Commons Sitting of 8 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) (suspended) Bill,
Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow Corporation (Parks, Harbour Tunnel, Gas etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1S99, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Parks, Harbour Tunnel, Gas, etc." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Port of London Authority Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional
510
Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1911, to enable the Councils of the administrative counties of Derby, the Isle of Ely, and Montgomery, the county borough of West Ham, and the urban district of Leyton, to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Derbyshire, etc.) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Irvine and District Water Board." [Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Derbyshire, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
Private Bills (Group B),
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

WAR ORGANISATION IN THE DISTRIBUTING TRADES IN SCOTLAND.
Copy presented of First Report of the Government Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland on War Organisation in the Distributing Trades in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16).
Estimate presented of further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1916 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 290.]
NEW WRIT.
For the Burgh of Glasgow (Central Division), in the room of the right hon. Charles Scott Dickson, K.C., Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Griffith Caradoc Rees, esquire, for the County of Carnarvon (Northern or Arfon Division).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS,
  WAR.

    GOODS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the War Trading Committee has been called to the purchase of goods of enemy origin by traders of neutral countries and their reshipment to this country to be sold here; and, if so, what steps are being taken to deal with the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The nature of the precautions taken to prevent goods of enemy origin entering the United Kingdom by way of neutral countries adjacent to Germany and Austria was indicated by a notice issued by the Board of Trade in April last. The Order in Council of the 11th of March, 1915, dealt with any attempts to introduce goods of enemy origin into the United Kingdom by a more devious route, e.g., by way of America. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these documents.

  TRADE UNIONS AND LABOUR EXCHANGES (REPORTS).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether under normal conditions the triennial Report on trade unions would by this time have been published; whether this Report, 1911–13, is ready; if so, whether steps will be taken to secure its speedy publication; and (2) whether the
  512
  Report on Labour Exchanges is now ready; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to secure its speedy publication?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The principal facts with respect to trade unions in 1911–13 have already been published in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette," and further particulars are given in the 17th Abstract of Labour Statistics. In these circumstances, and in view of the number of enlistments in the Department, the pressure in other directions owing to the War, and the desirability of economising effort and expenditure during the present crisis, it is proposed to postpone publication of the volume referred to by my hon. Friend. For these reasons the postponement of the Report on Labour Exchanges is also proposed.

  DAMAGE BY ENEMY AIRCRAFT.

    STATE INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to announce the Government decision as to aircraft insurance and damage by enemy incendiaries?
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the scheme for insurance against war risks will be laid before the House of Commons or published; and whether the Government have taken note of the anxiety felt by numbers of people throughout the country to whom the present rates of war insurance are prohibitive or very burdensome?
    Mr. FERENS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him if he can assure the House that the Bill now in course of preparation will be carried into law before the House rises for the vacation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In answer to that question it will not be necessary, I believe, to proceed to legislation in order to extend the scheme of war risk insurance to damage by aircraft. It will be done by Executive action, as the original war risk scheme was, and can be put into operation at once. I must refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and the hon. Member for Aston Manor.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: Have we not had a similar answer given on many occasions in this House, and can the right hon. Gentleman now state the precise date or the approximate precise date when the scheme will be ready?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would not like to name the exact date, but the deliberations of the Committee, I understand, were brought to a conclusion this morning, and I hope they will let me have their recommendations at once, and I shall be able to make an announcement next week.
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the amount of work and expenditure involved in the insurance of all the property of a destructible nature in the United Kingdom against damage by raids; and if, with a view to avoiding this expense and trouble, the Government will undertake to pay any such damage when it arises and the amount is assessed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has been fully considered, and the conclusion arrived at is that any State scheme for dealing with damage by bombardment or by aircraft must be an insurance scheme and not one of simple indemnity.

  BRITISH SHIPS (MORTGAGES TO FOREIGNERS).
  Mr. HOLTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any power to forbid the mortgage of British ships to foreigners; and, if not, whether, seeing that the mortgagee can easily possess the real control of the ship, he will take powers to forbid the mortgage to foreigners, if he thinks desirable, during the War?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no statutory power at present to forbid mortgages to foreigners, but every case is reported and, when necessary, is inquired into. I would remind my hon. Friend that so long as a ship flies the British flag it is subject to British law and British Government control.
  Mr. HOLT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be possible, after having allowed a foreigner to obtain a mortgage on a British ship, to forbid him to foreclose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If a foreigner forecloses a mortgage, I understand that it will involve a transfer to a foreign flag, and that course, as the hon. Member knows, is forbidden at the present moment.

  RAILWAY TOURIST TRAFFIC (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities, if any, are being given by the railway companies for tourist traffic between England and Scotland during the present summer?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No excursion facilities are being given, but the usual issue of tourist tickets is being continued.
  Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that advantages are to be given to long-distance travellers, namely, the rich, while the same advantages are not to be given to the short-distance travellers, namely, the poor? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for that!

  COAL PRICES.
  Mr. MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make his promised statement as to the steps which he has taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the retail price of coal; and whether he proposes to fix and regulate the price of coal for home consumption?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division.
  Mr. MILLAR: As this matter has been under consideration for a period of several months, and is one of grave, urgent importance, will not the right hon. Gentleman come to some decision now on the matter, and give us an assurance, at least, that he will be in a position to make a statement next week at the very latest?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Mansfield, he will see I pointed out that matters of great importance relating to the coal trade and consumers had to be dealt with by the Government during the past few weeks, and that that unavoidably delayed the-steps contemplated.
  Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any undertaking as to when he will come to a decision on the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long ago it is since these recommendations were made to him?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, it is some months ago. Most of the recommendations, except that dealing with maximum prices, have been adopted.
  Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that the Committee recommended that if there was no fall in the price of coal in the near future the nation should take control of its own coal supplies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not remember that recommendation of the Committee. I understand it was discussed among other matters.

  TRADE DISPUTE (MESSRS. D. GURTEEN AND SONS).
  Mr. DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry has so far been made into the dispute at present existing at the factories of Messrs. D. Gurteen and Sons, Haverhill, Suffolk; whether he is aware that the workpeople have offered to accept arbitration and that this offer has been refused by the firm; whether he is aware that this firm are Government contractors; and will he state what steps his Department proposes to take with a view to settling the difficulty?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The attention of the Department has been drawn to this dispute, and the Chief Industrial Commissioner is now in communication with the firm.

  AGRICULTURAL BOY LABOUR (EXEMPTION FROM SCHOOL).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the prosecutions which have recently taken place against farmers for dismissing farm labourers and in their place employing boys on farm labour who had not secured certificates for exemption from school, and considering the disparity of payment offered to
  516
  boys who have been granted exemption certificates (the rate in Norfolk varying from 3s. to 7s. per week), he has taken steps to secure that when children of school age are employed in agricultural work they are paid a fair wage?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am investigating certain cases in which there is primâ facie reason for thinking that the administration of local education authorities or school attendance committees in excusing children from school attendance for employment in agriculture has been lax, and that the principles laid down in the Debate which took place in this House on the 25th February have not been observed. I am fully alive to the importance of securing reasonable and adequate remuneration for children so employed, and I will ask local education, authorities to co-operate with me in securing it. I have, however, no power to fix or enforce a minimum wage, and I can only appeal to the humanity and public spirit of employers and of those who are responsible for the local administration of education. If this appeal fails of its effect, the question of taking further action will have to be carefully considered by the Government.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot reduce the Grants to these local authorities which are proving so unsatisfactory in this matter?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I think I have already pointed out that the whole conduct will be taken into consideration.

  WAR LOAN.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE SOCIETIES.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the Insurance Commissioners will take immediate steps to pay over in full the estimated amounts now available for investment to those societies that are desirous of applying such investments for the stock of the new War Loan, particularly in view of the fact that the Commissioners present proposals to pay over such sums in instalments as they fall due debar the societies from the benefit of the discount?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Roberts): Arrangements have already been made to pay over to the societies concerned the balances of the sums available for investment in time to enable them to pay the further instalments due in respect of the War Loan in full before the 20th July under discount

    EXCHANGE OF GUARANTEED LAND STOCK.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any limits had been fixed by the Treasury under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, Section 15, Sub-section (2), on the exchange of Guaranteed Land Stock into Consols and, if so, what limits; and whether persons exercising this right of exchange will have the same option of converting Consols into the new War Stock as other holders of Consols.
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Treasury have already authorised exchanges under Section 15 (2) of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to the amount of £8,250,000, and the amount of £8,090,000 Consols has been given in exchange for a similar amount of Guaranteed Land Stock, leaving a balance still available of £160,000. The limit can be raised if required. Any Consols so acquired by exchange by any holder of the new War Loan would be available for conversion, in the same way and subject to the same conditions as any other Consols.

    RAFFLES FOR 5S. VOUCHEES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that persons desirous of contributing to the War Loan are subscribing weekly small sums to buy the 5s. vouchers which are then raffled for; and if, in view of the fact that small postal orders have never been used as currency, and that if a 1s. or 2s. 6d. vouchers were so used they would probably be lost, to the profit of the Treasury, he will reconsider his decision on the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have no previous knowledge of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question, I may observe that small postal orders were actually made legal tender for a short period at the beginning of the War. I regret to be unable to modify the decision already announced.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether is is legal to do these things?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think that question ought to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown.

    ADVERTISING.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the method adopted by the Treasury in issuing advertising to the Press; whether, in the case of the new War Loan advertising, the Treasury revised the list of newspapers in which these advertisements appeared or whether the allocation of this business was left to an advertising agency; and, if the latter, what instructions the agency received from the Treasury as to distributing the business over the Press of the country?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The ordinary advertisements of the prospectus of the new Loan were issued by the Bank of England in the usual way. Advertisements of a more popular type have been prepared and placed by a distinguished advertising expert who has been so good as to place his services at my disposal for the purpose. The distribution of the advertisements has, subject to general instructions from the Treasury, been settled by that gentleman.
    Mr. YOUNG: Would it not be distinctly to the advantage of the War Loan to give a reasonable proportion of advertising to the provincial Press, not only in this country, but in Scotland, and more especially those newspapers which circulate very largely amongst the rural and industrial communities?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I was under the impression that the advertisements had been very widely circulated. If my hon. Friend will give me any specific complaint I will forward it to the gentleman in charge of the Department.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration this fact, that as the big Loan closes on Saturday, they might start an advertising campaign in favour of the smaller Loan in the provincial Press?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That campaign is well on its way already.

    SCOTTISH ESTATES (LAW COSTS).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, although the money borrowed by the nation on Consols, War Loans, etc., is raised for purposes which are distinctly national and Imperial and in no sense specially applicable to either England, Scotland, or Ireland, the representatives of a deceased's estate in Scotland are involved in English Court dues and English solicitors' charges in respect of the deceased's holdings in such stocks on the ground that such are distinctively English estate; whether this distinction was intended or prescribed by any Statute or rests upon a mere custom the discontinuance of which he is in a position to bring about; whether the Exchequer derives any benefit from the practice; whether there is any public object to serve by inflicting such charges and trouble upon investors in Scotland; and, if not, whether he will take steps to relieve investors in Scotland of them for the future, especially as they are now investing their savings in the new War Loan?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The hon. Member has already been in communication with me on this subject. I am making inquiries and will communicate with him further as soon as possible.

    AMOUNT OF POST OFFICE COMMISSION.
    Mr. MOUNTasked what amount of commission will be payable on the sale of each £5 in the War Loan sold through the Post Office; and how soon after the certificate has been lodged at the money order office the seller may expect to receive the amount due for the sale thereof?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The commission payable on the sale of War Loan Stock not exceeding £25 is 9d. It rises to 2s. 9d. on sums between £100 and £200, with an additional 6d. for every additional £100 or part of £100. The money realised by the sale will normally be paid over in less than a week of the date on which intimation is given of the desire to sell.

  MUNITIONS.

    CRAFTSMEN RELEASED FROM COLOURS.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Minister of Munitions what systematic
    520
    scheme, if any, has been arranged to determine which men will be released from the Colours in order to return to munition work; and what action or principle has been decided upon for protecting firms or undertakings doing work essential to the production of munitions from losing by enlistment men whom they cannot replace?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): As regards the first part of the question, a definite scheme has been adopted for allowing men of skilled trades of which there is a shortage to be released from their military duties to undertake work on the production of munitions, and the necessary instructions are being issued to-day. The matter referred to in the second part of the question is engaging my earnest attention, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Are the returns to be limited to those engaged strictly in the manufacture of munitions, or are they to be available to other manufacturers employed on Government work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot at the moment recollect. I know, as far as my Department is concerned, we are getting a full return of all those engaged in the kind of work we are doing, and I think if refers also to all engaged in Admiralty work. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question down.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman shortly make an announcement as regards the second part of the question?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, as soon as the Secretary of State comes back.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will my right hon. Friend consider placing the names of all firms and all undertakings which at present could afford assistance to the nation in connection with the War on some definite lines, so that the War Office may have that before them when they are considering the question of securing recruits?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think, on the whole, that question had better be addressed to the War Office. Recruiting is in their Department, and, although it affects mine, I think it ought to be addressed to them in the first instance.

    SKILLED WORKMEN IN ENGINEERING AND ALLIED TRADES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the names of men not now working at their trades but who are wishful for the purpose of assisting in making munitions of returning to their trade are being enrolled at the Munitions Bureaux?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All skilled workmen in the engineering, shipbuilding and allied trades who are in employment are eligible for enrolment as war munitions volunteers. It is not necessary that the man should at the time of enrolment be employed in the particular occupation in respect of which he offers his services, provided he is skilled at that occupation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases which have come to my knowledge men who are skilled and are not working at present in their particular trades have been refused enrolment because of that fact?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope there are not many cases of that kind. That is certainly not the intention. I have an illustration here of a fitter who was managing a newspaper shop. He was put on as a volunteer. That is our intention.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Could not instructions be given to that effect generally?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If I thought there were many cases of that kind it would be worth while doing it, undoubtedly.
    Sir W. BYLES: What steps is a competent mechanic now on active service to take who desires to come back to munitions work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The arrangement with the War Office up to the present does not extend to those who are on active service. First of all we will take back men who have recently joined, and not those either at the front or who are on the point of going to the front.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a man who has been six or eight months in the trenches thinks the fairest way would be to take him first?

    AEROPLANES (SUPPLY).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Minister of Munitions whether his functions include the co-ordination or the establishment of
    522
    the means of producing aeroplanes for service in the War?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Ministry of Munitions has not, up to the present, taken over the supply of aeroplanes.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman do so in time?

    ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will cause to be prepared in compact form, for the convenience of Members, the texts of all the Orders in Council which have served to define the scope of his functions; and whether he, or any director of any Department of his office, has occupied himself with the question of aeroplanes since the establishment of the Ministry of Munitions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only Order in Council so far issued defining the functions of the Minister of Munitions is the Ministry of Munitions Order, 1915, copies of which are obtainable in the ordinary way. While the supply of aeroplanes has not been taken over by the Ministry of Munitions, the services of war munitions volunteers enrolled by the Minister are available to meet the needs of any aircraft factories on the same conditions as other munition works.

    INVENTION WORK.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Minister of Munitions whether, since the establishment of his office, he has taken any steps towards handling the question of inventions in the most efficacious manner; whether he has considered the French system of an advisory commission divided into three sections dealing, respectively, with the mechanical, electrical, and chemical aspects of these questions; whether he proposes to establish in this country a similar system; and whether he will use his good offices to facilitate consultations between such a scientific commission, or some equivalent, with officers who can speak from experience as to the aid which science might render in the fighting at the front?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have made arrangements with the Secretary of State for War for taking over the invention work relating to the munitions of war for the supply of which my Department is responsible. I have also arranged with

    523
    the First Lord of the Admiralty to take over the work relating to new expedients and inventions for purely Army purposes which are at present in charge of that Department.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will a commission be created to deal with the preliminary work so as to eliminate a great deal of useless matter and finally to present to competent authorities really valid suggestions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That has been done both at the front and at home.

    UNSKILLED LABOUR.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Minister of Munitions if he will take into consideration the desirability of making known to clerks to the local authorities throughout the country the requirements of his Department for articles in the making of which skilled labour and machinery are not necessary; in which case, if the clerks to the local authorities could be supplied with samples of the articles required and the prices that his Department is prepared to pay; and whether specially appointed committees could be empowered to place orders, if necessary supply material, receive the articles when finished, and, before accepting the same, determine whether they are in accordance with the specifications and samples?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that at present there would be no great advantage in adopting the procedure which my hon. Friend suggests, as skilled labour and machinery are required for the production of practically all the kinds of munitions with which at present the Ministry of Munitions deals.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked how many military officers there are employed at Woolwich Arsenal, including the Dockyard, who are not over the age for active service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): There is no age limit for active service. The total number of officers employed at the Royal Arsenal and Dockyard is 153.

  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Mr. MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has
  524
  been directed to the resolution passed by a number of local authorities urging upon the Government that, having regard to the scarcity of cattle and the prevailing high prices of butcher's meat, they should take immediate steps to remove the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain; and whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Orders of the Board do not now, however, prohibit the importation of cattle from Canada for slaughter at the port of landing, and the provision of proper facilities for this is under consideration. The admission of Canadian cattle under other conditions would require further statutory authority, which the President of the Board is not prepared at present to take steps to obtain.
  Mr. MILLAR: In view of the necessity that may arise of using Canadian stores in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his very careful consideration, with a view to increasing the food supply?
  Mr. ACLAND: Feed is very scarce, and it is very much better to have the animals fat than lean.

  GOLD (EXPORTATION).
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that gold in the form of sovereigns and half-sovereigns is continually being taken out of this country by travellers crossing to France and Holland and going also to Norway and Sweden and Denmark; if any regulation forbidding this practice has been made under the Defence of the Realm Act; and why passengers are not searched prior to leaving the country and paper given to them in exchange for any gold found on them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Any evidence of gold movements of the kind indicated is being carefully watched, and I am considering what steps can be taken, but the measure suggested by the hon. Member does not seem to be one which on present information it would be desirable to adopt.
  Mr. FELL: Would there be any other way possible to save the export of gold?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That is just what is being considered. One does not want to do anything that will have an unfortunate effect.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of sovereigns and half-sovereigns are taken by drafts of soldiers going to France?

  MOORE PARK CAMP, FERMOY (CARPENTERS' WAGES).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Department notified to the carpenters working at Moore Park Camp, Fermoy, county Cork, that their wages were to be reduced; were nine men dismissed who refused to accept the reduced rates; are trade union wages being paid to the men now at Moore Park; what are the rates for carpenters in England and Ireland, respectively; and will the local commanding officer receive a deputation from the carpenters' society at Fermoy as to the dismissals at Moore Park?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am inquiring into this case, and will let the hon. and learned Member know the result in due course.
  Mr. HEALY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that there is no delay?
  Mr. FORSTER: There will be no avoidable delay on my part.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give definite instructions that they must observe the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. FORSTER: Those instructions are always given.

  MILITARY CADETS (AGE LIMIT).
  Mr. BRUNNERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the lower limits of age for admission to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich and the Royal Military College at Sandhurst are, respectively, sixteen and a half and seventeen years; whether, under these circumstances, officers are sent to the front from these institutions at seventeen and seventeen and a half years of age; whether these young officers have proved themselves mentally and physically fit to take command; and whether the lower limits of age will be raised for the next entrance examinations?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am aware that the lower age limits are sixteen and a half and seventeen, respectively. Officers are not sent out to join units at the front immediately they pass out of Woolwich and Sandhurst; the third part of the question does not therefore arise. It is not proposed to raise the lower limits of age, which experience in reference to the consideration my hon. Friend has in mind has shown to be the most suitable in all respects.

  HOSPITAL SERVICE (EGYPT).
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Secretary of State for War refused to give his consent to private persons sending out to Egypt private hospitals at their own expense; and whether, as a consequence, when the wounded from the Dardanelles arrived at Alexandria they were sent to the German hospital to be nursed by German nurses?
  Mr. TENNANT: Private hospitals were not and are not required in Egypt. As I stated yesterday, the arrangements for the reception of the wounded at Alexandria were adequate in all respects. I think the General Officer Commanding in Egypt exercised a wise judgment in making use of the German hospital. In fact, he would no doubt have been criticised adversely in this House and outside if he had failed to make use of all the suitable accommodation which was at his disposal.

  GENERAL HEADQUARTERS STAFF (FRANCE).
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say how many hundreds of officers, also non-commissioned officers and men, are employed at general headquarters in France; and whether this staff is larger than the French general headquarters staff?
  Mr. TENNANT: The organisation of the general headquarters of the British and French Armies is not, according to my information, the same, and any comparison of numbers might, therefore, be fallacious. In any case it would be necessary, in order to give even a general answer to my hon. Friend's question, to address an inquiry to the French Govern-

  527
  ment, and this I feel hardly justified in asking for at a time when there is so much other work to be done.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers for our own headquarters' staff?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I have already done so.

  OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether officers on active service between the ages of thirty and forty who have joined the Army since the War, but were previously in the Regular Army, are prevented from receiving promotion by the War Office though recommended for promotion by their commanding officers; whether officers on the strength of a Regular regiment who have had no previous military experience are promoted over these officers; and whether the recommendations for promotion made by commanding officers at the front are disregarded by the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: All officers of the ages mentioned are eligible for promotion. If my hon. Friend refers to officers on the General Reserve of Officers, I may repeat what I have previously stated, that is, that they come up for promotion when they become the senior of their rank in the regiment to which they are attached. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

  RIFLE EQUIPMENT (CANADIAN DIVISION).
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, during the last few days, the greater part of the Canadian Division at the front has been armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle; whether the War Office notified, and, if so, at what date, the Canadian Government when they received reports from the front that the Ross rifle was unsuited for service purposes; whether any suggestion or request has been made to the Canadian Government, and, if so, at what date, asking them to manufacture the Lee-Enfield rifle and to discontinue the manufacture of the Ross rifle; whether the Ross rifle is still being manufactured in large quantities; and
  528
  whether these rifles are being manufactured to the order of the Canadian Government or the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: To the answer I gave my hon. Friend on this subject on the 24th June. I would add that the Ross rifle has been the subject of trial and report by the military authorities in France, and the results are now before the Canadian Government. In the light of the information received the situation in regard to the War Office contract for this rifle is being reviewed.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The question I placed on the Paper was whether the War Office notified, and, if so, at what date, the Canadian Government, when they received reports from the front that the Ross rifle was unsuited for service, and whether the Ross rifle is still being made to the order of the British Government or of the Canadian Government? Both these questions are unanswered.
  Mr. TENNANT: Generally it is not very-desirable to discuss these matters in public in this House. They are matters of very considerable delicacy as between the Dominion Government and the British Government, and I have given as much information as I can and rather more than would be desirable if it had not been that my hon. Friend, as I know, is very persistent in his demands.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any more of these rifles are being made to the order of the British Government? That is a fair question.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think it is not desirable to say.

  MACHINE GUNS.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, seeing that the Germans have now for many months held their trenches with machine guns, while our trenches have been held by riflemen, he will say why the War Office for many months persistently refused offers of British and American machine guns on the ground that these were not interchangeable with the parts of the Maxim gun; whether a number of the parts of the Vickers-Maxim gun, used by the original Expeditionary Force, are not interchangeable with the pattern of Maxim now being supplied; and whether

  529
  he will therefore say who is responsible for the refusal of the War Office last year to order guns the parts of which were not interchangeable with the old type of Maxim gun?
  Mr. TENNANT: No offers of British or American machine guns have been refused by the War Office on account of non-inter-changeability of parts, and I may add that no type of machine gun, considered suitable for use in the field has been refused. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative, and the third part does not arise.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Then how is it that guns have since been ordered by the Minister of Munitions which were refused by the War Office in February last year?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that is a fact.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I know it is.

  CASUALTIES (NOTIFICATION TO RELATIVES).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, when an officer or man is wounded, a telegram is sent to his relatives merely announcing the fact without giving any details; and whether, in order to relieve the anxiety of relatives, it would be possible for this initial telegram to be followed by a further communication giving details of the patient's condition?
  Mr. TENNANT: When the original notification received contains any details they are always forwarded. When the original report does not contain details, the instructions in force already provide that the original notification shall be followed as soon as possible by a statement of the nature of the wound, and, in dangerous cases, by a weekly progress report.

  RECRUITING.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked if any representations have been made by the Board of Agriculture to the War Office on the subject of the recruiting of agricultural labourers; and if any steps have been taken, by instructing recruiting officers not to enlist any more agricultural labourers, to prevent the further reduction of our Home production of food?
  Mr. TENNANT: Instructions have been issued, after consultation with the Board of Agriculture, as to limiting the recruiting of agricultural labourers. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular letter addressed to commands.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has now ascertained that Lord Aberconway, the chairman of John Brown and Company,, of Sheffield, has publicly complained, in. a widely circulated speech, that 10,000 of his men have been recruited, and that this recruiting has injured the firm's power to produce munitions; and if he will explain why the War Office permitted this injury to occur?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have not succeeded in obtaining a copy of the speech referred to, nor can I add anything at present to the statements which have already been made on the subject of the release from the Colours of men who are skilled munition workers.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms which are being pressed by the Government to make munitions of war are actually being deprived of their working men by the recruiting officers?
  Mr. TENNANT: All I can say is, as I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a question only two or three days ago, that this firm, John Brown and Company, is one of the firms which are exempt from recruiting. That being so, it does not seem to me to be quite in consonance with the instructions that recruits should be taken from that firm.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry if I have not conveyed myself. I referred in my supplementary question to another firm who have suffered in the same way.
  Mr. TENNANT: Other firms would be different.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the general application of this question?
  Mr. TENNANT: General application is I a very difficult thing to answer. One may spread oneself at large. I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire me to do that. Therefore I do not really think that this is a question which can be answered, at Question Time.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman, on a public question of this importance, to treat this subject seriously?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question which was asked refers to a specific firm.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the responsible recruiting authority has issued an official poster to the following effect: "Push and Go: It is better to Go than to be Pushed"; if he will state whether this poster is to be taken as an official intimation that the Government has decided to adopt a policy of conscription in the near future; and if it is with his sanction that the voluntary system is supported by threats?
  Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As I have stated before, advertisements have to be framed to meet all tastes. I would add to that, they must meet all phases of inclination and intention and the most variegated forms of sense of duty. The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.
  Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these posters are much disliked by those who support voluntary service? I would ask for a reply.
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not understand that there is any question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that the words of this poster, "It is better to Go than to be Pushed," are a correct expression of the principle involved in voluntary enlistment?
  Mr. TENNANT: That is a matter of interpretation.

  BOARD OF CONTROL (REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War who are the members composing the Board of Control of Canteens for the Army; whether they receive any and, if so, what salary; whether he is aware that the Board is deducting 5 per cent. per month from the takings of the regimental institutes; and whether, in view of the fact that this
  532
  impost will cripple the institutes and make it impossible for them to continue the benefits hitherto accruing to the men, he will take steps to protect the regimental institutes by requiring the Board of Control to desist from making a deduction from their takings?
  Mr. FORSTER: The list of members which was published in the Press on 15th February last is rather too long to read out, and I will circulate a copy with the Votes. None of the members receive any remuneration. The proportion retained by the board is not 5 per cent, of the takings, but is one-fifth of the rebate received from the contractor, and all moneys so received will be used for the benefit of the troops.—[See Written Answers of this date.]
  Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: May I ask whether, owing to the great dissatisfaction of officers commanding regiments with the present system of control of canteens by the new board, the right hon. Gentleman will receive a deputation of commanding officers to express their views on the subject at the earliest opportunity?
  Mr. FORSTER: I shall be very glad to look into any complaints which reach me in any matter under my administration.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the Board of Control was appointed the soldier has had the advantage of the fact that all the regimental institutes are under inspection, thereby assuring the quality of the goods supplied; and is it not the fact that owing to the Board fixing the prices the soldier is thus enabled to obtain his goods at a cheaper rate than would have been otherwise possible?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think that my hon. Friend is quite correct.
  Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Is not the deduction taken from the profits of the soldiers? Is it not a question of a new system of taking away money which was previously given?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there is any new system. I am quite satisfied from what I have seen of them that the arrangements now made are working well, and working for the benefit of the soldiers' committee.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a similar arrangement in the case of the soldiers in South Africa has resulted in there being still at large a considerable sum of money of which nobody can get hold?
  Mr. FORSTER: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. It is quite true that there is still a considerable balance to the credit of the fund and that that fund is now being applied to the credit of the soldiers.
  Mr. JONES: That does not apply to the whole of it.

  WRITEES (ENFIELD LOCK).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the application for improved wages made by the writers at Enfield Lock and Woolwich has yet been considered; and whether he is in a position to report thereon?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the Hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Woolwich.

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN INTERNED VESSELS.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the suggestion that German and Austrian mercantile vessels interned in the United Kingdom harbours should be sold for the benefit of the compensation and insurance funds at present founded by this country for damage done to our own mercantile marine; and whether this step has been taken by other nations who are our Allies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman has not been overlooked, but it is not proposed to take the action he suggests at present. I am not aware that interned ships have been sold by any of the Allied Governments.

  PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES (COMMANDEERING).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, under existing legislation, the commandeering of all private motor vehicles,
  534
  other than those used for business purposes, in order to release for war work the services of thousands of young chauffeurs, mechanics, and others connected with the trade; whether he is aware that this course has already been adopted by the French Government; and whether, in view of the fact that economy in petrol is desirable, he will consider the adoption of this step in order to assist the nation at the present time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley on the 30th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

  GLIN DISTRICT SCHOOL.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House what was the prayer of the memorial adopted unanimously by the board of management of Glin district school at its last meeting; and, having regard to the area represented by that body, whether he can see his way to accede to the prayer of the memorial?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The military authorities fully sympathise with the well-known desire of all Irish regiments to proceed to the front. The question of their dispatch must, however, depend on military considerations only.

  MINISTERS OF RELIGION (MANIFESTO).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has brought under the notice of the Indian Government the manifesto signed by numbers of ministers of the Christian religion approving the methods of war established by the Kaiser?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not gather from the question to what manifesto the hon. Member is referring, but in any case I see no reason for communicating any manifesto of the kind described, and presumably of German origin, to the Government of India.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the

  535
  decrease in the number of new holdings formed from untenanted land and vested by the Estates Commissioners in the last two completed years to less than half the previous yearly average, and to the necessity for expediting that work to meet the demand for increased food supplies, will he state the number of such holdings vested in the first quarter of the current financial year; the area the Commissioners are going to vest in the second quarter; what steps they are taking to enable them to vest a further area before next autumn; and what it is that prevents more rapid progress?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of parcels of untenanted land vested as separate holdings by the Estates Commissioners during the first quarter of the current financial year in purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts is 143. Allottees of untenanted land are placed in possession thereof as soon as practicable after such lands are acquired by the Commissioners, but the allotments are not vested in the purchasers until the improvement works thereon have been completed and all questions affecting title and other matters have been disposed of. It is accordingly impossible to state beforehand the number of holdings which will be vested in any given period, but, as I have already stated, the Estates Commissioners are using all possible dispatch in the resale of lands purchased by them.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not they are actually increasing the number vested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have here the figures, which I will send to the hon. Member, showing that 143 in one quarter is a very good average, and will make up quite as large a number as they were able to do in larger years. In 1910–11 there were 647, in 1911–12, 615, and so on, showing that 143 is quite up to average. I will endeavour to press the matter forward as far as I can.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the obliteration of party distinctions to redeem his pledge and assurance of 16th October, 1912, that land purchase in Ireland should be completed at the earliest possible date by introducing for that purpose now a Bill which from its source would be non-contentious?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to his question on this subject on the 29th April last.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does not the formation of the Coalition make any difference in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Not in the necessity of subordinating all matters involving expenditure of public funds to the successful prosecution of the War.

  Irish Industrial Development Association.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will inform the House of the class of work in which the secretary of the Irish Industrial Development Association has been engaged; his efficiency therein; the circumstances in which he has been expelled from the sphere of his operations by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Act; the system of shadowing by which a continuance of his work in any part of Ireland has been rendered impossible; whether he has ever been convicted or accused of any crime; and what the Department has done to counteract the loss of this official to the cause of industrial development in Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The gentleman in question was not an officer of the Department. The Department have no information regarding the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has not the Department knowledge that he was engaged in work corresponding to and in co-operation with the Department, and the knowledge that he has been expelled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. He was not in any way an officer of the Department. He may have been engaged in doing what the hon. Member calls correspondence, but we have no control over him, no knowledge of him, and I am not very much interested in him.
  Mr. GINNELL: Was he or was he not expelled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must have notice of that. I know nothing about it.
  Mr. GINNELL: The question is on the Paper.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am asked as President of the Department what has happened to this man, and I say I never heard of him.

  Dunblane (Police Court).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he has exercised any pressure, or proposes to do so, on the town council of Dunblane to institute a Police Court in that burgh, in view of the fact that it is the only burgh of that standing in West Perthshire that has not such a Court, and that it would have the effect of reducing the work for a Procurator-fiscal in that neighbourhood?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The answer is in the negative. I am not aware that I have any authority to exercise pressure in the direction desired by my hon. and learned Friend.

  Irish Testators (English Court Dues).
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the representatives of a deceased investor in Ireland whose estate includes a holding in Consols or other public stock raised for purposes of the United Kingdom and in no way specially related to England as distinct from Ireland are involved, when completing their title to the estate, in English court dues and English solicitors' bills on the ground that the National Debt is distinctively English estate?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Gordon): A grant of probate of letters of administration obtained in Ireland requires to be resealed in England in respect of property which can only be dealt with there. The cost of doing this is small. Consols are transferable at the Bank of Ireland, and therefore resealing in England of the Irish grant is not required in respect of Consols so transferable.

  Sub-Post Offices (Caretaker's Tenancy).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General, whether there is any instance in this country of a cottage used as a sub-post office being held by a caretaker's tenancy?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: There is no record of the nature of sub-postmasters' tenancies.

  Bishopric of Newcastle.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in advising His Majesty with respect to an appointment to the vacant Bishopric of Newcastle, he will have regard to the importance of securing a continuance of that enforcement of the ecclesi-
  538
  astical law which has characterised the administration of the bishop who has just resigned?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 12th May last year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I ask the Minister of Munitions to state what the Business will be for next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday, we propose to take Supply—the Insurance Commission and other Votes.
  On Tuesday, we shall take the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and, if possible, make, progress with some other Bills.
  As to Wednesday and Thursday, the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: When do the Government propose to take the Report stage of the Pensions Bill? I think that we should all know that—when it is fixed. Could it be taken on Wednesday?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has not been decided yet. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask on Monday.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is it the intention to get all the stages of the National Registration Bill to-day?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; we hope to do that to-day.
  Mr. BOOTH: You ought to.
  Ordered, That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Ordered, That the Proceedings upon the National Registration Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION [EXPENSES].—REPORT.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. CLOUGH: I beg to move, at the end of the Resolution, to add,
  "Provided that the expenses for the year 1915–16 shall not exceed a sum of £100,000 for England and Wales, of £20,000 for Scotland, and of £10,000 for Ireland."
  This Amendment is part of a similar Amendment previously moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He has moved Amendments of this kind on principle. It is a perfectly sound principle that we should know how much we are going to spend upon the various matters that we pass through this House. This principle is adopted by all local authorities. No chairman of a finance committee would be able to make any statement unless he knew exactly how much money he had to provide. I certainly was staggered the other night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think that he could give a blank cheque to the Local Government Board with regard to this Bill. This is not the time to give blank cheques to any Department, as we learned in a debate the other day in another place, where they were very anxious that all the spending departments should be overhauled so that wherever possible expenditure should be curtailed. It would have been better if the Government had made a frank statement and estimate as to how much the administration of this Bill is likely to cost. As they have not done so, we have had to help ourselves to try and form some idea as to how much it will cost. The National Register is a sort of Census, and it will be in the recollection of the House that I put a number of questions, consequently, as to what the cost of the Census would be, or rather what the cost of the last Census was in 1911. I asked that question of the President of the Local Government Board, and he replied that the cost approximately of England and Wales was £147,000. The Member for the College Division of Glasgow then asked how that would compare with the cost of the Registration Bill. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the cost of the Registration Bill would be infinitely less now. He reiterated that opinion when we discussed this Motion in Committee on Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The expenditure usually incurred in connection with the Census is somewhere about £200,000, spread over a period of four years, and is mainly expended in paying collectors and distributers: whereas, in this ease, there is every reason to believe that a great part of the work, if not the whole of it, will be done by

  551
  voluntary agency. Therefore the cost will be infinitely less than what has been customary in the case of the Census."
  So that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his opinion, and he uses the same favourite adverb. I asked the question also with regard to the cost of the Census in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland said that the cost of the Census was £37,243, and in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland said that he hoped the cost of the National Registration Bill would be considerably smaller than has been the case with regard to the Census. Then I asked the Chief Secretary a question with regard to Ireland. He informed us that the cost of the Census in Ireland was £18,945 4s. 10d. Evidently he knows to a penny what it costs now. My hon. Friend then asked if he considered the expenses of the National Registration Bill would be considerable or infinitely less, and the Chief Secretary replied that he would be much disappointed if it were not considerably less. After those replies from these right hon. Gentlemen I consider that I have put very reasonable limits into this Amendment with regard to the expenditure on this Bill; in fact the reasonableness of them were acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on Tuesday night. He said:—
  "I certainly should not expect anyone to go to the Treasury and say that the object of the limit proposed by the House was that we should expend anything like £25,000 for Scotland or that £12,000 be spent in Ireland. I am not sure that £50,000 would be sufficient in England. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) thinks it will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1915, col. 340.]
  Those were the figures I had in my Amendment in Committee, but I have made them more generous. Since then with regard to England the amount for which I have increased to £50,000, and as the Chancellor said that £25,000 for Scotland and £12,000 for Ireland were not required, I have reduced them to £20,000 and £10,000 respectively. It is quite evident from the Chancellor's statement that my limits are generous. The question now is what is the meaning of the language of those right hon. Gentlemen. One of them tell us that it will be "considerably less" with regard to this Bill than with regard to the Census, and another says "considerably smaller," and another "infinitely less." The Chief Secretary for Ireland will be disappointed if it is not considerably smaller. With regard to Ireland he knows that as a matter of fact the inclu-
  552
  sion of Ireland in this Bill is a bogus inclusion—it is a make-believe, and consequently there will not be anything like £10,000 required. I would appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. If they do not it is perfectly clear to the House that they have no faith in their own declaration. These limits are generous to a fault. If it works out that they are not sufficient they have their own remedy by coming to the House later on with a Supplementary Estimate.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment. The object of it is to place a limitation on the expenses in connection with this measure. My hon. Friend in Committee proposed an Amendment to the same effect, except that the figures he then proposed were lower than those he proposes now. In Committee his total limit was £87,000 for the first year, and with that magnanimity which characterises my hon. Friend, he has raised his figure to-day to £130,000. He has reminded the House that the expenses incurred in the Census of 1911 were in all, during three years, £203,000. I therefore think the figure he has taken is certainly a fair sum. These Amendments proposing a limitation to Financial Resolutions are by no means new to the House. They have for several years been persistently moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). Again and again he has sought to limit the figures, and on several occasions he has succeeded in getting limitations inserted. I have taken the liberty of turning up a page of the history of the hon. Baronet, that page which deals with Amendments as to limitations. I find that on several occasions during the last eighteen months he has not only proposed limiting Amendments, but he has insisted on the Government adopting them. I shall be very pleased to know, and the House I am sure also, what has brought about the change in the hon. Baronet. The page in his history reveals these facts. On the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, in the year 1913, there was a limiting Resolution proposed and heartily supported by the hon. Baronet, who said:—
  "I decline to give a blank cheque to any person, whoever he may be."
  This Mental Deficiency Bill, which was of much interest to many of us, he said:
  "A few nights ago a limiting Amendment was accepted, and there are other precedents for that course within the last year."
  But the case which bears out my contention and calls most loudly for the sup-

  553
  port of the hon. Baronet was one which deals with the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, on 28th April of this year, so that it is quite up-to-date. In Committee on that measure he himself took the initiative and proposed that the expenses should be limited to £38,000 and carried that Amendment. Thus we have the precedent of the guardian of the public purse, the hon. Baronet, to back us up in this. Unfortunately the mantle of looking after the public purse has fallen from his shoulders. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) has taken it up, but he is not in any way wedded to any particular figure. He simply desires a limitation of whatever figure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put in. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will suggest a figure the House will acclaim his action. These are certainly not times for extravagance, and the Local Government Board and other offices should not be given blank cheques. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton has pointed out that there has been this week, in another place, a very interesting discussion as to the extravagance of Governments generally, and a Motion was in in that place carried that in view of the War immediate steps to reduce the Civil expenditure of the country should be taken. During that discussion the fact came out that in the last twenty years the expenses of the office which the right hon. Gentleman now adorns have risen from £181,000 per year to £271,000, an increase of £90,000, or 50 per cent., so that he cannot claim that the office over which he presides is an economical office, because the expenses have risen to such an extent. I hope he will see his way to accept this Amendment or at least to accept a limiting figure.
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I confess I am a little disappointed that this Amendment should have been moved, as the question involved has already been debated in this House, and, as far as I know, there is not a single remark made by either the Mover or the Seconder to-day which has not been made at least three times in the speeches delivered on the previous occasion.
  Mr. WATT: The page of history of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is quite fresh.
  Mr. LONG: I have no doubt that that is new matter, and I withdraw my remark
  554
  as far as that is concerned. But although the hon. Member has succeeded in finding some fresh quotations, he has not altered the fact that the hon. Baronet has not placed any such limitation upon Financial Resolutions since the War began. [An HON. MEMBEH: "Yes."] Since the outbreak of the War the Government have had to incur very heavy expenditure, and this is the first protest we have had from hon. Gentlemen sitting behind me against the action of the Government in asking the House to trust them in this matter. We have had quotations from speeches made yesterday, and we have had the statement repeated that a blank cheque is being given to the Local Government Board. That is entirely an error. No blank cheque is being given to the Local Government Board, as the scale of expenditure has to be settled between the Local Government Board and the Treasury.
  The Mover of the Amendment said again that the Government have not made a frank statement. That is not correct. There has been no attempt at concealment of any kind. We have told the House most frankly all that we know and what we believe. We believe the expenditure will be considerably less than that incurred when the Census was taken, and the proposed limitation was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is unreasonable to ask us to impose a limitation which might be inconvenient, although we believe that the sum named will more than cover the amount likely to be required. It is really a little difficult to carry on these Debates when hon. Gentlemen, on the same side of the House, professing the same desires, take entirely different lines. I was pressed yesterday by many hon. Members sitting behind me to make it perfectly clear that no part of the expenditure incurred in connection with this register by the local authorities or by the central authority would fall on the local rates. If I accepted this limitation, and the expenses exceeded the amount named, the rates would have to bear the difference, and the desire that rates should be protected could not possibly be fulfilled. I earnestly hope that we may now be allowed to pass to the practical consideration of the Bill, the passage of which is of vital importance, because we have to get it into operation, and the sooner it is passed the sooner we shall be able to do that.
  Amendment negatived.
  Resolution agreed to.

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 7th July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Right to Use Schools, etc.)
    A local registration authority may for the purposes of this Act use free of charge any room which may be used for the purposes of taking a poll at a Parliamentary election, subject, however, to the conditions and provisions subject to which it may be so used.
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. King.
    Mr. LONG: May I intervene before the hon. Member (Mr. King) speaks? I believe he proposes to move the omission of this Clause. Perhaps I may save time by now making a short statement. When the Bill was introduced we thought we should want these powers for use on certain occasions, when we had the assent of the President of the Board of Education. I have satisfied myself that it is extremely improbable that the schools will be required under the Bill in the form in which it now stands. If it should become necessary to use them, they can be obtained without this Clause, and therefore I am willing to withdraw it.
    Mr. KING: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his statement. It will relieve the minds of many people and of the local authorities.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE II.—(Exceptions.)
    The duty of registering under this Act shall not apply to any prisoner in a prison, certified lunatic or defective, or inmate of any Poor Law institution, hospital or other institution for the care of persons suffering from physical or mental infirmities, nor to a prisoner of war or a person who is interned:
    Provided that before the discharge of a person from a prison, lunatic asylum, or other place where he has been detained, or from a hospital or other such institution as aforesaid, the governor, master, manager, or other person in charge, shall ascertain from him the particulars required to be registered under this Act, and shall forward them to the proper local registration authority, who shall cause them to be registered and a certificate of registration to be issued to the person so discharged.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move, after the word "not" ["this Act shall not apply"], to insert the words "except to such extent as may be prescribed."
    There are several Amendments to this Clause, which is really a very difficult one to draft, and perhaps the Committee will be willing to agree to certain changes which I will indicate. The difficulty is that the exceptions in the Clause do not go far enough in some cases; there are instances omitted which ought probably to be included, and the duties thrown upon the registration authority under the second part of the Clause are perhaps a little difficult of fulfilment. What I suggest is, after the word "not," to insert the words "except to such extent as may be prescribed," and after the word "other" ["hospital or other institution"], to insert the word "prescribed." The effect of that will be that under the regulations which we take power to issue for the carrying out of this measure we shall take care to secure the exclusion of any institution which ought not to be included, and at the same time make provision for the registration of any individuals leaving those institutions who we think ought to be included. If this meets with general approval, I shall be glad to amend the Clause in the way I have suggested. It will then be necessary to omit the words "for the care of persons suffering from physical or mental infirmities."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not quite clear as to the meaning and extent of the words "except to such extent as may be prescribed." I understand quite well that my right hon. Friend desires some such extension of his power, but I suggest that it would have been as well if he had indicated to the Committee in what direction he will use this extended power. We ought at least, I think, to have some indication of what he hopes to obtain by this.
    Mr. DENMAN: May I inquire as to what further it is proposed to omit; is the proviso to be excluded? Generally, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said; it is really much better to leave this to administration, rather than, to try conclusively to cover all these difficult points in the Bill itself.
    Mr. KING: I desire to call attention to one or two classes of persons included in the Schedule, which, I hold, ought to be

    557
    noted. There is, for instance, the class of aliens. No doubt they come in under the prescription. There is, also, the class of persons suffering from disease. I can conceive, for instance, that those persons in receipt of sanatorium benefit under the Insurance Act might very well be excepted. I should hope that under the powers the right hon. Gentleman will be enabled to meet and deal with these cases.
    Mr. LONG: Oh, yes.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Will the acceptance of this Amendment affect my Amendment of Clause 11?
    The CHAIRMAN: Is that a point of Order?
    Sir J. SPEAR: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will not be thrown out. Of course, the acceptance of the Government Amendment will alter the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman may not find it necessary to suggest words to be put in, but he is entitled to move, and to ask questions.
    Mr. WATT: There is a small point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. There is no penalty attached to the non-fulfilment of this duty.
    Mr. LONG: I do not think that is right. As a matter of fact, there is a penalty for anyone who refuses to carry out the Act. The difficulty is this: we propose that certain institutions shall be excluded. Then we propose that certain people leaving those institutions should be subject to registration under the Bill. One of the cases that naturally occurs to one is the case of people leaving, say, lunatic asylums for private residences. It is very undesirable that anything should be done to stigmatise these people when they are released from confinement. Therefore we thought it would be better that we should take power to exclude institutions which ought to be excluded, and secure outside them the registration of proper persons who may have been in and who may have come out. This we can do by regulation. I do not think there is any fell design behind this proposal on the part of my Department, and on the whole I recommend it to the Committee as the most convenient method. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me about vagrants. He suggested that we should ask the registration authorities to
    558
    register vagrants. That part of the labouring population which temporarily occupies vagrant wards is extremely difficult of identification. Any attempt to identify and classify these people with the other people in the country would, I think, be a mistake and be impossible of fulfilment, and I could not accept the Amendment to put a duty upon the registration authorities which I do not think they could perform adequately. With regard to the rest of the Clause or proviso, if the Committee will agree to leave it out, and accept the Amendment I suggested, it will make it much more workable.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir J. Spear) had better move his Amendment in the proper place.
    Mr. GINNELLhad an Amendment on the Paper, after the word "apply" ["shall not apply"], to insert the words, "to Irish Volunteers nor."
    Mr. GINNELL: Will my Amendment come in as an Amendment to that proposed by the President of the Local Government Board? So far as I can see it cannot come in precisely as indicated in the Paper, because of the suggested alteration.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that will be the case, but I will deal with the hon. Member's Amendment when we come to it. I do not think the acceptance by this Committee of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will affect the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. GINNELL: I think it impossible to fit it in. If you will note, Mr. Chairman, my Amendment proposes to exempt a certain set of people absolutely. Consequently I ask you to allow me to move my Amendment to that proposed by the President of the Local Government Board.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member takes that view, it compels me to give my ruling on his Amendment. I am not prepared to accept his Amendment, because it has no definite meaning. He must bring up his Amendment in correct form, so that it can be interpreted in some legal sense; as it at present appears on the Paper it is altogether too indefinite.
    Mr. WATT: I am sorry to appear to be persistent, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has fallen into an error in this question of penalties. He said there was a penalty in the measure. I suppose he

    559
    refers to Clause 12, Sub-section (2), where there is a penalty attached. If, however, he will look at the top of page 5, he will find no penalty attached to any person who has not registered himself.
    The CHAIRMAN: Had we not better discuss that on Clause 12?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to move, after the word "institution" ["Poor Law institution"], to insert the words "except vagrants in the casual ward, a register of whom must be prepared by the workhouse master after consulting the vagrants."
    I take the object of the Bill to be to have a register that shall facilitate the useful employment of all in the country between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five. With that I am in complete sympathy. The Clause as it stands excludes from that registration the ordinary inmates of workhouses. I am quite in favour of that. Frequently, however, there are inmates in the casual wards who, I think, ought to be included in the register. It will not be a complete register of the people unless these persons are included. Many of them are men quite able to work, professing to be looking for work, and hoping they will never find it. We have here an opportunity of inducing them to work, which will be of considerable value to the country, and, I think, will add popularity to the measure. Unfortunately, these are rather a large class. It will be a misfortune if they are excluded from the Bill. It is highly important to introduce these men to useful work, and I cannot help thinking that this is a valuable opportunity to do so. My right hon. Friend said that we cannot call upon the local bodies to undertake the work of registering these casuals. The right hon. Gentleman will allow me, as President of the Poor Law Association, to assure him to the contrary; and that there is no part of the work that local bodies will have to undertake under this Bill which will be more agreeable to most of them than the terms and provisions of a register containing the names of the men who go in and out of our casual wards. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the difficulty that might occur when these men move from one casual ward to another.
    I would suggest that these vagrants, when discharged from the casual ward, should receive a note or ticket requiring them to produce their certificate at each
    560
    casual ward. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and notwithstanding what he said, I hope he will further consider the question. I think he will find that in this proposal there is a legitimate attempt to deal with a class of persons, vagrants, that cause more distress and anxiety to the boards of guardians and the public generally than any other. We ought to have a register of them, and here is the opportunity to obtain it. If we introduce them to useful work they could help forward the interests of the country. My Amendment, I am sure, will have the support of local bodies. Here is an opportunity, in the first place, to complete a register which cannot be completed unless my Amendment is accepted, and to promote social reform which will be extremely advantageous to the public generally.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Though the register of vagrants may be desirable from many points of view, I am sure that my hon. Friend will at once see that these vagrants cannot possibly add to the assets and resources of the country at such a time as this. The only value of this register is to ascertain the actual assets and resources of the country that can be used during the period of the Act. This Amendment will only delay matters, and will only add extra burdens to those who already have enough to bear. It might be useful at some time or another to compile a register as desired by my hon. Friend, but it would not do at present to encumber our register with a list of vagrants who can be of no earthly use.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these vagrants would be of great use if they could, at the present time, be made to work on farms. In many other ways, too, these men, who are living on the community, ought to be made to work when required—very much more than ninety-nine out of one hundred citizens of the country.
    Mr. LONG: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He knows that he and I have been working at the case of the vagrant for years. But the difficulty about the vagrant is not to pass an Act of Parliament to make him work. First of all, you have to find him; then, when you have found him, you have to make him work. We have none of us found a solution to that question! Merely registering a man

    561
    who has occupied for one night or two nights a casual ward is not going to bring us nearer to that goal at all, while it will undoubtedly add an additional burden to those who have to make the register.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I think there is a little more in this suggestion than has yet been recognised by the President of the Local Government Board, whose sympathies with this sort of work are familiar to all. As a matter of fact, there is in many parts of the country a great shortage of agricultural labour at the present moment. Now there are every night in our casual wards a large number of potential workers if sufficient disciplinary measures are brought to bear. Obviously if you had a number of casuals in the wards on Monday night it is possible to find them work on Tuesday morning, and it is quite possible for the President of the Local Government Board, by a Departmental Order extending to the whole of the country the way-ticket system, to keep his Department in constant touch with every vagrant who applies for relief in any casual ward in the Kingdom. I suggest that, at a time when we are always having it emphasised that those who should work are most reluctant, and when the willing workers are being penalised for the benefit of the shirkers, it is of the utmost importance, if we are going to organise the potential labour of this country, that we should avail ourselves of these resources. I suggest that the President of the Local Government Board has powers to extend by Departmental Order some such system as the way-ticket, which would allow the authorities to keep in constant touch with every vagrant who applies for Poor Law relief.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: After the word "other" ["or other institution"], insert the word "prescribed."
    Leave out the words "for the care of persons suffering from physical or mental infirmities."
    Leave out the words "Provided that before the discharge of a person from a prison, lunatic asylum, or other place where he has been detained, or from a hospital or other such institution as aforesaid, the governor, master, manager, or other person in charge, shall ascertain from him the particulars required to be registered under this Act, and shall forward them to the proper local registration authority, who shall cause them to be
    562
    registered and a certificate of registration to be issued to the person so discharged."—[Mr. Long.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Penalties for Offences.)
    (1) If any person employed under this Act makes wilful default in the performance of any of his duties under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    (2) If any person required to register himself under this Act—

    (a) refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects to fill up or cause to be filled up a form to the best of his knowledge and belief, or to sign it as by this Act required; or

    (b) refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to attend at any place or time at which his attendance is required under this Act; or

    (c) wilfully makes or signs, or causes to be made or signed, any false return of any matter specified in the form; or

    (d) refuses to answer, or wilfully gives a false answer to, any question necessary for obtaining the information required to be obtained under this Act; or

    (e) refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to perform any other duty imposed on him by or under this Act,

    he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding one pound for each day during which the offence continues.
    (3) If any person falsely represents him self to be a person to whom a certificate of registration has been issued under this Act, he shall on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["employed under this Act makes wilful default"], to insert the words "whether paid or unpaid."

    563
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt). As the Clause stands, it might conceivably be that "person employed" could only cover a person who is paid for his services. We have heard on several occasions during these Debates from the President of the Local Government Board that voluntary service is to be very largely utilised in the compilation of this register. It seems, therefore, advisable that we should make it clear that any person engaged in the compilation of the register should be subject to penalty, and this Amendment will make it absolutely certain that any person who is guilty of an offence will incur a penalty.
    Mr. LONG: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I can assure him it is not necessary. I raised this point myself when the Bill was being drafted as to whether the words covered those employed without remuneration, and I have consulted my expert advisers at the Local Government Board again this morning, and they assure me there is no need for the introduction of these words, as the language of the Bill covers all those, whether they receive pay or not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If that be so, then the words are harmless.
    Mr. LONG: They would be harmless, but it would involve the same Amendment in every line of the Bill where these words occur, and I submit that would be unnecessary, having regard to the fact that I was assured most definitely this morning the words were not necessary.
    Mr. ROCH: Have the Law Officers been asked for their advice?
    Mr. LONG: We are fortified in all our Departments by lawyers of distinction whose opinion can be relied upon. I asked personally this morning whether I could state what I have stated, and I was assured I could do so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert
    "(2) If any person employed in collecting, or completing forms, or otherwise acting in the compilation or maintenance of the register, or the tabulation of the contents thereof, or any person using the register communicates without lawful authority any information acquired in
    564
    the course of his employment, or from such use, he shall on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine."
    This is the Sub-section of which I spoke last night. It was suggested that we should incorporate the Official Secrets Act, but this, I think, covers the ground and will secure adequate protection for all.
    Mr. LOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words "or any person using the register" have been considered?
    Mr. LONG: These words have been most carefully considered, and they carry out, I think, the undertaking which I gave to the Committee yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the words "without lawful authority," all that is done is to prevent people making improper use of information obtained for a particular purpose. There was a good deal of anxiety in the country lest the information so obtained might be used for mere personal purposes. This is to secure that the information, when obtained, shall only be used under lawful authority.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "person" ["If any person required to register"], to insert the words "over eighteen years of age."
    Yesterday an attempt was made to increase the age for registration, and there was a considerable amount of sympathy with it. My Amendment, however, is to exempt young persons between fifteen and eighteen years of age from being penalised, as they are in this Sub-section. Everybody knows how difficult it is very often to understand the forms issued by Government Departments. I know Members of this House had very great difficulty in filling up forms in connection with the Budget of 1909–10, and, that being so, we can scarcely expect boys and girls between fifteen and eighteen to know exactly what they have to do. Therefore, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to penalise young persons, and this is a

    565
    measure which in many instances may be misunderstood. I know at the present time a number of young persons think that the signing of the form means that they are pledging themselves to join the Army. There may be an attempt at some time to evade it because of that, and, therefore, I do suggest that persons between fifteen and eighteen years of age should be exempt from penalties.
    Mr. LONG: I am rather reluctant to accept these words. The Clause imposing penalties has been very carefully drawn, and, apart from the question of tender years, it is not our desire that anybody who falls into error through inadvertence, or fails to make his or her return for some good and sound cause, should ever be prosecuted. That will be the effect of the instructions we issue to the local authorities. All we want is to impose penalties where people deliberately refuse to give the information which Parliament has declared they shall give. We have put in the word "wilful." The Clause has been drawn with the utmost care; but, at the same time, I honestly confess that I feel as strongly as my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that it is repellent to all our instincts that children of tender age should be prosecuted for obviously what would be an omission, for which they could hardly be responsible, and I think on the whole I should be prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words,
    "Provided that no person shall be liable to a penalty under this Section unless seven days' notice of the offence in writing shall have been given to him by the local registration authority of the district in which he has been registered or in which he resides and he has failed within that time to comply with such notice."
    I do not want to press this Amendment in any way, but I do think there should be some provision that people who neglect, or forget, to re-register when they move should not be prosecuted without the fact of their having done wrong being brought to their notice. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is no need for the Amendment, or if he can assure me that instructions will be given to the local authorities not unduly to press these
    566
    matters, I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. LONG: In the instructions I think we shall make it perfectly clear what is intended. This proposal might cause considerable extra trouble and inconvenience, and I am advised that all those who will come under the Bill are amply protected. It is the duty of the registration authority to ensure the completion and correction of the register, and I do not think they would fail to take steps to amend any form which was not complete, and give the people another chance before taking steps for a prosecution.
    Mr. LAMBERT: After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATT: I would like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention drawn to the enormous distance which some of these people would have to travel to attend the county town? The words of paragraph (b) are
    "refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to attend at any place or time at which his attendance is required under this Act."
    The drawers of this measure have in mind England and Wales, where the distances are easily covered, but in Scotland the distances are quite incredible to ordinary Englishmen and to those sitting on the Front Bench. From some parts of the county of Argyllshire it would take a considerable time for a man to get to the county town, and if a man had to come, for example, from some extremity of the Island of Mull it would be a journey of about three days.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted an Amendment inserting the words "over eighteen years of age," which practically has the effect of raising the limit from fifteen to eighteen years of age. If there is no penalty in such cases, then everybody under eighteen will pay no regard whatever to this measure. I agree that sixteen is too young and seventeen would be a much better age. I suppose my right hon. Friend has well considered this point, because the effect of it is to raise the age from fifteen to eighteen.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has raised a material point, and it might be well for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether some provision should be made in the instructions to local authorities limiting their powers of imposing attendance where it is a matter of inconvenience, as it undoubtedly is in such counties as Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, and Ross and Cromarty. In all these cases it would be necessary for a man to travel in some cases for a week before he could get to the county town. Paragraph (b) entitles the local authorities to impose a penalty of £5, and a continuing penalty of £1 for every day which this gentleman may be engaged in travelling. In those circumstances I think some instructions should be given to the local authorities which should prevent this provision being exercised in an oppressive way. I think some assurance might be given on this point by the right hon. Gentleman before we pass this Clause.
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Member who raised this question passed some strictures upon the Front Bench for their ignorance of Scottish counties. I think some of us who have travelled many miles in Scotland know something about this matter. The local authorities are permitted to make such provision as shall be considered adequate, and we are issuing instructions to make it clear that not only in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom adequate provision for this difficulty shall be made. I wish to point out that this Section only applies to exceptional cases, and where attendance is required from a distance we shall give instructions for the local authorities to obtain a room adjacent to where the people live. In all probability the attendance would be by one of the officials in the house of the person concerned; therefore I do not think it is necessary to make any change in the Subsection, and certainly we shall take care in our instructions to point out that it will not be the duty of the local authorities to act in any tyrannical manner.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am quite certain that the fears of my hon. Friends opposite are quite groundless, because in most of these scattered counties very great care is taken to meet this difficulty.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland—

    (1) "Secretary for Scotland" shall be substituted for "Local Government Board" and "Board"; "Registrar-General for Scotland" for "Registrar-General";

    (2) The council of a county, and the town council of a royal parliamentary or police burgh shall be the local registration authorities for their respective areas, and each such area shall be a separate registration district: provided that the boundaries of a royal or parliamentary burgh for police purposes shall be the boundaries thereof for the purposes of this Act: and provided further that a local registration authority shall be entitled to call upon the other local authorities within its area for their assistance and co-operation to such extent, and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Any two or more local registration authorities may combine for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;

    (3) The expenses of local registration authorities under this Act, so far as not covered by allowances from the Treasury, shall be paid in the ease of a county council out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of a town council out of the burgh general improvement assessment or any other assessment leviable by the town council in equal proportions on owners and occupiers: provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses.

    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), after the word "authorities" ["to call upon the other local authorities within its area"], to insert the words "and the county and borough assessor."
    The right hon. Gentleman is not so well acquainted with the Scottish system as I am, although there is nothing about valuation work and registration work which he does not know pretty well. The right hon. Gentleman, however, does know that in Scotland we have an admirable system of assessors, and I know that he has often said that he would like the

    569
    same system in England. It is for that reason that I inquire whether the powers given to the local authorities include power to call in the assistance of these assessors, because they are infinitely better qualified for the work than anybody else. If the Clause gives power to call them in I am satisfied, and if it does not I think that power ought to be inserted.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): If the hon. Baronet will look carefully at the Clause I think he will see that his Amendment is not necessary. Sub-section (2) provides that—
    "The council of a county and the town council of a royal parliamentary or police burgh shall be the local registration authorities for their respective areas."
    The assumption of the Clause is that these respective authorities have the power to call in the services of all or any of their servants, and this would, of course, include the assessor in the burgh or the county. I think it would be extremely dangerous and undesirable to specify any particular servant in regard to either of these authorities, the assumption of the Clause being that any of these authorities may call in the assistance of any servant whom that authority pleases. I suggest to the hon. Baronet that the desirable result he wishes to attain is already provided for under the Bill as it stands. Under these circumstances perhaps he will not press his Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: If that is the case, then I have nothing more to say. It is perfectly well known to the right hon. Gentleman that some of the county assessors are Somerset House officials. They are no doubt paid by the county council or the burgh council, and I presume that they are technically servants of the council and are covered by that provision. I have no doubt the Lord Advocate is acquainted with the facts and is telling me what is accurate, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir JOHN DEWAR: Unless there is any very strong reason to the contrary, I wish to support the hon. Baronet's Amendment I know that in many cases the assessor is never looked upon as a servant of the town council or the county council. They are Somerset House officials, although they do work for the council and the burgh council. I hope the words suggested by the hon. Baronet will be inserted unless
    570
    there is some very strong reason against this course being taken.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is only in the case of one authority, namely, the corporation of Glasgow, that the assessor is the servant of the local authority.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is the same in Edinburgh.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the cases are exceptional where the assessor is both appointed and paid by the local authority.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I know there are other cases.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that the position of the assessor is not uniform in Scotland, it might be advisable for the Lord Advocate to consider, for the purpose of removing any doubts, the insertion of a provision to make the position definite.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am speaking upon information supplied me to the effect that these servants are the officials of the county council or the town council, and my answer is that it would be extremely dangerous to single out one particular servant and say that he is to be called in without specifying all the particular officials. The whole thing depends upon whether I am rightly informed that these assessors are the officials of the town council and the county council. I regret that the Secretary for Scotland is prevented by official business from being here. If there had been a Report stage I should have suggested that the matter should have been dealt with then. I will make inquiries, but my present information is what I have stated to the House. It might be sufficient, if found necessary, to insert these words in another place.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It will satisfy me if the right hon. Gentleman says that if necessary it will be done in another place. I have no doubt he agrees with me that the words ought to go in if they are really required.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "prescribed" ["such conditions as may be prescribed"], to insert the words, "by the Secretary for Scotland."
    Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. and learned Friend, if he looks further into the Bill, will be of the opinion that the

    571
    Amendment is superfluous. Clause 8 says that anything authorised by this Act to be prescribed shall be prescribed by the Local Government Board. Then if the hon. Member looks at the Scottish Clause, and Sub-section (1) in particular, he will find that the Secretary for Scotland is to be substituted for the Local Government Board. Accordingly the Bill already provides that anything to be prescribed shall, so far as Scotland is concerned, be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland. My hon. Friend will therefore see that he has already got in the Bill the proposal which he desires to add to this Clause.
    Mr. WATT: After the lucid explanation of my hon. and learned Friend, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    This Amendment is put down with a view of ascertaining whether in the case of Scotland some estimate could not be laid down for the various authorities as to the expenditure they might reasonably incur. It is not of so much importance to raise it now after the statement of the President of the Local Government Board yesterday that it was the intention of the Treasury to give a reasonable amount to cover all expenses. It might be possible, in issuing instructions, for the Scottish Office in Scotland to offer for the different local authorities according to the special circumstances of these authorities an estimate of what would be a reasonable cost, because in many districts the cost may vary very considerably, and some local authorities may hesitate to spend what is necessary for the efficient compilation of the register if they know that they run the risk of having subsequently to pay the money out of the local rates. If there were an estimate given in the first instance, then they would know the requirements and keep themselves well within the estimate. I do not wish to press the Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has put the question. I should not like off-hand to give him any assurance on the point, and all I would say is that I will convey his proposal to the Secretary for Scotland.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act shall apply to Ireland to such extent and subject to such modifications as are hereinafter mentioned:—

    (1) The Lord Lieutenant may by Order apply Section 1 of this Act with the necessary modifications to Ireland or to any area or areas in Ireland specified in the Order;

    (2) The register for Ireland, or as the case may be for any such area or areas as aforesaid, shall be formed under the directions of the Lord Lieutenant by the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Ireland (in this Section referred to as the Registrar-General for Ireland) whose duty it shall be to compile and maintain the register from information at his disposal or furnished by any other officer or Department of the Government pursuant to such directions or by the council of any county borough which may be desirous of assisting in the formation of the register;

    (3) The register shall contain as respects the persons registered the particulars set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d), of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of this Act, so far as the same have been ascertained from the information at the disposal of or furnished to the Registrar-General for Ireland as aforesaid, and the Registrar-General for Ireland shall tabulate the contents and make them available for such purposes as may be ordered by the Lord Lieutenant;

    (4) The expenses of the Lord Lieutentnt and of the Registrar-General for Ireland in carrying this Act into operation, shall to such an extent as the Treasury may sanction be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament;

    (5) Save as provided in this Section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to Ireland.

    Mr. R. MCNEILL: I beg to move, at the commencement of the Clause, to insert the words, "In the application of."
    This is the first of three Amendments standing in my name which are closely related, and the total operation of which will be very materially to alter the meaning of the Clause. Clause 14 deals with the application of the Act to Ireland. We

    573
    all know that one can hardly mention the word "Ireland" without the danger of being thought to arouse sleeping controversies. I can assure the Committee that it is not my intention to do anything of the sort. I see the Chief Secretary opposite, and I have no doubt that he accepts the responsibility for this particular part of the Bill. I should like to assure him that just as I should extremely dislike to do anything to embarrass the President of the Local Government Board, so I should be equally anxious not to embarrass him in any way under the present circumstances, and I hope I shall avoid doing so. Some explanation may reasonably be required from the Chief Secretary as to the particular way in which the Bill is applied to Ireland. I do not know whether Members of the Committee have really analysed this Clause or applied their minds to the difference which exists between the application of the Act to Ireland and its application to England or Scotland. This is a Bill for compulsorily registering people throughout the country between certain ages for a definite purpose which has been described by the President of the Local Government Board, and which the Committee by this time fully realises. There is as regards England very definite and precise machinery set up for this purpose. There is to begin with the statutory duty imposed upon every individual in the country within those ages to register himself. Then there is the duty cast upon a specified local authority for seeing that the registration is carried out by the individual. The information which is to be obtained from the person registering is elaborately specified in the Bill, and provision is made for sending forms to every household with a view of making the register as complete as it can be made.
    When we turn to the application of the Bill to Ireland, what do we find? We find that it is, shall I say amateurish and voluntary, without any delay cast upon any individual or any authority. It is left entirely optional, and it is left to be carried out, if at all, in a piecemeal manner, applied to certain unspecified area or areas. Therefore, having regard to the purpose for which this particular measure is brought forward, it would be perfectly valueless if applied to any part of the country in that way, and I do not think that it would be unjust to call it a mere pretence that this Clause really applies the Bill to Ireland at all. I want to ask the
    574
    Chief Secretary, and I have no doubt that he will tell us very fully, why this great distinction is made. When the President of the Local Government Board introduced the Bill there was, it is true, one single note of opposition raised against the First Beading. It came from the hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. Ginnell). The hon. Member put his opposition on a perefectly intelligible ground. We know that this is an emergency Bill for war purposes, and is only for the period of the War. We should never have heard of it but for the necessities arising out of the War. The hon. Member looks upon Ireland as a neutral nation. He says that Ireland ought to stand out of this Bill, because it ought to be no more concerned with the War than Norway, Sweden, Greece, or Bulgaria, if as much. Therefore, the opposition which came from the hon. Member for West Meath was perfectly intelligible, however much we may sympathise with his point of view; but I did not expect to find when the Bill was printed that the Government had allowed themselves, I will not say to be intimidated, but to be persuaded to the point of view of the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite, I believe I may say without exception, do not regard Ireland as a neutral country. I therefore cannot at all understand why they have adopted the point of view of the hon. Member for West Meath with regard to this Registration Bill.
    Would the Bill impose any hardship upon any part of Ireland? Of course we know that Ireland—I am happy to say it as an Irishman—is the spoilt darling upon whom no hardship may ever be imposed, but could any hardship be imposed upon Ireland by this Bill? I do not see an overwhelming array of hon. Members below the Gangway who have come here in apprehension of the hardship that might be inflicted upon their country. There is only my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Conner) who, like myself, is not an Irish Member. I should imagine, if there were any real opposition from Ireland to the application of this Bill in its entirety to that country that we should have those Benches conspicuously full to-day instead of conspicuously empty.
    5.0 P.M.
    Of course, technically speaking, I have no title to speak for any part of Ireland, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division, I am not an, Irish Member, but there is one part of

    575
    Ireland with which I am very intimately acquainted. I am so anxious to avoid the possibility of raising old controversies that I intend, if possible, scrupulously to avoid even mentioning the Northern provinces, but there is at all events a part of Ireland where the people, so far from wishing to be out of this Bill or to have the Bill applied to them in any less measure than to the rest of the country, are most anxious that it should be applied to them, and a considerable amount of feeling has been aroused and some disappointment has been caused to find that those people are treated in this amateurish, voluntary fashion and are not being treated seriously like the rest of the country. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would confirm what has been said by some of his colleagues who represent both the War Office and the Admiralty that no part of the country has given more willing service in the Army, in the workshop, and in war measures, in assisting the Government than that part of Ireland to which I refer. Therefore, if there is any part of the country to which registration in one sense is less necessary than another, I think it might be said of that part of Ireland, because there is certainly nowhere greater willingness to serve the country in every possible way. But there is a feeling—whether this Bill imposes a hardship or not—that it has been produced by the Government in a time of emergency in order to discover the whole measure of willing service which is at the disposal of the State in different parts of the country, and in this part of Ireland—in the North—where they have shown this willingness to serve, they think there is a certain slur cast upon that willingness, in that they are not considered worthy to be treated like the rest of the country in being called upon compulsorily to answer the questions required by this Bill to be replied to by the rest of the country. In, applying this Bill to Ireland the right hon. Gentleman has proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, with the necessary modifications, may apply it to any area or areas specified in the Order. But the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board supported the Bill and the very nature of the measure show that its usefulness depends upon its being complete. It is trifling -with the matter to bring forward such a
    576
    measure as this and to apply to small and perhaps isolated areas. It would be ridiculous to take the register in a single county or a small group of counties, with the result that a man might cross a road or a river into another borough or village and pass out of that area into another which does not come under the Registration Act. To decide to treat any part of the country in that way is a mere pretence. I say it deliberately.
    I have no wish to put the Government in any great difficulty, nor have the people in the North of Ireland, on whose behalf I speak in this respect, though perhaps with less authority than hon. Friends behind me. The Committee has heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Belfast, who speaks for the largest industrial constituency in Ireland and one of the largest in the three Kingdoms, that the great desire of the people he represents—and they are part of a very large population—is to be included along with their English and Scottish fellow subjects in the full provisions of this measure, and to come under the machinery of the Act by which that can be done. The object of my Amendment, and I think it is perfectly reasonable, is to secure that the Act, with the small necessary changes in authorities, such as have also been introduced into the Scottish portion of the Bill, shall be made to extend to the whole of the country, and shall apply to Ireland in the same way as it applies to England and Scotland. There is one small point in this connection to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. We have already passed Clause 7, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at Sub-section (2) of that Clause he will see that it is provided that within twenty-eight days after the arrival of any person, not in England or Scotland, but in the United Kingdom, between the ages aforesaid, who has not been previously registered, he is to take measures to register. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing that in Ireland the registration, if it takes place at all, shall take place only in a certain area or areas to be specified by the Lord Lieutenant. Suppose the county of Cork or the county of Derry is not a specified area. What is to happen when a person arrives in the United Kingdom, at the port of Cork, or of Derry, or of Dublin, which are not registered areas? That person is to be under a penalty, according to Clause 7, for not registering, when the right hon. Gentleman has not provided any means by

    577
    which the registration can be carried out in Ireland. I do not know whether that is a mere oversight. If it is, it shows a very great want of care in the drafting of this particular part of the measure. It may be a mere oversight, and no doubt it would be tolerably easy to put it right by going back on the Clause I have referred to, or by introducing an Amendment in another place, substituting "Great Britain" for the "United Kingdom." But I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not do that. I hope he will keep the United Kingdom in the Clause, and in order to carry out the intentions of the measure as introduced by my right hon. Friend, and also in view of the fact that there has not been the slightest sign of opposition to this measure, so far as this House is concerned, from any part of Ireland, with the single exception of West Meath, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this and the consequential Amendments, so that we in Ireland may do our part, to the best of our ability, just as the rest of the country has been doing its part.
    May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that within the last few hours we, Irishmen especially, have read with intense pride of the magnificent achievements of the Dublin and Munster Fusiliers in the Dardanelles, where they have been adding fresh lustre to the glorious history of Irish regiments. My hon. Friends below the Gangway have been telling the House and the country that they are as anxious as anyone to do their best to support the Empire in this time of stress and trouble, and I do not believe any hon. Member, except possibly the Member for West Meath, will get up and say that Ireland is behind any part of the United Kingdom in its anxiety to bear its share of the stress of war. Having regard to the attitude and example which has been set by soldiers from all parts of Ireland, I do think the right hon. Gentleman will only be acting in accordance with, if not the universal, at all events a widespread Irish desire, if he alters the Bill in the direction I propose.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): By the permission of my right hon. Friend in charge of this Bill, I gladly avail myself of the opportunity of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) of doing what I quite admit is necessary to be done—of offering some explanation to this Committee of
    578
    the reasons why the Government in their treatment of Ireland have inserted a differentiating Clause into this Bill. I confess I do not think it requires off-hand justification. We are considering a Bill which deals with the social condition of the country, and before it is assumed that those conditions are the same in all parts of the United Kingdom, inquiry should be made whether there are not circumstances in Ireland—whether of population or occupation—which justifies this differentiating Clause. I am going to follow the moderate language of the hon. Gentleman. I must confess he takes to moderation as a dog takes to water. He shows he can be as moderate even as myself. I should like to point out it has always been a good thing in dealing with Ireland, if this House, acting in an emergency and under the strength of great conviction, has sometimes paused to inquire whether there are not circumstances in the social community of Ireland which render it necessary there should be some difference of treatment. If this House had always done that during the last 100 years, the Irish question with which we are all familiar would have borne a very different aspect.
    This differentiating Clause is not inserted in the Bill with any intention of not procuring the information which the country requires in this period of emergency for the purpose of dealing with what has been so eloquently described as "the human resources" alike of Ireland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. But when we are asked to apply the machinery of this Bill to Ireland, I really would invite this Committee to bear in mind a few facts with regard to the pupulation, and also the main and dominant occupations, and then to ask themselves whether the machinery of this Bill, which is passing so rapidly through its Committee stage, is the best way of acquiring the very information you are in search of, and acquiring it at once. We all agree that in a Bill of this sort, an emergency measure, time is its very essence. It is necessary the information should be obtained as quickly and as accurately as possible. I would like to tell the Committee what is the total number of males in Ireland at this moment between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five—how many men between those ages exist in that happy island at the present time. The total is 1,325,000, and by an arrangement of Providence over which, happily, the

    579
    Committee of this House has no control, there is an almost exactly corresponding number of women. There are, in fact, 1,317,000 women. These are facts and figures relating to the size of the problem with which you have to deal. Of the 1,325,000 males, 1,054,000 live in what really may be called the depths of the country. They are a rural population, and in no sense industrial. Of that 1,054,000 no fewer than 800,000 are small farmers and agricultural labourers, or persons otherwise closely connected with the most important task of looking after their small farms, raising their crops, and making a very good thing out of selling their stock, or rather out of the persons who purchase the stock. Here you have 800,000 persons, out of a population of 1,000,000, actively engaged in a pursuit where labour is already sparse and scanty, and any interference with it would be a matter of considerable danger to the social welfare of the whole United Kingdom.
    There are towns, of course, in Ireland—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Derry, and other important places. But it brings home to us how completely Ireland has remained an agricultural country, while England and Scotland have become industrial countries, when we find that the whole male population in these cities and towns of Ireland, between the ages mentioned in the Bill, numbers only 271,000. These are the people mainly with whom this Bill has concern. In these industrial centres you have only got a population of males of 271,000, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-eight, and in regard to them we have already analysed the figures. In Ireland we know how many of these men are engaged in any particular trade. The Irish Government can tell that without this Bill and without the machinery provided by it. Having regard to the smallness of the towns and the size of the agricultural counties, it really is easy for the Irish Government to say how many men and women there are in Mayo or in Kerry, or in other places between these ages. The Royal Irish Constabulary have a police register of all the householders in every part of Ireland where the Royal Irish Constabulary prevails, which is almost the whole of it. That register of householders is kept up to date, and will enable us to tell you at once, or in only a very few weeks and at no expense whatever, what the population of Ireland is and the ages of
    580
    the persons occupying the houses. Therefore it would be to break a butterfly on the wheel to do as the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, and to say that this Bill, with all its machinery of the local authorities, should be applied, with its compulsory powers, to the provision of a mass of information—it is hardly a mass, because the whole contents of it will not amount to that when it is not necessary to set the machinery in motion, or to incur that expense to produce such a result.
    I sympathise very much with what the hon. Member said about the passionate desire of people, particularly in that part of the country in which he is interested, to inscribe their names upon this register. That is a spirit which I admire, but that is not the object of this Bill. This Bill is not brought in to induce people to believe that they are discharging a patriotic duty by filling up a register. It is done in order to produce a mass of information which can be utilised, if necessary, in a period of great emergency, for the purpose of moving people about from one trade to another, or from one place to another, where they are wanted. That is not the condition of things which prevails in Ireland. If you had that information—indeed, I could supply it to you—you would not find it useful for the very thing-that is so useful and necessary in this country, namely, what has been called the migration of people from one part to another, in order to supply particular wants, the supply of population where there is no population, and the supply of workmen where there are no workmen. To take a workman from one place to another would be of no use for the purposes we have in Ireland.
    What is wanted is not to gratify the desire of people but to acquire information, and if we are satisfied, as I think we are, that that information can be obtained, owing to the manner in which Ireland is already parcelled out, analysed and dissected—if we can supply that information, at all events over a great part of Ireland, without the obligation of putting the Irish Clause in the Bill into operation at all, we need not, as reasonable, practical men, incur expense and irritate people. You do not want to irritate people by saying you must do this, when your only object is to obtain information. With regard to that part of the Irish population—a very limited part indeed—engaged in the manufacture of munitions and carrying on the great shipbuilding industry in Belfast and

    581
    Arklow, no words of mine are strong enough to express the admiration I feel for the manner in which the people in Belfast and elsewhere have set themselves to discharge a great national obligation. They have given way to no temptation, they have shirked in no single respect, and no complaint of slack time or lack of temper can be properly brought against them. Irishmen may well be proud of that fact. It is said that you may be able to find people in the agricultural or other parts of Ireland willing to come to work in the munition works in Belfast and Arklow. If you think so you are under a very great mistake. There is every opportunity in the Clause of the Bill as it stands. I am quite willing that it should be amended in respect, if necessary, of the assistance of local authorities and of county councils. If that Amendment is accepted we shall certainly obtain in all parts of Ireland the assistance of these bodies for the purpose of bringing about the obtaining of information, but not by compulsion. We are not dealing with people who want compulsion. There is no credit in doing a thing by compulsion. If the county councils so desire it, these figures can be secured by the aid of the machinery of this Clause as it stands.
    I assure the Committee that they are quite mistaken it they suppose that this is a dodge or an attempt to keep Ireland out of the ascertainment of these necessary facts. It is only because these facts can be secured in the way indicated by this Clause much more quickly, and with at least equal accuracy, as by the machinery set up for the rest of the United Kingdom. Ireland does not want to block this Bill in the very least. There is no desire whatsoever to prevent the production of a return, or register, giving everybody all the information they can possibly require. But we do say, having regard to the figures I have given and the fact that 800,000 people out of this meagre population of 1,325,000 are already engaged as peasant proprietors, tilling their own soil, subject to a mortgage to the State, or as agricultural labourers, a scanty body already not sufficient for the purpose, that to apply the whole of the Bill to the whole of Ireland would be an unnecessary, expensive, and difficult operation. The local authorities in Ireland have given very valuable services. No one who knows anything of them will join in any harsh criticism of their ability and capacity. They are the most democratic set of men who have ever been brought together,
    582
    and to impose upon them an extraneous duty of this kind, which possibly they might not understand, and possibly in some parts of the country might be very unwilling to adopt, would only lead to delay and excite the very friction which none of us want. I would re-echo the eloquent language used by the hon. Member who preceded me about the part Irishmen have taken in the War. He referred to the hon. Member for West Meath and the question of Irish neutrality. There was no neutrality at the great meeting at Warrenpoint yesterday, which was presided over by the Lord Lieutenant and attended by the Lord Mayor, and in which the spirit was one of universal loyalty and approval.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Was the hon. Member for West Meath there?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, he was not there, and Ireland can represent itself very well without either the Member for West Meath or myself. It is perfectly idle to introduce the names of particular individuals, because the feeling of Ireland is enthusiastic and warm. I do not deny that in Ireland there is among the peasant population a very great dread of conscription. A certain number of persons very foolishly left the country—some 300 or 400 of them altogether, young men—in order to avoid conscription. I am happy to say that most of them have come back and are subjected to a great deal of ridicule and derision at the hands of their friends. But at the same time, in dealing with a country about which most of you are entirely ignorant and a state of affairs that perhaps even the hon. Member for the City cannot even begin to understand, it is not at all desirable to overlook this difference of condition.
    Sir F. BANBURY: You nearly convinced me when you said that.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am very sorry I said it, and I withdraw it. I do say this seriously to the hon. Baronet, speaking with much knowledge after eight or nine years of Irish administration, that the machinery set up by this Bill for the purpose of getting this information quickly, without trouble, without friction, and without creating undesirable ebullitions of feeling is inapplicable; in fact, the provisions of the Scotch and English Bill are totally inapplicable to Ireland. That is not the way the thing should be done. You are dealing with this meagre population of 1,325,000, 800,000 of whom you do not

    583
    want to interfere with, and only 271,000 of whom are residing in the large towns, and probably not more than 60,000 are carrying on skilled occupations. Of those workers most have already enlisted or are engaged at Belfast or at Arklow, doing their work in a manner which excites the admiration of the War Office and all those who are brought in contact with them. It is a very small population. I do not hesitate to say, that with the assistance that is indicated in the Clause, of the municipal authorities, and if you make the Amendment, of the county councils also, the Irish Government, that much abused body, will be able with that assistance, without penalties and without the other provisions of this Bill, to procure, probably before you are able to get it in England, as full and as satisfactory an analysis of the human resources in Ireland available for the purposes of this War, as if you had adopted the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and insisted upon applying to a country to which it is inapplicable, the very excellent provisions of this Bill so far as they relate to England and Scotland.
    I can assure the Committee there is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Irish Government to interfere with or to block this measure, or to take any steps, dilatory or otherwise, which will prevent the information being at the disposal of the nation quite as rapidly as it will be in any other part of the United Kingdom. I therefore, say—subject to the Amendment which I have already indicated, and speaking with the authority of my right hon. Friend, who is perfectly willing to accept it, that the county councils as well as the municipal authorities should come to the assistance of the Government in the compilation and the making of this register—it will be quite as complete, and contain as much information as you will find in your English register. We are prepared to do that, and will do that. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the Irish Benches are not crowded. He ought to thank me for that fact. The Clause as it stands is one which will excite no opposition in Ireland, and will result in the collection of just as much information as if it had been cast in another way.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Why should we thank the hon. Gentleman because the Irish Benches are not crowded.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would much rather see all the hon. Members here.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I frankly own that when I first read this Bill, the question did arise in my mind why it was so totally different in its application to Ireland from its application to England. After hearing the speech of my hon. Friend behind me I awaited, with even more interest then before, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say, having listened to all that he has been good enough to tell us in his very lucid statement, which we all heard with great interest, that I feel I am in rather a peculiar position, and that I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman was able to show that the Bill in the form in which it appears ought not to apply to Ireland. I had no idea that the number of men is so small that might be available in the various works, and who might be required for them, and for which it has been the purpose of the Government to introduce and carry this Bill. In some parts of Ireland I still understand that there are many available for the purposes which are required in connection with this Bill, and that where that is the case the machinery already exists, which he himself considers would be more effective than the machinery generally applied to this country or Scotland. So far as I am concerned, although I only speak with the greatest possible diffidence on a question like this relating to Ireland, I am bound to say that I heard with great interest and a good deal of satisfaction the explanation which I was anxious to hear from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to express my gratitude for the very moderate and conciliatory manner in which he proposed his Amendment. I am sure that in that respect he represented the feeling of appeasement to Ireland which I hope will go on and increase, but I must express my strong dissent from his proposal. Tracing the history of Ireland, I do not know any principle which has inflicted more injury upon her, very often unconsciously and unintentionally, than the principle which underlies my hon. Friend's proposal—that the same thing that was good for England was also good for Ireland. I will not be drawn into a discussion of that subject further than to say that the tragic figures of the email population of Ireland—a great wrong and a great injury to this Empire at this moment, as well as to Ireland—may be traced largely to the fact that the same land system which was

    585
    considered good for England was forced upon Ireland. Therefore, when anyone starts any proposal by the suggestion that, because it has been done in England, it should also be done on similar lines in Ireland, he errs against the underlying principle of the relations of the two countries. The point I want to bring home to the mind of the Committee is that the reason why this whole system is unnecessary is because England is governed on English lines in these matters, and Ireland is governed on Continental lines. The first thing that happens to all of us when we go on the Continent is to be presented with a document by the hotel proprietor in which we have to state our age, occupation, place of residence, etc.—a very easy thing to do, but I am sure an extremely unwelcome and stupid performance from our English point of view. Apply that to Ireland and you will find that it runs through the whole system of the government of the country. As a matter of fact, everybody in Ireland is ticketed and docketed. Everyone has his dossier. If I ever get inside Dublin Castle, I shall have the pleasure of reading the dossier of my hon. Friend at a time when he was closer to being in contact with the police than I hope he will ever be in the remaining days of his life. We know all about everybody in Ireland, and I sometimes hear the official representative of Ireland, when asked a question about the religion of a gentleman who has just been appointed to a good job, declare, with an assumption of innocence which may even deceive himself, that the Government "never know anything about the religion of anyone whom they appoint to any office."
    As a matter of fact, there is not a man in Ireland, except the representative of the Irish Government and of Dublin Castle, who does not know the religion of every man, woman and child in Ireland. I am going to put the dots on the i's. I see two headsmen there of Dublin Castle—the headsman at the present moment and the right hon. Gentleman who formerly occupied that position. They know very well that their police could give them, in the course of a fortnight or three weeks, practically all the information this Bill requires by simply handing up a list in which they have set down the name, the occupation, the habitation, and even the movements of practically everybody in the place. Therefore, from the
    586
    point of view of the necessity of this Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has conclusively proved—my hon. Friend knows it even though his visits to Ireland, like mine, may be few and far between—that practically, outside Dublin, and even in Dublin I should say, all the information required under this Bill can be supplied by the constabulary to the Chief Secretary and to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Consequently, there is no necessity for the Bill. I have supported it and have given loyal support to the Government, partly because I thought it might be necessary for England, but largely because it was brought forward on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and I have pledged myself—and I mean to keep my pledge—to give my loyal support to the Government, which is the body that has the conduct of the War in hand, and I should consider I was not acting loyally up to that principle if I opposed a Bill brought forward on their responsibility. But if the Bill be unnecessary in Ireland, why should you impose it upon her? If my hon. Friend says to me, "If it cannot do any good, it cannot do any harm," I have to take issue with him upon that point. It is quite true there is no large attendance of Irish Members here to-day, but I solemnly assure my hon. Friend that he is entirely wrong as to the feeling of Ireland if he does not realise that this Bill has created a good deal of excitement and a great deal of apprehension in Ireland. They may be right or they may be wrong, but the Irish people have a perfect loathing of the very mention of the word "conscription." My right hon. Friend gave an instance of the extremes to which that sometimes has carried a portion of the population. You cannot bully Irishmen, and my hon. Friend has very handsomely and very properly borne testimony to the service which Irish soldiers have done to the nation in this great War. I am perfectly sure that will go on, and when the story of the War may be told, it will be found that Irish soldiers have taken their fair and honourable share in winning the victory of which we all feel certain.
    But there is this feeling in Ireland, and I implore my hon. Friend not to persevere in any course which may exasperate Irish feeling—I will even say Irish prejudice. When the history of this War comes to be told, I believe one of the phenomena which will stand out from the glorious and

    587
    remarkable story is the extraordinary change of heart which this War and other circumstances to which perhaps it would be improper to refer, have brought about in the minds of the Irish people. We, who are responsible for giving counsel to our people, took our course early, promptly, and courageously. We told the Irish people that we regarded it as a solemn obligation on them, and in accordance with all their principles, to back the Empire and her Allies in this War. I was struck by two facts, one of which I brought privately to the notice of my hon. Friend, that this change of heart is brought out in the most remarkable way by the story of two Irishmen who were once prominent in very different conditions of those of to-day. One was O'Donovan Rossa. He is known to my hon. Friend and to me, though probably his name is unknown to the rest of the House. He figured largely in the controversies of the past. O'Donovan Rossa was all his life an advocate of revolution and a preacher of the most violent and, in my opinion, the most criminal methods against this country. He was sentenced to penal servitude for life, and served many years. He went to America, where he conducted very violent and revolutionary organisations, and I read with satisfaction in the columns of the "Daily Telegraph" the other day a cable from America in which this old, dying revolutionary gave a message of goodwill to the people of England, and expressed his sympathy with them in the War against Germany. The other case is the case of Captain O'Meagher Condon. He was sentenced to death in 1867, and his companions were actually executed. He had also served a term of penal servitude. Captain O'Meagher Condon was a fierce anti-English revolutionary, but he stands to-day with us on the side of the Allies in sympathy and support of their fight for the cause of liberty and European civilisation. When we have produced so noble and so beneficent a change of heart among our people, I pray this House not to embarrass our work by such proposals as these.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in many of the matters which he has raised. It might bring us back to old controversies, which I certainly intend absolutely to avoid as long as I hold a seat in the Coalition Government. I only rise because I think there
    588
    has been a good deal of misapprehension both in Ireland, certainly in parts of Ireland, and also here, as regards the provisions in the Bill in relation to Ireland. It has been said, even by the hon. Member, that this Bill is not to apply to Ireland. That is only true in a certain sense. The Bill is to apply to Ireland. In other words, there is to be the same register made as regards Ireland in such parts of Ireland as desire to have it. It will be made by the Lord Lieutenant with the official information that he has, and as regards a great deal of the information that is required I agree with the hon. Member that it can be got from official documents and with the assistance of the Irish Constabulary, which is a central force entirely different, and doing entirely different duties from what the police do in this country. Therefore a great many of the records are already available. As regards the forms which are to be filled up in this country, I understand there is to be an Amendment accepted that one of the matters that are left out in the Irish portion will be put into the Irish portion. Therefore the matter really stands in this way. Any portion of Ireland which desires to have this register with a view to declaring how far they are anxious and willing to assist in the present crisis will get an opportunity of doing so, and I have not the slightest doubt that in the industrial parts of Ireland, which are mainly in the North, that will be a provision which they will value and will gladly sign. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I have agreed to this provision.
    I should be very sorry if it was attempted in a crisis like this to force this Bill upon any part of Ireland that did not desire it, or that wished to resist in any way, but I have been given an assurance that as regards the industrial portions of Ireland, which would certainly deem themselves insulted if they were left out of this Bill, they will have the fullest opportunity of going upon the register and exactly the same opportunity of declaring their desire to serve the country as is granted to their English and Scottish fellow subjects. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied with the way in which the Bill has been framed. I merely rise in order that the idea might no longer prevail that those persons who desire to have that opportunity are not to have it under this Bill. The Bill, I think, in that way will work out satisfactorily, and those who do not like the Bill and

    589
    who do not wish to be registered will be left as they are. The Bill will apply to those who desire to fill up a form, and I feel perfectly sure that the forms will be voluntarily filled up at the request of the Lord Lieutenant in the great majority of the industrial portions of Ireland.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: After what my right hon. Friend has said in support of this Bill I have no hesitation in at once stating that any Amendments that I have got I gladly withdraw. I do so on the assurance which I have received from the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill may be applied to every part of Ireland which desires to have it. I confess I do not understand how any part of Ireland can object to the register. We are told by responsible Members of the Government that the Empire is in great peril, and surely it is the duty of every man, both in Ireland, England, and Scotland to show that he is ready and willing to do all that he can for his country in its hour of need. What we want to know is that the people of Ireland shall have the opportunity of showing what they can do and what they are willing to do in the same way that the Bill applies to England and Scotland. I am not able to speak with the authority of some hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway as to the south and west of Ireland, but speaking for Ulster I have had innumerable resolutions, letters and telegrams asking me to see to it that Ulster is placed exactly on the same terms as England and Scotland. The Ulster people claim their right to serve their country in the time of need. I do not want to say one discordant word after the speeches which have been delivered, but I must speak for the people of Ulster who have shown their anxiety and their keen desire to bring this War to a successful conclusion in every way that is open to them. They have subscribed to provide hospitals, they have subscribed to provide ambulance corps, and they have subscribed to every one of the war funds, and they are anxious to continue to show their practical desire to help their country in the same way that the people of England and Scotland are doing. Therefore it is only on the assurance of my right hon. Friend that I withdraw the Amendments which stand in my name.
    Sir F. BANBURY: When I first read this Bill I could not conceive why on earth Ireland was left out, and I came down specially this afternoon to support my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
    590
    After listening to the speech of my hon. Friend I felt that my first impression was right, and I told him that if he divided the House I should go into the Lobby with him. I did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) was going to alter my opinion. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman for many long years, longer than I like to say, and I have never yet known him to convince me with any speech he has made. Something, however, seems to have come over the right, hon. Gentleman, or something has come over me, and, although it has been said that no speech has ever turned a vote in this House, I must confess that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman turned my vote, until nearly his concluding words. I do not like his concluding words. I cannot agree that this measure has not been brought forward in order to give people an opportunity of showing their eagerness and patriotism. In regard to the other part of his speech, however, I must confess that I have been convinced, and I would not have divided with my hon. Friend if he had gone to a Division. I do not quite understand one statement that was made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said the population of Ireland in the industrial parts is only 271,000.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said males between those ages.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very small number and much smaller than I had expected. As I understand the population is so small, and as they are engaged in the way that the right hon. Gentleman says, and as, moreover, there are means of obtaining this information without spending further money, I make this present to him, if he will accept it, namely, that he has converted me.
    Mr. BUTCHER: It is with no disrespect to the Chief Secretary that I say that the speech of the Attorney-General produced a greater effect upon my mind than the speech of the Chief Secretary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is the other way with me.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I understand that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, gives the assurance that in the industrial portions of Ireland there will be a register made up much on the same lines as it is made up in England, and that the people there will have an opportunity not only of stating their ages, occupations, and so on, but an opportunity

    591
    of saying whether they are prepared to serve, and if so in what capacity, in the interests of the country during this War. I want to have that point made quite clear. Did the Attorney-General say he had received an assurance or did he say the Government were prepared to give it?
    Sir E. CARSON: I said that an opportunity would be given to such parts of Ireland as desired it to make these statements on the form, and I said that I had an assurance, and I gave an assurance, that it would certainly be applied to those industrial portions in the North of Ireland, where I know they want to make a statement on the forms provided in connection with this National Register.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) say if there is any machinery in Ireland that will enable the people to record their desire?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said, in the course of my speech, that I proposed to accept an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Derry (Sir J. Dougherty), who has assisted me in this matter, providing that the Lord Lieutenant will accept the assistance of county councils in the preparation, compilation, and maintenance of this register.
    Sir E. CARSON: Or borough councils?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Borough councils are in the Bill already. That Amendment will enable county councils who are desirous of assisting in this compilation to express their desire. I have no doubt whatever that if a county council in the North of Ireland should say that they are desirous of assisting the Lord Lieutenant in the compilation of this register, such a register will be produced in that district. We insert also in the questions the paragraph (c), which enables the person to express his willingness to serve his country.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am much obliged for this explanation. I understand the right hon. Gentleman gives this explanation on behalf of the Government, and that if a county council or a borough council should desire to assist—
    Mr. BIRRELL: The borough councils are in the Bill already.
    Mr. BUTCHER: If these councils desire to assist in the preparation of the register in the area for which they are responsible,
    592
    then I understand it will be made up accordingly in the English form. If that be so, surely it would be much better to incorporate a provision of that sort in the Bill. I am not mistrusting the assurance of the Government, but it is much better to have these undertakings incorporated in the provisions of the Bill, A short Clause or a paragraph would carry out the intentions of the Government as expressed by the Attorney-General. It would be far better, lest mistakes should occur which would be very regrettable and create friction, to put in black and white this undertaking in the Bill, so that the people in Ireland who are desirous of having the register in the same way as the people are registering in England and Scotland would know exactly where they stand and would be able to apply accordingly. That would be far better in the interests of everyone rather than it should be left to a statement in this House, which does not circulate in its verbatim form in Ireland and is not recorded in a way in which the Irish people can readily get access to it. If the words are put in the Bill they will stand on record, and I strongly urge the Government to embody the assurance in the Bill.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I would like to mention one consideration why this Amendment should not be put in the Bill, and it is a very important consideration. If this War is going to be prolonged, the struggle for food in this country is going to be a very serious one. In this respect I would point out that Ireland is playing a very important part in feeding this country. Last year, or the year before, we imported from Ireland no less than £34,000,000 worth of food, and £18,000,000 worth of that was for meat, dead or alive, If that meat did not come from Ireland there would be a meat famine in this country. Therefore the farmers in Ireland are playing a very important part in feeding the working men of this country, and enabling us to keep down the price of meat and other produce. On these grounds I think that after the very interesting statistics which the Chief Secretary gave in regard to the agricultural population in Ireland it would be a very serious matter if we were to create any disturbance in Ireland.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Why do not you excuse the agriculturists in England?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: For this reason. I believe that the Irish farmers are largely

    593
    proprietors of their own farms, and many of them are aged, and they are doing very important work in producing the very article that we require for this country. I believe, further, that it is not essential that we should draw from the agricultural population in this country, otherwise the price of food would go up to a very much higher figure than it is now. I think that we should leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to apply this Bill according to desire.
    Major M'CALMONT: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary if he will make one point clear. It may not have occurred to other Members, but it occurred to me, that he wished to discourage the agricultural labourers in Ireland from enlisting or doing their share. I am sure he did not mean that, but he conveyed that impression to my mind. Will he make it quite clear, for the benefit of those who are concerned with recruiting in Ireland, not only in the North but elsewhere, that he did not mean to imply that the agricultural labourer was so valuable that he did not need to enlist.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that any interpretation of my language could be such as to prevent any man from enlisting if he wants to enlist. If they wish to enlist we shall let them. If any persons in Ireland are guilty of not doing what they might do, I would rather say it is the farmers' sons, and if I were a recruiting sergeant I would address myself to them rather than to the agricultural labourers. But whether it be an agricultural labourer or a farmer's son, I say he would do well to enlist if he considers it his duty in a crisis like this to serve his country in the field. In regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I do not think it would be at all desirable to introduce the statement into this Bill making it obligatory in any shape or form for the Lord Lieutenant in certain circumstances to adopt any particular course. If a county council expresses its desire in such a manner as to make it certain that that desire represents the wish of the county council, that this register should be compiled, it is impossible to suppose that the Lord Lieutenant would not at once declare that county an area, and thereupon the register would be compiled. What would apply then would be that this Clause would be operative, but it would not be compulsory, and the register would be formed on the English lines.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Would there be any penalty for not signing?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There would be no penalty for not signing. It would be done on the English lines, and the same questions would be asked that are asked in England and Scotland. If the people are anxious to give the information they will give it. It would, however, be impossible to lay down hard and fast rules that that course should be taken. That course will be taken if a county council or a borough council expresses a desire to assist the Lord Lieutenant in the compilation and maintenance of a register. I think it is best to leave it in that way rather than adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Butcher).
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BUTCHER: This is a very important matter about which the industrial population of Ireland feel very strongly, and I would like to know if it is the intention of the Lord Lieutenant, as expressed through the Chief Secretary, not to apply this register, say, to the City of Belfast, unless on a formal resolution of the city council. Or take the counties of Antrim and Down, is it the intention of the Lord Lieutenant not to apply the register to those counties unless the county council pass a formal resolution?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Because that would be very disastrous.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There is no such intention. The Lord Lieutenant acts on his own responsibility in the first instance. All that is said is that if the county council expressed the desire to assist, then of course there would be an almost overwhelming case, even if the Lord Lieutenant had any reluctance to apply to that area.
    Mr. DENMAN: Like the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I had intended to vote in favour of the Amendment. But, like him, I have been convinced that it ought not to be supported. An additional reason which I had in desiring to vote for the Amendment was the number of hon. Members below the Gangway who, representing Irish constituencies, had voted in favour of the Second Reading of this measure, and I had imagined, since they were so anxious that the measure should apply to England, that they were anxious that it should also apply to its fullest extent to those places

    595
    which they represent. The exceedingly interesting and important discussion which we have had shows us, more than anything else, what a mere window-dressing Bill this is.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: I moved this Amendment with not the slightest desire to do anything to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced me on this occasion that there is any really overpowering reason for not applying this measure for Ireland. I do not contest what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division, that what is good for England is not necessarily good for Ireland, but I do think that the onus of proof is on those who contend that any given measure, especially an emergency war measure, is so repugnant to the Irish nature or the necessities of Ireland that Ireland should be excluded from it. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to show that great repugnance either of the necessity or the character of Ireland. All that he attempted to show in the few concluding words of his speech was that he could get the bulk of the information which was wanted from other sources. With great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, and even in spite of the partial—and only partial—support which he got on that point from my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, I doubt very much whether there is any dossier existing in Ireland which would give the information that is wanted. One hon. Member opposite referred to the agricultural necessities of the country, and used as against this Amendment the extraordinary argument that the necessities of agriculture in this country were so great that if a number of people in Ireland wrote down their names the food of the people of England might be jeopardised.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: No; but if you were to create a disturbance in Ireland arising out of this Bill it might be very serious.
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not wish to pursue that point. I misunderstood the hon. Member. I thought he meant quite a different point. I will tell where I think valuable information might be got for this country in the direction of agricultural work. There is at present a considerable autumnal migration of agricultural
    596
    labourers from Ireland to this country to assist in the harvesting. So far as my information and belief go, Ireland at present is very much better circumstanced than this country is with regard to its normal supply of agricultural labour. It is much more able than England is to carry on from its own sources the normal operations of harvesting. Consequently my belief is that, if there were a complete register in the agricultural districts in Ireland, it would be possible for Ireland, and Ireland would probably be glad, to supply during the coming harvest a much larger measure of labour which would help the English harvest, which will suffer much more owing to the want of labour than Ireland will by any corresponding depletion in the agricultural labour in that country. Of course the right hon. Gentleman cannot have meant seriously a great deal of what he said about the extraordinary difficulty of securing this register in the country districts. After all, the country districts in Ireland compare very favourably with the country districts in Scotland. We have not heard a word of objection to the proposal to take this register to the islands of the Hebrides or the wilds of Ross-shire, Inverness-shire, or Aberdeenshire. There is no part of Ireland where the remoteness of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke can impose the same difficulties as it does in some parts of Scotland. Therefore, I do not think that that part of the objection is meant seriously, and it would have been a great advantage if they could have got in these country districts, small, comparatively speaking, as I admit the available amount of the population is, and I do think that that part of the right hon. Gentleman's objection has not very much weight.
    My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General said that he agreed with the provisions as contained in this Bill. Of course, we all know pretty well the difficulties and the exigencies which arise out of a Coalition Government, and we all sympathise with them, and it is for that very reason that at the outset I said that, even if this Bill had been entirely confined to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who is now opposite, I should have been just as unwilling to embarrass him as if it were in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman who belongs to my own party. But with regard to this assurance as to the industrial districts, I understood the right hen. Gentleman the Chief

    597
    Secretary, just now to say, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend, that the area to be prescribed by the Lord Lieutenant would not necessarily be an area where a request was made to the Lord Lieutenant; in other words, that the initiative would be taken by the Government. I am very glad to have heard that from the right hon. Gentleman, and for this reason: The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the industrial population in Ireland, to which alone he seemed to think the application of the register would be valuable. The industrial population is not by any means confined to the North of Ireland, although that comprises the largest part of it. There is a very considerable industry, for example, in Dublin, where there is a great number of people employed in making the most excellent beverage, for instance, and a register in Dublin might be very valuable indeed if the nation's needs became more critical than they are to-day.
    We have heard during the progress of this Bill a great deal as to the possible necessities of the future, when we shall be thrown back upon our resources more than we are at the present moment, and, therefore, it might become very important to know how many people who are now engaged in making stout in Dublin would be available for making shells somewhere else. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the industrial districts of Ireland, and has admitted that the register would be valuable so far as those districts are concerned. I want to know is it the intention of the Government to prolaim— "proclaim" is rather an unfortunate word; "prescribe" perhaps is better—as areas under this Bill any industrial districts outside the North of Ireland? Will Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Arklow, and those parts of Ireland remain, regardless of requests coming from them, as areas for registration under this Bill? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman perfectly candidly why I hope they will. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division said that this Bill had created a great deal of apprehension in Ireland. We must take it from him that, speaking broadly, this is a true statement of the South and West of Ireland. I have already told the Committee that, so far from causing any apprehension, there is a great desire to be included in the North of Ireland.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Not all of it.
    Mr. McNEILL: No, but in some parts of the North of Ireland—roughly speaking,
    598
    the industrial parts. There we see the perennial contrast which is always cropping up in Ireland between one geographical portion and the other. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman does not want that contrast to be emphasised. I do not think that my Friends behind me want to see it emphasised. I do not want, when this Registration Bill is carried, to have those parts of Ireland included in the register which might be represented as anxious to come in for political reasons, and other parts of Ireland, where the hon. Member says apprehension exists, left out of the Bill, also, as might be represented, because they are anxious for political reasons. I want those areas to be selected for industrial reasons and for reasons of population, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and not merely because they come within certain areas, which in former times were, and possibly again in future times will be, distinguished by certain political principles. That is the reason why I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they will not have to wait for a request. Personally, I feel strongly about this matter because I foresee so much danger in Ireland of this Bill being once more a political flag in different parts of the country, and I am so convinced that in the method pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in applying it to Ireland it will be for all war purposes practically useless that I would much rather avert the danger which I foresee by seeing the Bill withdrawn altogether than to have it applied by a method which might be said to be practically waiting until certain areas of a certain complexion make a request to be included, while others of a different political persuasion would either remain silent or would wish, to be left out. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take care of that point of view. All I am concerned about at the present moment is to repeat once more that at all events there is one part of Ireland where they are anxious to bear their share, and it should be known to the people of this country that they are anxious to bear their share under the register. Having made that point as a protest against the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in adhering to the methods practically excluding Ireland, I repeat that I have no wish to press this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir JAMES DOUGHERTY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "council" ["council of any county"], to insert the words "of any county or."
    This is a small Amendment, but I think a useful one. It would secure that people outside the borough sharing the same sentiments as those inside the borough would have an opportunity to assist in the formation of the register, and for that reason I think it is desirable to extend the Clause.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have already indicated that the Government assent to the Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am extremely glad that the Chief Secretary has accepted it, and I think he will see that it is very necessary in these specific areas to which the Act is applied to call attention to the manner in which the information was to be gathered. If the matter were left to the police they would have to tell a man personally in what capacity he had to act. If I were asked to leave it to the police to say in what capacity I should act, and even if I were asked to leave it to the Chief Secretary, I should respectfully decline. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after "(b)" ["paragraphs (a) and (b)"], to insert "(c)."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In same Sub-section leave out the words "and (d)."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) is not in order.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is not in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment introduces the land question, and in the case of an Amendment by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), and another hon. Member, I ruled that they could not introduce that question in connection with this Bill. It is quite outside the scope of the present measure.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause,
    "(5) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards expenses incurred, with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Ireland, by county councils and county borough councils in assisting in the formation of the register, allowances on such scale as the Treasury may approve, and such expenses, so far as not covered by the allowances, shall be defrayed in the case of a county council out of the poor rate as a county at large charge, and in the case of a county borough council out of the rate or fund applicable to the purpose of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907."
    This Sub-section is introduced as a matter of precaution. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board clearly indicated that it is not the intention of the Government than any of the costs incurred by a county council or municipal authority shall come out of the rates, but shall be borne by the State. But if a county council or municipality, in taking the matter into their own hands, incur expenses beyond those the Treasury approve, those extra costs must be met out of their own funds.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: May I ask whether it is intended to issue the same form in Ireland as in England and Scotland, for if that is not the intention I am at a loss to understand how any expense will be involved in the application of this to Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: We shall certainly issue the same form.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: The same forms as applied to England?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes; (a) (b) and (c) must be the same.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that part of the Sub-section referring to expenses to be paid out of the rates.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The provision is exactly the same as that for England and Scotland, which provides that where the county or municipal authority increases the expenses beyond what the Treasury think fit, the extra expenses must be borne out of the local funds. Having put in the words "county council," it is necessary to have this Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. COWAN: In regard to the Amendment standing in my name—to leave out Clause 14, I would point out that the juxtaposition of my name and that of the hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. Ginnell) does not imply any collusion between myself and the hon. Gentleman, whose courage I admire, and whose opinions I detest. Having said that, in view of the admirable speech of the Chief Secretary, I do not move the Amendment.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    CLAUSE 15.—(Short Title and Duration), and CLAUSE 9.—(Expenses), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Duty of Employers to Furnish Information.)
    For the purposes of facilitating the compilation and maintenance of the register, it shall be the duty of any employer of labour (including heads of Government Departments) to supply to any registration authority such information as may be prescribed in respect of such persons in his employment as are required to be registered under this Act.
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. LONG: This Clause is to carry out a pledge which I gave last night. It is agreed upon by all parties concerned, and I do not imagine that it requires any further explanation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Questions.)
    No person employed in distributing or collecting forms in connection with the making of the said register shall be entitled to ask any question of any person or householder at any house visited other than a question as to how many persons between the prescribed ages are resident in the said house.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. McCURDY: In moving this Clause I would point out that owing to the novelty of this measure in this country, and owing to the fact that voluntary workers are largely employed in taking
    602
    the register, it is desirable that there should be in this Statute, or by way of instruction from the Local Government Board, no doubt left in the mind of voluntary workers, of whom there will be great numbers throughout the country, as to their duties. It may be necessary to ask questions as to the number of persons supported by a householder and as to their relation to such a householder, and if those questions have not been asked, the servants may be called in and asked. The Act provides that all those necessary questions shall be asked, but this Amendment is intended to make it clear that it is no part of the duty of those distributing or collecting forms to conduct any domiciliary inquisition into private matters.
    Mr. LONG: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, since it would interfere with the provision that in any ease where assistance is required in filling up the form that assistance can be given. We shall take care in the regulations of what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, namely, that there shall be no illegitimate or improper interference.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Registration ration in One Area Only.)
    No person shall be registered in more than one area, and, if any person is liable to be registered in two or more areas, he shall have liberty to choose in which area he shall be registered.—[Mr. King.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. LONG: I accept the Clause.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    Mr. LONG: I hope the House will allow us to take the Report stage of this Bill now. There are no Amendments to be made on this stage. There were four Amendments which I promised on the part of the Government during the Committee stage to consider. One was as to secrecy, and that has been dealt with. The second was as to assistance to children and others in filling up forms. I understand that will be covered by the instructions to be issued from the Local Government Board. The other point was information as to employment on Government work, and that is dealt

    603
    with by an Amendment accepted at the Committee stage yesterday in Clause 4 (1) (b), and, of course, that would also be met by the forms we would issue. There is then the question of change of address in Clause 7, and as to which I undertook that in the instructions it would be made perfectly clear that there was to be no persecution of people who temporarily moved from one place to another, but that it would only come into force when there was a clear move from one established residence to another. The only outstanding question was that there should be some record of the families contribution to the Navy and Army. It was very attractive to many of us, and I promised that if I could I would find words to give effect to it. I am sorry to say I have not been able to do so. I do not think it really would be practicable, because you would have to find somebody on whom the duty would have to rest. The matter is much more difficult than it seems. If any hon. Members who feel strongly about it like to bring any suggestion to me, I shall be very glad to consider it, and, if it seems desirable, I would ask that it be considered when it reaches another place.
    The only one other question on which I should like to say a word on the Report stage is the question of age. There was considerable discussion as to what age should be inserted and there were suggestions of seventeen and eighteen. To-day, at the instance of the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson), we have excluded children under the age of eighteen from prosecution. This leaves the matter in a rather unsatisfactory position. I do not propose to make any change now, but if it meets with the approval of hon. Gentlemen, who will now have the opportunity of considering the matter, I think a change might be made in the Bill in another place by which we should make the age sixteen. That is, I understand, the legal age which differentiates the child from a person liable to prosecution and also the age for insurnce. I should then, after that consideration, propose to amend the Bill by making sixteen the age under the Bill to be liable for prosecution, the same as it stands in law now. I hope any of those who are interested in this matter may communicate with me, and I will then take the course which seems to me to be in accordance with the wishes of the House.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    I hope the House will not allow the Third Reading. I desire to thank very warmly hon. Members in all quarters for the very cordial assistance which they have given to me and which I appreciate all the more because I know that this is a novel Bill, and that it aroused very considerable feeling in many quarters and that there was very genuine opposition to it. Some hon. Members were alarmed that it might create exactly the opposite effect to that desired. Therefore I am all the more grateful for the assistance I have received, and which has been of a practical and most helpful character. Personally, I may say that the Government believe that this Bill will be a real practical step in advance in securing that organisation of the nation which we think to be essential if we are to meet a great crisis with adequate strength and adequate preparation. However that may be, for the Bill and its consequences we accept the fullest possible responsibility. It only remains for me to thank those who, not sharing those views, have been good enough to help the Government to pass the Bill in a very short time, and I believe to make it a more practical and efficient measure than it was when I first had the honour to introduce it.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Although I am one of those who very greatly distrust the proposals of this Bill, and have shown my attitude towards it practically by votes in the Lobby, I do not propose to resist the Motion that the Bill be now read the third time. So far as I am concerned, and I think, so far as many others who may share some of my views on it, we shall look to its administration to fulfil in the spirit the pledges which the Prime Minister has given from time to time concerning its voluntary character and consistency with the voluntary principle. Though I do not propose to resist the procedure which has been adopted in the passage through all the remaining stages of the Bill to-day, and though I am not aware that there is any standing rule against that procedure, it is the usual practice of the House in regard to measures of the importance of this measure to afford some interval between the more important stages. While we have afforded those facilities to-day, I do most earnestly appeal to the representatives of the Government not to use the procedure of

    605
    to-day as a too frequent precedent for future measures of so important a character. While I disagree in principle with the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to say we appreciate most fully the spirit of consideration which he has shown in piloting this Bill through.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Although I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and registered the view that in my opinion it was not a good Bill, I offered no opposition to any of the Clauses that are in the Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to alter the Bill with regard to the age. I believe the Bill will be greatly more acceptable if he retains the Amendment accepted to-day. I take it that what he desires is to see the Bill work as smoothly as possible and to arouse the least objection of the people who are affected by its provisions. I, therefore, do make a strong appeal to him not to alter the age which has been adopted so far as the penalties are concerned.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: There is only one point I desire to urge, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that the regulations are published as soon as possible and that they are couched in as plain and explicit language as possible. It would very much reduce the cost if we had a very large number of voluntary workers. Some of those will not be very experienced in this kind of work, and it is essential that the regulations should be very clear in order that the clerks of the various authorities may be able to explain the duties in a simple and efficient manner. If that is done, I am sure there will be every disposition on the part of the public all over the country to assist the right lion. Gentleman to the best of their powers, and the register will be compiled both speedily and efficiently.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Perhaps, as I was responsible for the majority of the Amendments on the Paper in the Committee stage, I may be allowed to say how entirely those who have been critical of the Bill appreciate the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in carrying the measure through, and the compliment he paid us when moving the Third Reading. It is only fair to say that our view regarding the Bill, as to its desirability and necessity, remains unchanged. At the same time, we believe that, as the result of the discussions in Committee and the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman, the measure has been considerably improved. If we cannot congratulate the
    606
    right hon. Gentleman on his legislative achievement in his new office, we can at least, with all sincerity, congratulate him on his Parliamentary methods.
    Mr. THOMAS: As one of the minority who opposed the Bill, I shall certainly offer no further protest. As I was unable before to state the reasons for my opposition, I desire to say now that I did not approach the Bill with any hostility because of the change of form of Government. I dissociate myself entirely from those who opposed the measure simply on that ground. The logic of that position would have meant, that we would have had to oppose every Bill introduced by this Government. That would be an impossible position. I approached this Bill from this Government as I would approach a Bill from any other Government—trying to consider it on its merits. I believe that in the Committee stage the measure has been considerably improved. Indeed, the safeguards we have obtained with regard to secrecy are all important. I desire to say quite frankly that, so far as a registration Bill is concerned, if it is to be mere registration, I still think that it is an utter waste of money. On the other hand, I have not hesitated to say that if this or any other Government came down and said they were satisfied that this War would be prosecuted to a successful issue only by the institution of any method, I would support them. But I object to and protest against the suggestion, which I think was a fatal one, upon which this Bill was being argued on Second Reading, namely, that it could not possibly do any harm. I submit that, in the midst of this War, in the midst of the nation's difficulties, to come down and ask the House of Commons to pass emergency legislation on the ground that it could not possibly do any harm was a weakening of the whole case. Having entered my protest, and having contributed some little to the discussion with a view to improving the Bill, I join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the courtesy and consideration which he has shown, and I hope that the Bill will do all its most ardent supporters believe it will.
    Mr. R. C. LAMBERT: I cannot allow the Bill to pass from this House without a word. I disapprove as strongly as ever of the principle underlying the Bill. I disapprove, not on party grounds at all, nor because the Bill has been introduced by a Coalition Government. So far as I am concerned, I have been determined

    607
    from the first, wherever I could, heartily to support the Government which is in control of the destinies of this country, particularly for the prosecution of the War. But I am bound to say that my views, which I expressed on Second Reading as to the utter futility and uselessness of this measure, remain unchanged. The House, however, has accepted the principle, and we bow to that decision. We have tried—and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged it in very handsome terms—to introduce our Amendments in the Committee stage without in any sense obstructing the passage of the Bill. The proof of that is to be seen in the fact that at this time of the day we have arrived at the Third Reading. The mischief which, in my judgment, this Bill may do, or the success which in the judgment of other Members it may have, will entirely depend upon the spirit in which it is administered. If it is administered in the tactful way in which we hope it will be, and if the local authorities charged with its administration discharge their duties in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has assured they will, very little mischief may be done; but if they attempt rigidly to enforce the great powers conferred upon them by this Bill, I am afraid there will be considerable dissatisfaction. I am reassured to some extent by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but I would earnestly press upon him that, in the instructions which he gives to the local authorities, he should impress upon them the absolute necessity of proceeding tactfully about this business. I do not intend to go to a Division on the Third Reading, and I hope that my hon. Friends also will agree to allow the Bill to pass.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I voted against this Bill on Second Reading, and, as some misapprehension may arise, I desire to say a word now. I fundamentally differ from the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the Debates on this Bill. It has been stated again and again that we must accept this Bill—which to my mind is a limitation of liberty—because we are in such danger in this country, and because there is a possibility of invasion which would sweep away all our liberties. If that argument held good, we would be prepared to surrender any liberty we have at present under the law in order to forestall any possibility whatsoever of that great compulsory surrender.
    608
    But I do not take that view. I think it is a most dangerous view to take. If the view that there is a possibility of invasion and of the conquest of this country is to be impressed upon the public mind, and is to be the impetus behind our legislation here, we shall go from step to step in the surrender of our liberties.
    I do not give way to anybody in true patriotism. My pride in being British-born and an inhabitant of this country arises from my belief that this is the freest country on the face of the earth. That is the pride of Englishmen, not only here, but in every part of the Empire. The liberties which we have here, greater than those of any other country, are due to the fact, not that the people of this country love liberty more than others, but that we have not had that fear of invasion which other countries have had. We are told that we are fighting to-day against Prussianism, against the regimentation of the people and the imposition of military rule. That condition has come about in Germany from fear, because on either side they have had countries which they feared at any time might be hostile, and their fear of invasion has made the people willing to surrender their liberties to the military party. I hope that that will not come about in this country. So long as we have the Navy afloat, the Navy upon which we have spent our £50,000,000 a year, this land is in no such fear of danger of invasion as should call upon us to surrender our liberties. It was because I felt there was not that necessity for the surrender of liberty that I have opposed this Bill.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is one of the ironies of the situation that the mere handful of Members who object to this Bill should have voiced their views very freely, whilst the great majority of Members who support the Bill have remained silent. It is therefore just as well that at any rate one who not reluctantly, but enthusiastically, supports the Bill should say a word. I do not agree with my hon. Friends in their view with regard to this Bill. I support it not as a mere academic document to give the right hon. Gentleman certain information. It is the preliminary step for the organisation of the resources of the country, and that is why I support it. I agree entirely that if it is to be a document merely for the Local Government Board, or for some museum, we are wasting the money we spend upon

    609
    it. We want to make it an effective weapon for the War. I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Outhwaite), who, I thought, was a civilian, but is evidently a great general—
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Not a conscriptionist like you.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: He has arrogated to himself the functions of a general, because he has said that this country cannot be invaded. I understood him to say that the moment invasion comes he is willing to get ready for it. The time to get ready for invasion is not when invasion is taking place. If we had taken a little more care during the past eleven months, and before, to get ready for this War, we would not find ourselves in the position we are now in. I profoundly differ from my hon. Friends on another point. It is not upon the necessity for the Bill that I rely; it is upon the justice of it. It is for the Government to decide upon the necessity. They are the people who have the information. That is not an argument that appeals to me. My view is that every citizen in this country should do his share in the present great crisis, and if he does not find his way to do his duty and to do his share he should be compelled to do it. We have compulsory education and compulsory taxation. I understand that the leaders of the teetotal party and of the trade unions have been against compulsion. Really, if there are two parties in this House who rely upon compulsion, it is those two sections. They are not content with compulsory teetotalism—
    Mr. J. SAMUELmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: If the hon. Gentleman has anything relevant to say, perhaps he will say it aloud. I do not think a mumbling voice helps in a debate. The teetotalers, of whom I believe he is one—is he a teetotaler?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I know he is. But he wants to pass Acts of Parliament to make other people like himself. That is compulsory teetotalism. As for the trade unionists, how have they built up their organisation?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will tell you. Do not let the hon. Member ascribe to the other trade unions the powers exercised by the legal trade union, to which he belongs.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I belong to a trade union that uses compulsion and force.
    Mr. THOMAS: Exactly, but we are not able to do it.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Oh, oh, peaceful picketing! Surely nobody in this House, least of all labour Members, who know how trade unions are conducted—I do not think my hon. Friend opposite—will tell this House that trade unionism has not used force and compulsion!
    Mr. PRINGLEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Does any hon. Member believe it? The hon. Gentleman opposite does not believe in national compulsory service, and I understand he believes still less in compulsory silence. It is said that this subject is very controversial. All matters are controversial. Is it to be said that only hon. Gentlemen on one side are to be allowed to give their views to the House? I altogether refuse to subscribe to that doctrine. Of course the subject is controversial. Still this Bill is, as I understand it, going to a Third Reading without even a Division. But I want, so far as I am concerned, to make my position perfectly clear. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get this Registration Bill through tactfully—as he always does—and efficiently, and that subsequently the Government will enable every man to see how he can best serve the country at the present time. I believe, and I profoundly believe, that the country is far in advance of the House of Commons upon the subject. The Government underestimates the anxiety in the country. The moment the Government gives a lead to the country the country will follow it. It is because I believe that this is the first step in that direction that I, not reluctantly, but cordially, support this Bill.
    Mr. CLOUGH: I was opposed to this Bill on its introduction, and I voted against its Second Reading. If there is an opportunity to-night I shall be delighted to vote against the Third Reading, and for the same reason as at the very beginning. I am irreconcilable, because I believe the Bill contains the germs or seeds of coercion, of compulsion, and of conscription. I know it is claimed—and it may be justly claimed—that it is a very little seed. But seeds that are sown grow. We have the highest authority for stating

    611
    that a certain seed, "which, indeed, is the smallest of all seeds, when it was sown in the earth grew and waxed a great tree, and the birds of the air lodged in the branches thereof." Historians tell us that the principle of conscription was first passed in the French Parliament. It was introduced in 1798. It was passed against the better judgment of the greatest reformer in France at that time, Carnot, and against the better judgment of a large proportion of the rest of the community. It became law in the autumn of 1798, and it was passed at a critical moment in the history of France. It was passed in a somewhat similar crisis to this, and the cry was that the country was in danger.
    What have been the fruits of that measure? That Act gave power to the French Government which enabled Napoleon to carry out his policy of conquest. It was the means in Napoleon's hands of making him the curse of Europe. That policy of conscription has been perfected in Prussia, where it has been carried out more drastically than in France, with the result that to-day Prussia is the curse of the world. We in 1915 are reaping the evil fruits of an Act of Parliament which was first passed by the Council of Five Hundred in France in 1798. I oppose this measure because I am afraid we are going to allow history to repeat itself. Against the better judgment of the majority of this House we are to-day allowing this principle to be put on the Statute Book. I fear we are in 1915 sowing the seeds of legislation the evil fruits of which will be reaped by our great grandchildren a century hence.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Before this Bill passes its Third Beading I should just like to say how thoroughly I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Griffith) has just addressed to the House. I support this Bill because I think it is desirable that we should have national service both for the Army and military work. Unless we have that we are merely wasting money on this measure. At this time we ought not, in my opinion, to spend money unnecessarily. I believe with the right hon. Gentleman that the country is anxious for national service. I believe that it is the only thing that is going to save the country. I think all of us who hold that view should have the courage of their opinion, and should be prepared to get up in this House and say why they support the Bill.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There are more great generals in this House than the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is a great general. He has got some technical, expert, military views upon the situation. He considers that a certain military policy is necessary, which military authorities and experts at the War Office at the present time do not consider to be necessary. If they believed that universal military service, that conscription, was necessary in the interest of the country, they would be guilty of the very gravest dereliction of duty if they did not say so, and they would deserve a vote of censure moved by the hon. Baronet. We are told by them and by all responsible spokesmen at the War Office and other Departments of State who have spoken on the subject, that there is no need for universal military service or conscription at the present time. For my part I am content to accept their judgment.
    I voted for this Bill, as did the hon. Baronet. I do not say that I would have voted against it if the view of the Government had been that conscription was necessary, and that this was a preliminary to it I quite agree that there might be circumstances in which conscription would be necessary, although those circumstances are not apparent at the present time. I quite agree that if the possibility of the contingency had arisen, and was before one, one should adopt the necessary preliminary measures. I voted for this Bill not because I thought it prepared the way for conscription but because I thought it prepared the way for vast measures of national reorganisation which are immediately necessary—if we accept the possibility of the War continuing for a long time. If so, there must be a large organisation of all the forces of production, and not merely the forces of producing munitions. That is only part of the problem. We must see to it that there is no wasteful production. We must see to it that the producing units of the country are diverted into those channels which are most essential towards maintaining the staying power of the nation. Not only must the producing forces of the nation be organised; but the consuming forces of the nation must be organised. It is possible that there may have to be some restriction upon consumption. There are wasteful forms of consumption, just as there are wasteful forms of production.
    If events develop in a way which is not immediately apparent, we may be faced

    613
    with considerable restriction in our food supplies. We may be faced with high prices. If we are faced with high prices which are due to a shortage of supply, it will not be enough to fix maximum prices. If you fix maximum prices you might encourage wasteful consumption, and that consumption would lead to further shortage, and would land us, not in a shortage, but in famine! Therefore it may be necessary to restrict and control the distribution of food and the consumption of certain kinds of food—and possibly of coal—and in order to do that I think such a Census as is proposed in this Bill would be necessary. It is on that ground that I have supported the Bill. I have not shared the views of some hon. Members that the Bill necessarily involves conscription. Even if I thought that it might be used as a stepping-stone towards conscription by people who are fanatics on the subject, and who desire conscription for the sake of conscription; even then I should not have opposed the Bill, because the Bill itself does not indicate any compulsion or any conscription. It is time enough to fight that subject when it comes up as a practical measure. But there is one thing which I think ought to be remarked about the opposition of some of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Anglesey came in I think, rather late in the discussion. He has not sat through the whole of the Debates on this subject. He introduced rather a new note—a more controversial note than we have heard before. If he had attended the Debates he would have seen that such opposition as there was, and such Amendments as were moved, were not obstructive, nor destructive: they were all helpful. We have had a very handsome acknowledgment from the Minister who is responsible for piloting this Bill through the House, that the discussion right through has been helpful. I think that it would be a welcome change in our discussions since the outbreak of the War if we could have a little more reasonable and helpful opposition. Many of the measures which have been rushed through hurriedly have contained grave faults, which would have been revealed by a searching Debate, and I for one, though I have not taken part in it, and do not share the doubts of some of my hon. Friends, welcome that change of tone in the Debates in this House. I think it will be helpful to Ministers in the great task which they have before them.
    Mr. COWAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has so tactfully piloted this measure through a very difficult House has told us repeatedly, and we heard the same thing from his colleagues on the Front Bench, that there is no idea in the minds of the Government that this Bill would lead to conscription or to organisation of compulsory labour. I do not myself think that any compulsory organisation of labour is likely to be necessary. I do not pretend to be a military authority, but I do pay attention to the opinions I hear from military authorities, and I believe there is a large body of military opinion which holds that it is not probable we shall see the end of this great struggle without national service—without what I am not afraid to call conscription. Therefore, while accepting the assurance of the Government that they do not contemplate conscription, I support this Bill because I believe it paves the way to, and makes possible, the introduction of military obligatory service, which without it we should not be able to obtain in any reasonable time. I regret personally that past Governments have not had the courage to make preparations for such an eventuality long ago. I rejoice that the Government, without apparently the intention to do so, have made preparations for the necessity which may arise. I agree cordially with every word that has fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) on this subject. I agree with the letter he has recently written and published in the Northcliffe Press, which in publishing his letter, at any rate, has conferred a service on the country. I respond to the appeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London; he has said very properly that those who are not afraid of declaring then belief in conscription ought to stand up in their places and say so. I am glad I have had this opportunity of confessing the real reason why I have supported, and do support, this Bill.
    Mr. PRATT: I think it is just as necessary that those who believe in the voluntary system should speak out on this occasion as those who do not believe in it. One would imagine, to listen to the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ellis Griffith), the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that we were gathered here to-night to proclaim a

    615
    funeral oration upon the British system of voluntary service. I do not believe we are gathered for that purpose to-night. How can we speak in tones like that of a system which has done for our country what it has done during the last eleven months? Can we read what has happened ever since the beginning of this War, ever since the retreat from Mons, right up to the reading of Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatch which appeared in the newspapers yesterday—can we see that pageantry of gallantry, all built on the British voluntary system, and talk about it in this slighting way to-night and say farewell to it? It may be that, ere we get to the end of our troubles, we may have to give up many of our most cherished principles; but I, for one, believe, as well as hope, that the voluntary system, which has carried us so far, which has brought a willing response to service from some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of young men of this country and this Empire, which has carried us through the tremendous triumphs of the last ten months—I believe that system will carry us through to the end, and I do believe that, if we were to begin now to talk of changing that system, as some of my hon. and right hon. Friends so lightly do tonight, it would, indeed, prove to be the most disastrous example of swopping horses in the midst of a stream that history has ever recorded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite taunted some of us here because in some things we believe in compulsion we do not believe in compulsion in all things. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself believe in compulsion in all things, although he believes in compulsion in some things? Does he believe that a wealthy and an alien Church should impose itself upon a free people?
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I believe in using compulsion to remedy that state of affairs.
    Mr. PRATT: I am amazed at the constitutional lapse in that reply of my right hon. and learned Friend. The force to which he appeals to deal with the problem to which I have alluded is not the force to which he has alluded. What he is speaking of now is the free voice of a free people, which is quite a different thing from that for which he is asking. He is asking us to force on the people of Great Britain this system of national service. But I have one other fault to find with my right hon. and learned Friend. He said, in the course of his speech, that he sup-
    616
    ported this Bill, not coldly, but enthusiastically, because this Bill would give a lead to the people of this country, and because it was the first step in the giving of that lead. It was said again and again that this was the first step towards the organisation of the people of this country. If he have learnt any lesson during the last ten months, surely it is this: that it is not so much organisation at the bottom as organisation at the top that we want. Let us get things put right at the top. Let the people have confidence in those who have the Government of this country in their hands. I support the Coalition as heartily as I did the late Government for carrying on the War, but I say the people ought to be told much more than they have been by either Government up to the present time. I do say there are mysteries in regard to the situation, echoes of which are in the newspapers this morning and evening, which ought to be made plain to the people of this country. Let the people know that the great and costly machine, the machine that means the blotting out of so much gallant blood, is in strong, firm hands, that our leaders are united, that they are not quarrelling with each other, that there are no intrigues, political or military; let them know that things are right at the top, and they will get a response even greater than the wonderful response we have already got.
    I would remind my hon. Friend that weak things grow weaker still by lengthening. What is the use of adding to the tail when it is the head that needs strengthening? I will take any step to save my country and its liberties, but I do believe in my heart the first step is reorganisation at the top, that we may have more confidence in those who lead us, and my fear now is that the Government have got their eye in the wrong place, that they are thinking at the wrong end. I trust now that they have got this Bill, now that they are going to get more men to volunteer their lives to the service of this country, to follow the gallant fellows who have already fallen on the stricken field, I hope that while reserving in many respects our ancient British liberties, all these great powers they will get under this Bill will be used wisely and well by a united, a wise, and a great Ministry, and that at the head there shall be that strength and unity which will bring an adequate response from the mass of the people.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. LONG: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Perhaps I ought to give the House a short explanation of this Bill. It is not a War Emergency Bill, but is to amend ordinary legislation, which is just as necessary in the middle of a great War. There are certain powers under an Act of 1907 dealing with the notification of births. It is a permissive Act, and local authorities have adopted it to a great extent, so that something like 80 per cent. of the population of this country come under its powers. The present Bill proposes to extend those powers, to make the Act universal throughout the country, and to effect certain ether changes. This Bill proposes also to deal with the health of the children and mothers. The Notification Act necessitates the notification of births of children alive or still-born. We propose to pave the way by this Bill for doing something to improve the health of mothers and young children. All experience of the areas where this Act has been in force goes to show that where this notification is made, and is followed up by a wise action on the part of local authorities or voluntary agencies, the most satisfactory consequences follow in regard to the health both of mothers and children.
  I think the House will feel we are justified in bringing forward a measure of this kind, although not a War measure, because probably at no time in our history was it ever more desirable that we should do everything we could to improve the health of the mothers of our infants, or to make it more and more probable that our infants will be able to resist disease, and be so fed and cared for that they will grow to be healthy men and women. If this House will give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day the effect will be one on which they will be able to congratulate themselves. Clause 2, which deals with one branch of the subject as it stands in the Bill, has not proved satisfactory to our education authorities either central or local, and I have already arranged with the President of the Board of Education for Amendments which I think will meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerset. These Amendments will appear on the Paper to-morrow, and I hope the result will be satisfactory.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am quite sure that in every quarter of the House hon. Members will welcome any Bill which has for its object the reduction of the rate of infantile mortality. It is well known that the statistics vary very much in this country in regard to infantile mortality, and as a student of those statistics I welcome this measure, because I agree that the proposal in regard to notification will draw the attention of authorities to this question, and will do something to save human life, and enable many children who might otherwise die to be reared into healthy human beings. The statistics show that there is an enormous variation between one district and another. Take, for example, Burnley, which has an infantile death rate of 174 per 1,000, and compare it with some rural district where the rate is 60 per 1,000. In the last few years the rate has decreased from an average of about 130 to 108, which is the last figure that has been supplied by the Local Government Board. That shows what can be done by paying attention to this particular subject. I am quite sure that in every quarter of the House, that this Bill, which is intended to diminish infantile mortality, will be heartily welcomed and most warmly supported.
  One other point I wish to refer to is the way in which infant welfare should be attended to by the Departments of the State, There has been some controversy, which I do not think we need go into, between Government Departments in the past as to the way in which infant welfare could be best treated by the State. Speaking for myself, I am anxious to get an assurance by the Government upon this particular point. I wish to be assured that the work that has been undertaken by the Board of Education in connection with infant welfare should not be interfered with by any provisions which may be put into operation by this Bill. In other words, I wish that the excellent work which I believe has been going on under the Board of Education in connection with schools for mothers, nursery schools, crêches, and other arrangements for dealing with children under the age of five shall not be handed over to the sanitary authorities. I rose with a view to justifying to the House the reasons why I think this work should not be interfered with, and that there should be no suggestion in this Bill to the sanitary authorities that child welfare is a subject to be undertaken exclusively by them and not be developed in

  619
  connection with the work, which has been very progressive and undertaken by the Board of Education and by local education authorities in the country. I am anxious not to raise any point of controversy. I recognise that in the Act of 1907 Parliament did insist on certain new powers being handed over to the Board of Education in connection with health work, such as the inspection of children not merely when they came to school and appeared on the register, but immediately before they entered the school, which was insisted upon in that Act. Subsequently, in addition to the inspection of children, the Board of Education were entrusted with powers by Parliament to see that those children were treated in the schools, and provision has been made to enable Grants to be given not merely for inspection, but treatment through the local education authorities.
  We have had great experience in the country in connection with the provision of meals. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the importance of the feeding of young children. The experience we have had in connection with the feeding of infants between three, four, and five years of age in our schools is a very substantial experience, which has been gained by the Department which I formerly represented in this House. The result of that experience is that we have found out, that if you are to avoid waste of public money, it is essential that children should be properly cared for before they come to school, and not merely after they come into the school. It is essential that attention should be paid to the little illnesses of the children before their school life commences. I think we are all agreed that this work should be undertaken, and the only question is which Department of the Government should assist it. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill desires to commit any breach of the truce, but I do feel that on the one hand the Local Government Board work in connection with the subjects which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, such as maternity cases, pre-natal cases, and for children so long as they are being nursed, are matters obviously suited to the Local Government Board. On the other hand, the Board of Education is already inspecting over 150 schools for mothers in the country, over 80 day nurseries, 300 clinics, over 3,000 classes in which housecraft,
  620
  hygiene, and infant management are being taught to girls in the public schools. 1,200 school nurses have been appointed, there are 1,200 school medical officers, of whom 93 are women, and inspectors, nurses, and doctors visit the homes of the children, and it seems to me obvious that this work in connection with infant welfare and infant consultation ought to be undertaken by these experts rather than be handed over to sanitary authorities. The greatest expert in connection with child welfare more than a year ago wrote a letter to me as follows:—
  "The education of the young child should be primarily physical and manual rather than intellectual. Education should take the form of physical, motor and sensory training rather than of any direct appeal to its intellect, which is undeveloped and immature. Education and hygiene are complementary and inseparable, identical in practice. The exercise of a child's functions is its education."
  It is not a question of when a child comes to school or is registered, but it is really a question how you are to treat children even at the age of ten, eleven, or twelve months old. The child's education is a matter which requires a good deal of thought even as to the selection of the best toys and the quality which ought to be used for the benefit of these young children. Their education is then beginning. The point I really want to make this evening is that in this connection we should have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this work, as developed up to the present time, should not be interfered with by the powers which may be taken under the Clause of this Bill which we have not yet seen, and which the right hon. Gentleman says will be placed on the Paper to-morrow. I believe that if there was any attempt made to poach upon the province of the Board of Education, which has been well covered, and which is developing to the advantage of the community, overlapping and extravagance will occur which I am sure we should all deprecate at the present moment. It is with a view of asking the Government to give some assurance on that point that I rose this evening. At the same time I wish to give a cordial welcome to the Bill, which I believe will do a great deal to reduce infant mortality in this country.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Practically I agree with all that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pease). I think everyone will welcome the making of the notification of births compulsory. In the past legislation of this character has not been a marked success, and the making of

  621
  this Act obligatory on all authorities is something to be welcomed. It appears to me that the inclusion of county councils as sanitary authorities is all to the good, and with those portions of the Bill I think there will be practical unanimity and approval in the House. Clause 2 as it is in the Bill appears to me to raise matters more controversial. I know it is going to be altered, but as we have not had an indication of the scope of the alterations I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for some very definite assurance that the new Clause 2 which will be placed on the Paper will not do what he fears it might do.
  Mr. LONG: I said that I was going to propose Amendments to Clause 2 which have the approval of the President of the Board of Education.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: That removes some of the apprehensions which I felt. This is not emergency legislation, and it is much to be regretted that there should be any matter introduced which, from what we have heard, appears to raise controversy as between department and department. I cordially associate myself with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman as regards keeping the matters he mentioned entirely within the province of the Board of Education and the local education authorities. They have for this service a very fine set of officers who, in the matter of child welfare, have practically become a magnificent body of specialists, and now that the Board of Education, with the cordial co-operation of the local education authorities, has had its powers extended so as to take note of day nurses, crêches, school clinics, and the like, and the looking after children up to the age of five, it appears to me that there has been an accumulation of experience which ought not to be lightly thrown aside, and that the Board of Education would be the correct authority to deal with this matter. They take on the children at five, and it would appear to me to be the more natural thing to allow the powers of the Board of Education to develop downwards and to include children at an earlier age than to extend the scope of the powers of the Local Government Board over children with whom eventually at five they cease to have any connection. Therefore this Clause, which I am glad to know is to be subject to the approval of the President of the Board of Education, we may take it will not entrench upon the powers now enjoyed by the education authorities.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: There is no doubt that the functions of the two Departments do touch here. The problem is partly an educational one, and partly one connected with public health, and it is very desirable that the provinces of the two Departments should be defined so that there shall be no overlapping or friction. I will not attempt to express an opinion as to what those provinces should be until I have an opportunity of seeing the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is to put down, but I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the late President of the Board of Education (Mr. J. A. Pease) for what he has done in the way of assisting schools for mothers, because I am sure that a great service has been done by means of those Grants. I welcome this Bill, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has extended the Notification of Births Act to districts where at present it does not apply, and has also gone further and given additional powers for the care of mothers and young children. We must realise the fact that the adoption of the Act in various districts has not always been followed by effective action, and without effective action the Notification of Births Act is really of very little use. There are two reasons why action has not always been taken: One, the doubt there has been as to the powers of the local authorities; and the other the failure to perceive the good results which flow from effective action. The Bill removes any doubt as to the powers, and what has been done by public and private agencies has made clear the extraordinary fruitful field which is really open.
  Voluntary agencies under various names—schools for mothers, and health societies—have really been pioneers in this field, and I think the community is very much indebted to them for what they have done. I hope in any arrangements made under this Act by local authorities and sanctioned by the Local Government Board that care will be taken to utilise the experience of these voluntary societies, to encourage their work, and to co-operate sympathetically with them. Local authorities, I think, would be reluctant to embark upon any new items of expenditure at the present time, and it is therefore all the more important to utilise every ounce of energy that can be put into this work. I am afraid also that the voluntary agencies will not now find it easy to raise money for this purpose. I am sure, however, that

  623
  much can be done in this matter at comparatively small cost. I had an example in my own Constituency of what could be done in the way of saving infant life by a timely use of special milk preparations.
  The powers in the Bill are of a somewhat general and vague character, but, as it is to be amended, I will reserve my observations. I was asked, however, by a large municipality to inquire whether there would be power under the terms of the Bill to erect crêches in or adjoining open spaces. It seems a little doubtful whether erecting buildings for crêches would come within the words. I raise the point now in order that it may be considered, because that municipality was anxious to do something of that kind, and was thinking of applying for powers by a private Bill. One might in ordinary times look a little askance at any proposal to give large powers to spend money without any specific definition of those powers, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right here not to attempt to define these powers. It might give rise to controversy. All you want is to facilitate action by local authorities, and I think we may rely upon the Local Government Board to see that wise action is taken, and also to do their best to see that action is taken. They might do a good deal if they would instruct the local authorities who perhaps are not well informed on this subject. A great deal of progress might be made with general consent, but one has to face the fact that there are questions of policy which will raise controversy perhaps both inside and outside of Parliament before they are settled. We want enthusiasm more than sensationalism in this matter. It is not a new problem which we have got to face. It is a very old one. I do see a tendency towards the treatment of motherhood as a transcendental operation, and people accordingly lose their heads, but I think we may rely upon the good sense of the President of the Local Government Board to direct the action of local authorities in a wise direction.
  Mr. DICKINSON: We all welcome this Bill, and I am certain that it will go through the House practically with unanimity. The real problem will be one of administration, and I hope that the Local Government Board and the Board of Education will exercise all the powers they have to see that the Act is enforced. I rose particularly to welcome Clause 2,
  624
  which I understand is going to be redrafted. I will not discuss the question raised as between the Board of Education and the Local Government Board, but in view of the importance of it may I ask the right hon. Gentleman that we should have some time to consider the amended Clause before we come to the Committee stage. It is very important that we should realise its full bearing, especially as our experience has been that this question has suffered in the past from dual jurisdiction. The grants to these schools for mothers have been held up this year, and they have suffered considerably from the delay. That delay has been due entirely, I believe, to a difference of opinion between the Board of Education and the Local Government Board, and I do hope that it will very soon be remedied.
  I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give us before the Debate closes some idea how far the local authorities can depend upon the central funds to carry out the work which is suggested in Clause 2. As the Bill is drafted, the whole of the expenses undertaken by the local authority will fall on the local rates. I do not think that is intended. I believe that the Government will subsidise to a certain extent, and I hope to a considerable extent, this particular expenditure, and it would facilitate matters very much indeed if the right hon. Gentleman would state this evening whether or not the Grants which have been given, and which I hope may be enlarged, will be continued from the central Exchequer to the local authorities to carry out the work under Clause 2. I hope that he will be able to make some announcement to-night. I see no reason why he should not do so, and from a public point of view it would be an advantage.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am glad that this very welcome Bill has been made to apply to Scotland. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there will be any trouble arising out of departmental difficulties, but I should like some explanation or assurance in quite general terms as to the provision of money in Scotland for the actual working of the Bill, because its usefulness will really depend upon the sinews of war.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I am glad this matter has been brought up. I have had resolutions cordially welcoming this Bill in that it applies to Scotland, because unfortunately in some districts infantile morta-

  625
  lity is very high indeed in Scotland. I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman when he explained what was done in England with regard to mothers, but unfortunately in Scotland a similar Grant was not made. I think there is a Grant of something like £175,000 towards that object in England and Wales, but unfortunately we have had no such Grant in Scotland, and we have suffered very materially from that fact. I am glad to see the Lord Advocate here. Perhaps he will be able to give us some assurance that we shall have a Grant on similar terms in Scotland, because unless we do we shall feel that we are suffering a grievance. There have been, as he knows, several of our Grants reduced, much more so than in England and Wales, and if he will give us an assurance that in this matter there will be an equivalent Grant in Scotland, it will give us very great satisfaction.
  Sir W. BYLES: I have desired this Bill for a long time, and I heartily rejoice that it has been introduced. In the terrible War in which we are engaged, we are destroying human life, young and lusty life, at a fearful rate, and if the House will turn its attention to the saving of human life it cannot be better employed. The terrible statistics of infantile mortality have been a discredit to our nation for a long time. I believe that this Bill will conduce to reducing those statistics, and also to reducing the evil of pre-natal conditions which have actually prevented child-life from coming into being. We have had in this country for some time now a falling birth-rate, and some alarming prognostications have been made as to the ultimate effect of such a condition of things on the nation. Therefore, any step we can take to save young lives and to promote child welfare is the best social reform, and of the most appropriate kind, to which the House can address itself.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: I have a notice on the Paper directed against the second Clause of this Bill, but I am glad to think that my objection has already been taken note of, and I hope that it will be met by the Amendments to be put down. Of course, with everybody else, I am heartily in agreement with this attempt to do something for the coming and the rising generation at this time. There is no work we can do that is better worth doing and more full of promise for the future of our country than preserving and building up infant
  626
  life, but I must say I greatly regret that a Bill like this has been introduced without the name on the back of it of some representative of the Board of Education. The Board of Education has been doing magnificent work for years past, covering the whole field which is in view of Clause 2 of this Bill. No representative of the Board has his name on the back of the Bill. I think that is very unsatisfactory. It is unusual when a Bill like this is brought in for the Minister in charge to confess that friction has arisen between his Department and the Treasury.
  Mr. LONG: I never used the word "friction"; neither did I suggest anything of the kind. What I said was, there had been some misunderstanding, but that was-at once removed. As to friction there has been nothing approaching it.
  Mr. KING: I apologise; and, of course, withdraw the statement. But if difficulties or misunderstandings, or whatever you like to call them, arise between two Departments, it is evident that those Departments have not come to a full and perfect agreement, as they should have done, before the Bill was introduced. I do not want, however, to press this point at a time like the present. But I do, without hesitation, call the attention of the House to this fact: if we want to be united, if we want to get through our work well, if we do not want to spend time upon Amendments and discussions, in Committee, on small detail points, then right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench had better consult with one another, perfectly and fully, before they bring a Bill in.
  So far as I have heard, no one has called attention to the recent report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Board of Education for the last two years. The features of those reports had been education and children's welfare. The whole outlook for education, and the problem of the well-being of the people, has got a new meaning and a new hope of promise, through what Sir George Newman has written and done, and what he has told us. I should like to draw the attention of the House to this fact: that we have here in England an argument which, I think, is perfectly conclusive. It is proved by the facts he brings forward, by the experiments he has worked out. That argument is, that the problem of the child's education depends upon the

  627
  health of the child, and it depends more upon the state of health in which the child is when it enters school than at any other point. The health of the child when it enters school depends upon the upbringing and teaching of the mother, and therefore the problem of education in the first instance devolves on the teaching of the mother and the assistance given to her in the earliest years of the child's life—even in the earliest months and weeks of the child's life—in regard to the question of health and nutrition.
  I will not pursue this at any length, but I would like to call the attention of those bon. Members, who may do Sir George Newman the honour and themselves the good service of reading his report, to the list on page thirty-two of the schools where instruction is now being given to mothers, where infant consultations are taking place, and where infants are received again and again. I am glad to see in the constituency (Fulham) represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher) that there are no fewer than 600 children—infants—whose mothers have received advice and whose cases have been the subject of consultation during the year. I might point also to the magnificent work which is being done in some of our great towns. In Leeds no fewer than 2,000 children, infants under five, have been the subject of consultations during the year, and their mothers have been helped and assisted. In Manchester the number is 1,600, and in Bristol, two wards of which I am proud to represent, there have been no less than 1,200 consultations as to children. It is perfectly evident that the Board of Education has been doing magnificent work.
  I contend that this Bill ought not to have been introduced without Section 2 being in a satisfactory state. I am almost sorry we have the promise of Amendment. I would sooner see the Bill withdrawn and another Bill introduced. I am glad it is introduced so soon after the remarkable speech which Lord Haldane delivered the other day, in which he called special attention to the duty of our country to prepare for the state of things that must arise after the War, and to the fact that, however much we may economise, there are three directions in which it is dangerous to economise too far, namely, upon education, on the health of the people generally, and, lastly and most important,
  628
  on those measures which we take to deal with the constant menace and danger of infant mortality. I am extremely glad, and I am sure hon. Members on all sides are glad, as too must be social workers in all parts of the Kingdom, that an effort is being made by this Bill to deal with a question of such great, vital, and national importance.
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: I only rise to support the Bill in a few words, and to support also the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, that funds shall be provided from the Imperial Exchequer for carrying this Bill into effect. We are all agreed as to the importance of the problem of infant life. I venture to submit that important as that duty is, it is a national responsibility rather than a local one, and, therefore, funds ought to be forthcoming from the Imperial Exchequer wherewith the local authority can put into force this Act. I submit that at this time, more than at any other, it is important that this Grant should be forthcoming. We all know the heavy burden that rests upon the rates through the local authorities making demands to carry into effect Acts of Parliament passed by this House, and I am bound to say that, generally, those Acts have been handed over to local bodies to administer without a fair contribution being given towards the cost from the Imperial Exchequer. Especially in this case is it a national responsibility, and I do hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will arrange that the expense of giving effect to this measure shall be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. We were reminded last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the burden of local rates had become intolerable and must be speedily relieved. We know that what has occurred since has made that impossible. But surely the burden ought not to be increased in the face of that statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get his Bill, and will provide that the expense for giving effect to it shall fall upon the Imperial Exchequer rather than on local rates.
  Mr. LONG: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I will dispose, as rapidly as may be, of the points as to which I have been asked. First, with regard to the Grants-in-Aid which are to be paid in respect of Scotland and Ireland. There is a rule which, so far as I know,

  629
  has never been departed from, that whenever Grants are made in respect of legislation originated in this country, but applied to Scotland and Ireland, the distribution of those Grants follows the invariable practice and is made in due proportion to the three countries. That will be done in this case.
  Mr. PRICE: We were unfortunate when the original Act was passed, in that we got no Grant in Scotland.
  Mr. LONG: I am quite aware of that, but this year the Treasury has made a special Grant—an increased Grant—to meet the expenses of the Act, and I understand that the Scottish Office is in communication with the Treasury. No answer has yet been received, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is giving close attention to the matter. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) made a complaint which was quite a novelty. As one of the students of our Parliamentary system he is fond of discovering matters of complaint which have never been heard of before. I certainly never have heard before a complaint that a particular Minister's name was not on the back of a Bill. When, on the introduction of the Bill, I was asked for the names, I found four there, and it never occurred to me to add a fifth. Had it done so, I should have given the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. I can assure the hon. Member that the absence of that name does not mean any less interest on the part of my right hon. Friend, or that he will exercise any less vigilance over the different proposals of the Bill than if his name were on the back. I am sorry it should be regarded as an omission. As regards the suggestion made by the late President of the Board of Education, I do not hesitate to say, as a very old Parliamentary official, that I deprecate, in the strongest way, and discussion of interdepartmental differences, if any exist, in the House of Commons. The proper place for settling them is outside the House of Commons. I am to blame, and I take full blame, for the misapprehension which the right hon. Gentleman has fallen into. There is no difference between the Departments in that sense. There was a slight misunderstanding, but it was at once removed. My right hon. Friend and I discussed the matter and settled it in a very few minutes, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it will not prejudice the
  630
  interests either of education or of local government, which are entrusted to the care of my right hon. Friend and myself. We will not prejudice them by entering into any discussion here as to the relative rights or areas of the different Departments. This question was settled amicably between ourselves, and the only thing we shall consider, in our legislation and in our administration, is the general good of the community in regard both to education and public health and all other questions in which his Department and mine are associated. Therefore any idea of friction between us will, I hope, be dismissed from the mind of everybody.
  With regard to the establishment of crêches, I do not think there is any power for that under this Bill. With regard to the Grant, as to which a question was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, I may say we have secured an additional Grant from, the Treasury. It is proposed to make Grants-in-Aid to local authorities to carry out expenditure which is approved by the Local Government Board. I was asked when we proposed to take this Bill. In view of the fact that there is an Amendment to Clause 2, which will be on the Paper to-morrow, the Bill, I understand, is put down provisionally for Tuesday, but the Government would not dream of taking it if hon. Gentlemen feel that they require more time for the consideration of the amended Clause. I am inclined to think, when they see that amended Clause, which will give the power suggested to the President of the Board of Education, that they will find it entirely satisfactory. But if, in any quarter, there is a desire for further time, it will certainly be granted, and we shall be glad to postpone the Committee stage till a later date.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Do I understand that the Grant-in-Aid will cover the whole expense of the Bill?
  Mr. LONG: No, not the whole of the expense. But there will be a Grant-in-Aid. So far, as my hon. Friend knows, the greater number of the local authorities in the country have adopted the Act. What we are doing now is to give them an increased subvention. We are doing our best to help them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 12th July.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Eight o'clock till Monday next, 12th July, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  The following petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  TUESDAY.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors.—Petition from Rutherglen, for drastic restriction during the European War.