, not for the purpose of saying anything that was out of order, but saying it within the compass of this discussion. This is a question of policy as it seems to me, and it seems that somebody at the War Office apparently decided on the policy of sending troops in the case of labour disputes, whether they are wanted or not, and it is to that that I most sincerely object. The speech of the Prime Minister was interesting, especially as it had reference to the Featherstone dispute. As we know, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has been charged on more than one occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) with being an assassin.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I say at once that that statement is inaccurate; that statement as applied to me is inaccurate.
    Mr. WARD: Then I withdraw it at once. I understood the hon. Member himself accepted it this afternoon. Now that he has at last withdrawn it, I most delightedly accept his statement With reference to the Featherstone dispute, if you look at the Motion that I have on the Paper it will be seen that my suggestion is:—
    "It shall be unlawful to employ troops armed with rifles and cartridges in aid of the civil power to suppress riots and unlawful assemblies, unless the persons engaged in riots or unlawful assemblies, or some of them are themselves so armed, provided that in other cases where forces are requisitioned to support
    1010
    the civil authorities, they should be employed with such limited equipment as shall be prescribed by regulations to be made under this Section."
    I myself agree, and I think the hon. Member who moved and seconded the proposal now before the House will agree, that there are cases besides labour disputes in which they ought to limit the employment of the military, and the first time that I was ever ridden down in a street was at an unemployment demonstration that had nothing to do with labour troubles. Therefore, if the Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr was passed as it stands, it would not preclude the military being employed in such cases as that. I have also seen one election riot, and on that occasion I do not believe it was necessary to employ the armed forces, but they were so employed. The consequence of this Motion is to limit the employment of the military entirely to labour disputes, and that would be to destroy the principle that we are striving for on this occasion. But what is the most important part of the Resolution and discussion that so far has taken place? I should imagine it would be agreed upon all sides that it is that when the military are called in to assist the civil power they should be armed like civil police, unless they are met by armed resistance to the law, because, surely, it must be the object in calling in the military that you should punish the actual rioters, and that never can be done so long as you employ the present weapons supplied to the military? The Prime Minister referred to the judgment of those very able men who conducted that inquiry in the dispute at Featherstone upon all points except this one. He took their law relating to the liability of the soldier to be called in, and said there were no men he knew in this country whose opinions would be more reliable or that ought to be taken greater notice of than the men who inquired into that particular dispute. That was as far as the law is concerned and the liability of the soldier is concerned, but I only wish he had gone on a little further and agreed to take their advice with reference to the weapons that ought to be used by the military when called in, and even at the risk of boring the House I must call attention to the judgment of these able men in reference to the calling in of the military and in reference to the particular point in which the soldier should be equipped.

    1011
    The Prime Minister has referred to this Report, and therefore I expect I shall be in order in referring to it for a moment myself. It is rather remarkable that on this occasion, when the military were called in, they were called in clearly with the intention of shooting somebody. They had no intention whatever to overcome the riots, because although there were thousands of people rioting there were only twenty-five soldiers brought on the scene. It is clearly seen at once that they were brought on the scene, just as you would bring a firing party to an execution, for no other purpose at all, and unfortunately the order was given for them to fire. In discussing the question relating to the kind of weapon that should be employed, the Commissioners say:—
    "A soldier can only act by using his arms. The weapons he curries are deadly. They cannot be employed at all without danger to life and limb, and, in these days of improved rifles and perfected ammunition, without some risk of injuring distant and possibly innocent bystanders. To call for assistance against rioters from those who can only interpose, under such grave conditions, ought, of course, to be the last expedient of the civil authorities."
    Then, in reference to the way in which the soldier should be called upon they say they took the advice of Sir Redvers Buller, and he pointed out the almost impossibility of arming the soldier with one weapon for the purposes of soldiering and then arming him with another weapon for civil disputes and disturbances, and for that reason he gave most strong evidence in this case against the employment of the military, except with a rifle that will kill a man at a couple of miles, and on this occasion, as a matter of fact, both the men were some three-quarters of a mile away from the scene of the disturbance, and actually, so far as we know, did not know there were any soldiers present or any disturbance in the neighbourhood. They dealt with Sir Redvers Bullet's evidence in their final paragraph, and they say:—
    "The second point to which we directed the attention of Sir Redvers Buller was as to the possibility and expediency, when troops were about to act against the mob of arming the soldiers with some weapon less formidable than the modern rifle and its cartridge. Here again the judgment of Sir Redvers Buller is adverse to any change on the ground of the practical difficulty of providing different arms or ammunition to be used by troops on different occasions, and of instructing the troops in such use. He prefers to rest upon the simpler principle that troops ought not to be called upon except in grave emergency, and if summoned, he believes that it is better for them to be armed in the usual way."
    Now, if we were sure that they would only be called upon to serve in civil disturbances only in grave necessity, then Sir
    1012
    Redvers Buller's view and the military view as to the arming of the soldier would be all right, but as I have explained, we are gradually getting used to the interference of the military in our labour disputes as part of the regular policy of the executive Government. The Commissioners go on to say:—
    "It would be beyond the capacity of our Commission to examine at length into this subject, but we are so impressed with the danger of using the modern rifle and cartridge with its full charge of powder against crowds in thickly populated districts where there are close lying collieries and villages, that we cannot rest content that the point should be left without further investigation. We think that the attention of the military authorities should be formally called to the question whether special and less dangerous arms or ammunition might not conveniently be used by troops when employed for the purpose of suppressing riots."
    That is the unanimous Report of the Commission whose verdict upon the law and usage relating to the subject the Prime Minister unqualifiedly accepts. This Report suggests that there ought to be some other weapon when the military are called upon such as is put forward in my Clause on the Paper. The Report I refer to was presented to Parliament twenty solid years ago, when it was never contemplated that troops would be used so often as they have been used since for this particular purpose. In spite of all the military evidence against the employment of the soldier with his ordinary weapon, this Report has been absolutely ignored up to date, and we are entitled to ask whether it is not possible after this defying of military evidence, that some further investigation such as is suggested by this Committee might not be undertaken by someone to prescribe some less deadly, and for the purpose useless, weapon, because naturally a soldier seeing a rioter in front of him fires over his head, as he does not want to kill his own countryman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I only wish that you recognised that always. The soldier does not wish to kill his own countrymen, and the consequence is that he raises his rifle, and no officer can compel him to fire low. The consequence is that innocent people are killed a mile away. That has actually happened in every case where the military have been called upon to fire. It has not been in those cases the actual rioter you wanted to punish who has been punished, but some innocent person miles away. Under the circumstances I suggest that if is time something was done to alter the usage in this matter. With reference to these Amendments I would like to say a word or two. I do not like the term

    1013
    "disturbance" in the Resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), because I do not think it is good enough. I want it to be a distinct riot before the military interfere with the ordinary policeman's duty. In the second Resolution the words are:—
    "Provided that in such cases where troops are employed they shall not be subject to military law and shall have such limited equipment as shall be prescribed for any police or civil force used for the purpose."
    That will not do, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil will see when I mention that the equipment of the police in Ireland is exactly the same rifle as the soldier in this country. This law applies to Ireland, just as much as it does to England. It must be some different rule and regulation than the ordinary weapon supplied to the police, because in the case of Ireland you would still need the fully equipped rifle as the weapon to be used for a disturbance. It must be some decision arrived at by a responsible authority as to the means by which the soldier can be employed on these occasions. We have heard something about the law on the subject. We know what the law is so far as the private is concerned. We have had one case which settled this problem so far as we are concerned on these benches. While no officer has objected to shoot at our people, there has been one case where the common soldier refused to fire, and it was at Llanelly. That is one case where the soldier refused, and he was arrested and court-martialled. He was not called up to the War Office for an explanation.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not really see how this comes in. The hon. Member is very ingenious in working round, but I do not see that this question comes in on the Clause we are now discussing.
    Mr. WARD: It is rather difficult, Mr. Chairman, to conform to the very narrow ruling which has been given relating to these matters. I do not know that it is a question of policy whether the soldier is to have a conscience in the future, but I am not going to discuss that matter any further. I only wish to say that if there is to be any latitude or any limitation either of responsibility or of conscience or honour relating to these matters, we claim for the common soldier the same as we claim for the officer.
    Mr. LEE: I do not think the hon. Member who has just sat down has strengthened his case by the insinuation, and, indeed, the assertion he has made that the officers of the Army have no objection to shooting down trade unionists.
    Mr. WARD: They never have.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. Member for Stoke evidently is not conversant with the history of this matter. What possible justification has he for uttering such a gross libel upon the officers of a great Service? I cannot imagine what object he can have in view. I do not know how the hon. Member professes to know that no officer has ever made an objection, because there are well-known cases where objection has been made.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: They did not object at Johannesburg.
    Mr. LEE: There is the well-known case of the Bristol riots, where an officer who refused to shoot was court-martialled for his refusal, and he committed suicide. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW long ago is that?"] I only wish to meet this libel by actual instances. I do not know what authority the hon. Member for Stoke has for speaking on behalf of the Army, and I do not know why he professes to speak on behalf of the private soldier.
    Mr. WARD: I do not profess anything; I leave that to you.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. Member professes to speak on behalf of the private soldier, and I am not aware that he has any special claim to do so.
    Mr. WARD: Only as an ordinary—
    Mr. LEE: I do not know why the hon. Member professes to speak for the soldier, but I do protest against this libel on the officers of the Army that they are willing—I think he almost went as far as to say anxious—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]— that they raised no objection—
    Mr. WARD: Do not lie yourself.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to make a remark of that kind. The proper way to interrupt is to rise quietly and wait until the hon. Member in possession gives way. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did rise!"] The hon. Member did not rise in the customary way. I am quite sure if he had risen to make a personal explanation the hon. Member for

    1015
    Fareham would at once have given way. It would save a great deal of trouble if hon. Members would observe that custom.
    Mr. LEE: I do resent this gross libel upon the officers of the Army. Apart from everything else, it surely must be apparent to the hon. Member that officers could have no possible object in undertaking a duty of this kind, or any possible gratification in seeing the red blood flow. Men who have seen war and who know what it means are not attracted by the sight of bloodshed. Apart from that, what possible inducement could an officer have in placing himself in the position described so clearly by the Prime Minister where he would be faced on the one hand with the possibility of being tried by court-martial for not discharging his duty and using force, or, on the other hand, in the case of using more force than is necessary, being tried by a jury for manslaughter and even for murder. In every case they are bound to be subjected to a legal inquiry of a harassing character, and I cannot believe that any officer who was not almost demented could wish to place himself in a predicament of that kind, or who would not avoid taking part in any such duty. At any rate, I can claim to have some personal knowledge of what the feeling of officers are. When I first joined the Service I remember that one of the first things we discussed at the officers' mess was the almost intolerable character of duty of this kind. I know that the possibility of having to engage in a duty of this kind is regarded not only with loathing, but even with apprehension by the officers.
    There is a point raised in this Amendment with regard to the magistrates, which I think is one of considerable substance. I know, again, from hearing this matter discussed recently that what officers feel is that they may be placed in this terrible position in the eyes of the law owing to the action of a single magistrate who may not have a very clear head himself, being able to call upon them, in a moment of panic, to intervene and use force when it may not be necessary. I think there is a point of substance in the Amendments that have been put down by the hon. Member below the Gangway to the effect that a decision of this character should not be left in the hands of one individual. I do not know that I am prepared to go so far as to say that you should always have three magistrates, because it might often
    1016
    be difficult to get three magistrates together at one particular time. I do not wish to commit myself on this matter, because I have not had an opportunity of giving it sufficient consideration, but I think there might be something to be said for an Amendment requiring that the request for the use of force by the military should be given not by one magistrate, but by not less than two. At any rate, I feel sure that an alteration of that character would be warmly supported by officers. I know that the chief apprehension in that matter is as to how the magistrate is going to behave. It is a fact that a particular officer of considerable character, who knew his business, when placed in a position of that kind, gave instructions to his subordinate that in case there was trouble, and the magistrate was inclined to use force, in the first place, the person of the magistrate should be secured in the event of persons going to extremities, and that he should be required by force, if necessary, to give his order in writing. Therefore, I think there is a good deal in the general spirit of the Amendment which has been moved upon that point. I do not feel competent to intervene in great questions of law, but I do feel competent to rise and to repudiate, and to repudiate with indignation and with some knowledge, the gross libel which the hon. Member for Stoke has made against the officers of the Army without any kind of knowledge and without any kind of justification.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not subscribe to the doctrine that an officer or private should discriminate in matters of this description. I frankly recognise that if it is necessary at any time to call in the Army, the officer and private have no right to discriminate and do other than obey orders. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me, but I am stating my own opinion quite frankly, and I say deliberately that, once the power is given to discriminate as between the merits of one dispute and another, there is no limit, and there is an end of discipline and everything else. The primary object of this Amendment is to ask the Government to hold the balance evenly as between employer and employé. We frankly recognise that in the recent shooting, not only have innocent persons been killed, but in the majority of cases the real persons in dispute, namely, the trade unionists themselves, are not the people responsible for the rioting and for

    1017
    the trouble. Therefore, we say that in an industrial dispute between employer and employé, whatever may be the merits of it, the worker and, indeed, the citizen have a right to demand that the Government shall hold the balance evenly as between the two parties. Unfortunately in many recent disputes that has not been done.
    The Prime Minister emphasised his opinion that the military should not be called out except as a last resort, but on the Thursday prior to the railway strike, when the railwaymen themselves asked the railway directors to meet them, and when they had actually said to the Board of Trade, "If you can bring about a meeting, there will be no dispute," the railway companies had a written authority from the Government that the military would be called out. That was two days before the strike was declared, and, as a matter of actual fact, the troops were out guarding the stations two days prior to the dispute taking place. Supposing the railwaymen who were not then out on strike and who were then advised by their leaders that there might be a possibility of avoiding a strike, had said, when they were called upon to carry the troops from place to place, "No, these troops are unnecessary; they are being called out to defeat us, and we will refuse to carry them," that would have been likely under those circumstances to have precipitated the whole matter. For that reason, I say that, according to the policy laid down by the Prime Minister himself, the troops were not called out as a last resort, but were called out as a first resort. We then come to the question of the impartiality of the troops in these matters. I believe it is true to say that the shooting at Liverpool was primarily brought about, not because of a riot and the troops being called in, but because the troops were being used on the side of the employers and was resented by the men in dispute. We say, just as it is likely that men would lose their heads at the moment, it is not unreasonable to suppose that magistrates may lose their heads. Is it not fair and equitable—is it not, indeed, a commonsense suggestion—that in a grave and important matter of this description it should not be left to one magistrate to determine the position, but that at least there should be three magistrates who should be called in before it is necessary to bring in the troops? The hon. Gentleman opposite anticipates some trouble in getting more than one magistrate.
    Mr. LEE: I said more than two.
    Mr. THOMAS: Surely the hon. Gentleman will admit that a dispute in which it was likely that the troops would be necessary would not occur in some out-of-the-way place where there were really no magistrates! Apply yourself to the practical circumstances and I cannot conceive any place where it would be likely that troops would be called out in which it would not be an easy matter to obtain at least three magistrates. In the next part of the Amendment we ask that even if troops are called out they should not be armed with the deadly weapon which we all know results disastrously to the individual. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) also points out that they should not be subject to mutiny law. The hon. Gentleman says that the officers revolt at being called upon to do this, and I agree, but surely he will also agree that the men themselves revolt at being called upon to do it [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Surely it cannot be suggested that the officer has more compunction in this matter than the men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Unfortunately there has been more recruiting when trade disputes have taken place than at any other period, and in actual practice we find that those who themselves probably a few years before were in that occupation are the very men who are called out to shoot down their fellows. I submit that the proposal that is being made in this case is a practical proposal. It at least reduces the risk to the absolute minimum. It ensures that no one individual shall be called upon to take the grave responsibility that he is called upon to take to-day, and it also says that no unarmed and even peaceful citizen shall be shot down by people armed as soldiers are armed to-day. I do not accuse the Opposition of wanting to shoot down trade unionists, but I do say, when you yourselves try to discriminate between circumstances in which officers should act, that discrimination should be equally applicable to trade disputes, but you disagree.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No.
    Mr. THOMAS: But you did.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No.
    Mr. THOMAS: It has been made abundantly clear from that side that there are certain circumstances in which officers and men would be justified in refusing to do their duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly!"] We say that those circumstances

    1019
    which you have in your mind are equally applicable to a trade dispute, and we go further and say, if that policy is developed, it cannot do other than lead to chaos and disaster.
    Mr. MILDMAY: I think we are entitled to reinforce the protest made by my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Lee) against the attempt which was made by the hon. Member for Stoke to compare the repugnance of the Army to embark on hostilities in Ireland with their readiness to take part in an industrial dispute. It is quite true that the latter obligation is recognised among them much against their will, because they simply, as my hon. Friend said, loathe that kind of work. It must not be forgotten that in so assisting the police they are not opposing by force of arms the undoubted right of workmen not to dispose of their labour except under conditions acceptable to themselves, for a strike, as we all know, is a legal proceeding. The business of the Army at such times is to assist in protecting life and property from the violence, not necessarily of strikers, but of hooligans and of rioters, and a very uncongenial duty that is. The Army, officers and men, recognise, as I think has been recently made quite clear, their obligation to act in a similar sense in Ulster or anywhere else. I recognise the great moderation of the last speaker, and I agree with much of what he said. I feel most strongly that we are doing wrong in trying, as the tendency is now, in consequence of what has happened recently, to discriminate so much as to what is the duty of the Army. I think we are wrong in trying to define, as many Amendments do try to define, what shall be the obligations of the Army, and I should be inclined to vote against the first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. F. Hall), which was out of order, just as I would vote against this Amendment. I would oppose any effort to seek to define too strictly in the Army (Annual) Act or elsewhere the duties of the Army under different circumstances, and on that account I am strongly opposed to this Amendment.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. PIRIE: I wish to voice my agreement with the last speaker. I do not wish the protest to be made only from the Opposition against the cruel aspersions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on the attitude of the Army. I consider that latterly the Army has been far more sinned
    1020
    against than sinning, and it is time this House recognised to a far greater extent than it has hitherto recognised what it owes to the Army and what it owes to the honour of the Army. It should recognise what the country owes to both Services, to both the Army and the Navy, from the admiral to the sailor, and from the field-marshal to the private. I do not in the least discriminate between them. I know that the Army would carry out their orders whenever called upon to do so. Every one, of course, has in mind recent events, but I venture to assert, in connection with them, that no breach of discipline was committed by the Army. When a soldier or sailor enters the Service he gives his life, his honour, and his conscience to his country—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to say that hon. Members generally have shown me that I was wrong in admitting this Clause as in order. The Debate is getting further and further away from the subject-matter under discussion, and is not proper to the Army (Annual) Bill. I think it may be my duty under these circumstances not to put the Question to the House.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: May I submit a point of Order. Quito apart from the speeches delivered and the points raised, some partly out of order, and some partly in order, have they not been illustrations of the power exercised by the War Office, and showing that troops who have to do these things have done so because it is possible legally for them to do them? We are trying to raise this question, and we cannot do it except as an Amendment to the Army (Annual) Bill, and, although the speakers may have been unfortunate in their utterances, as a matter of fact the Amendment itself is in order, and the matter could not be dealt with in any way except on the Army (Annual) Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point which weighed with me this morning when I was giving careful consideration to the Amendment, and it was the reason I called upon the hon. Member to move it. But where it appears in the course of a Debate to the Chairman that a matter is out of order and not relevant to the question before the Committee, it is his duty to withdraw it from the consideration of the Committee. Of course, I am reluctant to take that step unless, I am obliged, but it is clearly my duty under the Orders of the House to do so. I would

    1021
    suggest to the Committee that they should keep strictly, as the Mover did, to the actual point in the new Clause, or else that the Committee should come to a decision on the matter.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether an Amendment previously submitted to the Committee, and accepted by you, can now be ruled out of order? I may add, further, that as far as we are concerned, being partly responsible for the Amendment, we are prepared to proceed to a Division.
    The CHAIRMAN: Where an Amendment or a Motion has been put to the Committee or the House and it appears thereafter to the Chair that it is not in order, it is the duty of the Chair to withdraw it from the consideration of the Committee. But, as I said, I am reluctant to exercise that duty unless I am obliged to do it by the course of the Debate. The hon. Member was dealing with a point which should be raised on the Army Estimates, and ho was discussing a question that has no bearing at all on the matter before the Committee.
    Mr. PIRIE: I will conclude my speech with a point absolutely germane to the Motion before the House. I believe that the Army—and in that I put on the same level the private soldier and the officer, for they both have the same humane feelings and are both animated by the same sense of discipline—would welcome this new Clause. But in view of the excited state of the whole country, I, hold that it might be better to leave the Act unaltered until the country is in a condition to take a much more sane view of matters as a whole than it is at the present time.
    Colonel BURN: This is one of the rare occasions on which I find myself in agreement with the Prime Minister. I quite concur with his remarks on this matter. It seems to me that hon. Members who sit on the Labour Benches have brought forward arguments, suggesting that it is a pleasure to officers and soldiers to interfere in any strike. I should like to say, as a soldier, that there is no duty more distasteful to the officer or the soldier than having to interfere in any strike disturbance. A strike is a perfectly legitimate business, and the Army does not operate against strikers. It operates against those hooligans and undesirables who come up on these occasions and really create the disturbance. The hon. Member for Hanley
    1022
    (Mr. Outhwaite) interjected a remark regarding the conduct of the military in the Johannesburg strike. I know something about that because the regiment in which I had the honour of serving the best years of my life was employed to suppress the strikes there. I know that the officers and men loathed and disliked the part they had to take in these strikes far more than the troublous times they had to go through in the South African War, because in Johannesburg were collected all the riff-raff and hooligans.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is going altogether away from the subject before the Committee, which has nothing to do with Johannesburg.
    Colonel BURN: It was only the principle that I was speaking about, and I was replying to an interjection by the hon. Member for Hanley. I quite agree that it is a very great responsibility to decide whether the military are to be employed or not. It is a great responsibility to be left to one man, and, while I do not think that this Clause is necessary or feasible, I hold there is much to be said for getting, not only one magistrate, but two or more, if it is possible, in order to decide whether the troops shall be employed to suppress any disturbance. But it must be remembered that these disturbances arise very suddenly, and a decision has to be taken without any delay. It must, in such a case, be left to the magistrate who is available at the time. As regards the arming of the men, it is difficult to see how, in the event of troops being ordered to suppress disturbances, they could have less than their arms and ammunition. We know that nothing is more distasteful to them than having to fire, and it is only as a very last resource that they do fire ball ammunition. The responsibility that is cast upon an officer in command of the troops is very grave and serious. Every officer in the British Army realises that, and no one would give an order to his men to fire unless they felt it was absolutely necessary for the peace of the country. I do not think that the Infantry, at any rate, should be sent to suppress disturbances without ball ammunition. How could soldiers be expected to be armed with any other weapon than those to which they are accustomed? I am very much in favour of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood), that wherever possible Cavalry should be employed, because in those cases the moral

    1023
    effect of Cavalry is very great. The mere presence certainly goes far towards suppressing any rising. At the same time, there is no duty more trying or more harassing to the Cavalry than to having to be on the spot under these trying conditions, with a mob in a very excited state. They are mounted, and they are only dismounted to fire under exceptional circumstances. I therefore think it is wise, wherever possible, to employ Cavalry for this duty.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the Committee were now prepared to come to a decision without that Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. no!"] Debate resumed.
    Colonel BURN: I am perfectly certain that the Army, from the Commander-in-Chief down to the youngest recruit, would be very glad to know that they are not going to be employed in the suppression of civil disturbances, but they are ready whenever called upon to take their Place, however distasteful it may be, and to do their duty. I know I can speak for the Army, and say that whatever legitimate duty they are told to perform will be carried out, and that will always be the case so long as we exist as a nation.
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

    MILK (SUPPLY AND SALE).
    Mr. ASTOR: I beg to move, "That fresh legislation is needed to control the supply and sale of Milk and cream in the United Kingdom, and that the existing Laws should be more thoroughly administered."
    I was not present during most of the discussion this afternoon, but I gathered when I came in this evening that the Committee was not agreed as to the merits of the Amendment that was before it. I sincerely trust that we shall find more agreement in connection with the proposals which I intend to put before the House this evening. We all realise that milk, although it is a necessary form of nourishment—it is essential to children, and it is a most valuable form of nourishment for
    1024
    adults—at the same time can be, and very frequently is, the medium for transmitting disease. Milk is the only food eaten raw which is a good pathogenic medium. Milk is the only medium which, in its raw condition, often conveys and transmits disease to those who take it. We know that through milk enteric, diphtheria, typhoid, tuberculosis, and scarlet fever can be conveyed. People often talk about adulterated milk, by which term they mean milk which has been adulterated by the addition of water. If you examine so-called adulterated milk you will often find that the least injurious and the best part of that milk is the water contained in it.
    I have put down this Motion largely with the object of raising the question of milk legislation, and to try to ascertain what the proposals of the Government are going to be. It is a question which should be ventilated, because it is one of enormous importance. The public at large, and I dare say many of us here, require to look into it more fully than is usually done. I am perfectly convinced that if the public realised the importance of having pure milk, and insisted upon having it, the public could get it, and not only that, but that they could get pure milk at reasonable prices. The chief thing we have to fight against is the ignorance and prejudice of the public. That is far more difficult to overcome than the so-called vested interests, although, of course, that difficulty exists. One is told that if we have milk legislation there is a prospect of raising the price of milk, and that it is essential, above all things, to have cheap milk. To my mind good milk is cheap milk, and bad milk is dear milk. If you buy milk at fourpence a quart, and if that milk gives your child a tuberculous gland; or if that milk produces diarrhœa—we know there is a great deal of infantile mortality arising from that cause—then that milk is not cheap milk, and it would not be cheap milk at half the price. Milk which produces disease is not cheap, at whatever price it is sold. Therefore, we are justified in saying that the first essential is to have pure milk. If we can get pure milk we have obtained the first requisite in connection with our milk supply. People do not realise the nutritive value of milk. I have seen it stated in a scientific report that a quart of milk is equivalent in food value and nutrition to three-quarters of a pound of lean beef, or to eight eggs, or to two pounds of potatoes, or to one-third of a pound of wheat. If we

    1025
    compare the price of milk with the price of eggs or potatoes or beef, and if we add to the original cost of beef, eggs, or potatoes the cost of cooking those foods, we shall come to the conclusion that at its price pure milk is by far the cheapest and the most nutritive food on the market at the present moment.
    I raise this question largely to find out what the Government propose to do. The President of the Local Government Board has adumbrated in his replies more than once that he intends to bring in legislation. I sincerely trust that his legislative attempts will be more successful than those we have had in the past. A year ago, in its final Report, the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis welcomed the prospect of the legislation which was promised. The welcome remains; the legislation has not yet arrived. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who is in many matters a cheery optimist, by the fact that on numerous occasions he introduced Milk Bills, gave proof that in his opinion additional milk legislation was necessary.
    I want to put a certain amount of evidence before the House to prove that the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. First of all, I would quote the President of the Local Government Board. In a reply given to mc last month he stated that—
    "Tuberculosis in children is often clearly connected with the drinking of tuberculous milk."
    I want to quote also from the annual report of Dr. Newsholme, the medical officer of the Local Government Board. He quotes an extract from a report sent to him by, I think, a medical officer of health which is so important, and bears so much upon the condition of the dairy industry in certain districts, that I propose to read it in full:—
    "The grooming of cattle is practically unheard of—
    That is in his district—
    "and in consequence their flanks are often found to be thickly encrusted with manure which, as the analysis of milk shows, finds its way into the milk. Facilities for washing the udders and ho hands of the milkers are not readily available in the cowsheds. Manure is accumulated in close proximity to the milking sheds. This is harmful to milk by reason of its smell and because it is a breeding place for flies, which are attracted by the milk and readily carry manure to it."
    This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I sincerely trust the Government proposes to deal with it. I should like to read an extract from a book entitled "The Health of the State," by Sir George Newman, the chief medical officer of the Board of Education, who has dope so much for the medical inspection and
    1026
    treatment of school children. Sir George Newman says:—
    "An amendment of the law is required, and indeed, the entire problem would assume very different proportions if the present Dairy Order were properly and uniformly enforced instead of being allowed to be almost a dead letter."
    That is indeed a very serious condemnation. I would quote also the report of Dr. Eastwood, who is on the scientific staff of the Local Government Board. He carried out researches into the relative incidence of tuberculosis, human and bovine, in children. His researches indicated the danger of cow's milk as a source of tuberculosis in children. While I was reading Dr. Eastwood's report and the account of his researches, I was surprised to find that he only inquired into the incidence of tuberculosis among children of two years of age and upwards. I think his inquiries were limited to the causes of death in children between the ages of two and ten. We know that milk forms the staple diet of children, and I, for one, certainly cannot imagine why the Local Government Board made this limitation and restriction, and why they did not investigate the causes of diseases in children of two years and under. I hope they will consider it in the future spending of their money on research.
    I would also quote from the investigations carried out by the eminent surgeon, Mr. Stiles, in Edinburgh. In one report, published in 1912, he refers to non-pulmonary tuberculosis among children. He quotes the cases of seventy children investigated of which thirty-nine were suffering from joint disease and thirty-one were suffering from bone disease—tuberculous in both cases. Out of these seventy children he found that the infection of forty-one was due to the bovine bacillus. Ho proved that in forty-one cases out of these seventy the milk supply had been the cause of the disease. He also found—a most interesting fact—that all the diseased children under one year of age whom he examined were suffering from bovine tuberculosis—that is to say, during the milk-drinking period. More recently he has carried out, in connection with the help of Dr. Mitchell, an investigation into the cause of cervical glands. He finds in those cases that 90 per cent. of the children he has operated on for cervical glands were suffering from bovine tuberculosis. During his investigations he sent his workers to try and trace the source of the milk which these children had been drinking. I would only quote What he found on one particular farm.

    1027
    He found a cow so advanced with disease that she could not stand up, and had actually been milked lying down on the ground, yet the milk from that cow was being sold in Edinburgh. Surely, when we have all this accumulated evidence, the Government and everyone must realise that fresh legislation is necessary! Milk which cripples children, which produces joint tuberculosis and cervical glands, whatever price it is sold at, cannot possibly be described as cheap milk. We know that in London 10 per cent. of the milk is tuberculous. Every ten days people who drink milk drink tuberculous milk. Out of every ten glasses of milk which we drink one glass is tuberculous. How can anyone stand up and say that willingly and voluntarily and knowingly he will give a glass of tuberculous milk to his children every ten days? You only have to put the proposition to see that it is absolutely indefensible. Mr. Stiles' recent investigation showed that in Edinburgh 20 per cent. of the milk was tuberculous.
    Our legislation which affects milk is antiquated. It was not introduced to deal with milk. The laws were passed to deal with the sale of food and drugs or to prevent infectious diseases, and incidentally milk was dealt with. What we want now is a Milk Bill to deal with milk as milk, and not the prevention of infectious disease. One of the great difficulties at present, that farmers have to contend with is that in different districts they have different regulations, and the poor farmer does not know what particular regulation he has to bear in mind. We want uniform legislation and regulations throughout the country. I have been rather amazed that during the last few days, when it was known that I was going to deal with milk, people said, "I suppose you are going to ruin farming and to attack the dairying industry." It is the very last thing which I want to do. I believe that if we produce pure milk, if we have sound legislation, we are going to help the farming industry and the dairying industry. I certainly think it is absolutely essential that we should do that. I would like to quote the result of the very stringent administration and legislation in connection with milk in New York. The consumption of milk in New York has increased enormously as the result of this stringent milk legislation. If you take the figures of the consumption of milk per
    1028
    head now, and compare it with the consumption per head some ten or twelve years ago, there is now 40 per cent. more milk being drunk in New York, where there has been this stringent legislation, than used to be the case. They have educated the public as to the nutritive value of milk and made the public realise that if they want to buy pure milk they can get it, and that there will be a State guarantee that when they buy what they think is pure milk they are not, as a matter of fact, buying diseased milk or milk of an inferior quality. I believe this is largely responsible for the increased amount of milk which has been drunk there. I do not wish to do anything to injure agriculture or dairying. I think it is most important nowadays to try to increase the number of people connected with agriculture and with dairying, and we should be most careful in the legislation that we propose to see that we encourage agriculture and dairying, and not hinder it, harass it, and destroy it.
    In addition to that, we have a very great responsibility to the poor mothers who have to work for their living. At present a large number of these women, before and after confinement, have to go out and earn their living. They are not able to give their children their natural food. Surely, the least we can do is to see that the cow's milk which they have to give is safe and is not diseased, and so protect the rising generation. The problem we have before us is how to improve the milk supply generally without unduly raising the price and without diminishing the supply. There are great difficulties. I referred just now to the vested interests, but I said, and I repeat, that I believe the greatest difficulty that we have to contend against is the ignorance and prejudice of the public. If the public realise the value of pure milk, if they decide that they are going to have pure milk, they will have it and at a reasonable price. I welcome this opportunity of ventilating the various aspects connected with the milk question in order that we may help to bring this most important and vital question before the public at large. The remedy is, first of all, uniformity of legislation and administration and improved legislative and administrative machinery, and, secondly, and this is a very important point, that the milk suppliers and producers should have renewable licences, not that we should put them on a register, and, whatever they do, leave them on the register. Everyone who sells milk ought to have a renew

    1029
    able licence, and if he sells milk under a false or inaccurate description, there should be an opportunity of removing his licence. I do not wish to suggest that you should say that no one should sell tuberculous milk. It would be impossible. That would stop the milk trade. But milk sellers should not be able to sell their milk under any inaccurate description, as is very often done at present. I think any legislation or administration which is suggested must have as its corner-stone the intention of the Local Government Board to classify the milk according to its quality in the same way as at present butter and cream are graded and labelled. That is the whole trend of legislation at present, and also in the past. Not that you should say to the seller, "You shall not sell this sort of milk or butter, but what you sell must have an accurate description of what it is as a matter of fact."
    In connection with the grading of milk, I wish to say a few words about the way milk deteriorates. Milk deteriorates if it is dirty, or if it is not kept cool, or if it is old. If milk is dirty or old or not kept properly cool you will find a large number of bacteria growing in it. That is to say, if we find milk with a large number of bacteria per cubic centimetre we have an absolutely scientific proof that it is either dirty or old or has not been properly looked after since it left the cow. That is to say, if you find an unduly large proportion of bacteria in milk, that milk is on the high road to putrifaction. It is the best test of the condition of the milk. It is an absolute index to its condition. If we find milk with a low bacterial count, milk containing few bacteria, we know that that is clean milk which has been properly looked after since it was brought from the cow. It is fresh milk. How can milk become dirty? It can become dirty either in the shop, in the home of the consumer, in transit, or on the farm. These are the different places at which it can become dirty, and I shall deal only with milk at the farm. It can become dirty there by the addition of manure from the tail of the cow, or through the pail used for milking not being properly cleansed and sterilised, or its not being up to date in shape. I discussed this matter with an expert recently, and he described the pail used for milking as absolutely prehistoric. He referred to the milk-bucket, which is large and open at the top. He said that if you have an enclosed pail, with only a small
    1030
    opening at the side through which the milk can be drawn, you can guarantee to keep out a large amount of matter which now gets into milk. The milk also becomes dirty at the farm if it is kept in an exposed place. I heard of a visit paid to a dairy which was fitted up with white marble and tiles, but the visitor found dust blowing in at the open window and settling into the milk. That is an unscientific method of keeping milk. It can also become dirty at the source of origin if the hands of the milker are not properly clean.
    The same cow can be milked in two different ways, so as to give two different sorts of milk. I proved that the other day in my own dairy. I had a sample analysed, and we found that the bacteria in it amounted to 6,000 per cubic centimetre, which, I am glad to say, showed that the milk had been properly cared for. Next day we made the milker take additional precautions under our supervision. He also gave up the prehistoric bucket and used the better and more modern type of vessel. The experiment was carried out with the same milker, in the same building, and with the same cows. I had the milk analysed at the Lister Institute. While the first specimen showed, as I have said, 6,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre, the second showed only a bacterial count of 500. The Chief Secretary for Ireland the other day told a story of the way in which farmers looked down upon education. He quoted a farmer as saying that he preferred muck to mind. In agriculture muck may be more desirable than mind, but when we are dealing with milk we want more mind in the milking and less manure in the milk. I think it is an extraordinary state of affairs that there should be a greater penalty for milk adulterated with pure water than for milk contaminated with a liberal amount of dung and other dirt.
    The next way in which milk is deteriorated is in connection with the temperature—that is to say, when it is not kept at a proper temperature—kept cool in transit and at the shop—it is deteriorated. I shall quote the result of experiments carried out to show the way bacteria increase with extraordinary rapidity in milk if kept at a high temperature. A specimen of milk was taken, it contained 3,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. It was divided into, three parts and kept for twenty-four hours—one specimen at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit freezing point, the second at sixty degrees, and the third at the

    1031
    temperature of blood, ninety-four degrees. The milk which was kept at freezing point, at the end of the twenty-four hours, had fewer bacteria than at the beginning of the experiment, the temperature had killed 600, and the bacterial count was only 2,400. In the case of the milk which was kept at sixty degrees, and which started with 3,000, the bacterial count had increased to 450,000. The milk which was kept at ninety-four degrees, having started with 3,000, finished up with 25,000,000. That shows the absolute importance of keeping your milk cool—cooling it immediately it is taken from the cow, and keeping it cool on the journey and in the shop.
    I do not think that I need go into any elaborate argument as to the value of fresh milk. These three points—the dirt, the temperature at which the milk is kept, and the age of the milk—can be dealt with, without heavy expenditure on the part of the farmer. You can improve your milk when you have a clean milker, and you can send it fresher to market without any expenditure on bricks and mortar, or the pulling down of your byre. By a little better method, and by being up to date, you can improve the quality of the milk.
    Now as to grading, at present you buy new laid eggs, fresh eggs, or eggs without any adjective. That is a voluntary classification of eggs. I would order a compulsory classification of the milk sold. I want the Government—I do not mean only the Whitehall Government, but municipalities throughout the country—to arrange for the classification of milk according to its quality. In order to explain what I have in my mind, I propose, by way of example, to grade milk into three classes—A, B, and C. What I mean by A is the best sort of milk—the kind that you can give raw with absolute confidence to children, milk drawn from herds guaranteed free from tuberculosis, and with a low bacterial count. By grade B, I mean safe milk, which adults can drink with impunity, but which young children might not be able to drink with the same degree of safety. In this I include pasteurised milk. In Grade C I would put all milk which on its merits cannot qualify to be included in A or B.
    The advantage of having your milk graded and classified in this way is that the public know what they buy. If they want the highest form of milk, they buy A. If they buy O they do it with their eyes open. People think at
    1032
    present in many instances that they are buying guaranteed milk, but there is no guarantee that the milk comes up to the description. The other day an analysis was carried out in the Lister Institute by Mr. Buckley of ordinary milk at 4d. quart and nursery milk at 6d. quart, both sold in the same shop. It was found the nursery milk at 6d. had twice as many bacteria as the ordinary milk at 4d. Under my classification it would be impossible for this to happen. It would be only possible to sell milk according to its certified quality. I was interested the other day to find out what kind of milk we had here in the House of Commons. I sent to the Lister Institute and got a sterile bottle. I came here and bought a specimen of milk. I took every precaution, and I sent it to the Institute for analysis. Now, the best class of milk in New York contains only 10,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. I find that the specimens examined recently by Mr. Buckley ranged from several thousand to, I think, 8,000,000. But our milk in the House of Commons is of a rare and fruity vintage, for it contains 72,000,000 bacteria per centimetre. I took it straight down in just over an hour from the time that I bought it, and I did not expose it to the sun. I trust that every specimen here will not register over 70,000,000 bacteria. I certainly wanted it to be a fair test, and I sent for this bottle and took every precaution which I could, but this shows that something ought to be done. If we in the House of Commons, who think that we are drinking pure milk when we are drinking milk with over 70,000,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre, would take up the matter, the present state of affairs would be improved. I believe that we like champagne which is of an old vintage, and port which is full-bodied, but everybody who likes to drink milk likes fresh milk, and I hope that the Kitchen Committee, or whoever is responsible, will look into this and will find out whether these 70,000,000 bacteria are due to the milk being old or dirty, or having been kept too hot instead of being kept quite cold.
    Another advantage of grading milk is that it helps the farming industry. The good farmer is rewarded. The farmer producing the best class of milk and qualifying for selling the high grade A is compensated for having a tubercle-free herd by the better price which he gets. You reward the farming industry and you encourage the dairy industry also. It is also a great help to the farmer. It shows him what sort of

    1033
    milk he is producing. It helps him to find out where he is wrong. If he finds that, instead of producing the clean milk which he thinks he is producing, he is producing milk with a large number of bacteria, he realises that something must be done lie probably finds that his milkers are milking with dirty hands, or with a liberal supply of dung spattered over the sides of the cow. It would be the greatest help to the farming industry. It would also help the good shopkeepers. It would certainly prevent the bad shopkeeper from selling milk under a false description.
    Another great advantage is that it is not compulsory. The only compulsory thing which I suggest is the classification. I am not ruling out any sort of milk, but merely saying that milk should be classified, so that people buying milk may know what it is they are paying for. I believe that the educational value of classifying and grading milk would be enormous. If people see two grades of milk, A at 6d., and C at 4d., and they know that A is free from disease and that C may or may not have disease a large number of people will ask for pure milk. They will demand the best milk and the milk supply would be improved through the whole country. One of the arguments which I have heard used against the classifying and grading of milk is that it would five pure milk to the rich and would not help the poor. The grading of milk as suggested would not take away from the poor anything which they are now getting. We only propose to label the milk according to quality. We are not proposing to raise the price of the milk as alleged. We want to reward the good farmer who produces the best sort of milk, I believe that the general tendency will be to raise the quality and grading of milk, because we are not going to be satisfied with grade C, but are going gradually to improve the whole milk supply of the country. In New York they have, I will not say this exact classification, but they have had a generally similar classification, and the results have been most satisfactory. More and more milk of grades A and B is being consumed, and little by little the standard of purity has been raised because of the educational value of classifying milk according to its quality.
    I referred just now to the pasteurisation of milk. Milk boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Roughly, milk is pasteurised when we raise the temperature to 140 degrees, for, I think, half an hour. The
    1034
    effect of pasteurising milk is to kill the disease germs, but while you kill the germs of disease, you do not destroy the flavour of milk the same as you do in boiling. Also you do not destroy the vital quality in the milk, which cannot be described but which we know exists in raw milk. It is not the same as boiling milk. But to pasteurise milk you must have Government inspection and certificates. It must be done under the supervision of the Government. The plant must be efficient, and must be passed, and the date of pasteurisation must be put upon every bottle. If you do not do that, if you allow pasteurisation of milk without supervision, you merely allow the unscrupulous milk dealer to partly pasteurise his milk and keep it for a longer time than he would otherwise do. It is absolutely essential that the date of pasteurisation should be put on every bottle. If that is done, as it is done in New York, you will find that the pasteurised milk is drunk within twenty-four hours, the same as raw milk would be, and therefore the unscrupulous dealer is not able to keep the milk for four or five days, which we are sometimes told he might do.
    9.0 P.M.
    I know that there is a certain amount of objection to pasteurising milk. You will always find some people opposed to everything you suggest, however good it may be. There were exactly the same objections in America, and there were the same objections in Germany and France, but they went ahead in New York, and the opposition has now died down and the milk is more and more being pasteurised, because the health authorities realise that pasteurised milk is safe milk. Take the case of France, take the gouttes de lait, where pasteurised milk is distributed to children. It is done also in a large number of countries. Although you find that some of the doctors object, a very large majority of the medical profession and of scientists who have studied the subject say that pasteurisation does not kill the vital element in milk, and that it does make a harmless fluid which can be given with absolute confidence to children. There is a place called Randall Island, in New York, where foundling children are put. The mortality among infants in summer ranged, I think, about 40 per cent.—that was the general average over three years. Pasteurised milk was introduced, but no other change was made in their diet or in the hygiene of the establishment. For the next three years the mortality dropped to

    1035
    20 per cent. about half the number of deaths, and the authorities believe that this was entirely due to the use of pasteurised milk. I am quoting figures for three years, and not merely for one year. We are told that the danger of tuberculous milk is exaggerated. My hon. Friend here cheers that statement. But that depends exactly on what you have in mind when you refer to the danger of tuberculous milk. If you refer to the danger to adults, then very possibly it is exaggerated. Tuberculous milk does not cause a large number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, otherwise, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we should all he dead. But what about the children? You may exaggerate the danger to adults, but it is difficult to exaggerate it with regard to children if you give them tuberculous milk. Mr. Stiles, the surgeon in Edinburgh, has proved that 90 per cent. of his tuberculous glands are due to bovine infection. I would ask any hon. Member who has any doubt about the danger of giving tuberculosis to children through milk to go to one of the great hospitals where crippled children are being dealt with. He will there see at a glance that this matter is one which ought to be dealt with by the Government, and will realise that it is impossible to exaggerate the danger to children in giving them tuberculous milk. Now we are told that tuberculous milk produces immunity—that it immunises the individual who drinks that tuberculous milk, and that he acquires a sort of immunity by an unscientific inoculation. You can make out a plausible case, but what an unscientific way to acquire immunity. If you want to give immunity to children by supplying them with tuberculous milk, at least make your own mixture, put in the bacilli yourself and know the amount of the dose you are giving. A certain number of people may have acquired immunity by drinking tuberculous milk, but we know that a number of people who took too much are now dead, and cannot testify as to the danger of that milk. The Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis, which included many of the Government experts, the medical officer of the Local Government Board, the medical officer of the Board of Education, the medical officers from Scotland and Ireland, and other distinguished gentlemen, reported as follows:—
    The Committee considered the evidence convincing that children are infected from tuberculous milk."
    1036
    They did not say that tuberculous milk is good and valuable because it immunises the children against attack. They did not emphasise that point, but they emphasised the danger of giving tuberculous milk to children. I, therefore, hope that we will not hear much more about the value of immunisation by the drinking of tuberculous milk. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) who seconds this Motion, is going to deal with the question of machinery, and I will only say very generally that the administration must be uniform, and that the regulations which may be passed must apply to the country as a whole. The grading of the milk would provide a standard on which the health authorities could frame their regulations.
    I sincerely trust that there will be an efficient central control included in the Milk Bill which is shortly to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. There must be central control just as there must be local administration As to local administration, I only say that I hope the larger authorities will be employed and not the smaller authorities. I would emphasise the value of obtaining central control by use of Grants-in-Aid. I feel that I must apologise to the House for having spoken at such length, but I do not apologise for having raised this subject, which is a most important one. We are at the present moment, because of our social and economic system, depriving a large number of children of their natural food. Mothers are not able to suckle their children, they have to be out earning their living, and at the present moment we find that a large number of children are deprived of their natural food. The least we can do is to see that the alternative, cow's milk, which is given to them, is safe. It is to our interest to build up a healthy race, and to see that children have the chance of a fair start in life. We do not want to run the risk of producing crippled children that will afterwards bear the scars given to them in their tender years because of the drinking of tuberculous milk. We must see to it, that we look ahead and make certain that the milk which should give nourishment to children does not instead give them disease and even death.
    Mr. HILLS: I beg to second the Motion.
    My hon. Friend, who has a life experience of this question, and who takes a deep interest in it, dealt so fully with the general aspects of the milk problem, that

    1037
    I intend to confine myself to questions of machinery only. Nobody who has listened to my hon. Friend's speech can be satisfied with things as they are, and the fact that we find in the milk which is supplied here 72,000,000 bacteria to 1–28th of an ounce cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and if it proves anything it only proves the strength of political digestions. Anybody who tries to find from the numerous Acts of Parliament and private Acts what our milk laws are sets out on a very difficult task. If I summarise that quite shortly, present legislation is under four heads. In the first place, you have certain laws for the registration and regulation of dairies; and dairies are registered and regulated under the Diseases of Animals Act and under numerous private Acts of Parliament, but chiefly under what are known as the Model Milk Clauses, which were issued in 1899, and which have been incorporated in many private Acts. Those laws are permissive only; they are not compulsory, and they are antiquated and ineffective to a degree. Anybody who reads that and then turns to the really up-to-date milk code, as in New York, blushes for his country.
    The next part of the regulations are the laws that provide for the condemnation of milk which is diseased milk. Under the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act and the Public Health Act, various powers were given to the local authorities to inspect farms, to condemn diseased milk, and to prevent the supply of diseased milk. The third class of laws are those which deal with impurity. Those only deal with the chemical purity and composition of milk, and do not deal with its bacteria bearing capacity. You can seize milk and condemn it because it is deficient in cream or in solids, but I think we all know that these provisions are very ineffective. They do not prevent the adulteration of milk. Convictions are hard to obtain and the Acts in a great many parts are largely a dead letter. The fourth class of regulation is the Tuberculosis Order of 1913, under which the local authority must be notified by the farmers where tuberculosis appears in the cow, and the local authority have power to inspect and to condemn, and where the beasts are condemned and slaughtered one-fourth of the value is paid to the farmer if the case is an advanced one, and three-fourths in mild cases. A sum of £60,000 has been provided for these payments, and £20,000 last year. All those
    1038
    regulations are very ineffective and antiquated and are permissive only. Only 102 local authorities adopted the Model Milk Clauses, and only 315 employ inspectors to inspect the cows. So that only a very small part of the country deals with the matter at all, and that very ineffectively. There is no proper examination of milk for bacteria, and no classification of the milk which is sold in shops, such as nursery milk, children's milk, or invalid milk, and you have no guarantee that the milk is pure.
    What we propose is that there should be a dual system of classification of the shops that sell milk, and an examination of the dairies that supply milk, and those two should go together and work hand in hand. In the first place, you separate your milk into three classes. The first class, or the best milk, which is free from tubercle, comes from a dairy which has got a good scoring card. I hold in my hand a scoring card issued by the city of New York, which marks the dairy according to the goodness or badness of the equipment and method of that dairy. A hundred marks are given altogether, of which forty are given for equipment, and sixty are given for method. The forty for equipment are for such as air-space, ventilation, drainage, flooring, windows, ceiling, and so on, and the marks for method are given for the clean condition of the cows, the washing of the milkers, the straining of the milk, freedom from dirt in the milk house, and so on. The only milk that can be sold as grade A, besides being free from tubercle, must come from a dairy which gains 75 out of 100 on this scoring card. Of those marks it must gain 25 for equipment and 50 for method, so that you have a double test. First of all, a licence is issued, and it can be withdrawn, and you can call at a shop and examine specimens as often as you like. Then you have the fact that the milk comes from dairies which possess a high scoring card. That is the best milk, which is the milk for children. Your next milk is your B grade, which either is sold raw or is pasteurised, and if sold raw must come from a farm with 68 out of 100 marks on its scoring card, and if pasteurised must come from a farm with 60 per 100 on its scoring card. In both those cases your grade B milk is fairly safe milk for grownup people. Your last grade, C milk, is without any guarantee at all.
    Let the House observe that the shops which sell A, B or C milk must so notify

    1039
    outside in the clearest way which class they sell, so that each person going there will know. The milk is also sold in special bottles with special coloured labels, and all effort is made to inform the public what class of milk they are buying. If they choose to go and buy cheap milk of the low grade, you cannot prevent them, but you let them know what it is. It is important to remark, since the system has been introduced, at first the people rather tended to buy the lower grade milk, but since then there has been an increase in the consumption of the higher grades A and B. This system is no new thing. Five years ago the Local Government Board sent Dr. Eastwood to New York to inquire. He reported in 1909 and recommended this system. We have seen his Report, but we have not seen any legislation. The advantage of grading is that it does not interfere with the farmer. You do not go to the farmer and say, "You must not sell this, or do that or the other." You say to him, "If you have a good dairy and keep it clean and your workers clean, you can sell grade A milk, but if you choose you can sell B or C." An inducement is held out and not prohibition, and so you do not annoy or hurt the farmer, and you do not diminish the supply, because all the milk lie can sell under one count or another.
    Lastly, you do not increase the cost of the milk, because your grade C is just as cheap as before. For all those reasons it is by far the best way of dealing with the milk problem. There is only one more point, and that is when you come to administer your law you must go to the local authority. I do earnestly ask the Government to work through the larger and not the smaller authority. The Milk Bill of last year proceeds on the system of working through the local sanitary authority, who are the urban and rural district council. They must be small bodies. Work through the county councils or the county borough councils. We all know the faults of small bodies. We cannot expect really good administration except from the larger bodies. The effect of pure milk has been shown in a very remarkable way in New-York. In 1910 they started milk stations for children, where milk was sold under the control of the municipality. In 1910 the average death-rate per thousand children born was 149; after one year of these stations it fell to 125; in two years to 111;
    1040
    and in three years to 105. There you have a diminution in the death-rate per thou-, sand of nearly fifty in three years. Those figures speak for themselves, and I need not say anything more except that I am sure the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this question and for the excellent speech which he has made.
    Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not rise with any desire to oppose this Motion, but I wish to utter a few words of caution on the question of milk legislation. Hon. Members who have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Astor) must have wondered that any of us succeed in reaching maturity at all, or that any of us who drink milk are alive at the present time. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend takes a little too much for granted a question upon which I have always understood until recently there was considerable divergence of opinion, and that is, how far bovine tuberculosis is capable of being transmitted to human beings. I believe that the late Professor Koch was of opinion that it could not be so transmitted. I think, therefore, that we cannot believe that every one of the ills connected with tuberculosis of which we hear so frequently is really proved to come from bovine tuberculosis. Our knowledge with regard to bovine tuberculosis is in a very elementary state, or, at any rate, is not settled at all. There is the great question of how to test tuberculous cows. It is well known that some cows will react at certain periods and not at others. Very often a tuberculous cow will not react when tested at a certain time. It is, therefore, impossible to prove freedom from bovine tuberculosis in the case of certain animals. The question of the milk supply is largely a commercial question. Everybody interested in the milk supply from a farming point of view would welcome very heartily further milk legislation that would simplify the large number of existing laws. We want an end to be put to the constant attempts of various local authorities to produce their own separate forms of interference with the milk-producing industry.
    One question about which you have to be very careful, and which is often not sufficiently considered by milk reformers, is how far, if you make your laws too stringent, you are going to limit the production of the real fresh article. By the aid of modern processes, we have various milk preparations—milk reduced to

    1041
    powder, or desiccated or condensed. The firms which makes these preparations take an enormous amount of fresh milk, and if you make your legislation too stringent, they will take a still larger proportion. I am confident that none of the desiccated milks or other forms of preserved milk, however good they may be, are really the same as the genuine fresh article. You must be careful in framing your legislation not to bring it to a point at which a greater amount of milk would be turned into these manufactured or partly manufactured products, and the supply of the genuine fresh article diminished. The proposals of my hon. Friends are largely in the direction of the classification of milk. This seems to me to present a great difficulty. If I understand the scheme aright, you are to have inspection of dairies and examination of shops. The shops of the milk seller are to be graded A, B, and C. I presume the shopkeeper is to have a licence, renewable at certain periods, and his milk will have to be tested to see that it comes up to the standard laid down. But, supposing that, through no fault of his own, a larger proportion of germs gets into his milk, which comes from a dairy having a first-class certificate, is the unfortunate shopkeeper, who cannot possibly know this, to have his license taken away, or to be fined? How are you going to settle where the responsibility lies? How are you going to prove whose fault it is, seeing the enormous number of hands through which the milk passes? Further, how is the milk seller to know whether or not the milk comes up to Standard A or B? It seems to me absolutely impossible. As my hon Friend said, there are only certain places where the number of germs can be counted. I suppose it takes a certain amount of time to test the number of germs. How is the unfortunate milk-seller to know whether the number is exceeded or not. The milk-producing community are most anxious to do all they can to improve the quality of the milk sold. There is an unanimous desire to get rid of avoidable uncleanliness.
    When you come to the examination and classification of dairies you have another problem to deal with. In the county in which I live there is a large amount of open-air milking, especially in the summer. The milk-carts drive out with two or three milkers, and men and women sit down and milk the cows in the open field. How are you going to exercise any sort of supervision over that class of milk? It is impossible.
    1042
    Are you going to give a first-class certificate to any milk obtained by milking in the open air? How are you going to guarantee the cleanliness of the bucket or of the milkers themselves who have to go out a mile or two from the farm? It is a most difficult problem. To my mind the hon. Member very largely touched the root of the question when he said that pasteurisation is the secret of getting pure milk in this country. I think if you could set up pasteurising centres for the purification of milk, it would probably be a most admirable thing. Here, again, it is a matter of getting the milk into the centre where you could set up the necessary machinery for carrying out the pasteurisation. All of us who are interested in the milk trade will be very glad indeed, to see something done in the matter of legislation to simplify matters, and to inform us where we actually are in the matter of the milk laws, standards of cleanliness and purity, and so on, which the great majority of us want to keep up. These should not be unnecessary standards. They should be standards which we can as far as possible agree upon, because, remember, if you once begin to set up a standard which is unnecessarily high, you will find that when it comes to pulling down buildings and rebuilding cow-stalls that it would lead to a diminution of the supply. It is a commercial matter. If the profit you get from the milk trade will not allow you to replace your buildings, the land will be used in other directions than in the production of milk. It will be used for fattening cattle, and so on. You want to be very careful indeed when you are dealing with this question not to overlook the purely commercial side, and to see when you are trying to improve and to increase the supply of milk throughout the country that you do not enormously diminish that supply. It is very dangerous ground which you may have to tread, It is very desirable, if we are to have further legislation, that it should be carried out with real care and caution, and with a certainty, so far as possible, that you are not going to injure a trade which I believe most people desire to see carried on.
    Mr. ALDEN: Though I do not agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, I quite agree that we ought to be careful in any legislation that is placed on the Statute Book to see that it does not bear too hardly upon those who are engaged in

    1043
    this important trade—to see that we do not strain to breaking point the commercial side of this question. I would just like, however, to disabuse the hon. Member, if I understood him aright, of the idea that tuberculosis cannot be spread by milk that is obtained from cows that are diseased. I understood the hon. Member to say that it was not proved. I think he will find, if he will consult the latest authorities, that it is proved to demonstration, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that tuberculosis can be spread, and is being spread, throughout the length and the breadth of the country by milk taken from cows which are infected. I did not listen to the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion, who takes such a warm interest in all these questions that appertain to the life of the working classes, but if I may run the risk of repeating figures that probably he used, I should like to give the House the very latest figures in regard to the number of cows that are regarded as diseased in this one respect.
    According to the latest figures, there are 4,000,000 cows in the country. Two per cent. of these cows have tuberculosed udders. That means that all the milk obtained from these cows—and I believe we may reckon on the average about 420 gallons per annum from each cow—is either spreading the disease, or has the potentiality of spreading the disease.
    Over thirty-three million gallons of infected milk is sold every year in this country. I would not like to say—for I am not a doctor—as to how much harm is done by this, but I do not think that anybody can deny who reads the reports of medical officers and others, and who studies the work of those men who have given special attention to this question, that an enormous amount of harm is done, especially to the child life of this country. A very large number of children never get milk at all, not only, I am sorry to say, in the towns, but in the country. On the other hand, where do they get milk in poor districts, in the East End of London, and in Greater London, it is of very poor quality, certainly the C quality to which the hon. Member referred. It is sold very often in shops that are not properly looked after or cared for, and where there is an enormous amount of dust and dirt. The result is that by our lack of methods of administration, and possibly by our lack of legislation, we are undoubtedly creating
    1044
    and perpetuating a very large amount of disease amongst the children of this country. I very warmly support the methods that have been suggested by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have myself many times seen the methods in operation in the United States. There are towns there which have really gone one better than New York. I think Springfield, Massachusetts, has gone one better. The result is that in Springfield you not only get no decrease in the sale of milk, but you get an enormous increase in the sale of quality A milk. The town has improved in health, generally speaking; the death-rate has decreased, and infantile mortality has very largely decreased.
    With regard to the suggestions of future legislation, to be as brief as possible, I will just quote what I think to be the most important matters on my note, and those with which I think hon. Members will agree. In the first instance, we ought to have veterinary inspection of all milch cows and the elimination of cows that have tuberculosed udders. Of course there is a great deal of tuberculosis in cows that is not dangerous from the standpoint at which we are looking at the matter—10 per cent., I think. Lest hon. Members opposite should think that I want to do the industry any harm if we eliminate cows with tuberculosed udders, we ought, in the first instance, to give compensation. If we take upon ourselves the responsibility of legislation, which I admit to be somewhat drastic, I think we ought to say to the farmer, "We will see that you do not lose by it, but we ask you to be as careful as possible in the future." There should be uniform regulations with regard to ventilation and cleanliness. I do not think that it is absolutely essential that those regulations should be so severe as to cripple the trade. Indeed, it is largely a matter of plenty of fresh air in the cowshed—plenty of whitewash, if you like! At any rate, it should be such cleanliness as is possible. It is really more a matter of care than anything. It is not a matter of an expensive cowshed, but of care and cleanliness. When the farmer really begins to understand that cleanliness means money to him, he will be much more careful than he is now. At present it does not make any difference to him. The methods suggested do mean money to him, just as they mean money to the shopkeeper.
    The county council is the only authority so far as dairies and cowsheds are con-

    1045
    cerned that can properly carry out the regulations. Milk dispatched to a large town and sold in that town by a shopkeeper, should as speedily as possible be cooled; I am not prepared to say to what degree it should be cooled, I believe the suggestion is forty degrees Fahrenheit. It should be placed in locked churns, and not be interfered with, or tampered with, so that you are really able to say that the milk that arrives in town is as pure as it could be, and has not been interfered with in any respect. I think all the premises—and I am not quite sure that everyone will agree with me here—for the sale of and production and storage of milk, should be registered. I think milk dealers ought to be licensed. Of course, that is more or less the practice at the present time, but we should add to that and make of it a criminal offence to sell unclean milk, known to be unclean, as it is an offence to sell adulterated milk.
    I hope I am not exaggerating the importance of this question, but surely it is more important that you should have your milk clean than pure in the sense of not being adulterated with water. Water will not do it any real harm. The milk will not be so useful to the child; but it is clearly more harmful to sell unclean milk than milk with water in it, and I say it ought to be a criminal offence to sell milk notoriously unclean. May I say here with regard to what the hon. Member opposite said as to its being difficult to test, I admit it would be if you had to test it in every individual instance, but the point is that the farmer, the dairyman, and the shopman would arrive at a certain standard, and that would be taken as granted afterwards, and these men would keep up to a certain quality and grade. You need not test the milk in every individual instance—that would be quite impossible—but if you found that men were taking all necessary precautions to produce pure milk, and to sell pure milk, it seems to me by thus securing a grade, and a method of grading and classifying, you could give the necessary permission to sell milk of a certain grade. I do not think the difficulties are so great as the hon. Member suggests, and at any rate it is quite clear that the hon. Member is interested in this question and wishes to safeguard the milk. I believe that is the wish of every hon. Member, and I do not believe that we shall get pure milk until we have fresh legislation and much more stringent administration of the law.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I want, with the leave of the House, for a short time to deal with the circumstances under which cream is sold at the present time. Cream has this distinction in its sale from milk, that the Local Government Board allows a certain amount of artificial preservative to be added to cream which they do not allow in the case of milk. The sale of cream is largely carried on by what they call the jug trade—that is, that cream being an expensive thing to buy, the farmer, in the first instance, supplies a email quantity, which is retailed often to the poor, for whom it is prescribed by doctors, and it can only be done in circumstances which render it possible to resell it at prices within the means of purchasers if some preservative is allowed to be added. I think I can show in the few words which I wish to address to the House that the present condition of the regulations issued, or rather which the Local Government Board has failed to issue, are such that the sale of cream at the present time is being carried on to the danger of the public and to the obvious injustice of the cream trade.
    Let me tell the House shortly what the history of these regulations with reference to the sale of cream is. Preserved cream as such has been largely sold for about twenty years—and, indeed, since the use of boron as a preservative has been appreciated In 1901 a Departmental Committee of this House sat and took a vast amount of evidence, investigating the whole subject, and issued its recommendations, which were to the effect that although they recommended no preservative should be added in the case of milk, in the case of cream seventeen and a half grains to the pound of boron preservative might with safety be added. They also recommended that the Local Government Board should issue regulations to that effect. No regulations were issued and the trade were left in doubt, particularly after the somewhat conflicting evidence given before the Departmental Committee as to the amount of preservative that might safely be added to the cream. The next thing that happened was that in 1908 there was a case tried in the Courts in which the vendor of the cream had added 22 grains of boron to the cream. He was prosecuted on the recommendation of the Local Government Board officer, and the Courts, after taking a great amount of evidence, held that 22 grains might with safety be added for the consumption of

    1047
    adults, but that 22 grains was injurious to infants and invalids, and the Lord Chief Justice who tried the case recommended that in the future sales of cream there should be a statement added that the preserved cream contained the amount which the Courts then held to be a proper addition, and that it should not be used for infants or invalids, and for some time that recommendation was carried out by the trade. The next thing that happened was in the year 1909, when the Local Government Board, apparently having at last awakened to their responsibility in the matter, employed one of their very distinguished officers, Dr. Hamill, to investigate the whole question and to make a representation to them upon what amount of boron or other preservative might safely be added to cream. Hamill seems to have gone with great care into the question, and his conclusion is this. He says:—
    "There appears to be no doubt that it is impracticable to carry on the jug-cream trade of the type already described without the use of some preservative. In France and Germany, where the use of preservatives in cream is prohibited, the jug-cream trade is nonexistent."
    He also says:—
    "The 'indirect' cream trade based on boron preservatives has however become important in this country, and it is undoubtedly a convenience to the public."
    And then he gives the results of experiments he carried out, and he says that 17½ grains may be reasonably added in hot weather, and in cold weather the amount that may be added with safety to health is 28 grains. He actually says:—
    "The experiments in the main bear out the contention of the traders as regards the necessity in the present condition of the trade for some preservative if the cream is to be kept for several days, and insufficiency of 0.25 per cent. for this purpose in hot weather..…"
    He goes on to say:—
    "There would however, appear to be in present circumstances some rounds for an extension of this limit during the hotter months of the year. Ample margin would be given if a concession of 0.4 per cent. were granted during the months of May to October inclusive."
    That report was made by Dr. Hamill to the Local Government Board, and it was circulated by them to all the local authorities in the country to all the medical officers of health, and to the trade generally, and was not unnaturally looked upon by the trade and by the medical officers of health as containing the standard which was to be their guide in the future. That was in 1908. The next thing that happened was that the case came before the Courts in 1909. In that case the trader had added
    1048
    22 grains, and had added the same in the month of June during the period covered by Dr. Hamill's recommendations, that twenty-eight grains might safely be added. I was engaged in that case, and it lasted many days. Distinguished experts were called on both sides, courageous scientists were called on one side, who said that that very morning they had imbibed in their cream a mass of boric acid largely in excess of that tolerated by Dr. Hamill, and their intellects remained unimpaired. Other distinguished scientists were called on the other side, who said it would for ever remain a matter of speculative science why the gentlemen who had just been in the witness-box had not died a painful and premature death from the cream they had consumed. The case assumed an enormous and an expensive course, with the result that in the end the Court upheld the conviction, and the man was fined for having added 22 grains during the period covered by Dr. Hamill's recommendation that he might, with safety to himself and the public, add 28 grains.
    It is not to be wondered at that under that condition of things the trade was in some doubt as to what they should do in the future, and, consequently, Regulations were issued in 1912 by the Local Government Board after all these years, having waited from 1901 until the Departmental Committee had sat and recommended, until 1912, and at last the mountain brought forth certainly a mouse, because the Regulations which were issued are interesting, but are absolutely upon the one vital point. The recommendations which were issued say in terms that a preservative may be added to cream. They state what the preservatives are, namely, boric acid, borax, or a mixture of those preservative substances, or hydrogen-peroxide, in any case in which the cream is intended for human consumption. And they are good enough to append to the Regulations a draft of the label which is in the future to be affixed to all cream sold containing preservatives. They properly determine that no preserved cream is to be sold in the future, except as being preserved cream, and they prescribe the label to be affixed to preserved cream in the future. This is the label:—
    "Preserved cream containing boric acid not exceeding… per cent."
    Therefore the position of the trader at the present time is that the Departmental Committee has told him that he may add

    1049
    17½ per cent. A case in the High Court, tried by the Lord Chief Justice, has recognised the validity for adults of 22 per cent. Board of Trade Regulations are issued saying that he may add something providing that he states on the bottle what he is adding, and leaving it to him to state how much he has added. That would be a consolation but for the fact which I was fortunate enough to elicit the other day in answer to a question which I put to the President of the Local Government Board. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform me the number of prosecutions which had taken place against I forget how many vendors, who had been convicted since 1900 for selling cream with an added preservative, and what in each case was held to be legal. The answer given contains the somewhat startling fact to the members of the cream trade that in twenty-one cases vendors of cream have been prosecuted and convicted for adding less than 25, that is, 17½ grains per cent. of boric acid, that being the amount the Departmental Committee recommended in 1901, so that the unfortunate people who had read the Report of the Departmental Committee in 1901, and had acted upon it, find themselves now prosecuted and convicted for having broken the law. Really it is adding a new terror to the procedure of this House if a Departmental Committee is, after taking evidence, to make recommendations and those who carry them out are to find themselves liable to be prosecuted for doing so. The result of the whole matter is that at the present time the vendors of cream have no idea what they are to add. They know that they are allowed to add something, and the law imposes upon them the duty of stating on the face of that which they sell what is the amount of preservative it contains. If they carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee they are liable to be prosecuted. If they carry out the recommendations of Dr. Hamill to the Board of Trade, which was circulated for their guidance and information, they would certainly be prosecuted, because it is higher than the amount recommended by the Departmental Committee, and in this way they are harassed by legislation and prosecutions. One medical officer takes one view and another medical officer a totally different view. One medical officer of health thinks that 22 per cent. is a salubrious and healthy condition for cream to be nutritive in the extreme, And says that such cream does a good deal
    1050
    of good. Another medical officer of health thinks the same is poisonous, and should be put down at once by prosecution, and the unfortunate member of the trade is left to determine for himself, without the least help or guidance from the Department which has invited this Report, which has circulated it, and which contains the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, a Department which, since 1901, has totally neglected to give effect to any of them. Let me read the opinion which a magistrate gave the other day. It is the opinion of one of the Metropolitan police magistrates, who are continually having these questions brought before them. He says:—
    "I hope the application to the Board of Agriculture will lead to something being done, so that the traders may know what position they stand in."
    I wish to point out that under the Food and Drugs Act of 1899 the Board of Agriculture have the power to make the rules for which we are asking, and to define what is the amount of preservative which may legitimately be added to cream. In the interests of the public who consume the cream, and in the interests of the traders themselves, I say that these Regulations are long overdue, and I ask the President of the Local Government Board to tell us when he will pass them or bring pressure to bear upon the proper Department to let the facts be known, and this soon, so that the trade may know what they may add, and in order that the public may know what they are buying.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: There will be general agreement in the House and also in the country that this subject is one of very great importance, and when we recognise the importance of it I think we shall see that there is proof and need for legislative action; but it is all important that we should act upon prudent lines. It is all right to see the consumer is properly protected and safeguarded. That, by all means, is the first consideration, but after that we want to ensure that there will be nothing done which is impracticable, or which will unnecessarily harass the farmer or vendor. The milk industry is carried on under many difficulties. I do not think that there is any class of British farmers who earn their money harder than the dairy farmers of this country. Therefore nothing should be done by Parliament to make their lot more difficult, or to drive them out of their business. The farmers of this country quite frankly admit as reasonable that our milk supply

    1051
    should come from healthy cows, from cows clean from any tuberculous disease of the udder; secondly, that those cows should be housed in sanitary cowsheds, and that the milk should be handled in proper dairy premises, with ventilation, drainage and everything else in a proper condition; and, thirdly, that the persons who handle the milk and the cows should be persons whom we know and are confident we know to be free from any infectious disease, and persons in a healthy condition. With those three main provisions, I think that it is possible to draft legislation of a practical nature, which will ensure the people of this country getting healthy milk. We have heard it said—I think the Mover of the Resolution referred to it—that a great deal of disease was actually going into the milk from the cows, but there are other sources from which disease can get into the milk. It can get into the milk in transit, either on the railways or in our streets. Therefore, if there were a more general sale of milk in sealed bottles, bottles which were made up in the dairy, there would be less chance of contamination. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. P. Alden) has referred to what is done in New York. There are three grades of milk sold in that city. He referred to grade 1, which is extra good, then to grade 2, and then to grade 3, which I presume is rather bad. I do not think that any people in this country should be inflicted with bad milk. The children of the poorer classes are as entitled to get milk from healthy cows, handled under sanitary conditions, as the children of any other class of the country. Therefore, this House should do nothing which would in any way encourage or permit a class of milk which cannot be called good milk being sold to our consumers. With those three provisions which I have enumerated, I have no doubt that prudent legislation of a practical nature can be drafted, which would be a protection to our consumers, and yet not hamper and harass a trade which should be encouraged and helped to increase the quantity and quality of the milk being produced.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I am fully in sympathy with the wording of the Resolution before the House, but the suggestions which I should like to make differ somewhat fundamentally from those which have been urged by my two hon. Friends. I may say that, if those suggestions are
    1052
    somewhat drastic, they at least have the merit of being based on my own personal experience during the last ten years. Previous Bills which have been before the House in recent years have failed really to go to the root of the difficulty, because they have only attempted to deal with cases of somewhat advanced disease, and therefore cases where considerable harm may already have been done. Another disadvantage has been that in such cases of advanced disease there were questions of very considerable compensation, which, of course, meant a very large expense to the public in compensating the farmer, somewhat inadequately, for his loss. Before I go on to the main point of my argument, I must say a word or two with regard to the question of bovine and human tuberculosis, because I know that there is a very considerable amount of opinion—it has already been expressed by one of my hon. Friends this evening—that there is some doubt as to the action of bovine bacillus on human beings. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) is also of opinion that bovine bacillus is not dangerous to human beings. In a report which was recently issued by Dr. Sims Woodhead, who was a member of the British Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, he gives the result of his investigations, not officially as a member of that body, but taking advantage, notwithstanding, of the information which he derived by sitting on that Commission. He states that of twenty-nine cases of primary abdominal tuberculosis, fourteen yielded bovine bacilli only and thirteen human bacilli only, whilst in two cases both types of bacilli were demonstrated and separated. Of the fourteen cases containing bovine bacilli only ten were children between one and three years of age, three between four and five years of age, and one eight years of age; and of the fourteen cases six died from generalised tuberculosis, which, I think, shows that in the case, at least, of children and of abdominal tuberculosis there is no doubt whatever that the origin is bovine. If that be granted, surely our object should be, if possible, to endeavour gradually to extirpate this disease of tuberculosis from cattle in general.
    I admit that sounds a very large proposition. But then tuberculosis does not seem to exist in a large degree among cattle until they have been brought into buildings. If you examine the greater

    1053
    number of young cattle in the country, living in the open air, you will find a comparatively small percentage suffering from this disease. Out of ninety-nine young animals which I had examined by the tuberculin test, only six reacted, this showing a satisfactory condition among young animals which had not been brought into buildings. Our object should be to endeavour to produce clean herds of cattle—herds free from disease—and I believe this can only be done satisfactorily by detecting the disease in its incipient stages, and not waiting until it has become aggravated. That should be followed up by segregating animals which are proved to be either doubtful or slightly diseased, and turning them to some useful account, rather than destroying them, which is extremely expensive. Thirdly, in the case of doubtful animals, while in milk, their milk should be turned to use, either being pasteurised or used for feeding calves or pigs. With regard to the experience on which I base these suggestions, a herd of cows which I became possessed of some ten years ago, I found to be tuberculous to a very high degree, and I determined to put this plan into experimental operation. They were all examined, and those who were not tuberculous were tested by the tuberculin test. They were then divided into three classes. Those in an advanced stage of the disease were destroyed. The second class, which were proved by the tests either to be suspicious, or to be in the primary stages of the disease, were segregated together, and were turned to the best account to which they could be turned. Some were turned into beef, and the milk obtained from others was fed to animals. The third class were those which passed the test and were proved to be sound. There were only thirteen animals which passed the test, and they became the nucleus of the herd.
    This took place in 1904. Of the thirteen animals which passed the test, three reacted later during 1905–6, and were drafted out. After having passed the test once, they were still found to be diseased. On the other hand, since that date I have introduced ninety-nine animals from outside. I did not actually introduce the ninety-nine, but that number went through the examination. Six reacted, and the other ninety-three were introduced, and only one of these has since been found to be tuberculous. These animals—the original thirteen and the ninety-three—have been kept in a definite area, and no
    1054
    animals come into that area without passing through a quarantine, in which they stay two months, and are then examined under the tuberculin test. That seems to be rather an elaborate experiment, but, as a matter of fact, it is not an extremely costly process. It has this great advantage, that I have certainly got from this source a herd which is absolutely free from any tuberculosis whatever, and in it I have only had one case of tuberculosis since the year 1906. Obviously then, so long as that remains the condition of the herd of cattle, there is no cost except that of testing the cows twice a year, and that I need hardly say is a very much cheaper thing than constantly finding the cows affected with disease, and having to incur a total loss or paying compensation to the farmer.
    I suggest therefore it should be taken into consideration whether, in the legislation which we understand is to be placed before this House shortly, it is worth while considering the possibility of some system, firstly, of testing the cows with a view to segregating those which are doubtful, or in the incipient stages of the disease from those which are quite healthy, and secondly, it would be necessary, and I admit at first it would be rather a big undertaking to set up some farm, either a State or a municipal farm, at which you can segregate animals which are drafted for reacting to the test. By segregating them on these farms, taking them over at the valuation of a comparatively damaged article, the loss would not be so great a would have to be paid if compensation were paid for a completely diseased animal. I think, therefore, even if such a system as public segregation farms were adopted, the result would be we should have the gradual extinction and elimination of the disease from the herds of the country, and we should get a result which would justify some considerable trouble and drastic treatment at the beginning, and would be fully warranted by the results to be anticipated. My only fear is that if the proposal forecasted in the Bill brought before this House during the last two years, is carried out, and we attempt to deal only with animals which are proved already to be diseased, we shall never advance towards the total elimination of the disease, and the very heavy expenses and losses occurred in the early future will be continued into the far future. I think, therefore, it would be unfortunate if that were accepted as a final settlement of this question.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) who called the attention of the House to this Motion to-night has, I think, rendered very valuable service. He has directed our attention to a subject of the greatest importance, and has enabled us to obtain a guide to the feeling of the House, which will be invaluable when we come to consider these different proposals. I think it is agreed on all hands that milk does have a very direct connection with the spread of tuberculosis. There is no doubt whatever that non-pulmonary tuberculosis is very prevalent in children, and that there are many cases of hip disease, scrofula, and other diseases which are of a tuberculous character. Very many cases are fatal. In the latest year for which I have figures—1911—the number of cases of all kinds of tuberculosis among people of all ages in England and Wales was 53,000, but of these the number of cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis among children under the age of fifteen years was no fewer than 13,000, or one-fourth of the whole. One-fourth of all the cases of tuberculosis in this country are eases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis among children. It seems absurd that when we are engaged in a great national campaign against tuberculosis, and are spending millions to deal with pulmonary tuberculosis, we should almost ignore one-fourth of the whole number of cases, namely, the cases of tuberculosis of a non pulmonary character among children. This House, of course, does not consist of experts in matters of diagnosis. Any Member of this House who is not a medical man would be very rash indeed to state on his own authority whether or not this disease is transmitted from cattle through milk. We must in that respect rely upon the best expert opinion, obtained after the most exhaustive inquiry. It is for this very purpose, for the guidance of the Legislature in matters such as these, that we do appoint our Royal Commissions and our Departmental Committees. As the question was thrown into doubt by the famous declaration of Dr. Koch, the last Government, in 1901, appointed a Royal Commission to examine this very question of the relation of human and bovine tuberculosis. After taking a wealth of evidence, and sitting for no fewer than six years, the Commission, which was a Commission of experts whose authority has been unchallenged, came to this conclusion:—
    1056
    "There can be no doubt but that in a certain number of cases tuberculosis occurring in the human subject, especially in children, is the direct result of the introduction into the human body of the bacillus of bovine tuberculosis; and there also can be no doubt that in the majority, at least, of these cases, the bacillus is introduced through cows' milk. Cows' milk containing bovine tubercle bacilli is clearly a cause of bovine tuberculosis and of fatal tuberculosis in man."
    They go on to say:—
    "A very considerable amount of disease and loss of life, especially among the young, must be attributed to the consumption of cows' milk containing tubercle bacilli."
    That was the unanimous decision of the Royal Commission appointed to examine this very question after six years' investigation. There has since then—indeed, last year—been a further Report of the Departmental Committee on Tuberculosis, presided over by the hon. Member for Plymouth, which contained a large number of experts of the highest authority in this country on the subject, and they reported:—
    "The Committee, having regard to the findings and reports of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis and to other investigations, are of opinion that the bacillus of bovine tuberculosis is a cause of tuberculosis in man and, to a greater extent, in children."
    They went on to say:—
    "Tuberculosis, in one form or another, is widely prevalent among children, and the Committee consider the evidence convincing that children are infected through tuberculous milk, as well as from other sources."
    I submit that we cannot properly go behind these declarations. We must proceed from that starting point, that the bodies appointed to examine, for our information, this very subject, have come to these very definite and unanimous conclusions. It is also agreed on all hands that the present measures which are taken by the law and the administration of the law to stop these hundreds and thousands of deaths of children, especially from tuberculosis through milk, are quite inadequate. This death-rate continues, and the children are now dying. Week by week and month by month thousands more of them are suffering from hip disease, diseases of the glands, and other causes which we are told on the best authority are the result of taking tuberculous milk, and it is plain that it is the duty of the State to take these matters into account and to act effectively.
    Mr. HUNT: What precautions are taken about the foreign milk that comes into England? Are the same precautions going to be taken about foreign milk as are going to be taken about milk from this country?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is very little foreign milk coming into this country. No precautions practically are taken with regard to tuberculosis. It is proposed in the Bill, which I shall introduce before long, that a Clause shall form part of it to the effect that the Local Government Board shall make regulations to apply to foreign imported milk, and these regulations will be on similar lines to the regulations which will apply to domestic milk. I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is essential that we should, as far as we are able, apply to foreign imported milk the same regulations as regards test and so forth that we apply to milk of domestic production. The Board of Agriculture has recently issued an Order enabling compensation to be paid to farmers for cattle which are slaughtered owing to their being found to be suffering from the more serious forms of tuberculosis, and so far, in about eight months, 4,000 cows have been slaughtered under this provision. But it has been represented by the agricultural community and recognised by the Board that the present form of Order is not quite adequate to meet the need, and I am able to inform the House that the Board is on the point of issuing an amended Order which will grant compensation on somewhat more generous terms, and also assist the local authorities with their expenses in the administration of this Order.
    Mr. HILLS: Will the Treasury Grant be increased?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think nearly all the Treasury Grant has so far been spent. Only a small proportion has been spent, but there will be better terms of compensation.
    Mr. STANIER: Will any more be given for compensation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To the local authorities, yes. You are dealing then with known cases of tuberculosis, which are easily detected on examination. You have to provide means of tracing back the tuberculous milk to the cow, because frequently the cow may give tuberculous milk and show no very obvious signs of disease or emaciation, and have no visible tuberculosis of the udder. There are at present most inadequate provisions for effecting this in a great number of cases, and it is necessary to amend the law in that regard. But tuberculosis is not the only disease, of course, which is transmitted by milk. It
    1058
    has long been recognised—and here the measures already taken by the law are much more adequate—that enteric fever, scarlet fever and diphtheria are communicated by milk, and in spite of the measures which are now taken, epidemics still continue to be caused by infected milk, and, on the average of the last ten years, every two months there is an epidemic somewhere in the country, large or small, of one of these diseases caused by infected milk.
    A case was brought to me only recently which took place last October in the neighbourhood of Newcastle, where one cow was suffering from some gastric disease, and was almost dying, but was, nevertheless, as long as it was alive, milked, and the milk was sent into Newcastle, and it was ascertained in the inquiry that took place that more than 500 persons suffered serious illness from gastro-enteritis solely through taking milk infected by this one cow. The provision of milk of that character is a crime against society, and yet there is no adequate means under the present law of detecting and dealing effectively with such a case. Further, there is dirty milk sold which need not necessarily contain the bacilli of grave diseases, but which is undoubtedly detrimental to health. Dirty milk, it is believed, has a considerable bearing on infantile mortality. I am not sure that mere bacterial count is a conclusive guide as to the danger of milk, and I must say that my faith in that test was gravely shaken when the hon. Member (Mr. Astor) told us that we here in the House of Commons drink milk which contains 70,000,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. If I drink 70,000,000 bacteria in my milk and suffer no bad effects, I am inclined to suspect that it does not matter very much whether there are 10,000,000, 70,000,000 or 100,000,000, provided they are bacteria of a friendly species. It depends on what your bacteria are. No doubt a high bacterial count may indicate that the milk is stale through being kept too long, or that it is dirty, and, other things being equal, that it is more likely to be deleterious than milk with a low bacterial count. But it does not follow if you take in 70,000,000 bacteria you will therefore be likely to contract grave diseases by that means.
    The fact remains that the measures which have so far been taken to deal with the milk supply are totally inadequate to safeguard the public health. Our laws date back to a time before the importance of

    1059
    bacterial contamination was fully realised. We do, indeed, take the utmost pains to guarantee the purity of our water supply, and yet we allow our milk supply to go almost unprotected. Milk is an ideal medium for the cultivation of all kinds of bacteria. From the public health point of view, my Department hold the opinion that it is essential that further measures should be taken to safeguard the health of the community in this connection. Then there is the question of the adulteration of milk by the addition of water or skimmed milk. The law there is much more effective, but still it is also inadequate in that connection and needs strengthening. Unquestionably there is at the present day a very great deal of adulteration of milk which cannot be checked under the provisions of the existing law and its administration. I have made very full inquiry into this matter since I came into the office which I now hold, and I have been in communication with the various people concerned.
    I find every interest anxious for legislation. It is a very remarkable thing that the communications which I have received begin by stating that the people concerned are very anxious to have a Milk Bill. Some of them vary in their views as to what the Bill should contain, but they all say that the present position is unsatisfactory and should be remedied. It may interest the House to know that during the last few years the bodies which have made representations to the Local Government Board asking for legislation on this subject include the County Councils Association, the Municipal Corporations Association, the Urban District Councils Association, the London County Council, almost all the county boroughs, many other individual local authorities, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Royal Sanitary Institution, the Association of Veterinary Officers of Health, the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, the National Union of Public Health Authorities, the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, a number of individual farmers' associations, the Metropolitan Dairymen's Society, the Dairy Traders' Protection Society, and many local dairymen's associations, the Dairy Farmers' Association, and many more.
    That shows a great body of opinion which is united as to the necessity of a law being enacted by Parliament. This
    1060
    unanimity is due to various reasons. I find that the milk traders desire more and more stringent enforcement of the law against adulteration. They who are honest men, conducting their trade in a fair manner, feel that it is unfair that they should be exposed to the competition of other men who seek to undercut them and take away their business by adulterating their milk, and that the law is not sufficiently powerful to check that practice. Then they are also most anxious to maintain the reputation of their trade, to the service of which they devote their life's energy. They do not like to feel that milk should be under the stigma of being a carrier of disease. They want the commodity in which they deal day by day to be made as healthy as it can be made, and they would welcome any effective practical regulation which would enable them as individuals to be sure that the milk that reaches them, and which they sell, shall be pure and wholesome milk. Then the agriculturists are moved to a great extent by the same desire, so that the law shall secure a high standard for the article which they sell. They also object most strongly to the overlapping powers which at present exist in the hands of various authorities. They object to the medical department of some great borough coming down into their own agricultural districts and regulating their affairs for them. They want their own authorities to regulate in an effective way the manner in which the industry shall be carried on in these districts. Further, they object to the variety of the law.
    It has been stated that about 100 of the boroughs have now obtained powers to enforce certain regulations for the protection of the members of the community from tuberculosis. Though these powers are not altogether effective they have been of some use. Other boroughs have not got them. The farmer sending milk to Bolton is or may be subject to certain regulations, certain inquiries, and inspection tests, and so forth. If he goes to Manchester he finds that the law is much more strict, and that he will have to observe an entirely different code of regulations, and be liable to other inspections, through sending his milk to another town, where the powers which are conferred by Parliament are different. The municipal corporations are dissatisfied because of the variety and confusion of the law, and also because, although these 100 boroughs have got these powers, no fresh

    1061
    boroughs can get powers, because the Parliamentary Committees have refused to grant powers to any boroughs pending the general legislation which is anticipated. This is a matter for the general law. It is not a matter for local legislation, and any Bill which is introduced should, in my opinion, supersede all these various codes which are now administered by the local authority, by the uniform provision of a general Statute. The hon. Member for Dorset asked us not to press too hardly on the farmer, or we may find that the natural milk will be replaced by condensed or desiccated milk. I think that there is much force in that argument.
    But also we must remember that unless the people in the towns can be sure that the milk is pure and wholesome, they may be tempted to take condensed milk, which is produced in factories on a large scale, and on the wholesomeness of which they can have some reliance. How is it, with the case so ready for action, and with so many bodies combined to ask for legislation, that still nothing is done? My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he was at the Local Government Board, year after year brought in a Milk and Dairies Bill. It made no progress; it never even reached the Second Reading. The reason was that many hon. Members in different quarters of the House thought that the Bill contained some alarming provisions. They thought that the powers which were given to a Government Department, the Local Government Board, were too wide, and that heavy costs might be thrown on agriculturists through this measure. They were not sure how far the Bill would carry them if it were passed into law. The Clause dealing with warranty offences was much objected to by a large number of milk traders. I have had to take all those motives into account during the last two months, since I have held the present office. I have discussed this matter with fifteen deputations and conferences, and I have had the advice and the views of the interests concerned. The Bill which I hope to introduce very shortly will be a Bill modifying in many particulars every Bill previously before the House. The powers proposed to be conferred, and which we believe will be effective to secure the end in view, are very much more restricted and defined than in the previous Bills. Secondly, we propose that the matter of making the regulations
    1062
    should not rest with the Local Government Board alone, but that wherever those regulations touch the interests of the farmers, the concurrence—not merely consultation, but the concurrence—of the Board of Agriculture should be required, so that the Department specially charged with safeguarding the interests of agriculture should combine with the Department which is specially charged with the duty of protecting the public health to see that these regulations are of a reasonable character. I do not propose in my Bill to, adopt the suggestion thrown out to-night by the hon. Member who moved this Resolution, that all milk sellers should be licensed. I think it would be going unnecessarily far that they should have their licences forfeited for committing various offences, and that they should be more or less in the position of the licensed liquor trade. They must be registered in order that their premises may be inspected. I think, if any offence has been committed, and the milk is not what it should be, a man should be liable to penalties, the ordinary penalties; but I do not think that you should go so far as to stop a man conducting his business by taking away his licence. In regard to tuberculous milk, I propose to take full powers to trace back the milk to its source and to deal effectively with cows which have recently suffered from tuberculosis or which give tuberculous milk.
    The suggestion of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), which has been made from his own experience as an agriculturist, is one which must have interested every Member of the House who heard him, and I have no doubt that in the long run it will be necessary somehow or other to eliminate tuberculosis from our herds. But we are necessarily far away from that now, and, although it may be possible to the hon. Gentleman, a public spirited agriculturist, and with the means at his disposal to carry out his operations to free his own herds from tuberculosis, it would be a very difficult undertaking for the State to establish a segregation farm in every district, to inspect every cow which has had tuberculosis, or which reacts in the slightest degree to the tuberculin test, and to take measures to get rid of tuberculosis from the whole of our herds. And from the point of view of milk supply that is not essential. It is desirable but it is not essential, because many cows

    1063
    which have some degree of tuberculosis do not give tuberculous milk. I am sure he would agree with me when I say that he would not wish to wait to deal with the grave cases of tuberculous milk, the milk which is seriously affected with tuberculosis, which is now being sold to the parents of those children and is now causing disease, and that he would not wish to stop legislation with the hope that more complete measures in the future may be found practicable and effective. We must deal with the grave case with which we are now confronted, and we must deal with it speedily. I agree with hon. Members who said we must not impose heavy costs on the farmers. It is not really a question of cost, it is a question of care. The farmers must see that their milk is sent up in a cleanly condition. I do not contemplate imposing on the agricultural industry heavy expenditure for the erection of milk sheds and for making every farm precisely what we would wish an ideal farm to be. That is no doubt, again desirable, but it is not practicable, and we must make our regulations such as will eliminate the really serious sources of danger without requiring any revolution in the methods that are practised in the agricultural industry.
    If we are to impose those heavy charges the effect would be, perhaps, to get rid of a million or two of bacteria in the milk, and it would also be, very possibly, to raise the price of milk all round, and I am most anxious to avoid that. We want to make more milk accessible to the children of the poor, and we must see that we do nothing to limit the supply. The Bill will be prepared in that spirit. It will enable samples of milk to be taken at any stage of the milk's journey from the cow to the consumer, so that the responsible authorities can see at what point it is that it has become contaminated or adulterated. It will specify more clearly the duties of the local authorities, and will insist on the local authorities performing those duties. Very considerable Grants-in-Aid, which we hope to give by our financial arrangements of this year, ought to assist the local authorities to carry out these and other duties for safeguarding the public health. Finally, we hope to secure by the Bill uniformity in the law, instead of the great diversity which now prevails in different districts. The hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams) raised a somewhat different
    1064
    question, the question of the introduction of preservatives in cream. That is a matter to which the Board have given very careful attention for some time. They have designedly not fixed an official limit of the amount of preservative, because in the present state of knowledge we are not able to say that expert opinion is at all unanimous as to the amount of preservative that can properly be allowed. It is felt that if a figure was inserted in the Regulation, that that would be regarded as carrying with it the information of the Board as being the allowable amount which could not do any harm. We do not feel ourselves in a position to forbid preservatives, as has been done in France and Germany, as he has told us, but we insist that where preservatives are used it should be declared that they are used so that invalids and children should not have this kind since it is for them it is clear it is injurious.
    I turn lastly to the proposal that we should establish a system of certified milk. There is much to be said in favour of that suggestion if it is optional on the part of the producer to produce certified milk. I understand that that is in effect the proposal—that it should not be compulsory upon a producer to come up to a certain standard, but that if he chooses to produce milk which comes up to a high standard from herds which are free from tuberculosis, and is carefully safeguarded on its journey to the consumer, he should be entitled to call the milk "certified milk," and that anyone who did not so safeguard his milk should not be entitled to use that title without penalty. There are two ways in which you can induce people to produce milk of a high standard. One is to impose penalties upon them if they do not. That is the usual course of our legislation. That can only be done where the milk falls below what is regarded as a minimum standard. You can penalise a man only if his milk is really bad. You cannot penalise a man if he produces average milk, or milk a little below the average; it must be below the minimum standard. The other method is to give inducements or an opportunity to make extra profit if he produces milk of a particularly high standard. That is the suggestion of those who advocate the system of certified milk. That is what has occurred in the United States. There a man who produces milk of a particularly good quality is able to obtain from the wealthier classes, hospitals, and other institutions, a higher price, and he benefits

    1065
    in his pocket for his enterprise and for the care he has taken. If this could be done, it would, I believe, have a very salutary effect as an example to other farmers. In a particular district you would have an enlightened and enterprising dairyman or farmer producing his milk by the most scientific methods, and being able to call it "certified milk." His neighbours would see chat without much extra cost he was able to produce milk of a high standard and to reap a considerable amount of extra profit. Before long they would imitate his methods, the production of good milk would be increased, and the price would fall. But if that is to be done, you must make sure that your guarantee of certified milk shall be a real and not a sham guarantee. You must have the machinery which will enable you to see that this certified milk is in all cases what it represents itself to be, otherwise your system will break down, the public will be defrauded, and the original producers of certified milk will be exposed to the competition of others who will produce milk of a lower standard but will not be detected or punished for so doing.
    It is not easy to devise any machinery which will be effective for the purpose. It is difficult enough to enforce the 3 per cent. standard of solid fats, which is now regarded as a minimum for milk; it would be far harder to enforce a standard of less than 10,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. However, I do not say that it is impossible, and my mind is not by any means hostile to the proposal. But it is a new proposal, and I am not sure how it would be regarded in this House. If I were convinced that it would meet with general agreement I would have no objection at all to the inclusion in the Bill of the necessary power to make regulations. But I am most anxious that my Bill should be an agreed Bill, meeting the reasonable and even the unreasonable objections from any quarter of the House. I think the best course will be for me to introduce the Bill without this power, and then if hon. Members opposite move in Committee an Amendment carrying out their ideas, they will see what the House thinks of their proposal. For my own part, I shall be happy to be guided by the general opinion of the House. But the system of certified milk would not by itself meet the need The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) said that he was convinced that this was the best way of dealing with the question. It would not deal
    1066
    with the question so far as it concerned people who could not afford to pay for the certified milk. The poor, for the time being, until the bad milk was lifted up to the same standard, would get unregulated milk of the same kind as they are getting now. Such a system would be a useful supplement to other Regulations, but it cannot be a substitute for them, and I dare say that that is what the hon. Member for Durham really had in mind. I hope to introduce the Bill within a very-short period. I think the many forms through which it has passed are now nearing a conclusion. The ante-natal history of these Bills is a very important one. It is a mistake to introduce a Bill until one has made an effort to meet every objection before the Bill sees the light. I hope that this process will soon be completed, and that I shall soon be able to lay the Bill before the House. I trust hon. Members will feel that they can approve of the provisions, and will lend it their assistance. We hear a great deal about Cabinet autocracy. There is no Cabinet autocracy in matters of this kind. Unless a measure of this sort is generally acceptable in all quarters of the House, it is unlikely to pass. The experience of the last five years has shown how easy it is to stop the progress of this Bill. I hope, therefore, hon. Members who have listened to this Debate, and realise the importance of the proposals, will lend the Bill their aid, and assist in the establishment of a favourable current of opinion in Parliament which will carry this necessary measure safely into port.
    Mr. STANIER: I am sure the community at large, and agriculturists in particular, will welcome most sincerely the proposed legislation which the President of the Local Government Board has foreshadowed. The many reasons that he has given will gain the right hon. Gentleman support. For myself, I can say sincerely I hope the Bill will be considered as more or less an agreed Bill. We welcome the foreshadowed Clause that will make foreign milk come under some regulations. It is a great shame, a great wrong, to those who consume milk in this country that foreign milk should be allowed to come in without any regulations. We also sincerely welcome that part of the Bill which says that the Board of Agriculture is bringing out a new Order, and that the administrative part of the Tuberculosis Order will receive more favourable support than it has done

    1067
    in the past. We also welcome the Clause that will make the Bill supersede the Borough Clauses which control the milk supply in the great boroughs of the country.
    Lastly, we welcome the fact that the Board of Agriculture are to work in cooperation with the Local Government Board. We have always advocated this. I would like to give an example of how agriculturists have been working in the dark, and against regulations that they could not make any headway against. I myself have a farm which sells a large quantity of milk daily. By the force of circumstances the milk is sent in the morning to one city, and in the evening to another city. On account of the railway communication the milk goes to the third city on Sunday. Now all these three boroughs have sent down their inspectors, and everyone of these inspectors ask for different things to be attended to. I am not the occupier or the farmer, I am only the landlord, and therefore I have had all these complaints poured into my ear. The first borough inspector came down and said, "I want perfect cleanliness, perfect light, and perfect ventilation," and all sorts of newfangled ventilation put into the cow-houses. The next man came and said, "I do not care a rap for ventilation, but I must have light and large windows." The third man came, and said, "I do not care for ventilation or light, but I must have the manure heap carried 200 yards from the cow-house." That is the sort of thing going on. There is no uniformity in the demands made by the boroughs, and the farmer is put to great disadvantage; and it is for that reason, as well as any other, that the farmer asks for uniformity of legislation. We have been asked why has this delay gone on so long. We on this side of the House have done what we could. We have brought in our Bills, and the delay is caused by the Local Government Board by the reports being pigeonholed and lost. We hope that the new broom, if I may so refer to him with all due respect, in the Local Government Board will now give the legislation which we in this country demand, and which we as agriculturists will welcome.
    I am rather glad the President of the Local Government Board is not going forward on that question of the grading of milk, because, although it is admirable and absolutely workable in America, I do not yet think that we in this country can
    1068
    teach our small holders, who are the great retailers of our milk supply in the rural districts, that this can be managed at the present time. In the dairy districts the large farmers do not supply the cottagers with milk. It is all sent away to the boroughs and the great cities, and it is the small holders who supply these cottagers, and it will be a bad day for this country if the cottagers are not able to be provided with the milk they need. I do welcome the statement of the President of the Local Government Board that we should go slowly upon this question of grading milk, although I acknowledged it is absolutely right in principle and would do a great deal of good towards securing pure milk. We therefore welcome the legislation the right hon. Gentleman foreshadows, and we hope it will see daylight very soon from now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That fresh legislation is needed to control the supply and sale of Milk and cream in the United Kingdom, and that the existing Laws should be more thoroughly administered."

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    TRADE DISPUTES (EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY).
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Question, "That the Clause be read a second time." [NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of Troops during Trade Disputes.)—Mr. Keir Hardie.]
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. J. WARD: I wish to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), during the discussion this evening, stated that I had said something to the effect that the officers of the Army were delighted with the opportunity of firing upon workmen in labour disputes.
    Mr. LEE: I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. WARD: I wish to repudiate the suggestion that anything I have ever said in this House could bear such a construction.
    Mr. LEE: The hon. Member misunderstood my remarks, doubtless owing to the

    1069
    noise at the time. What I said was that the hon. Member said, not once, but many times, that officers had no objection to shooting down strikers.
    Mr. WARD: What I said was that it was a fact that on the sixteen occasions they had been called out no objection had been taken. I particularly pointed out that I knew it for a fact that no man, neither officer nor soldier, wished to fire on his own blood unless he was absolutely compelled to do so.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I also on a point of personal explanation intervene? The Prime Minister to-day in the course of his speech in a genial manner—I have no complaint at all to make—said that I had been in the habit of calling him an assassin over the Featherstone shooting incident. It has been assumed in the House that I assented to that statement. I interjected a remark which was to the effect that I had not changed my mind on the event. I neither assented nor dissented to the Prime Minister's statement. I am too old to attempt to correct errors of Cabinet Ministers; but, when my hon. Friend below me repeated the remark from our own benches I then felt that I was bound to contradict it. Personally, I have never used the expression, either in speech or writing. It has been used many times by persons identified with a certain section of the Socialist movement. There is not a man on these benches in any way connected with the Labour Party who has ever used such an expression or anything approaching it. I give the Prime Minister and the Committee my word that personally I have never either used or sanctioned the use of that expression.
    Mr. WARD: So far as I am concerned anything I said that suggested the contrary to the hon. Member's observations now, I beg leave to withdraw absolutely.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Clause which has been some little time before the Committee, the interval which has occurred has given me an opportunity of further considering it and also of consultation with Mr. Speaker on the matter, and that has confirmed me in the opinion, which was growing stronger as the discussion proceeded, that I had been wrong in originally allowing this Motion on the Army (Annual) Bill. It appears to me now, and I am confirmed in that view by Mr. Speaker, that it is outside the scope
    1070
    of the Bill, and it is, therefore, my duty to withdraw the Motion for the consideration of the Committee.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The Clause, as the Committee is aware, is down in the names of two of my colleagues, and for it the whole of the Labour party is responsible. I submitted it for your ruling earlier in the evening, but since then I have had the privilege of being in consultation on the matter, and, as you have made up your mind to rule the Clause out of order, I think the best thing is for me to give notice now that I shall to-morrow, in view of the Debate that has taken place, and the considerable amount of agreement on both sides of the Committee on certain points, ask the Prime Minister whether he will immediately appoint a Committee to inquire into and report upon the various points that have been raised in the Debate to-day.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask you, on this point of Order, whether there is a precedent for withdrawing a Motion that has been debated for some time—to allow certain Members to speak upon it, and then shut out others who wish to take part in the Debate, and perhaps answer the arguments that have been presented?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Salford had been in the House earlier he would have heard me deal with that point which was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The Rule of the House is as I then stated. It is the duty of the Chair if in the course of a discussion it appears to him that the question is outside the scope of the Bill before the Committee of the House, to intervene and withdraw the matter for consideration.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to raise a question, not in respect of the new Clause which has been so long under discussion, but to ask whether your ruling applies equally to the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). Personally, I am quite willing to admit that the actual Clause under discussion is out of order on the ground that it deals with the conditions under which the civil authority can call on the military for assistance. The Clause of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward) deals with conditions under which the military will be employed and the equipment they will use in such employment when they are actually called upon by the

    1071
    civil authority. I submit that as the Preamble to this Army (Annual) Act deals with the purposes for which these forces are to be maintained, namely, for the safety of the United Kingdom, if there is a differentiation between the method of employment of His Majesty's forces for different purposes, for the safety of the United Kingdom, that is relevant to the Army (Annual) Act, and my hon. Friend will be entitled to move such a Clause as is on the Paper. I wish to make this point, as in the future it may be justifiable to bring it forward again.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think not. The distinction is the one laid down by Mr. Speaker last night that the question of the method of employment of the Army is a question which should be raised either on the Army Estimates, or by Motion in the House, or by attack or criticism on the Minister responsible, and not on the Army (Annual) Act. The hon. Member will find nothing in the Army (Annual) Act with which we are now dealing which raises that question, and therefore it is out of the scope of the Committee to bring in something which has nothing to do with the Army Act.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not wish to delay the Committee further, but I should like to make this additional point, that the conditions of employment are actually dealt with in the Army Act of 1881, which this Bill is renewing. Under one of the Sections power is given to make Regulations regarding employment, and in virtue of that particuar Section there are at the present time in the King's Regulations certain Regulations which do in effect lay down the conditions of the employment of the military in aid of the civil power. If, therefore, it is in the power of the War Office by Regulations under the Section of the Army Act to lay down conditions, it is surely in the power of this House to supersede
    1072
    the administrative authority of the War Office in reference to these Regulations by making conditions statutory. That is the case for the new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that would bring all executive matters in the legislative sphere, which is the very thing Mr. Speaker said it was not competent for the Committee to do. To the next Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin Division (Sir R. Pole-Carew) the same ruling applies. I had an opportunity of consulting Mr. Speaker on the matter, and he said the ruling which applied to the preceding Clause applied to the hon. and gallant Member's Clause.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: I confess I am disappointed to find that the Clause which I was under the impression was intimately connected with the discipline of the Army is not in order for discussion on this Act. Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I now wish to give notice that I will bring up this question on the first possible opportunity.
    Clause withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WARD: Do you, Sir, rule that the suggested Amendment to the Preamble standing in my name is not in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is consequential.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Adjourned at Nineteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.