Commons Sitting of 28 August 1914

Preamble
The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Copy presented of Eleventh Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 19th August, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Provisional Order, 1914 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 459.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Special Constables Bill,
Isle of Man (War Legislation) Bill,
Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Bill,
Customs (Exportation Prohibition) Bill,
Articles of Commerce (Returns, etc.) Bill,
Elementary School Teachers (War Service Superannuation) Bill,
Education (Scotland) (War Service Superannuation) Bill,
Education (Scotland) (Provision of Meals) Bill,
Police (Scotland) (Limit of Age) Bill,
Naval Billeting, etc., Bill,
Housing (No. 2) (Extension to Ireland) Bill,
Blyth Hall (Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill,
Coatbridge Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,
Dumbarton Burgh (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
North British Railway (Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Vesting) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

WAR IN EUROPE.

  NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that applicants for assistance from the fund now being raised by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are in many cases compelled to make application through the post in consequence of the long distance from their homes to the committee rooms, he will grant facilities for such applications being made through the post free of charge?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): There would be serious objections, both in principle and in practice, to any arrangement such as the hon. Member suggests under which letters addressed to local committees could be sent without payment of postage, and I am sorry that such an arrangement cannot be authorised.

  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked whether some of the staff of the London telephone service have received notice of the termination of their employment; if so, how many; and whether it is possible to so arrange the work as to avoid placing a number of Government employés in en forced idleness, and thus set an example to private employers during the present crisis?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Seventy-two temporary clerks in the London telephone service have been warned that their services may no longer be required. I hope to find employment, for the present at any rate, for them either in other branches of the Post Office or in other Departments.

  POST OFFICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
  Mr. DENISON-PENDERasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirability of issuing a daily announcement at local post offices throughout the country, at an appointed time, of the announcements made by the Press Bureau about the War?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not consider it desirable to extend the distribution of news received by the Post Office from the Press Bureau beyond the arrangements already made for Sunday mornings. In the week the distribution is very efficiently performed by the newspapers and the various news agencies.

  MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, his Department is taking to restrict, during the continuance of the War, the use of grain for the manufacture of beer, which manufacture in the year ending 30th September, 1913, consumed over fifty-two million bushels of malt?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Board are carefully watching the situation both as regards the supply of grain and also the maintenance of full supplies of feeding-stuffs for stock through the winter. At present, however, the Board do not consider that it is necessary to take such steps as those suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Baronet realise that if this proposal were carried out it would throw a large number of persons out of employment?
  Sir H. VERNEY: Yes, Sir.

  DECLARATION OF LONDON.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the publication of the "London Gazette" of 22nd August explaining how the Declaration of London, 1909, will be regarded during the present war, whether the neutral signatories of this declaration, whose interests may be affected by the parts of the declaration now set aside or denounced by the British Government, were consulted before the decision of the Government was taken in this matter?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The interests of neutral Powers were carefully considered and borne in mind, but the position did not admit of consultation with them.
  Mr. KING: Have the conditions and modifications which have been published been formally communicated to the neutral Powers since?
  Sir E. GREY: No, they have been published. That is quite sufficient. We have followed the course which belligerents generally do of making public our intentions.

  PUBLICATION OF PAPERS (GERMANY).
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the publication by the German Government of certain proposals which are alleged to have been made to secure French and English neutrality during the War; and whether the publication is complete and accurate?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen an incomplete publication. The circumstances were as follows: It was reported to me one day that the German Ambassador had suggested that Germany might remain neutral in a war between Russia and Austria, and also engage not to attack France, if we would remain neutral and secure the neutrality of France. I said at once that if the German Government thought such an arrangement possible I was sure we could secure it. It appeared, however, that what the Ambassador meant was that

  265
  we should secure the neutrality of France if Germany went to war with Russia. This was quite a different proposal, and, as I supposed it, in all probability to be incompatible with the terms of the Franco-Russian Alliance, it was not in my power to promise to secure it. Subsequently, the Ambassador sent for my private secretary, and told him that, as soon as the misunderstanding was cleared up, he had sent a second telegram to Berlin to cancel the impression produced by the first telegram he had sent on the subject. The first telegram has been published. This second telegram does not seem to have been published.

  PIT-PROPS (IMPORTATION).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties arising in the coal-mining industry owing to the interrupted importation of timber for pit-props; and whether he can make any statement of steps to be taken to meet these difficulties?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): As was stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for North Islington, my right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties which have arisen in this connection, and the Board of Trade are in communication with representatives of the various interests affected. My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the difficulties of the position, but he is not at present in a position to make any statement as to the steps which may be necessary to meet them.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at Castleton, in Lancashire, some hundreds of men, thrown out of employment by the War, have signed the register of unemployment thirteen consecutive days since 7th August without receiving any payment; whether it is in accordance with the Act to count without payment not only the first six days, but the subsequent week
    266
    merely because the second week might have been a holiday week; and whether he can take any and, if so, what steps to see that men in this position receive the insurance money for which they have contributed in some cases for more than two years?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Unemployment benefit is not payable to workmen who are merely out on a recognised holiday, but where the recognised holidays are extended owing to slackness of work the additional days thus lost are treated as days of unemployment. The exception with regard to recognised holidays does not, of course, apply where the workmen are discharged, as distinct from being suspended. Any refusal of benefit in accordance with the above principles is subject to the final decision of the Umpire, if the workman appeals and his appeal is upheld by the Court of Referees. I may mention that certain cases similar to those at Castleton were heard yesterday by the Court of Referees at Preston, which in some of the cases supported the postponement of benefit and in others disagreed with it on the ground that the workmen had been definitely discharged.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Can the Board of Trade take cognisance of the point whether the unemployment is due to an exceptional circumstance like War, which does not come under the ordinary categories for which the rules were intended?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Unemployment owing to war would come under the ordinary exceptions.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Where the Labour Exchanges are quite well aware that these men have registered five, six or seven days prior to the holidays, surely their cases might be dealt with without taking them to Referees at all?

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN ALIENS IX UNITED KINGDOM.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that there are thousands of German and Austrian aliens in employment as well as unemployed, he

  267
  could see his way as far as possible to fill up with British subjects during the War the places now held by German and Austrian aliens, and place all unemployed alien German and Austrian males over fourteen years of age in concentration camps?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): It lies with employers rather than with me to arrange for the filling of places vacated by aliens. I am arranging for the confinement in concentration camps of alien enemies whom the authorities have any reason to think likely to be dangerous, and am organising other arrangements for dealing generally with destitute aliens.
  Mr. HUNT: If the right hon. Gentleman does not take some action of this sort will there not certainly be during the War thousands of British working men and their families reduced to starvation, whilst thousands of aliens will be getting employment at good wages? Surely there ought to be something done to prevent that state of affairs?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no power to interfere between an employer and the servant whom he employs.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a try?
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the number of Germans still in this country; and whether he will give directions that, instead of being registered and so adding to the work of the police, they shall be treated as Englishmen are treated in Germany, namely, kept in confinement if they are of fighting age and deported if they are not?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I stated to the House yesterday, I have not yet collected the figures of alien enemies in this country. The registration of these per sons is necessary both for the purpose of securing their proper supervision and for facilitating their confinement when necessary or their deportation if and when this is possible.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is
  268
  a growing feeling of irritation against those Germans in this country who are suspected of being spies, and whether there is also a feeling that the measures taken by authority are far too lenient; and is he aware that in places like Portsmouth there is a suggestion of making vigilance committees to take the law into their own hands, and does he not think such action as that would be deplorable?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; I consider such action would be very deplorable.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of the question? Where irritation does exist such action may occur unless the Government take more stringent measures.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course, I speak naturally with great reticence upon the subject, but a very large number of unfounded rumours have been circulated in regard to the dangerous action of German spies and other ill-disposed persons. I think it is only right that the House should be informed that no evidence of actual malpractice has come to the knowledge of the police, and consequently, in the absence of any such evidence, it certainly would be premature to take action of the kind which the Noble Lord suggests.

  FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION (MESSRS. R. M'KEXZIE, RUTHERGLEN).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the firm of R. M'Kenzie, of Rutherglen, a firm which only a month ago refused access to their books on a question of fair wages, is now being employed to print posters for the War Office; and, if not, will he make inquiry into the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I am informed by the Stationery Office that so far as they have been able to ascertain no work of any description has been done for them by the firm in question.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether local distress committees are being given

  269
  any directions to find remunerative employment, where possible, for persons who are out of employment or otherwise in want in preference to giving them monetary relief; and whether any public money will be available by way of loan to such committees, to local authorities, or others during the continuance of the War for the promotion of reproductive commercial enterprise?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It has been repeatedly pointed out in the circulars of the Local Government Board, and I would desire again to emphasise it, that the primary duty of these committees is to see that workpeople, so far as possible, are continued in employment at their usual trades, at full time where that can be arranged, and otherwise on short time. With that end m view, ail local authorities, public corporations, companies, and individuals should be urged to put in hand all kinds of work of a useful character which would give employment to men and women belonging to trades in which the supply of labour exceeds the demand. Where employment cannot be offered to workpeople at their own trades, arrangements should be made, where opportunity offers, to transfer them, with the assistance of the Labour Exchanges, to work in other trades for which they may be suitable. Government loans will be available for many kinds of work undertaken by local authorities. In districts where a surplus of labour still remains it will be necessary to begin special undertakings with a view to paying wages for work done. It is only in cases where all these measures are inadequate, or where the class of labour affected is not such as can be properly employed on the work available, that recourse should be had to the distribution of relief. I would add that it has been decided by the Committee of the National Relief Fund that no grants, other than grants for the families of soldiers and sailors, shall be made from that fund except on the recommendation of the Government Committee on the Prevention and Relief of Distress. Applications for grants, when they become necessary, should therefore be made direct to the secretary of the Government Committee at the Local Government
  270
  Board. Grants will only be recommended when that Committee is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the control of their distribution. A large staff of inspectors has been organised with a view to assisting the Committee in its efforts to prevent the occurrence of abuses of administration which have too often attended the distribution of previous funds. The Government Committee undertakes that every practicable measure shall be taken to ensure that the money generously contributed by the subscribers to the fund shall reach those who are in real need, belonging to classes suffering from distress due to the War, and none others.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the Labour Exchanges have been instructed in all eases to give a preference to married men, and whether the same action will be taken through the Government Committee with reference to this fund?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That question should be addressed to the Board of Trade, which has control of the Labour Exchanges. We are in constant communication with the local committees with regard to the methods of relief, and asking them in each case before a grant is given to state what conditions for relief they propose to impose. We rather suggest that this matter should be considered by the local committees.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. Having regard to the length of the answer which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman I want to ask, in reference to the ruling of the Chair which was given yesterday, whether it would not be possible for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider whether questions might not be properly addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this important fund. He has given a very important answer, and in view of the expression given from the Chair yesterday that we could not put questions affecting this fund—[HON. MEM-BERS: "Order!"]—I am quite in order. I am asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for guidance as to whether an arrangement cannot be made in these difficult circumstances for a Minister of the Crown to answer questions affecting that fund?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just given an answer to a question on that subject.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the money subscribed to that fund is intended primarily for the relief of unemployment or for the relief of the dependants of soldiers and sailors who are serving at the front?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not sure that I am entitled to answer that question, but I have reason to believe that the Committee consider it is intended for both purposes.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in giving relief to the families of men who are unemployed, it will be made a condition that the men unemployed should give service in return by enrolling themselves as special constables?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, it is not intended to make that condition.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, so far as Scotland is concerned, applications for grants from the fund will be made to the Scottish Local Government Board, and not here at all?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A question on that very point is to be put to my right hon. Friend, and he will answer.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: May I ask whether there is any means by which a district where there is a large amount of surplus men unemployed can ascertain at once any part of the country where it will be possible for those people to be employed? Is there any way by which that information can be immediately ascertained?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, the Labour Exchanges exist for that very-purpose.

  MILK SUPPLY (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland what special steps are being taken to secure a sufficient supply of pure milk for infants and young children, especially in the urban and more populous districts of Scotland, during the continuance of the War?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No complaints as to shortage of milk supply have reached me, but I will communicate my hon. Friend's question to the Local Government Board for Scotland.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. PRATTasked what special steps are being taken by the Government and by local authorities in Scotland to provide employment for wage-earning workers who may be thrown idle in con sequence of the war; and what provision is being made in the case of wage-earning women and girls?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: As my hon. Friend is aware, a Scottish Advisory Committee and local committees have been formed in Scotland in connection with the National Relief Fund and the Government Committee for the prevention and relief of distress, and the matters referred to are receiving the attention of these bodies.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask, with regard to that, how is the proportion of the money which is being freely sent up from Scotland now to the Central Fund to be determined in the distribution?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope that the National Fund will be distributed strictly according to the necessities.
  Mr. PRATT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Local Government Board are taking any steps to bring before the local authorities the desirability of taking action in the matter of housing where housing is very urgently needed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir.

  STOCK EXCHANGE (REOPENING).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the continued closing of the Stock Exchange, while benefiting certain interests, is detrimental to the interests of the country as a whole, by preventing the

  273
  free play of the sale and purchase of stocks and shares, and preventing those financial readjustments which are a particular importance at any time of financial pressure; and whether he is in communication with the authorities of the Stock Exchange on the subject?
  Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend is in communication with various financial interests with regard to this matter, which is receiving very careful attention.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill will cover the cases of a number of farm workers in the Highworth district of Wiltshire, who have been in dispute but have withdrawn their application for increased wages owing to the advent of the War, and who are now being served with notices of eviction?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am advised that the Bill now before the House covers the circumstances stated in the question.

  INDIANS TRAVELLING TO AND FROM EUROPE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has any information to the effect that British-Indian subjects travel ling to and from Europe by the Austrian Lloyd line are detained at Trieste; whether he has invoked or will invoke the aid of the Foreign Office for such British-Indian subjects; some of whom it is believed are acquainted with no European language?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have not received any communication to this effect. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate with me.

  UNIVERSAL FASTING AND PRAYER.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Prime Minister if, in this time of grave national
  274
  anxiety, distress, and danger, the Government intend to advise His Majesty the King to appoint a day for universal fasting and prayer, in which all classes of the people should be urged to take part?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that the ecclesiastical authorities of the various denominations appointed last Friday for this purpose.

  ARMY ENLISTMENT.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a. large number of farmers are ready and anxious to facilitate the enlistment after harvest of the younger men in their employ if they could have the temporary services of boys between eleven and fourteen years of age to assist them in the necessary farm operations during the autumn and winter in order to secure the sowing of next year's wheat and other necessary farm crops; and whether, under the exceptional circumstances, the Government will suspend such provisions of the Education Acts, or will enable boys over eleven years of age in purely agricultural districts to furnish such assistance subject to the approval and supervision of the local education authority?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion. It would appear that the matter is well within the discretion of the local authorities, who have already had their attention called to it by the Board of Education
  Mr. BATHURST: Are we to understand that if the local authorities took such action they would not meet with the disapproval of the Board of Education?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is intended to raise the maximum age at which healthy men may enlist in His Majesty's forces for the period covered by the present War?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Instructions are shortly being issued raising the age to forty-five for ex-Regulars, ex-Militiamen, ex-Special Reservists, and ex-Territorials, and also for National Reservists (Classes.

  275
  I. and II.) For men who have not served before the age limit will be thirty-five years.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: May we understand from that answer that we can now have recruiting up to thirty-five years of age for men who have not served before?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in new of the fact that the age limit for re-enlistment of old soldiers in Great Britain is forty-two and in Ireland, in certain cases, forty-five, he will cause instructions to be given to recruiting officers in Great Britain to accept qualified recruits between forty-two and forty-five for service with Irish battalions, and see to their despatch to the proper Irish depots accordingly?
  Mr. HOPE: This question is to some extent covered by the answer to question 31, but I am asking this to cover a special case.
  Mr. TENNANT: Instructions have already been issued that ex-soldiers should be appointed to their former corps and ex-soldiers who have served in Irish regiments and who are living in England can be appointed on enlistment to their old corps. As I have just stated, the age limit for ex-soldiers is now being raised to forty-five all over Great Britain and Ireland.
  Mr. HOPE: When will those instructions be sent out?
  Mr. TENNANT: Very soon, but I cannot say the actual moment.
  Mr. NIELDasked why, if it is the desire of the War Office to interest the influential county men in the work of recruiting, the lords lieutenant, or, failing them, the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and chairmen of county councils should not have been invited to summon county meetings rather than the high sheriffs, seeing that the latter are merely executive officers to execute the King's writ, and may not be associated in any other way with the public life of the county; and (2) whether invitations have been addressed
  276
  to high sheriffs throughout England and Wales requesting them to convene county meetings for the purpose of aiding recruiting; and, if so, for what reason has this novel step been taken instead of calling upon lords lieutenant, acting with their deputies, to exercise their ancient functions and practice in cases of national emergency to aid in raising the forces of the Crown?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that, though in some eases high sheriffs may-have convened meetings to promote recruiting, no general official invitation to them has been issued from the War Office with this object. The hon. Member will not have forgotten that a letter was issued to the Lords Lieutenant as long ago as 7th August asking them to use their influence to assist recruiting.

  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  Mr. BARNESasked if the Government have any information of the number of destitute or impoverished Belgian refugees who have reached our shores in consequence of the War; and if the Government could see its way to granting a sum of money, part of which could be applied for the purpose of their relief?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had sufficient notice to enable me to answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Perhaps I may say in this connection that I think it would facilitate matters if, when such short notice is given, a copy of the question could be sent by the hon. Member to the Minister to whom it is addressed as early as possible. As regards the last part, my hon. Friend's suggestion will of course receive careful consideration.

  CONTRACTS WITH ALIENS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he could arrange, for the benefit of the commercial community, that the Law Officers of the Crown should publish their considered opinion as to the position of contracts with aliens entered into before the War and the legal definition of which by the Courts cannot be decided until the War is over?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This will be considered.

  BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the events of the War may be officially communicated more freely to the public; and whether, with a view to stimulate voluntary recruiting and other manifestations of national patriotism, he can direct a considerable relaxation of the strict censorship of news now exercised by the Press Bureau?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question on this subject. As I then stated, all information that can be given without prejudice to the public interest is given to the public through the Press Bureau, fully and at once.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French and German public are supplied with much fuller information?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I really do not know what information they have.

  BICYCLES AND AMMUNITION.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the orders for military bicycles have been fairly distributed between different manufacturing centres capable of supplying military requirements; and whether this principle is, so far as public interests permit, being observed in the orders given for small shells, which more than one Midland manufacturing centre is ready and able to supply?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): For military reasons it is essential that Army bicycles should be standardised in every part. Orders placed by tender in the usual way are to this extent restricted to those who can meet the necessary requirements. Purchases of trade patterns have, however, been made in some cases on emergency. As regards Artillery ammunition, there is obvious objection to the placing of orders for urgent requirements
  278
  of stores of a special character with firms who may have insufficient experience of the difficulty of manufacture and of the extreme degree of accuracy which is exacted. But in this, as in all other cases, subject to military necessities, every effort is being made to distribute orders as widely as possible.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon, Gentleman realise that persons in the manufacturing centres are not of opinion that that has been very successfully accomplished?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that they must not be fully acquainted with the military requirements.

  CLOSING LICENSED PREMISES (SHANBALLY, CORK HARBOUR).
  Mr. CREANasked whether the closing of two licensed houses at Shanbally, Cork Harbour, by the military authorities was due to the fact that a number of troops are encamped there; if so, will the owners of these premises, which carry on a mixed grocery trade in addition to the licensed trade, be compensated for the loss sustained?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his similar question yesterday regarding the closing of houses at Crosshaven.

  SOLDIERS' PAY (ALLOTMENT).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether compulsory allotment of a portion of soldiers' pay can be made to the families of soldiers who are with the Colours, or whether it is confined to those who are serving abroad?
  Mr. BAKER: Allotment is compulsory in the case of soldiers serving abroad, and it has been extended to certain troops at home. Its further extension is now under consideration.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the difficulty of finding out whether troops are abroad or not, will the hon.

  279
  Member take immediate steps to extend this to troops serving either at home or abroad?
  Mr. BAKER: I am well aware of the importance of this. I have every hope that it will be done, but I cannot say for certain.
  Mr. JOYNSON - HICKS: The hon. Member has had this before him. Could he kindly expedite it?

  BRITISH CASUALTIES.

    PUBLICATION OF LISTS.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether, in view of the impossibility of issuing any definite and final list of British casualities, he will authorise the publication of such lists as are now in the War Office at the earliest possible moment, or of the communication of the names to relatives as and when they become known?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The practice—I think a very wise one and proper one—is to communicate the names first to the relatives in an official communication. That saves a great deal of unnecessary pain, and such delay as is due to the necessity of that previous communication, I am sure, the public will not in the least resent. Subject to that, the names will be published as soon as they are known to the War Office. They are not yet known.
    Mr. PETO: Can the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Saturday and Sunday intervene, give an indication whether it is likely that any communication to relatives will be made before Monday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are hoping to be able to do it every hour.

  MESSAGE FROM SIR JOHN FRENCH.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We learn today from Sir John French that in the fighting which took place between his. Army and the enemy on Wednesday, and which was, as appears in the official. French report, in the neighbourhood of Cambrai-Le Cateau, our troops were ex-posed to the attack of five German Army Corps, two Cavalry Divisions and a Reserve Corps, with the Guard Cavalry and the 2nd Cavalry Division.
  Our 2nd Army Corps and 4th Division bore the brunt of the Cavalry attack, whilst our 1st Army Corps was attacked on the right, and inflicted very heavy loss on the enemy.
  I regret to say that our casualties were heavy. Exact particulars are not yet known.
  The behaviour of the troops was in all respects admirable.
  General Joffre, in a message published this morning, has conveyed his congratulations and sincere thanks for the protection so effectively given by our Army to the French flank.

  FEEDING SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, of which I have given him private-notice: Whether he will circulate as a public document the instructions recently issued to local education authorities regarding the feeding of school children, in. connection with the relief measures to be taken to mitigate the distress arising from the War?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I will see what arrangements can be made to give a wider publicity to the circular issued on this subject. Copies of this circular, No. 856, can now be obtained by anyone on application to the Board of Education.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Would not the best way of making it known be to have it announced in the schools by the teachers during the next few weeks?
  Mr. PEASE: That would be a matter for the local education authorities.

  INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the action of certain well-known insurance companies in refusing to extend credit to the holders of small life policies who are at present unable to continue payments in consequence of the War; whether he is aware that unless something is done to prevent the lapse of these policies, a great hardship will be inflicted on many thousands of innocent persons; and will he say what action the Government propose to take?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): That is a matter which we are considering at the present moment.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to give a reply—on Monday?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have to inquire of the insurance companies first before I can possibly come to a decision, and that will take a few days I am afraid.
  Mr. MORRELL: Before the end of the Session?

  Irish Live Stock (Importation).
  Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the protests from influential men and associations on both sides of the Channel, he can state whether it is intended to relax the restrictions on imported Irish live stock before next Thursday?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: The answer is in the negative.

  Swine Fever Orders.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if, in view of the importance of maintaining the largest possible head of pigs in the country, the Board are proposing to modify the swine fever Orders as regards the slaughter of in-contact pigs; and, if so, when the decision of the Board will be made known for the benefit of pig-owners?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: Slaughter of contact swine is not now carried out when the premises are or can easily be made suitable for isolation. No alteration of the Order is necessary.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland)
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, as a result of the communications which passed between the Local Government Board and the Macroom Rural District Council, any steps have been taken to proceed with the building of cottages sanctioned years ago for the labourers of the locality; and will he detail what provisions are being made by the district council in the matter?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 30th ultimo. The Macroom Rural District Council have not acted on the suggestions of the Local Government Board, and have merely asked them whether they would grant a supplementary loan if the council accept tenders higher than the estimate of £130 per cottage. The Board are replying to the effect that they will be prepared to sanction such supplemental loan as may be found necessary, but that, as has been done in other districts similarly circumstanced, the money must be borrowed in the open market, the loan already sanctioned being at the maximum rate allowable out of the funds available on land purchase terms.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has been reported; and, if so, can he give us any information thereon?
  Sir H. VERNEY: Suspected foot-and-mouth disease was reported yesterday afternoon from premises at Stallingboro', near Grimsby. A veterinary inspector of the Board proceeded to the premises late last evening, and telegraphed that he found foot-and-mouth disease to exist. In a further telegram sent after an inspection made this morning he confirms his

  283
  opinion, and the veterinary officers of the Board are satisfied with the diagnosis. There are on the premises six cattle and five pigs affected with the disease. The stock on the premises consist of nine milch cows, four calves, two rams, and fifteen pigs. The owner also has on marshes about one mile distant eleven cattle and one calf. There has been no movement of animals on to the farm since February last. One calf was sold off the farm two days ago, and two fat cattle were sent to Grimsby Market from these premises on the 17th instant. So far there is no clue to the origin of infection. The Board have to-day made an Order prohibiting the movement of animals along, over or across a highway within a radius of approximately 15 miles from Stallingboro'. The restrictions do not, however, extend to that part of Yorkshire which lies to the north of the River Humber. Instructions are to-day being given for the slaughter of all the animals remaining alive on the premises.
  Mr. STANIER: Can the hon. Baronet say whether anything has come from the Continent to this farm either in the way of feeding-stuff or material?
  Sir H. VERNEY: The outbreak was only confirmed half an hour before the House met, and I have given all the information in my possession.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon Baronet aware that there is a real danger of the germs of the disease being carried in the clothes of German prisoners?
  Sir H. VERNEY: Yes.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

  PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to the business to-day and on Monday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We shall proceed with the three Emergency Bills, and on Monday next take whatever stages are left of those measures. On Monday I shall
  284
  move the Adjournment of the House for a short time, perhaps ten clays, and then make a full statement as to business.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, if he has had time to discuss it with its critics?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have had a discussion at the Treasury with Gentlemen who have suggestions to offer, and I understand that the conference, which is proceeding, is very friendly, and I think we will arrive at a complete agreement.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: When will the discussion of the Moratorium be reached?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On the Motion for the Adjournment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend and vary, as respects the present War, the relief from Death Duties given by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900."
  I explained to the House yesterday that we propose to deal with the case of the Death Duties where men have been killed in the course of the War. I have nothing to add to the explanation which I gave yesterday, and I therefore beg leave to move.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a case which, I think, was omitted from those cases which he provided for yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman deals with lineals only. I think it would be in consonance with the feeling of the House if he could see his way to extend his concession in its present or modified form to the immediate collateral. I am thinking of the case of the brother, and I simply want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that quite the same class of consideration applies in the case of the brother as in the case which I propose to provide for. I must say that I dislike to say anything apparently harsh or ungenerous, but still, in a case of that kind, the brother comes into a succession which he had no right to expect, and probably never would have come into had it not been that his eldest brother died very young, and consequently he became the inheritor of the property. I do not think that is quite the same case, and I think there is a much stronger case in regard to the lineal ancestor—in the case of the mother especially. We are considering these questions, and for that reason I do not propose to ask the House to proceed with the further stages of the Bill to-day. But I should very much like to get the Second Reading, so as to enable
  294
  Members of the House to put down any Amendments which they would like to put down for consideration on Monday. If the House will accept that course, I should very much like, if it can possibly be done, that the Bill should be read a second time.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the expediency of not charging in the case of these estates the additional Death Duties proposed in the Finance Act of this year?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is some difficulty in taking out probate in certain cases? The Stock Exchange is closed, and the executor will have to give security if probate is to be taken out. He cannot cash dividends until he gets pro-bate, because the banks will not give the money until that is done. In that way a great deal of hardship, I am afraid, is likely to be caused. As I understand, the executor has to give personal security, but what I would suggest is that the Government should provide that the stock at a particular time should be treated as cash in the ordinary way. It is really owing to the absence of a market that these difficulties arise in the way of taking out probate. Perhaps some means can be found to facilitate matters.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a good deal to be said for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, and I shall consider what is to be done in those cases, and, if any fresh powers be necessary, I shall not hesitate to ask the House for them. It is desirable in bringing in emergency measures to prevent hardships from pressing unduly in particular cases.
  Mr. PETO: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on one point. I understand that in the case of larger estates the Death Duties would be calculated on the remission calculated, on the 3 per cent. basis. May I ask him not to regard that as a final calculation, because I think it is quite clear, as these Death Duties occur during the War or immediately or soon after, that 3 per cent. is not really an adequate rate, and does not represent what will probably be the value of money in the near future? I understood from the

  295
  Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not the desire o£ the Government to impose on those estates any burdens due to the patriotic action of persons serving their country. Therefore I would ask him to make the reduction in the Death Duties on such a scale as will really represent the loss to the estate. As to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), may I ask the Chancellor, when he is considering the question of collaterals, such as brothers, that he will bear in mind the effect op the estate as well as the effect which he referred to of a brother coming into a succession which he would not otherwise have come into at so early a date—if, perhaps, at all? In the case of brothers it means frequent payment of Death Duties where there are no children, and therefore the effect on the estate and on all connected with the estate is far worse in the case of succession by a brother than it would be otherwise. If the Chancellor would look at the question from that point of view as well as from the other, then I think we should get a fairer decision in this matter.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that there are cases where there are several brothers in the Army, and they may be members of a family who have some large landed property to which they are sentimentally attached. It would be a great hardship in such a case if a place of that kind had to be sold, as there is a sort of corporate interest.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider how the provision as to Succession Duty will operate in cases of that kind.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question. The case I put forward was as to landed estates: Whether any extra duties charged on estates under the Finance Act of this year could be remitted, and whether the duties could be levied solely on the basis antecedent to this Budget?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that point. I do not think it quite appeals to me. For instance, all the estates under £5,000 are exempt altogether. With re-
  296
  gard to the other, I think the provision we make is, on the whole, very adequate, and especially in some cases where the person is very young the relief will be very considerable under these tables.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Landed estates will suffer heavily.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should want to consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has put.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd George, Sir Stanley Buckmaster and Mr. Montagu. Presented accordingly, read the first time, and ordered to be printed. [Bill 394.]
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Gulland.]

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction of the Sale or Consumption of Intoxicating Liquor.)
  (1) The licensing justices for any licensing district may, if they think that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor, by order direct that the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises of any persona holding any retailer's licence in the area, and the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor in any registered club in the area, shall be suspended while the order is in operation, during such hours and subject to such conditions or exceptions (if any) as may be specified in the order:
  Provided that if any such order suspends the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine at night, the order shall not remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
  (2) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any order under

  297
  this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if the offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose.
  (3) The licensing justices shall have power to make an order under this Section at their general annual licensing meeting or at any special Sessions held by them for the purpose of their duties under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, or at any meeting specially called for the purpose under this Act.
  The clerk to the licensing justices shall specially call such a meeting if an application in writing is made to him for the purpose either by any two of their number or by the chief officer of police for the district.
  (4) In the application of this Section to any licensing district or any part of a licensing district which is situate in the Metropolitan Police district, the Commissioner of Police, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State, shall be substituted for the licensing justices.
  Mr. GRETTON: Before I proceed to move the Amendment of which I have given notice I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he proposes to accept two Amendments which appear on the Paper, as if he does I do not think I should be inclined to argue, my Amendment?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I propose to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Marshall Hall) which proposes in Clause 1 (1) to leave out the words "think that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor," and to insert the words "fit, upon the recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police that it is desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area." I propose also to accept the further Amendment in the name of the same hon.
  298
  and learned Gentleman, which proposes in Clause 1 (2) to leave out the words "and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if the offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose," and to insert the words "if any person feels aggrieved by a conviction under this Section, he may appeal therefrom to Quarter Sessions in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts." I propose also to accept the consequential Amendments in the name of that hon. and learned Gentleman and also in the name of the hon. Member for St. Paneras (Captain Jessel). I propose also to move an Amendment myself, which is not upon the Paper, to the proviso at line fifteen.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the general effect of the changes he proposes to make?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will do so.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can see that there will be a little discussion, and as there is no Motion before the House the best course to adopt is for the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) to move his Amendment formally, and I will then allow the discussion to take place.
  Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "licensing justices for any licensing district," and insert instead thereof the words "police authority."
  Mr. McKENNA: I propose to move an Amendment to the proviso, which will then run as follows:—
  "Provided that if any such Order suspends the sale, supply or consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine at night, the Order shall not have effect until approved by the Secretary of State."
  The effect of those Amendments will be as follows: No change can be made in the existing law unless first the licensing authority think fit, and secondly, the police authority recommend that change should be made on the grounds of the maintenance of order or the suppression

  299
  of drunkenness. Those two conditions must coincide before there can be any shortening of hours during which intoxicating liquor can be sold. If the licensing justices should think fit to make an Order upon the recommendation of the police authority, and if that Order were to the effect that the licensed premises should be closed at an earlier hour than nine o'clock, it could not come into effect until it had been approved of by the Secretary of State. The Order to close at an earlier hour than nine o'clock for any period will not have effect until it is approved of by the Secretary of State. I listened to the discussion yesterday, and I have endeavoured, earnestly endeavoured, to meet all the objections raised. It seems to me that by these Amendments I have covered the whole ground with the single exception of the objection raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). He asked that the Act shall not be put into operation except at the request of the military and naval authorities. The matter has been discussed and carefully considered. The conclusion we came to was that it would be undesirable to put the onus upon the military and naval authorities in every case before the Act was brought into operation, and that it would be sufficient to say that the Bill is introduced and will be pressed upon the House at the request of the naval and military authorities. Therefore, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not ask us to include in the Bill itself a provision throwing the onus upon the military and naval authorities.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY(indistinctly heard): I quite agree that in an enormous place like London there may be a case for what is now proposed, but when you come to other places the circumstances are different. It must be remembered that in Ireland half of these public-houses are premises where the public-house business is only a very small part of the whole, the other part consisting of the sale of ordinary goods, not merely groceries, but other articles of that kind. I do not for a moment believe that this measure will be used harshly, but at the same time, when dealing with a tremendous interest of this kind, all the circumstances should be taken into account. Everybody will
  300
  agree that we ought not to use a great emergency of this kind for enforcing mere temperance. It should be something connected with the national emergency. The temptation would be great in some respects. It would certainly ease police duties to close the public-houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is what I call a general temperance cheer. But we are not dealing with this Bill as temperance men; we are dealing with it as patriots. If you leave the matter to the police alone there will be a temptation to close many of these public-houses. I do not say that they would do it simply to lighten their duties, but at any rate there would be the feeling that if they made a mistake, it would be on the right side. The military or the naval man is not thinking of these things; he is thinking of warlike operations and how those operations are affected by the opening or closing of public-houses. Even though it is not put into the Bill, if there is a statement by the Government that the police will only act in these matters in consultation with the military authorities, I will not press the point. Take the county of Cork. Without any Act of Parliament you shut up two public-houses there. In the "same way, I suppose, it might be done elsewhere. The House should not run away with the idea of giving the Government everything they want because we are in the middle of a great emergency without considering the consequences. I say this simply in the interests of ordinary freedom.
  1.0 P.M.
  I suggest that the Government should give an assurance that the police shall not take action until they have consulted the military authorities and obtained some sort of written document. I do not care how it is put. We ought to have an opportunity of discussing the matter later on; and what a protection it would be to the right hon. Gentleman to be able to say that the police did not take any action until there was a military minute requesting them to do so! The Government may say that this is not a military and naval necessity Bill at all, but that it is necessary because of the social conditions brought about by the War. We should then be on a wholly different plane. But I am discussing the Bill in the shape in which it

  301
  was presented. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman for his own protection should promise that the military authorities will be consulted. Do not give anybody or any class a grievance or feeling of grievance. You want to carry the public with you. The publicans will be paying heavy Licence Duties; they have been open to attack; they will have to bear a large part of the burden of the War. There will be no moratorium for their taxes; they will get no concessions when licensing day comes round. Therefore I think we ought not to give a class, who are already smarting under what they think to be an excessive amount of taxation, the possibility of saying, "We have to pay the heaviest share of taxation, and, without any military necessity which we can see, our places have been closed." In the interests of the Home Office itself, and to prevent the censures for needless closing which may be visited upon them, I suggest that this undertaking should be given.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I think we may say generally that the Home Secretary has done his best to meet in a fair-minded manner the general criticisms put forward with regard to this Bill. As I have no connection even of the most remote kind with the whole trade especially affected, I may be allowed to express the hope that some recognition will be made in the future of the public-spirited manner in which they have accepted what is inevitably a very serious change in the conditions of their business for the time being. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has not said one word more than is really true in stating the conditions of the tenants of these premises. They will be called upon to bear a very large share of the extra taxation; they will be called upon to undergo a great deal of personal inconvenience; they will have to bear in an exceptional way the ordinary risks of their trade at a time when their responsibilities will be even greater than they are in peace time. Therefore that tribute is due to them for their readiness, within certain limitations, to accept special legislation. But I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken that it is most important, however full we realise the gravity of the situation, and however anxious we in this
  302
  House may be to deal with it in an efficient way, that we should avoid anything in the shape of panic legislation. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very pertinent suggestion to the Government. It is that there ought to be some additional precaution. I entirely agree with him as to the necessity for every possible reasonable precaution before this Bill is put into force.
  My only difference of opinion with him is as to the methods which he suggests. I had some experience, and no doubt, too, many other hon. Members have had, of soldiers and sailors when in command of certain districts. We know at this moment that the greatest possible strain is being laid upon both of the great Services of the country to find men to fill the various subordinate posts that have to be occupied all over the country. Where there was one soldier or sailor in a local district in the happier proceeding days, at this moment of national trial there are soldiers and sailors in responsible positions all over the country. Many of them are men who have been suddenly called to fill these positions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said with perfect truth that it obviously would be in the interests of the police and would simplify their duties if they thought there was the least temptation to ill-doing in the place. But if that is true of the police, I venture to say, speaking with some experience, that it is ten times more true of soldiers and sailors. I honestly believe that what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests as a precaution would, on the contrary, be in practice a greater risk to the occupants of these houses than would be the case as the matter now stands. The police are interested in the maintenance of law and order, the prevention of riots, and so on. Let the Committee remember that the police are local officials, that they are subject to local opinion, and that they will be in the districts long after the time of stress has passed. If they act unwisely, and, still more, if they act unjustly, public opinion will make itself felt upon them in the future. That does not apply to a naval or a military officer. He is there to-day, and will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, be gone when these times of stress are over.

  303
  Further than that, the police look at these matters from the abstract point of view; really of men who are charged with the maintenance of law and order, and who look upon the people as either strong or weak. They have neither admiration for the one, nor contempt for the other, but treat them as people whom they have to keep in order, and they will only act when they think there are so many who are likely to cause trouble. That is not so with the sailors and soldiers. Let the hon. and learned Member for Cork remember that the officer in command of the district is in a different position altogether. He feels that his honour, the honour of his cloth and the honour of his force is in the keeping of every man who is wearing the uniform for the time being in the district over which he presides. Naturally, he will be inclined to look at it from the point of view of minimising temptation, in order that it may be easier for them to avoid failure, and avoid bringing the King's uniform into discredit. If I thought that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would really be a safeguard against hasty, ill-considered, or the unjust application of this Bill, I would vote for it, but I am honestly afraid that if you were to make the action of the local authorities, or of the police, dependent upon the soldiers or sailors, you would not be taking greater precaution, but running additional risks.
  In some places the difficulty, apart from these other considerations, would be the practical one. There would be no naval or military person able to give advice drawn from or based upon actual local knowledge, and the advice of the nearest one being probably a long way from the scene of action, would be difficult to apply. I believe the change which the Home Secretary has made is a very wise one. He has thrown the initiation upon the police, who are responsible for law and order. He has made it the duty of the licensing authority to act upon the advice of the police. He has done something more upon which I personally congratulate him. He has taken upon the Home Office, of which he is head, full responsibility in case of undue use being made of these powers and the ordinary privileges of the people being unfairly limited. I am bound to say that
  304
  I think that this Bill as now amended is a great improvement on the Bill in its original form. I think it is better than it would be if the advice of the naval or military authorities were included, and for that reason I shall support the amended Bill as now put before the Committee by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. GRETTON: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I frankly say that in a moment I am going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which stands to my name. Personally, I think that it is remarkable how small a case has been made out of the necessity for this Bill. The only case put before the House that has any strength of force in it is the case in relation to London. Practically, this Bill, as now presented, is a Bill for dealing with conditions in London. I go further. I believe that the naval and military authorities have full power to deal with cases of disorder in the areas under their control, and there are many such areas, and other military stations are being created. But as this Bill is pressed upon the House I am not going to resist it, for I agree that the Government should have all the support they require, but I think it is very unfortunate that the Home Secretary has not gone a little further in dealing with this matter than he seems inclined to do.
  Mr. GOULDING: I desire to appeal to you. Mr. Whitley, in respect of other Amendments on the Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman, in his conciliatory speech, has not referred. I would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to do in regard to them. This is really very drastic legislation. It undoubtedly savours of class legislation. Nothing is done in regard to grocers' licences. I am bound to say that the only reason and justification for such action as this is that otherwise the military and naval programme of the country would be interfered with, and that it will prevent disorder or drunkenness. No one for a Moment is going to say that in a vast lumber of public-houses throughout the country drunkenness or disorder is likely to arise, and it is certainly right that we should see that reasonable power is preserved to the working-classes to get their

  305
  refreshments, both during their dinner hour, when their work is done, and before they return to work.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member himself has an Amendment down on that question. I think he had better wait and move it, as he will be entitled to do.
  Mr. GOULDING: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has, so as to save Debate and discussion, stated the general line he is going to adopt, and I thought—and that is why I have spoken—that the right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to say how he would treat the Amendment of my hon. Friend for Devizes in regard to preserving certain hours to the working classes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "licensing" ["The licensing justices for any"].
  I freely recognise the necessity for the provisions which the Home Secretary is making, and after his statement that it is in the interest of the military and naval authorities that some such powers should be taken, I am not going to oppose the conferring of such powers. I do not think the Home Secretary appreciates the point I made with regard to the authority in which the power is to be ultimately vested If the Home Secretary is prepared to make this a Police Bill, well and good, but for some reason which I do not understand he brings in the licensing authority. I do not understand why the licensing authority is brought into this bill at all. It is not a Licensing Bill. It is a Bill for the prevention of disorder and for the assistance of the naval and military authorities. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to put upon the face of the Bill that it is specially for the naval and military authorities, because that might be casting a slur; but I want to know why a second authority is brought in. If the police in particular districts are prepared to say they need this power they could have it subject to any drastic measure which should have the approval of the Secretary of State. What, therefore, is the necessity for interposing the licensing authority at all? After an experience of something over thirty years of the licensing authorities, I say
  306
  that, speaking for myself, I have the greatest distrust of the licensing authorities in this country. I have the greatest confidence in the police, and after thirty years' experience of the working of the licensing laws, there is no man I distrust more than the fanatical teetotaller. I distrust him very much, and when we know that the licensing authority is constituted to the exclusion of all persons who may be in any way connected with the sale of liquor, even railway directors, and that they are disqualified, although magistrates for their district, from sitting upon the licensing authority.
  I say that it is an invidious position to-appoint a licensing authority as the arbiter whether this Act should be put in force or not. I put this as a serious point, because it lends colour—though I honestly accept from the Home Secretary it is not the fact—to the suggestion going about all over the country that this Bill is really suggested to him by the extreme fanatical temperance party. I know it is not so, but when we get circular after circular from exactly the same class of people who approach us when a temperance Bill is before the House to support this Bill, we cannot get away from the conclusion that hereafter some attempt will be made by the temperance party to take advantage of the concession made in the interests of the military and navy at such a time as this. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a second control over the police, let him appoint the whole of the justices for the division which includes the whole of the authority he suggests, because, after all, the licensing authority is only a committee. I ask the Home Secretary to accept this and the subsequent Amendments in my name, and the effect of it will be that the Clause will read, "The justices of the peace for every Petty Sessional Division"—that is to say, the whole body which includes the lesser will have the discretionary power of controlling the police. We should be perfectly content if left to the police alone. I ask the Home Secretary, in the real interests of public opinion, to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not

  307
  done justice to the Bill as it will stand when amended by the Amendment in his name which I promised to accept. The only function that the licensing justices will themselves be able to exercise will be a restrictive function as against the police. The power of limiting the sale of intoxicating liquors will not rest with them at all. They can only restrain the sale when advised by the police to do so, and the only independent power they will have will be to refuse to act upon the advice of the police. Consequently, their sole independent power under the Clause as it will stand will be to leave the closing hours exactly as they are now. If they want to restrict the sale, they can only act upon the advice of the police. They are not the arbiters, or they are only arbiters in this sense, that they are arbiters in the power of determining that there should be no change.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: Then why include them at all?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that the licensing justices would act unfairly in this matter, I would point out that their independent discretion can only be exercised to leave the law as it stands. Therefore, they have no power to exercise an unfair discretion in the way in which he fears unless on the recommendation of the police.
  Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that under his Amendment the licensing justices would be bound by the hours of restriction suggested by the police?
  Mr. McKENNA: The point is a perfectly sound one, and it is in order to prevent any capricious action by the justices, who will be able to exercise the power of limiting the hours of sale on the recommendation of the police, that I propose a proviso that no order by the justices shall have effect at all to restrict the sale before the hour of nine o'clock unless approved by the Secretary of State. I quite agree that if the recommendation of the police is obtained, and if the police made the recommendation without any restriction as to hours, the justices then would have freedom.
  Mr. W. WATSON: But not otherwise.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but that freedom is limited by the proviso. It must not be supposed that in these matters of local government the police and the local power are in any hostility to each other. They act in conjunction, and the police would not make the recommendation if it was going to be capriciously acted upon by the justices, and to make doubly sure we have a proviso that no capricious order shall have effect unless approved of by the Secretary of State. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member were accepted, the only difference would be that the restricted discretion upon the recommendation of the police would be in the hands of the general body of magistrates, instead of that particular body of magistrates whose time and attention have been directly devoted to the consideration of licensing questions. I could not agree to the substitution of the general body of magistrates for the licensing magistrates. If the licensing magistrates at all costs are to be left out, I could only agree on the terms that the discretion was left in the hands of the police.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: I would much sooner have that.
  Mr. McKENNA: But how would that affect you? If it is in the hands of the police, they can act upon their own initiative.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: I have so much distrust of the licensing body that I would rather leave it to the police.
  Mr. McKENNA: That confirms my conjecture that the hon. and learned Member has not appreciated the effect of his own Amendment. The only effect of that would be that the police could act in every case without the limiting control which the justices might exercise. The hon. and learned Member is afraid that the justices in some instances might be too willing to act, but surely he must know also that there might be circumstances in which the police might be too willing to act.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: That is not my experience.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite congratulate the hon. and learned Member upon that.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: The point turns upon the question as to how the police make a report. They may suggest that certain houses should be closed, but the time is left entirety to this tribunal.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is subject to the proviso. You may like the hour to be nine o'clock, or you may think that they ought to have a discretion. On the other hand, you may want to extend this provision and give a bigger discretion to the Home Secretary, but I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should object to the licensing justices, whose sole function is that of limiting the power of closing the public-houses. I hope in these circumstances the hon. and learned Gentleman, having regard to the fact that these Amendments have been introduced with a view to producing that agreement—I thought I had obtained an agreement—will be satisfied with the Amendments I have accepted, and not press his point any further.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: The Amendment provides that in the county boroughs, which are the only licensing body affected by this Amendment, the same power shall be given to the whole body of magistrates as is given to them in all other licensing districts. An hon. Member suggested that I was wrong when I said it only affected county boroughs. Under the Licensing Act, licensing justices for county boroughs are the licensing committee. In boroughs which are not counties they are the whole body of licensing justices for everything except certain specified purposes, and in county divisions they are again the whole body of justices. The consequence is that the whole body of justices will deal with these matters in boroughs which are not county boroughs in county divisions, but in county boroughs it will only be dealt with by the licensing committee. Now that body is a committee of the whole body of magistrates appointed for quite a different purpose than the exercise of any powers under this Bill. When these gentlemen elected their colleagues as members of the committee at the last annual meeting it was never contemplated that any such power as is being conferred by this Bill was ever going to be conferred upon any body of magistrates. Is it right for the other justices who are not on the
  310
  licensing committee to say, "We think that we ought to have a voice in settling this matter, and we who have been appointed justices for the purposes of preserving the peace should be allowed to say whether we think the powers under this Act ought to be exercised or not"? The Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend has proposed merely gives to the justices in county boroughs—and possibly to some disqualified justices in other boroughs, but they must be very few—the right to have a voice in the administration of an Act of Parliament which is being passed in an emergency of this kind to preserve the peace, and I think it is a voice which they have a right to have, and which they never intended to delegate to anybody else. I think those gentlemen who have been commissioned to preserve the peace in any district ought not to be passed over and deprived of their rights when a measure of this sort is being passed into law.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Home Secretary has made an appeal to the House for a smooth passage of this Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot see the hon. Members who sit behind him. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) has left the House, and that gives me considerable relief. When we see all the stalwart teetotallers of the Liberal party sticking like limpets to their seats, and not allowing the Home Secretary to yield an inch— [HON. MEMBERS.: "Oh, oh!"]
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I have not consulted any single hon. Member representing what might be termed the total abstinence party with regard to this Bill. I have not consulted one of them, and I do not think that one of them has spoken to me about it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: May I say that I have had absolutely no communication with the Home Office in this matter until after the Bill was put upon the Paper. That is the first time I knew about it.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am only explaining that when a particular group of men are sticking to this House with a tenacity which they would not otherwise show— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—then it is a

  311
  party bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are making it a party Bill!"] I have not made it a party Bill. I have made suggestions which have not been accepted, and I am not going to press them. I want to point out that in Ireland we are better off in this respect than in the ease of this country. We have in Ireland the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks. We have, furthermore, the fact that in all the large towns the Recorder, who is always a lawyer and a man of judicial discretion, is the sole licensing authority. In country districts there is no such thing as licensing justices. It is the entire body sitting with the County Court judge. We have, therefore, in Ireland, the very protection which the hon. Gentleman seeks for England. I can well imagine what he has in his mind. He has in mind something like this: The chief constable, as a rule, is, we know, very much in touch with the licensing justices, and any advance in his salary may depend upon the good relations which exist between them. The chief constable may be very much in sympathy with the licensing justices, just as the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is in sympathy with the Home Secretary. Accordingly, my hon. and learned Friend, in a matter which is put forward not on temperance grounds, but on emergency grounds, seeks that the general body of public opinion existing among the magistrates should be consulted. I am very sorry to think that there is good ground for the apprehension that this Bill would be enforced, not upon war grounds, and upon grounds of national emergency, but upon grounds of a very different character. I do feel that there is some apprehension, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that this Debate may become somewhat of a party character, and I would make the suggestion that the Government should agree to make a Return showing the way in which the Bill has been enforced.
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: That will give us some information as to the houses, the districts, and the hours, and when we have that we shall, at all events, have the knowledge of the protection which is
  312
  necessary. We wish to see that this Bill is not used for the fad or opinion of anybody, but is only used for the general public good.
  Sir FREDERICK LOW: I feel sure that the hon. Member who has just sat down in what he said about temperance advocates, did not intend to include me, although I happened to be sitting behind my right hon. Friend. I want to save all misconception on that subject. Neither in this House nor anywhere else have I ever been an extreme advocate of what is ordinarily called temperance legislation, although many times I have in this House and elsewhere advocated fairness to the licensing trade. The question before us seems to me to be really a very small one. It is a question as to whether the executive in the matter should be the licensing justices or the full number of the justices. If the Clause empowering the justices to forfeit, which I understand is to be removed, had remained in the Bill, then I should have thought that the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. Marshall Hall) was very substantial, because it would have been manifestly unfair that a body like the licensing justices should have been empowered to inflict such an enormous penalty for a breach of this particular Act of Parliament. That really has been taken out of the Bill, and the question we have to discuss is whether the body which is to be called to the assistance of the police in this particular matter should be the whole body of the justices in county boroughs or in other places the ordinary justices plus the disqualified justices. That is all it amounts to. That-really does seem to me a very small point. I am almost divided in the opinion as to whether on the one hand it is expedient for the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against this to press it, or on the other hand, whether it is expedient for the Home Secretary to press the Clause in the Bill, but on an occasion like this I would venture to suggest to the House that really the matter is of such comparatively small importance that we might pass from discussing it to discussing other matters which arise on the Bill, and accept for the present purpose and subject to the check that will exist arising from the suggestion

  313
  of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to the return, the proposal in the Bill.
  Mr. GRETTON: I feel myself very largely in agreement with the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. I do not think this point is so substantial as might appear from the length of time which has been given to it. I venture to suggest, if the Home Secretary wishes to show that this is really an emergency measure, that he will not press the point of the licensing justices. He would then get a much more ready acquiescence from many people who look upon this Bill with suspicion. If the Home Secretary does wish to get that support he will refer the matter to the whole body of magistrates, and will not give it any appearance of being a Licensing Bill. It is not a Licensing Bill. There is a great danger that this measure will rankle in the minds of a great many people whose ready acquiescence the right hon. Gentleman really desires to obtain, and I therefore make this appeal to him. He has not made out a case for the licensing magistrates, and, if he gives way in this matter, I think it will assist him afterwards in the progress of his Bill.
  Mr. DENNISS: The Home Secretary does not altogether appreciate the fact that it is for him to justify the distinction he has made between county boroughs and the rest of the country. Why does he say in the case of the county boroughs that the power under this Bill is to be limited to a select portion of the magistrates, containing a predominance of fanatical teetotallers? I have been connected with licensing matters for many years, and the possibility of getting licences is extremely remote. It was only the other day that I got one where application had been made for eleven years. It was simply an on-licence, and it had been refused without any reason for years. The public has no confidence in the licensing bench, and, if the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to smooth public opinion, and let this Act work beneficially and without friction, then in this matter, which everybody says is such a small one, he might very well give way. We regard with the greatest possible suspicion any Bill which introduces the licensing justices, and when a
  314
  particular distinction is made, as in this case, between county boroughs and the rest of the country, we feel we must press our objection. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but the powers are only restrictive." The contrary is the case. As soon as they agree it is necessary to shut up public-houses within the limits of the borough, subject to the various restrictions and provisos, they can fix what hours they please and make them as inconvenient as possible to people whom, on temperance principles, they wish to stop drinking. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the object is patriotic. But the British public will not believe that, and if he wants his Bill to work smoothly and without friction, if he wants the public to have confidence in the tribunal which is to settle the hours during which public-houses are to be closed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to insist on making this distinction between county boroughs and the rest of the country, unless he can show very sound reasons for so doing. So far no such reasons have even been hinted. No Member of this Committee has heard them, at any rate, and why, therefore, should we be expected to vote for this proposal? Why does the right hon. Gentleman so strongly adhere to it? Will he give us his reason before we go to a Division?
  The rest of the magistrates are fully as representative as those who are on the licensing committee. The right hon. Gentleman has said something about their particular knowledge of public-houses—a knowledge due to the fact that they visit the public-houses in the different districts and ascertain the requirements of a neighbourhood before they grant licences. But the other justices are equally well informed as to the temper of the people in any locality and as to the likelihood of riot or drunkenness. After all, the licensing justices are only a small, select, sectional body appointed for a given purpose, and there is no justification whatever for having put into this Bill a proposal which will create very bad feeling in the country. We have been told that this is a very small matter. If that be the case, then why does not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his proposal?
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: I beg to thank the Home Secretary for having accepted the Amendment, which I have now to propose, in the same Sub-section, namely, to leave out the words "that it is desirable in any area temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor by," and to insert instead thereof the words "fit, upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police that it is desirable for the maintenance of order, or the suppression of drunkenness in any area."
  Dr. CHAPPLE: In connection with this proposed Amendment, may I suggest the substitution of the word "drinking" for "drunkenness"? Apparently, as the proposal stands, drunkenness will have to take place before there is sufficient justification for such a recommendation. As a matter of fact, it is not drunkenness that is the evil; it is drinking, because a man excited by drink, although he may not be drunk, may be much more riotous, and, indeed, is as a rule much more riotous, than a man who is actually drunk. It is quite fallacious to think that until a man is drunk no evil arises. As a matter of fact, great evil is due to the excitement caused by drink, although there may not be actual drunkenness. Therefore, I would like to see the Clause read "for the maintenance of order, or the suppression of drinking," because it must be apparent that, if drinking is taking place, it may be desirable for the chief officer of police to make this recommendation before drunkenness actually occurs or rioting proceeds.
  Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask if it is proposed that in the county it shall be the chief constable who is to make the recommendation?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it will be the chief constable for the county. I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) to substitute drinking for drunkenness.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words, "fit, upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police that it is
  316
  desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area," there inserted.
  Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, to leave out the words "and the supply or consumption of intoxicating liquors in any registered club in the area."
  The insertion of these words is an innovation which I think ought not to be made in an emergency Bill that is being passed rapidly and without full consideration by the House, owing to the indulgence which, under present circumstances, hon. Members are prepared to extend to the Government. There is, I believe, no precedent on the Statute Book for any authority, either magisterial or police, restricting the supply or consumption of liquor in any registered club, and I think any such innovation as that ought not to be carried in an emergency measure, but should be reserved for deliberate discussion on some future occasion when we have time to deal with such matters. It is not merely an innovation. It is a highly controversial proposal. Hon. Members in this House have different opinions with regard to temperance and temperance legislation. I find my place amongst ardent temperance reformers, but I have always held that if you want to enter a man's house or his club and restrict the amount of liquor that he consumes or the hours during which he may consume it. you must confine yourself to reasoned argument and not rely upon compulsory legislation. I believe that that opinion is very widely held, and no matter of this kind, new and so highly controversial, ought to be introduced in an emergency Bill. I therefore appeal to my right hon. Friend to leave out this particular proposal and to allow it to be discussed on some more convenient occasion.
  It is quite unnecessary thus to interfere with the clubs. Members generally may not be aware of the large number of clubs mostly resorted to by working men in this country, and the very useful functions they discharge in social life. Hon. Members, too, may not recognise that the drink they consume is one of the most trivial incidents in their vigorous careers.

  317
  Hon. Members smile at that, but I think if I were to supply them with a list showing the number of clubs that exist and the activities which they exercise, together with the daily consumption of liquor, as proved by the books, they would agree with me there is really no necessity whatever for introducing this particular provision into this Clause. It is for these reasons I beg to move the deletion of these words. I have not conspired with anyone, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends will give this proposal support.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not often that I disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am bound to say that on this occasion every one of the arguments which he used was directed against his ease. It is because this is an emergency measure that we are bound to do things that in ordinary legislation we should not do. Can we conceive anything more unfair in an emergency measure than to close the public-houses in any district, say, at ten or eleven o'clock instead of midnight, and to leave the clubs open, to do all the trade, all night, which the publicans are forbidden to do? I can conceive nothing more unfair. Let me say that we do not in the least propose to interfere with the vigorous career of the clubs. It is only the trivial incident with which we are dealing. We propose that in the mere trivial incident of selling intoxicating liquor that the clubs shall, where the police think it desirable for the maintenance of order and for the suppression of drunkenness, conform to the hours to which the public-houses are made to conform. I think my hon. Friend did not make out his case, and I trust he will not press the Amendment further.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether, in the event of the licensing authority reducing the hours of sale at public-houses, say, for two hours at night, the clubs will also be closed for those two hours, or whether the clubs will remain open under their rules and regulations?
  Mr. McKENNA: The construction of the Bill would mean that if an order were made that intoxicating liquors should not be sold after eleven o'clock at night, then intoxicating liquors could not be sold either in licensed premises or in
  318
  clubs after eleven o'clock at night. Of course, they are free to remain open and conduct their ordinary vigorous career, but intoxicating liquors could not be sold after eleven o'clock at night.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understand that the subsequent Amendments on the Paper are pretty well all covered by the Government proposals.
  Mr. MARSHALL HALL: As to my Amendment, although it is not exactly covered by the Home Secretary's proposal, in view of his proposal I do not propose to-move it.
  Mr. PETO: With regard to my Amendment, I desire to hear the Home Secretary's Amendment before moving a proviso to it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of," and to insert instead thereof the words, "have effect until approved by."
  That takes out the limitation of fourteen days, and has the effect that no order restricting the sale to an earlier hour than nine o'clock can have effect until approved by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I only rise to ask a question, namely, whether the Home Secretary, in the qualification of his proviso, has taken into account the effect it will have on the general power of magistrates at present to close licensed premises, when they think fit, in the interests of social order at any time, and during any hour, say, in the case of a riot? Will not his proviso actually limit the powers possessed by the licensing magistrates?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, the existing law remains the same. Where a riot is apprehended, the licensing justices have complete control. It is only an order under this Bill which will be subject to the proviso. The proviso says "any such order."
  2.0 P.M.
  Mr. SWIFT: Is not the effect of the Amendment that no order closing the public-houses before nine o'clock is to have effect without the Home Secretary's sanction? Under the Bill as it originally stood, if an order was made closing a house at

  319
  nine o'clock, the Home Secretary's sanction was necessary if the order "were to remain in force for more than fourteen days. Cannot the fourteen days' provision be retained with regard to closing houses after nine o'clock? Supposing an order is made to close the houses at 9.30, is there any reason why that order should exist for more than fourteen days without being subject to the approval of the Home. Secretary? I think it is desirable that local authorities, whoever they may be, should not have power of closing houses for a period of more than fourteen days at a time without the sanction of the Home Office. It is impossible to conceive an emergency taking place in any district which one can foresee is going to last for more than fourteen days. The order for fourteen days ought to be enough. If they want to make it for a longer period, then it is perfectly simple to make the order for the fourteen days and in the meantime go to the Home Office and obtain power to make an order for another and a longer period. It gives a feeling of security if they have to go to the Home Office, which some people do not possess when they have only to deal with the authorities such as those to whom these powers have been entrusted. While I am speaking on this matter may I say, as one of those who have had the opportunity of speaking to the Home Secretary about some of the matters in this Bill, that I am very grateful to him for the way in which he met the views I personally had to put before him. I hope he will give me further consideration, and put in some words to the effect I have stated.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words "have effect until approved by" there inserted.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "provided also that in no circumstance shall the approval of the Secretary of State be given to any Order to suspend the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor between the hours of 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. and 9 p.m."
  The words of the proviso as they now stand are undoubtedly, from my point of
  320
  view, an improvement on the provisions of the Bill as it stood, but they do not meet the point of the Amendment I have on the Paper. I do not propose to move the Amendment in the exact form in which it appears on the Paper, because the words of the proviso now approved by the Committee are, in some senses, wider than the words I propose to put in. But the great point still remains that, considering this is an emergency Bill which only deals with what is right and wise to do considering the state of war in which we are, and that it is not governed in any way by, nor does it interfere with, the law with regard to a state of riot, where the powers of the magistrate are the same as they were before, I cannot see the slightest justification for taking the power in this Bill, even with the consent of the Home Secretary, for the closing of houses of refreshment during the ordinary meal hours of the working classes. The whole basis of this Bill is to prevent excessive drinking, to prevent drunkenness and the possible demoralisation of those parts of His Majesty's forces who may be with the Colours. None of those things can take place between such hours as eleven in the morning and two in the afternoon, when people are getting their lunch or dinner or mid-day meal, or between five in the afternoon and nine in the evening, when they are taking their evening dinner. I do not see the slightest ground for giving power under this Bill, even with the consent of the Home Secretary, which will deprive whole sections of the working classes, in one area or another, of any opportunity of taking a single glass of beer with their dinner or supper. There are no provisions in this Bill which will operate in the same way for the classes who are asked to legislate in this matter. Until we are prepared, because the country is at war, to go in for voluntary teetotalism, and for every member to abide by it, it is a ridiculous piece of hypocrisy for us to pass a measure in the guise of an emergency measure which may be put into operation in such a way, in certain areas, that it will be impossible for a working man to get a glass of beer with his dinner. As to the question of hours in my proviso I am open to argument, if they are considered too wide to cover the ordinary meal hours.

  321
  Considering the conditions of varying trades and varying districts, I do not think they can be further restricted and still carry out their purpose. A good deal has been said about this Bill not being misunderstood. I am quite sure that a simple Clause that everyone can understand like that will do more good to get this Bill accepted without fear of mistrust and dislike by the working classes than anything I can think of. I do not believe there is the slightest necessity for the Home Secretary to take the power to close houses of refreshment at these hours, and I hope he will accept this further proviso and allow us to proceed to further Amendments on the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, not that I do not agree with him. I cannot conceive of sanctioning an Order to close public-houses at the ordinary meal hours of the working classes, unless it were for an emergency, in which everyone will agree that they ought to be closed.
  Mr. PETO: Such a thing as a riot.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it might be other things. The objection to putting these words in is that it is a sort of indication to the licensing authorities as to the kind of Order that they should make. I should say that would be a very stringent Order. If the limit suggested by the hon. Member were in the Bill, in my judgment it would be an extremely stringent one, which ought only to be sanctioned in very exceptional circumstances. The moment you put these words into this Bill every licensing authority in the country would say, "We ought to make that Order; that is the Order which Parliament contemplates our making," and I really believe the Amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member desires. I have promised that I will give to the House at very frequent intervals a Return of the Orders made. The hon. Member can always have the Home Secretary to cross-question. The Prime Minister has stated that there will be no long space of time between the Sittings of the House. It is obvious that the Government will have to come to the House frequently for emergency Bills and money Bills, and there will be no danger of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under this Bill
  322
  irrationally. I can assure the hon. Member that I certainly should regard it as very irrational, except in circumstances of extreme emergency, to close public-houses during meal-times.
  Mr. LONG: I think there is a good deal in what the Home Secretary has said. We know from past experience that when you put certain definite terms into a Bill and it becomes an Act of Parliament, local authorities are rather apt to take those terms as an indication, and in order to save themselves trouble, and sometimes even to avoid responsibility, they fall back upon the language of an Act of Parliament and translate it into the form that their action is to take. On the other hand, I do not think we ought to pass this Amendment unless the Home Secretary is prepared to say something a little more definite than he has said. What he has already told the Committee is very satisfactory. He cannot conceive himself assenting to such a limitation as my hon. Friend in his Amendment wants to prevent. But will the Home Secretary go further and say definitely that he will not in any circumstances assent to such a change unless the emergency is so great as to make it absolutely essential?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. LONG: I am very much obliged to the Home Secretary. I think my hon. Friend will realise that that materially alters the position, and we have actually got what we want—an express assurance that, except in very exceptional circum-stances, the Home Secretary will not assent to any proportion of the kind. I do not want to use any language which may seem to the most sensitive to be offensive, but we want to prevent the extreme action of extremists, and we all know, who know anything about this form of local government, that there are benches in the country which quite honestly and conscientiously hold ideas, in the interests of the community, that the law should be used to the fullest extent in order to remove temptation out of the way of people. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) would not take that view if he had the power and were on a Bench. He would say, "Here is a great opportunity to reform

  323
  the people; we must remove temptation out of their way," and I am sure he would say it conscientiously, with absolute conviction, and being really desirous of serving the community. But we take a different view. We say this Bill ought not to be used for a purpose of that kind. This is not an ordinary temperance reform. It is not intended to be used as an engine for promoting even the best cause. It is only intended for a special specific purpose, and is only to be used within certain very narrow limits. I hesitate to express an adverse opinion on my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is excellent, but I am inclined to believe that he will be more likely to secure what he wants—the protection of the rights of the working people—by the assurance the Home Secretary has given in reply to his Amendment than by incorporating these words in the Bill, which might have the effect I have already described, and might also limit the power of the local authority and the Home Secretary in a moment of great emergency, when all would agree that full powers ought to be exercised.
  Mr. GOULDING: As I have an Amendment in much the same terms, I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured the very specific statement of the Home Secretary. I am perfectly certain, the statement is so clear and specific, that it will carry assurance to the people in the country, and that the working classes will appreciate that it is not class legislation, and that their interests will be safeguarded.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. SWIFT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words—
  "and the Court may order, if the person convicted is the holder of a retailer's licence, that the licence be forfeited, and, if The offence is committed in relation to or in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor in a club, that the club be struck off the register without any special complaint having been made for the purpose,"
  and to insert instead thereof the words—
  "if any person feels aggrieved by a conviction under this Section he may appeal
  324
  therefrom to Quarter Sessions in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."
  This Amendment has been agreed to by the Home Secretary, and I do not want to occupy the time of the House saying anything about it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Captain JESSEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words—"
  "any licensing district or any part of a; licensing district which is situate in the Metropolitan Police district, the Commissioner of Police, acting with the approval of the Secretary of State,"
  and to insert instead thereof the words—
  "the county of London the committee of the compensation authority appointed under Section 6 of the' Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910."
  The Bill as originally drawn gives power to the Commissioner of Police to take action. My hon. Friends who support this Amendment think that there should be some popular body between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Interpretation. Application, Short Title and Duration.)
  2.—(1) In this Act the expression "retailers' licence" means any of the retailers' licences specified in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
  (2) In the application of this Act to Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the licensing court shall be substituted for the licensing justices, and the general half-yearly meeting of the court, or any adjournment thereof, shall be substituted for the general annual licensing meeting. "Intoxicating liquor" means excisable liquor, and "retailers' licence" means certificate as defined in Part VII. of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
  (3) In the application of this Act to Ireland the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State, and the expression "Licensing district" means as respects the police district of Dublin

  325
  metropolis that district and elsewhere in Ireland the petty sessions district, and the expression "licensing justices" means as respects the police district of Dublin metropolis the chief commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, and, as respects any other licensing district, two or more justices at petty sessions.
  (4) This Act may be cited as the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914.
  (5) This Act shall remain in force during the continuance of the present war, and for a period of one month after the close thereof.
  Mr. SWIFT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
  "and the expression 'chief officer of police—'

  (a) with respect to the City of London, means the Commissioner of the City Police; and

  (b) elsewhere in England, has the same meaning as in the Police Act, 1890."

  This Amendment is consequential on other Amendments which have been made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "meeting" ["the general annual licensing meeting"], to insert the words,
  "'Sheriff-depute' shall be substituted for 'chief officer of police'. The reference to an appeal to Quarter Sessions shall not apply. 'Summary conviction' means summary conviction in the sheriff-court."
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has met our views in this matter. I should also like to say that I am quite certain the Government have no oblique motive in regard to the Bill, and I have no suspicion even in regard to the motive of hon. Members who support it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "district" ["the Petty Sessions district"], to insert the words,
  "the expression 'chief officer of police' means as respects the police district of
  326
  Dublin metropolis, either of the commissioners of police for that district and elsewhere in Ireland a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. RUSSELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant," and to' insert instead thereof the words, "the Recorder of the City of Dublin."
  Question, "That the words" the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. CLANCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will say what is the effect of the last Amendment which he moved? No notice was given of it.
  Mr. MOONEY: We had no notice of the Amendment, and I would ask whether, as a matter of convenience, the right hon. Gentleman could explain to the House what the Amendment means? When it was put through we could not hear it, and we do not know the effect of it.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): We have passed that Amendment. I read it as clearly as I possibly could twice over, and any remarks which the hon. Member desired to make upon it could have been made then.
  Words, "the Recorder of the City of Dublin," there inserted.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War, and for a period of one month after the close thereof," and to insert instead thereof the words "until the thirty-first day of March, 1915."
  This Amendment would have the effect of altering the period during which the Act will continue. The Bill as it stands proposes that it should remain in force during the continuance of the War, and a month after. While we hope that the War may come to an end in a few months, we know that it might continue for two or three years, and therefore this Act might remain in force during that period, and one month after, what is called the

  327
  close of the War—a period which is always difficult to define. I propose that these enormous powers—although I think they are necessary—should only be given until the 31st March, 1915, that is to say, for a period during which we shall have seven months' experience of the administration of the Act before it is renewed. At the end of seven months we shall be in possession of a large amount of experience as to how the Act has been operated throughout the country, and I dare say a good many of the fears which have been expressed regarding it may then have disappeared, and if this unfortunate War should still be raging, then I am sure the House would be willing to arm the Home Secretary again with these powers, or larger powers, if necessary, for naval and military or civilian reasons. I think we should have the experience of seven months before renewing the Act. Why should we not have an opportunity of reviewing this Act, and seeing whether it is or is not necessary to renew it in its present form or in some modified form? Then the question of compensation might arise. If the Act is put in force to a large extent, we might have to consider its renewal in connection with the question of some relaxation of the Licence Duties. I think the House should not part with the liberties it now possesses for two or three years, but should make the Act experimental.
  Mr. McKENNA: The reason why this Bill is introduced is that it is an emergency measure to last as long as the War lasts. If it lasts as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests it might last, two or three years, this country during the whole of that time will be largely engaged in the training of troops. If the War comes to an end within a shorter period, the need for the Bill will disappear with it. The reason why we have taken it for the period of the War is to allow for the time we think it would be necessary to have it in force. There is no possible reason why this Bill should have been brought in at all if it is to be brought to an end in the middle of the War. The Bill has met, I am glad to say, with general acceptance in the whole House. Everybody approves of the principle, and the Government recog-
  328
  nise the advantage of the Amendments which have been moved and accepted. If we find that in practice that it does not work well, a matter which the House will have ample opportunity of ascertaining, we can then amend the Bill, but I do think that it would be unwise to limit the operation of a Bill, which everyone desires, to a period when the War might not be over, and the Bill would still be required. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill practicaly throws upon the Secretary of State the responsibility for any order which might be regarded as unnecessarily drastic, and consequently this House, through criticism of the Secretary of State, will have complete control. In those circumstances it is really unnecessary to ask us to go through the whole process of proposing the Bill again in circumstances when everybody admits that it ought to operate.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CLANCY: It would be within the recollection of the Committee that an Amendment was carried without any explanation in reference to the application of this Bill to Ireland. It probably is all right; it may be consequential to something that was carried before, but I should like to hear some explanation of the immediate effect of it, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture of Ireland will give some explanation.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Acting for the Chief Secretary, who is unable to be present, I have moved two Amendments. The first defined the police authority in town and country, and the second defined the Recorder of Dublin as the licensing authority for the Metropolitan Police district. I was unable to give notice of the first of these Amendments because it was consequent upon an alteration in the body of the Bill which was made during the day.

  329
  "Where the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor is suspended as regards any premises under the provisions of this Act the holder of the licence for such premises shall not be liable to pay the whole Duty which would otherwise have been exigible in respect of such premises, but shall be entitled to have deducted from his net payment a sum in proportion to the hours during which such sale or consumption has been so suspended."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move "that this Clause be read a second time."
  It must be evident that there is a possibility of a grievance under this Bill which may be serious grievances, and I think that this Clause is a remedy for that grievance. Assuming that the War lasts two or three years, as has been mentioned, there are large districts of the country where the Bill will be put into operation to a very limited extent, but there are certain parts of the country where for long periods there will be large numbers of troops, and in those districts you may have very serious injury done, for the national interests we will agree, to particular interests. I do not see why you should penalise these individuals any more than you should penalise the man whose house you blow up for military reasons. The State compensates him, and I do not see why in principle the State, should not, compensate in this case also. I agree that there may be some difficulty as to the method of assessing the injury done. I have tentatively adopted the measurement of a sum in proportion to the hours during which the sale is suspended. Of course all hours are not equal in importance to the vendor, but it is the simplest method of doing justice that I could think of. If, with the resources and advice at the disposal of the Government, they can think of any better method, it is obviously easy to substitute some other words. There are other methods, but they all seem to me to be so complicated, at any rate, from the drafting point of view, that I venture to adhere to this simple method, and in that form I beg leave to move the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope that the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.
  330
  In the very case in which he is supposing that this Bill has been put into operation, and the houses in a district are closed at ten at night instead of eleven, what would be the effect upon licensed premises in the district? There has been brought into this district a large number of men who will consume intoxicating liquor during the day. Most probably the sale of these houses in the district will be greater than ever they have been before. Though the sales will not be as great as they would be if the full-licensed hours were allowed, they would still be much greater than they are under the ordinary trade. Taking such a case as that, does he think that that is a proper case for money being made out of a national emergency? On the one hand greater profit is being made, and on the other hand there is less Licence Duty to be paid.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I agree that the case which I put is open to that reply, but there are other cases.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree, but I want to take the Amendment as it stands. That case, which will be the usual case where the Bill is in force at all, is not a case for compensation. There may be other cases where a loss may occur. Under this Clause the right to compensation or reduction could not take place until next year. I have promised frequently to issue Returns from time to time as to Orders under this Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman, before next year's Finance Bill, can make cut a case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show that men have suffered severely under this Bill, I have no doubt that it will be taken into consideration. It must be understood that I am not in any way committing the right hon. Gentleman, but that is a matter which should be brought to his notice. Clearly it is not a case for what the hon. Member would consider rough and ready justice under this Bill, or what I should characterise as rough and ready injustice. In many cases the person would not be entitled to any reduction of Duty, and in other cases they would not be given anything like adequate compensation for loss of trade.
  Mr. HOGGE: I presume that my hon. Friend does not mean to press this to a Division? In any case it was only determined to raise the point which we

  331
  thought ought to be kept in view. What the Home Secretary says about cases being considered on the next Finance Act may, of course, meet it, but we only put this case to the Home Secretary because it is a probable case. My hon. Friend and myself had most in mind that you have already passed for Scotland a Temperance Act which definitely limits the hours of trade from ten o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. The Act is working admirably in many respects; but the English trade is entitled to open at six o'clock in the morning and close at half-past twelve o'clock at night. [An [HON. MEMBER: "Only in London!"] That is what I have in my mind. But at any rate the hours in England are longer than they are in Scotland, which, however, has to pay the same Licence Duty as other sections of the trade which are entitled to keep open during longer hours. I do not think there is going to be excessive drinking during the period of the War. On the contrary, one might have a great deal less drinking, because people have less to spend. The trade is supporting every kind of effort that has been made in these emergencies, and I think the Home Secretary ought definitely to tell us, on the occasion when we next consider the Finance Act, that those material facts will be taken into consideration in determining the Licensing Duty. If he gives us that general assurance, which I think is all we can ask, then I think my hon. Friend and myself should be content with the position.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and thank the right hon. Gentleman for the words he has used, which, I think, will afford a good deal of reassurance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): Before we enter upon the Com-
332
mittee stage I ask your leave, Sir, to intervene in order to state that it is not the intention of the Government to go through the Committee stage to-day. It is absolutely necessary that the Committee stage of this Bill should be taken in the course of next week. With the leave of the Committee, what I ask to-day is to be permitted to state now in the clearest terms I can what is the effect of the criticisms which have been made on the Second Reading upon the mind of the Government, and what, therefore, is the extent of the modifications of this Bill which they are intending to propose in Committee. I think I can state that within a short compass of time. I shall now state as clearly as I can for the information of the Committee what is proposed, and I have no doubt that statement will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT issued tomorrow morning, and it will be a record of my statement which may be of convenience to hon. Members.
There were two main points which were again and again made in different forms in the course of the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. Both of them are very important points, and I have had the advantage, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this morning, of being in consultation with a number of Members of this House and others, in order that we might gather opinion as rapidly as possible and endeavour to arrive at a general conclusion on those two main points. Those two main points are these: First of all, there is the large and important question of whether or not the special powers which this Bill would confer upon the Court ought to be exercised in connection with the rights arising under future contracts; or whether, on the other hand, the special powers which this Bill confers upon the Court should not be limited, or how far they should be limited, to past in distinction from future cases. That is one large and very important question. It may be said that if you allow those exceptional powers to exist in the case of future transactions you are thereby, at the very time you are trying to facilitate credit in this country, undermining and belittling that credit.
The other main point is that since the Court is to be in some form or other ap-

333
pealed to in order that these special powers may be used, which of the parties to the transaction is to have the duty of making appeal to the Court—on whom should the initiative lie? These are the two main questions which were raised, and I am glad to say that both of them have been thoroughly and helpfully discussed this morning by various Members of the House who were good enough to meet us on the matter. I am glad to be able to say that, so far as our inquiries go, we think we see our way to a modification of this Bill which I hope is likely to meet with general approval; because the principle of the Bill is that this sudden strain, due to the War, having fallen on the backs of certain persons, they ought to be able to appeal to the Court for appropriate relief—assistance which will not be disputed by anyone. The difficulty is not in principle: the difficulty is in applying it. Having said that, may I indicate as plainly and as clearly as I can what the changes are in substance which the Government intend or propose to ask the House to make on the Committee stage of this Bill? I believe it will be convenient if I take them categorically, one, two, three, four, and five, not binding myself to the exact words, but with the object of putting them plainly and fully so that they may be followed by anybody who has studied the Bill, as many people outside the House have done, as well as Members of this House themselves.
I will pursue the course of taking the Bill and going through it in the order in which it is printed, though it be that I may mention a comparatively trifling point before reaching a bigger point. Looking at Clause 1, the most important point is the first Sub-section, which is divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) substantially deals with the powers which we propose to give to the Court to insist that before the judgment or order is executed the person who has got that judgment or order shall apply for leave to act upon it—for instance, to levy or exercise any form of execution. We propose to leave that exactly as it stands, but we propose to meet by appropriate words this case. That is my first point. It has been pointed out to us that it is a needless and irritating complexity of procedure if we first insist that a plain-
334
tiff should pursue his action in the Court and in the course of time prove his case and get judgment, and that after he has got judgment he should then be required to apply for leave to execute the judgment forthwith. We accordingly propose to make such a change in the Bill as will enable rules to be made by which in the case of actions that have not already reached their final stage it shall not be necessary for separate applications to be made, one application for judgment and then, subsequently and separately, an application for leave to execute. But the party bringing the action may forthwith, if he has not yet served the writ, and if the action is already pending, may now by an intermediate notice tell the defendant in plain terms that as soon as the plaintiff gets a judgment he will then and there ask for execution unless the defendant appears, and, in the terms of this Bill, shows good cause why execution should be delayed.
That is the first point. The effect of that will be, I think, to avoid unnecessary complications. In that connection let me say it is our intention under the rules that there should appear upon the face of any notice that is given to the debtor a statement in perfectly plain terms, not in the necessarily elaborate language which an Act of Parliament has to do with, that "such and such are your rights in the event of this judgment going against you, but," if notice is given, such as I have indicated, "it will be for you to come and show why this judgment should not forthwith be executed." I think that that change made in the Bill will greatly relieve the anxiety of some who thought that it was unnecessarily complicated. I come to the next point. Passing to the second paragraph (b), there is a reference there to "distress." It was pointed out in the Debate that "distress" is a word that is used not only to indicate a landlord's right to seize the property of his tenant without the leave of any Court, but also to describe the remedy which sometimes exists for the recovery of rates and other cases. I see an ex-Lord Advocate present (Mr. Scott Dickson), and I am aware that in Scotland the rule is not quite similar. In this matter we propose to take a leaf out of their good book and assimilate our law for the time

335
being very much to the admirable example set us in Scotland. What we intend to do is this: Wherever distress is due to an order of the Court, then Sub-clause (a) should apply, and that the "distress" which we refer to in Sub-clause (b) should be limited to the ordinary landlord's distress, which in the ordinary way is available without asking for the leave of the Court. In the third place—and this I think is a matter of great importance—we propose to ask leave to strike out of the Bill altogether five words in Clause 1, Sub-section (1) (b), as follows,
"or take any other measures."
Those words created naturally some anxiety in many quarters. They are wide and general words, and one view of them was that they might perhaps prohibit the issue of a writ or the writing of a letter demanding payment. That was not in the least our intention. Rearing in mind the criticisms made, we think it would be better if we endeavoured to make a specific list of the special cases to which we do intend the Bill to apply, and not to use any general words whatever. In order to make it quite clear we shall consider adding after the words "distress" and "foreclosure," etc., the words "or exercise any right of re-entry," which is intended to be covered. In the fourth place, we think, as the result of the consultation, that it would be better if, instead of trying to say in the Bill exactly what the Court is to which applications could be made, to call it a Court of competent jurisdiction and that rules should be made as to what that Court is. It has been pointed out that there may be cases where a Court of Summary Jurisdiction is a much better Court than a High Court or a County Court. It might very well be so. If we say it is to be a proper Court, and then define it by rules, we can alter those rules in the light of experience, and we shall not find ourselves, by an unintentional mistake, faced by an Act of Parliament.
I come to the fifth, and what is in some respects the biggest and most important point, which is this: Are these new provisions to apply to future cases, or are they only to be available as to past cases? It seems to us that the right principle to
336
lay down is this: With one exception, which I am going to mention, we should propose that this Bill should have no application at all to rights which arise under contracts which were entered into after the War began. The substantial intention of the Bill was to relieve people who had entered into contracts before the War began from the wholly unexpected calamity of having to carry on those contracts punctually with a very serious and sudden situation facing them. Therefore-we should propose to provide that the Bill has no application at all to rights which arose under contracts since the War began. The exception which we propose-to make, and this is a matter which has been most carefully considered, is in the case of distress, or the right of re-entry, and, generally speaking, the right to turn the tenant out of his house. We think there, even though you are dealing with future agreements, it would be desirable for the time being to assimilate our practice in England and Ireland with that of Scotland more or less, namely, that there should be the power in the Court ort the particular grounds here indicated to-give some latitude before the sometimes terrible punishment of instant distress or instant ejectment falls upon the tenant, and that that should be so both as regards future lettings and past lettings. The ground has got to be in substance that the tenant, though otherwise in a position where he might have been expected to pay, has been rendered unable immediately to make payment by reason of circumstances attributable directly or indirectly to the War. It is not intended to give any wider discretion than that.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where otherwise he would have been in a position?
Sir J. SIMON: Yes, where otherwise he-would have been in a position. In this matter I am sure we may trust, with the machinery here which will be rendered available, to the good sense of those who will administer such a Statute to draw a sharp distinction between the shirker, or, as he was described by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Duke) the other day, "the slippery fellow" who is looking out for an excuse as to why he should not discharge an obligation, and the

337
genuine case in whose instance alone it is really intended to provide this remedy. There is one further point, the sixth, and it is this, and it was pointed out by the hon. Member opposite from Ireland: That view was that if all this is to be limited to cases where distress is to be levied or possession is to be claimed for the purpose of enforcing the payment of money—namely, rent—that the whole flank of your Statute might be turned by a landlord who said, "I will give you notice. I say nothing about whether you pay rent or not, but I desire to terminate the agreement, and at the end of the notice I will apply for an order of ejectment." I am far from saying that because this country is involved in war everybody should be at liberty to stay indefinitely in a house without paying rent; it would be a ridiculous proposition. On the other hand, I do think that we ought, under these circumstances, to give the magistrate some discretion to inquire whether he really ought to make an order for ejectment in those cases straight away, or whether it would not be fair, in view of those special conditions, to attach some condition and to see that this power is not used harshly and unfairly. If you do not do that it is no good saying that a landlord shall not distrain or shall not exercise the right of re-entry for the purpose of getting rent, because he will give notice to terminate the agreement and turn the tenant out. Our object, therefore, in that regard, is to be certain that an unreasonable landlord should not be able, by a side wind, to accomplish that which it is the main object of the Statute to prevent. With those changes which I have indicated under six heads, and which I do not think would be found to involve elaborate changes in the language of the Bill, though they are very important, I trust it will be found on Monday that we have made such modifications in the Bill as really meet the criticisms that were urged.
The scheme and the principle of the Bill are the same as ever, and it is because there is general agreement that that is the position it has been possible to make these suggestions with some hope of general acquiescence. If we do it in this way it will be possible for us to provide for these cases by rules, and we shall be able to a
338
certain extent to adjust the machinery to-fit the real need as it is found to be. I trust that so far from undermining credit the Bill will give every encouragement for future transactions, and protect people from the unmerited hardship of being held strictly to their bargains in the case of transactions entered into which they cannot perform because of the special emergency. I have made this statement, not with the idea of initiating discussion, but for the purpose of giving information, in order that the House may, after listening to or reading what I have said, gather at once the character of the changes which we propose to make in the Bill in Committee when we take it on Monday. We shall, of course, put down the Amendments as early as possible. In these circumstances I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to say that the Attorney-General has-made a statement with the assent of the Committee, but I hope it will not lead to anything in the nature of a general discussion. Any questions asked will, no doubt, be answered, but, I hope, nothing more than that.
Mr. DUKE: Having taken part in the conference to which the Chancellor of the. Exchequer and the Attorney-General were so good as to invite us in consequence of the Debate last night, I should like to say that the discussions which have taken place have left in the minds of those of us who took part in the Debate the belief that the Bill, as it is proposed to be amended, will support credit and prevent the infliction of hardship. Among those who took part in the conference were members engaged in the practice of the law and business men, and I think there was common agreement between us, after considerable discussion, that the course the Government propose to take is a businesslike and satisfactory one.
Mr. GORDON(indistinctly heard): In Ireland there are long intervals between the sittings of the County Courts. Who" will have power to deal with the decrees of those Courts? In Ireland also we have a special method of procedure, and I should like to know how that is to be dealt with.
Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: Are the hearings of these applications to be in Chambers?
Sir J. SIMON: Yes.
3.0 P.M.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) yesterday, that the officer of the Court should be instructed to take into consideration the circumstances of both parties. In certain cases that might be important, as you might be transferring an inevitable loss from one poor person to another. Take the case of a small house property owner. There might be the proverbial widow, absolutely dependent for her sustenance on the rent of a few small houses. Delay to her might be as hard as in another case the undue pressure of a landlord would be to the tenant. At any rate it is a matter for consideration whether the officer of the Court should not be instructed that in these matters he must look at both sides and not decide merely on the proof of hardship on one side without any regard to the possible hardship on the other.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I wish to say a word in regard to property owners in general, but especially small property owners. As the law stands at present, as long as the tenant remains in the property, the owner is compelled to pay Income Tax. I should like to know whether there will be any relief in that respect. It will be very hard upon small property owners if they are called upon to pay Income Tax in full for the year when this loss of rent takes place. It is a matter that the Inland Revenue should take into consideration when they are levying the assessments for considering remissions. There is another point with regard to small property. In respect of property up to £8, there is compounding. Whether the property is empty or occupied, whether the rent is paid or not, the owner is compelled to pay rates. That will be another serious hardship on the small property owner. I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) with regard to the hardship on many small property owners. I do not know whether this Bill will cover
340
the owners of such property as that to which I have referred, so as to relieve them of the rates. If they are compelled to pay the rates and at the same time under this Bill are not in receipt of any rent, they will suffer a serious injustice.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I understood the Attorney-General to say that applications under this measure would be made in Chambers. I would point out that in Ireland they have a somewhat different procedure. Applications in Chambers in England mean applications to a master, or applications in private. In Ireland, for some reason I cannot understand, there is a distinction made in the High Court-between a judge sitting in Chambers and a judge sitting in Court, but the tribunal in both cases is the judge. If the Attorney-General wishes to have the same law on this subject in Ireland as in England it would be necessary to bring this about by some form of express enactment. In regard to the point made by my hon. Friend above the Gangway as to County Court judges, the Act does not apply. I would like to express my satisfaction at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the course the Government proposes to adopt, for I believe the Bill will be very much improved by the fact stated.
Mr. SCOTT-DICKSON: I should like to support the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. So far as Scotland is concerned, we do not have the procedure of proceedings in Chambers, and having regard to the recent decision of the House of Lords, I think there would require to be special provision as far as Scotland is concerned in order to give effect to the suggestion. I do not know whether it can be done by incorporating it into the rules, but if the Lord Advocate takes the matter in hand and keeps the point in view, I have little doubt the matter will be attended to. I quite understand the difficulty in making the necessary Amendments in view of the time, but I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make such provision, where necessary, to secure that the administration of the law in Scotland in this matter shall be the same as in England.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I would like to suggest, having regard to the importance of

341
this Bill, and the importance of the Government Amendments, that in addition to the Amendments put down to-day, and circulated with the Papers to-morrow as a White Paper, a further copy of the Bill should be circulated showing the Bill as amended by the Government Amendments. I can only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the skilful way in which he has conducted both our long meeting this morning and the discussion afterwards here. After all, I imagine nobody realises the number of interests affected by this Bill. I have given some time to the study of it, but within the last ten minutes one or two absolutely fresh points have been submitted to me which certainly have not been considered by me, or, I think, by anybody else. For these various reasons I am very anxious that everybody should read this Bill to-morrow, and bring the experience of their own particular case to bear, so that following the discussion on Monday we may have, what the Government desires, a Bill that is useful and in no way injurious.
Sir J. SIMON: One hon. Member asked how far proceedings covered by this Bill will take place in Chambers. It was my intention that the proceedings should, so far as possible, be in private and not in public. I gathered from the two hon. Members opposite that there may possibly be some difficulties in Scotland and in Ireland. I will gladly do my best to get myself informed in relation to the Irish aspect of the question presented. So far as Scotland is concerned, I have the advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate. The power to make rules is to give full effect to an Act, and it seems desirable to extend the power to make a rule that so far as possible proceedings under this Act shall not take place in open Court.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Having regard to the decision of the House of Lords, the proceedings must be in public, otherwise they will be ultra vires.
Sir J. SIMON: I was endeavouring for the moment to use language which people outside will understand. I am fairly familiar with the decision of the House of Lords. I think it desirable that there should not be unnecessary publicity or
342
the formalities of the open Court. I am not suggesting the upsetting of the Constitution. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked a question with regard to the registering of judgments. The Bill as it stands will not affect that. At any rate, I do not think that that ought to be affected. As I understand it, a registered judgment may give a man a lien, and it may make some difference whether he registers to-day or next day. It seems desirable that there should be a provision in the Bill which makes certain that the right to register judgments shall not be affected by the fact that the execution of the judgment is deferred.
Mr. JOHN GORDONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Sir J. SIMON: We will see that provision is made that that point is covered. As regards the Court to which application ought to be made, I have heard what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork City, and his point will really be dealt with by saying that the Court is to be a Court of proper jurisdiction.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
War Loan Bill,
Local Government (Adjustments) (Scotland) Bill,
Currency and Bank Notes (Amendment Bill,
Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act (1914) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. War Loan Act, 1914.

2. Special Constables Act, 1914.

3. Isle of Man (War Legislation) Act, 1914.

4. Defence of the Realm (No. 2) Act, 1914.

343

5. Customs (Exportation Prohibition) Act, 1914.

6. Articles of Commerce (Returns, etc.) Act, 1914.

7. Elementary School Teachers (War Service Superannuation) Act, 1914.

8. Education (Scotland) (War Service Superannuation) Act, 1914.

9. Education (Scotland) (Provision of Meals) Act, 1914.

10. Police (Scotland) (Limit of Age) Act, 1914.

11. Naval Billeting, etc., Act, 1914.

12. Housing (No. 2) (Amendment) Act, 1914.

13. Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Temporary Rules (Amendment) Act, 1914.

14. Local Government (Adjustments) (Scotland) Act. 1914.

15. Currency and Bank Notes (Amendment) Act, 1914.

16. Blyth Hall (Transfer) Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

17. Coatbridge Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

18. Dumbarton Burgh (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

19. North British Railway (Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Vesting) Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

Mr. GORDON: I think there should be some tribunal which has a general power to deal with these points.
Sir J. SIMON: What the hon. Member has stated is an illustration of the advantage of doing these things by rule and not by Statute. I quite see that rules in the nature of giving liberty to a Court of recalling or withdrawing what was ordered might be very proper, and I will do my best to have that point considered. Our intention is that nothing in this Act shall prevent the registration of judgments to secure a charge, and if there is any doubt about it we will have it remedied. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out that while it might be all very well to use these discretionary powers in the relief of a hard-pressed debtor, it does not at all follow that the creditor might not be feeling the
344
pressure, and it would be right to see that all the circumstances are considered. I may say that I should not exclude from those circumstances the sort of consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. We will see that we do not by conferring a favour on one man inflict an unmerited additional hardship upon another.
I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member for Stockton any satisfaction within the four corners of this Bill on a point which he has raised. I question whether the title of this Bill allows provision for relief from Income Tax in certain cases. The points which he has raised may be important, but they will have to be put before the Revenue Department, and they could not actually be met in this Bill. It is perfectly open to those who make an order under this Bill to attach conditions, and I can imagine a case in which the Court would say, "I will not have you turned out of your house, but this shall be on condition that the landlord is not worse off in respect of this particular liability." This machinery could be used to deal with a special case of that kind. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) misunderstood me. I did not mean that I was in a position to put all these Amendments down on the Paper. Under the rule they have to be put down before the House adjourns, but my intention was to have them placed on record so that hon. Members could see what we are going to propose. We are proceeding as rapidly as we can to settle the Amendments, and they are not very numerous. I do not think that, we shall serve any good purpose by waiting until these Amendments can be put on the Paper, and if we are not able to put them down before the House adjourns, I hope it will not be considered that there has been any want of consideration for hon. Members. I will undertake that they shall be available in the Vote Office as soon as hon. Members come here on Monday, so that we shall not have to wait a moment longer than is necessary. Anything we can do to get the notice advanced we will do. I think sooner or later a White Paper explaining the simple terms of what this Bill will do will very likely be a convenience, and I would suggest-that we should not occupy our time in

345
drawing up another document, although I agree that a businesslike explanation might be useful.
Mr. RAWLINSON: All I want to say is that supposing the Amendments are given, with nine people out of every ten it is very difficult to read them into a Bill. All I am asking for is that the Bill should be reprinted, showing the Amendments in it. Very often, when the Amendments are lather complicated, it is convenient to people who are not lawyers, and to lawyers as well.
Sir J. SIMON: I am not prepared to exclude the lawyers. I agree that it would be a convenient thing, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would be content if I say that I will make inquiries. We are splendidly served by our officials, but there are limits, and I do not like to promise that which we cannot perform. We will, however, do the best we can. I would ask now that we report Progress, and I should like to thank hon. Members who have endeavoured in this matter to preserve the unanimity of the House, which is, at any rate, one gratifying feature of this anxious time.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I personally have considerable interest in this Bill, and I should like to have it made clear what it means in a White Paper. It not only affects lich people, but it may have a very serious effect upon poor tenants and the credit they have in taking houses or even lodgings. I think, therefore, it ought to be made very clear, and I hope that the White Paper will make it so.
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 31st August.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time "
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): In asking the House to
346
give a Second Reading to this Bill I should like to repeat what my Noble Friend said in another place, that both he and the Board of Agriculture hope that it will not be necessary to put this Bill into force. It is introduced because a very large number of people have asked that it should be introduced. The Board, after considerable discussion, decided to introduce it, and they were particularly urged to do so by the Agricultural Consultative Committee which has been set up. The House will realise that a recommendation from that Committee must carry weight when I remind it that Sir Ailwyn Fellowes is the chairman, and the hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) is one of the members of it. If I may, I will read just one sentence to show what the Bill involves. It says:—
"The Board of Agriculture may, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient breeding stock, regulate—"
I would emphasise that word "regulate"—
"and restrict the slaughter of animals used for human food."
The Bill only extends for one year and applies to Scotland and to Ireland. The powers given to the Board of Agriculture are very drastic, but the intention is the very reverse. The intention is to attempt, so far as possible, to keep the present system of farming normal, so that things should go on as they have done in the past. When the House is considering the question of the Second Reading I hope that they will consider whether the Bill is necessary at all. If they agree with the Board of Agriculture that it is necessary, then clearly it is only necessary in the case of panic or of sudden emergency, and, as this admittedly is to deal with panic or emergency, it is hoped that the House will allow the Board a free hand; but I am authorised by my Noble Friend to say that he contemplates consulting the live-stock committees on the one hand and the Consultative Committee on the other as to the least harmful way of carrying out any Order that may be made. I hope, further, that the House will have sufficient confidence in the Board of Agriculture to realise that they, too, will do everything in their power to safeguard the interests of the farmers.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Perhaps I may be allowed, as an old election opponent of the hon. Baronet, to congratulate him on his present official position, and on his lucid presentation of the provisions of this Bill. I cannot say that I welcome the Bill. I do not suppose that the farmers throughout the country will welcome it, but in certain emergencies that may arise I think such authority as is proposed by this Bill to be given to the Board of Agriculture is desirable, though I hope it will be clearly understood that the powers thereby given will not be exercised except in the case of serious emergency or in the event of panic amongst those who might conceivably destroy female or immature stock, resulting in the loss of a very valuable national asset in these times of serious crisis. This is a very drastic Bill, and I hope that the hon. Baronet and his Department will take care that no Order is issued, in any case, until the live-stock committees of the various provinces have been consulted, and until the Agricultural Consultative Committee have also given their opinion. I was glad to hear the hon. Baronetlay stress upon the word "regulate," as contrasted with the word "restrict," because I am quite sure that the Board of Agriculture have not at present a suitable staff scattered throughout the country to enable them sufficiently to decide in what cases slaughter is permissible and in what cases it is not permissible. I think the hon. Baronet will agree that the present officials by the very nature of their duties and training are not the sort of people who can say whether animals are fit for the butcher or not. If this restriction is going to be so exercised as to prevent a large number of mature animals ready for market being put upon the market, an injustice will be done to consumer and producer alike. On the other hand, regulation may be very desirable.
Fortunately we have in the country today probably more cattle than at any time during the last thirty years. Pigs, as we all know, were very short last year. There was, in fact, a decrease of 16 per cent. That shortage is being rapidly made up. There is undoubtedly a serious deficiency as regards sheep, and it is particularly in regard to sheep that I venture to hope that any necessary Order will be issued to prevent ewe lambs being slaughtered.
348
There is a considerable number still of young calves with literally no flesh upon them which are being sold at the present time in certain markets. I should like to see a definite restriction put now, and at once, upon the slaughter of heifer calves—at any rate, under the age of six weeks or two months—and I should like to see restrictions put at once upon the slaughter of yearling heifers or of two-year-old heifers which are being fatted for the purpose of beef by certain short-sighted people in some parts of the country. After all, the need for this Bill, if there is a need at all, arises from a feeling of panic consequent upon a fear of anticipated shortage in animal feeding-stuffs, and, if the hon. Baronet and his Department will do what they can to prevent these feeding-stuffs going out of the country and to foster the importation to this country of products like oats in particular, I cannot believe that it will ever be necessary to put the Bill into operation. The hon. Baronet will realise what I mean when I speak of the restriction of the export of animal feeding-stuffs and milling offals in particular. Considerable pressure is, I know, being put on the Board to allow certain millers at our ports to export, as they have been in the habit of doing, a large amount of bran, sharps, and other milling offals to Denmark and other countries. It would be a positive crime if that were permitted at the present time. It would at once send up the price of all offals, which are simply invaluable to small stock-owners, and particularly small pig-owners throughout the country. I know-that the Local Government Board is restricting the export of these articles, and if that Board and the Board of Agriculture will definitely say to the farming community, "We will continue to restrict the importation of these offals during the War," there will be no danger of such a slaughter taking place as to render necessary the putting into operation of the Act.
There remains the case of the horses, a large number of which have been mobilised. I must put this, because it affects the question of oats. Oats are our worst cereal crop this year. I do not know much about Scotland, but at any rate throughout the whole of England the oat crop is not satisfactory. We want a much larger

349
quantity of oats this year than usual in this country, owing to the mobilisation of the horses and to the large quantities flowing out of the country for military purposes abroad. Many of the horses mobilised are animals which, at this particular time of the year, usually would be out at grass, but now, of course, they are consuming oats. If the hon. Baronet is really anxious not to put these drastic powers into operation his Department will do all it can to prevent the export of milling offals and to secure the import into this country, either from our Colonies or from foreign countries, of the largest possible quantity of oats. With these observations, I offer no objection to the introduction of this Bill, drastic though it may be, but I venture to express the hope that the Lon. Baronet will see that proper advice is taken, as, indeed, he has suggested, before any Order is issued under it.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
Mr. C. BATHURST: I want formally to move an Amendment, in order to ascertain the meaning of a certain expression, and I will, if necessary, move to leave out the words "at the expiration of one year from the present time," and to insert instead thereof the words "during the continuance of the War." I do not suppose I shall have to do that. I want to ask "what is the real object of this particular expression, bearing in mind that the War may come to an end before the expiration of one year?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question can be put on the Motion, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. C. BATHURST: I only want to know what particular virtue there is in these words. I take it the real object is to allow the powers to continue during the continuance of the War.
Sir H. VERNEY: I do not know that there is any particular virtue in these words. The power is intended to be purely temporary, although I am afraid my hon. Friend may be too sanguine when he suggests that one year may be too long a period. I hope he will not move his Amendment, seeing that the object of the Bill is perfectly plain.
Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

EXPORTATION OF COAL TO HOLLAND.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this-House do now adjourn."
Mr. TICKLER: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is a fact that coal is being exported from Immingham Docks on Dutch boats to Holland and, if so, if there is any guarantee that this coal is not being forwarded to-Germany; if the said boats are manned by Dutchmen, and if there are no-German sailors serving in any capacity on board? It has been represented to me that very large quantities of coal have been shipped from Immingham to Rotterdam on Dutch boats, and that they are being discharged into barges and taken up the Rhine. I should like to know if the Government have any knowledge of this, and if they are aware if any coal is going to Germany?
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I understand there are fairly large shipments from Immingham at the present time, and I am very glad it should be so, for two reasons. First, it means employment on this side for men working in the South Yorkshire and Derbyshire collieries, and for those employed at the Immingham Dock. Secondly, I am glad because the immediate requirements of the Dutch

351
people are more in the matter of coal than anything else. Holland is a neutral country. There can be no objection to coal going there provided it is not en route to supply the enemy's ships or the enemy's army. Our information is that these coals are consigned to Holland, and that they go to neutral owners in Holland. What happens to them after they get there I am afraid I cannot say. I have not made full inquiry yet. They connot be treated as contraband, or conditional contraband, under the conditions of shipment from Immingham to Holland at the present time. But my hon. Friend may rest assured that if there is any sign of coals going from Immingham into the bunkers of German vessels, we shall take the earliest possible opportunity of interfering with a practice which certainly would benefit our enemies and be to our own detriment.
Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to see that special attention is paid to this matter, and to have the ships watched on the other side?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is being done not only with regard to coal, but with
352
reference to other commodities which are going into Holland at the present time. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, so far as we know these coals are not going to our enemies; but if there should appear any such tendency we shall at once, of course, take the necessary steps.
Mr. TICKLER: I also wish to ask—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already exhausted his right.
Mr. TICKLER: This is not on the same subject.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.
Mr. HOGGE: May I ask if anyone on the Front Bench can state if, when the Prime Minister said it was proposed to adjourn for ten days, the right hon. Gentleman meant ten Parliamentary days or ten ordinary days?
Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I assume the Prime Minister will say that when he makes his Motion on Monday.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Four o'clock, till Monday next, 31st August, at a Quarter before Three o'clock.