Commons Sitting of 9 March 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
River Glen Improvement Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 13th April.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Streatley and Goring Bridge Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group A),
Sir William Howell Davies reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 13th April, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Richard Henrik Beamish, of Ashbourne, Glounthaune, in the county of Cork, a Justice of the Peace, and Deputy-Lieutenant of the city of Cork, with Violet Edith Beamish, his wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Beamish's Divorce Bills [Lords.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 23) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Beamish's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time.

Copy presented of Seventh General Annual Report of the Public Trustee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 8th March, 1915, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Wales), 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 149.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Borough of Swindon;
County of Cumberland (urban district of Wigton)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TREATY SERIES (No. 3, 1915).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and Switzerland, providing for the Settlement by Arbitration of certain classes of Questions which may arise between the two Governments. Signed at London, 10th June, 1914. Ratifications exchanged at London, 3rd February, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of November, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for Return "showing the names of all Aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation or readmission to British nationality have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1914, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised or readmitted, including information as to any Aliens who

1235
have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 206, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Cecil Harmsuorth.]

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT, 1914.
Address for Return "as to Orders made by Licensing Justices up to and including the 31st day of December, 1914, under the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914."—[Mr. Cecil Harmsuorth.]
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Address for Return "showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 133, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Cecil Harmsuorth.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate to the House such information as he may obtain regarding the arrangements made by the Ottoman Government for the reception and treatment of wounded and other prisoners of war from the allied armies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Certainly, but I have no information at present.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there are any such arrangements, and has he any means of finding out?
    Sir E. GREY: I have no information. I have practically no means of finding out.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether any communications have passed, either directly or indirectly, between the British Government
    1236
    and that of the enemy with regard to the treatment of prisoners, both military and civil; and, if so, whether any information or assurance has been received as to the proper treatment of British prisoners?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Neil Primrose): The answer to the first part of the question is that communications have passed through the Government of the United States or its representatives. With regard to the second part, His Majesty's Government have now received through the United States Embassy a statement from the German Government on the conditions obtaining at Ruhleben camp. In this connection I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 2nd instant to the hon. Member for Hitchin.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Are the Government now satisfied with the treatment of our prisoners at Ruhleben?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I think there is every hope that shortly arrangements will be made to make the treatment fairly satisfactory.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Has any statement been received as to the treatment of prisoners of war at camps, other than Ruhleben, where civilians are?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: We have had some statement, but I think anything we know on that point will be laid in the Papers asked for by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil).
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask when those Papers will be laid?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: As soon as possible; there has been no undue delay; probably in another week they will be published.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that the members of Ruhleben camp are only allowed 5s. per week of the money sent from this country, although in one case as much as £30 has been sent during the last six months?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I saw one ex-prisoner from Ruhleben camp and he told me they were only allowed 5s. a week; that is my authority.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the hon. Gentleman give any intimation when the Papers will be laid?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I will make further inquiries this afternoon, and let the Noble Lord know to-morrow.

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the text of the Japanese demands from both China and Japan; what is their number; and whether the text of the two documents are in agreement?
    Sir E. GREY: I have only received the text from the Japanese Government, and there is no reason for supposing that it is not in agreement with the one which they have handed to the Chinese Government. The demands are classified under five groups.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from any Foreign Governments any representations or communications on the subject of the Japanese demands to China; and whether the British Government on its part has made any communications on the subject to any foreign Powers?
    Sir E. GREY: No representations have been received, but informal communications have been made by one or two Powers. As, however, the information in my possession is confidential, His Majesty's Government have made no formal communication on the subject to any foreign Government.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain the opinion of the commercial and industrial classes of the community before taking any action in respect to the Japanese demands to China?
    Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government are always glad to receive such opinions, and one or two have already been received from those who have special knowledge of the commercial questions involved.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether the demands of Japan for industrial privileges in the Yangtse Valley will in any way prejudice either existing British interests or the potentialities of British trade development?
    Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government are considering the effect of the demands with a view to safeguarding any British interests with which they may appear to conflict, but I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the importance to the cotton trade of Lancashire of open markets in China, and that there is uneasiness about demands alleged to be made by the Government of Japan on the Government of China for certain exclusive privileges and the acquisition and leasing of territory; and whether he can assure the House that the Treaty signed in 1905 between the Governments of Great Britain and Japan for the preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by ensuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire, and the principle of equal opportunities for commerce and industry of all nations in China, will be strictly observed?
    Sir E. GREY: I am aware of the importance of the matter referred to, and I gather that a certain amount of uneasiness exists in regard to the demands; but His Majesty's Government do not doubt but that the Treaty in question will be observed.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the reason why these demands are being imposed by the Chinese Government?
    Sir E. GREY: All I can say is that the demands are under discussion, and it is not unreasonable, when considerable demands are made by one Government upon another, that there should be discussion. I do not suppose all the demands are being opposed.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that those demands are an infringement of the integrity of China?
    Sir E. GREY: I must refer my nun. Friend to the previous answers which I gave.

  WAR PROFITS.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that the profits from business and industry that are now being made are chiefly due to war contracts and circumstances arising out of the War, and in order to lessen further burdens upon those whose incomes have been diminished or destroyed, he will consider the desirability of imposing a special Income Tax of 20s. in the £ on profits in excess of the average of the three preceding years?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Although I can in no way anticipate my next financial statement, I can assure my hon. Friend that this and all other relevant suggestions will receive careful attention.

  CURED HERRINGS.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the quantity of herring that under ordinary circumstances would have been exported to Norway, and whose ultimate destination would have been Germany, and a great portion of which has been held back from patriotic motives, still in the hands of the curers which should be made use of shortly if the curers are not to be saddled with loss; and whether the Government can see their way to make use of them in providing food for the Services and for prisoners and refugees, or by some other adequate means?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware that the curers have on hand stocks of cured herrings, most of which would normally have been exported to Germany or Russia, and I have lost no opportunity of bringing before the Departments concerned suggestions as to the desirability of utilising them, if found possible, in some of the ways proposed by my hon. Friend. I am not, however, as yet in a position to add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War on the 22nd February.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the concession which has been granted to the herring shipped to Norway is now practically useless, as there is practically no market?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no concession for the moment with regard to shipping to Norway.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to state the result of the experiment which is being tried by his right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That question ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

  COAL (PRODUCTION AND PRICES).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any comparative statement of the production of coal in Scotland and England and Wales, respectively, during the period which has elapsed since the War began and during the corresponding period for the three years immediately preceding?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Particulars of the production of coal in this country during the periods mentioned in the question are not available. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his previous question relating to coal production on the 22nd February last.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the remit to the Committee appointed to consider the question of the increased price of coal extends to Scotland; and, if not, whether, having regard to the urgency of the matter, he will appoint a separate Committee to deal with the Scottish aspect of the question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reference to the Committee leaves it open to them to include in their inquiries the conditions in centres in any part of the country.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the coalfields are only three miles distant from Edinburgh, the price of coal has gone up enormously?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite possible. I have no doubt the Committee will consider that matter.
  Mr. HOGGE: To whom should a request on the matter be made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the request should be addressed to the Committee.

  CHINA (BRITISH TRADE).
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether Germans resident in China have actively encouraged a propaganda amongst Chinese in the Press and otherwise hostile to Great Britain and her Allies; whether a meeting was recently held in Shanghai at which German residents resolved to do their best to injure British trade in China; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent British traders from trading with Germans in China?
  Sir E. GREY: The Germans in China are believed to have acted in the manner described, and I understand that the meeting referred to took place in Shanghai. The Trading with the Enemy Proclamations have been applied by King's Regulations to British subjects in China, and it has also been intimated that transactions with enemy subjects in China which may not be prohibited by the Proclamations are considered to be undesirable.
  Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Germans are boasting that we cannot carry on our own trade without their permission, and that our prestige with the Chinese is being very much impaired?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not seen that particular statement, but, if it is so, it is only in character with other statements made in the same quarter, to which little importance need be attached.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether firms in this country have been doing business with German firms in China since the declaration of War; whether merchandise is being carried for German firms in British ships and financed by British banks; whether some of the principal German firms in China are branches of their head offices in Germany to whom the profits on trading referred to will eventually accrue; if so, whether he will give the names of the firms interested in this trade; and will he use his influence to ensure that the requirements of our Chinese customers are supplied through British firms whose profits, if any, may eventually come back to this country, not to Germany?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The emergency legislation and Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy do not prohibit trading with German firms or branches situated in China. The Board of Trade are, however, doing all they can to encourage the transfer of business from German to British firms in China. I fear I could not undertake to obtain a complete list of all German firms doing business in China or of British firms who may be doing business with them.
  Mr. STEWART: As every German subject in China is subject to the German Consul before whom the merchants have to plead, cannot they be treated as being in the same position as those living in a German enemy colony?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are great difficulties about German firms trading in China, and I fear that they could not be treated as though they were living in German territory.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the opinion expressed in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 31st December, 1914, page 891, that transactions between British traders and German subjects commercially domiciled in China are undesirable at the present time, still hold good; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure that those firms who, in defiance of the above opinion, continue to trade with German firms in China get no advantage over those firms who, in deference to the above opinion, do not do so?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is still the opinion of His Majesty's Government that it is undesirable for British firms to engage in transactions with Germans commercially domiciled in China, and there are reasons for thinking it to be usually disadvantageous from the point of view of the British themselves.
  Mr. STEWART: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to enforce his opinion, and to secure its being respected by firms in this country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would rather not give particulars of the influence that we can bring to bear, but the hon. Gentleman may take it for granted that we do use it.
  Mr. STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the names in the "Journal"?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Home Secretary when he will be in a position to issue the Return promised by him containing a note of the various districts in England and Wales in which the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act have been put into operation up to the present date, and giving in each case the hours of closing?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): This Return will be presented to-morrow and will, I hope, be issued within a week.

  PRIVATE HOUSES AS HOSPITALS (RATES).
  Sir W. BULLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can see his way to arrange that private houses which are lent for the purpose of naval or military hospitals are free of rates while so used?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Local Government Board have no power to take any action of the kind suggested in the question. They have, however, stated in answer to inquiries that, if a local authority in such a case should see fit to exempt such premises from rating, the Board themselves would not in the present circumstances wish to take exception to such a course.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (ENLISTMENT FACILITIES).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Department of Customs and Excise has refused on any conditions to allow any of its men to enlist in the New Army; if so, whether this position is to be adhered to; and will he explain wherein this Department differs from other State Departments where enlistment is permitted, those remaining willingly doing the work, especially in view of the fact that the Government have stated to the House that all possible facilities to enlist would be given to Civil servants?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division of Leicestershire. The reason why permission to serve with the Colours cannot be given in the Customs and Excise Department as freely as in some others is that since the War began the Department has, to a large extent, become a War Department. In addition to its ordinary duties, it has to do a great deal of work in connection with national defence, examination of ships and cargoes, and separation allowances. Retired officers have been recalled to active service in very large numbers, but in spite of this the pressure of work is very great.
  Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that it is impossible for a limited number from this Department to be allowed to serve, without impairing the efficiency of the Service?
  Mr. ACLAND: If the hon. Member means to ask whether a limited number could be allowed to enlist, all the persons in the Department are needed in the Department. If by "limited" he means that some part of their time might be given to military service, that again I think is impossible, because they are already working as much overtime as they can do.
  Colonel YATE: Could you not call up a few more pensioners and others to do the work?
  Mr. ACLAND: They have been called up in very large numbers indeed. There is a limit of age beyond which it is not desirable to call up retired Civil servants.

  LABOUR DISPUTES.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dockers' Union has submitted proposals to the London shipowners for an increase of 2d. per hour in their wages to meet the increased cost of living, and that the shipowners refuse to meet the men's representatives; whether he is aware that the Government Committee recently appointed to obviate disputes during war time has also been approached in this matter, and has replied that it is outside their terms of reference and should be submitted to the Board of Trade; and whether, seeing that the men's union is willing to have arbitration on the questions at issue, thus responding to the Prime Minister's appeal, what steps it is proposed shall be taken to bring the parties involved together with the view of an amicable settlement, or to what tribunal, if any, can the matter be referred?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am glad to say that I have arranged for a meeting to take place to-morrow between representatives of the shipowners using fixed berths in the docks of the Port Authority and of the dock labourers in their employ. I understand that the men will be represented by four of their number and two officials of the Dockers' Union.

  WAR SERVICE BADGES.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether arrangements have now been made for the issue of war service badges to the officers and men of merchant ships which are at present engaged in His Majesty's service; whether he can state the method of distributing these badges which have been decided upon; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of issuing these badges to all such officers and men irrespective of their being of a recruitable age?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Arrangements have been made to distribute these badges to officers and men serving on Government transports, if of recruitable age. The question of issuing the badges to all such officers and men is receiving consideration.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the difference between the amount a man in the Royal Naval Division (Reserve) can secure for his wife and children or other dependants as compared with a man in the Army; whether the bulk of the men in the Royal Naval Division are being trained as Infantry men; and whether, in view of this fact, the Admiralty will so adjust their method of allotment, etc., as to secure equal results to the dependants of the men in the Royal Naval Division as are secured by soldiers who have joined other branches of the New Army?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Men serving in the Royal Naval Division are entitled to Navy separation allowance only, and this is on a lower scale than that in force for the Army. In the cases under reference, generally speaking, the advantage in pay and allowance more than compensates for difference in separation allowances. The only exception, I think, is the case of the married ordinary seaman of the Royal Naval Division not drawing field allowance.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not these men are being trained for Infantry purposes and not directly for naval purposes?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With great respect, I do not think that that is the case. The question has to do with the allowances. As far as the training is concerned, if my memory serves me right, we have already supplied the Fleet with 1,000 men from the Royal Naval Division.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the fact that, although the Royal Naval Reserve was originally recruited for the purpose of supplying vacancies in the Navy, a great number are really being used as Infantrymen? In that case they are not receiving the same allowances as the men in other branches of the Army, and they naturally have a sense of injustice.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already said that, if my memory serve me aright, we have already supplied 1,000 men to the Fleet from the Royal Naval Division. The case which my hon. Friend has in mind is that of a married ordinary seaman of the Royal Naval Division not getting the field allowance. I have said that that is the only exception.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a very difficult case. I will look into it, but I must not be understood to say that we can remedy it.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why a mother dependent on more than one soldier if not entitled to a separation allowance from each?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): A mother dependent on more than one soldier is eligible for a grant of separation allowance from public funds in respect of each, according to the contribution formerly made by each; but the total of such grants is limited to that for a wife. She may in addition receive an allotment from each son.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend explain why the pension officer gives the mother a dependant's allowance as a separation allowance for her son? If it is only confined to the amount of the wife's allowance, is it not the case that a woman with more than one son is really made to suffer because she allows her sons to enlist?
  Mr. BAKER: She may accumulate in respect of all the sums, but not so far as to exceed the total amount of allowance.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is 12s. 6d.
  Mr. LEACHasked if the allowance granted to the wife of a soldier is stopped if her husband is sent to prison for some offence against the law?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Thursday on this subject to the hon. Member for the Prestwich Division of Lancashire, a copy of which I will send him.

  INDIA (ENEMY TRADE).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information regarding the action taken by the Secretary of State or by the Government of India for promoting the capture of enemy trade?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): A series of leaflets has been issued by the Commercial Intelligence Department in India dealing with various industries, and an exhibition of samples of German and Austrian imported goods has been held at Calcutta. It is proposed to hold similar exhibitions at Bombay and Madras. In this country the Secretary of State for India made a temporary appointment at the beginning of November of an officer, under the title of Indian Trade Commissioner, working in touch with the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, to assist in expanding the market for Indian raw materials in the industries of the United Kingdom.

  BAGHDAD (SHRINE AT KERBELA).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any official information showing that the Turkish authorities at Baghdad had plundered the shrine at Kerbela, held sacred by the Shia Mahomedans of India, and taken property worth about £2,000,000 sterling; and, if so whether he can give any particulars?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Reports to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member have reached the British authorities at Basra.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Are these reports considered to be true: is there any information on the subject?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I should hesitate to say that the reports absolutely confirm the truth of the story; but they seem to render it considerably more probable.

  FIGHTING IN ARABIA (CAPTAIN SHAKESPEAR).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the occasion and circumstances of the fighting in which Captain Shakespear, of the Indian Army and Indian Political Department, met his death in or near the territory of the Sultan of Riad, in Arabia?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The fighting to which the hon. Member refers was a tribal engagement between the forces of the Wahabi Amir of Nejd and those of the Shammar Chief, between whom there is a hereditary feud. The former was victorious. Captain Shakespear, who was in company of the Amir of Nejd, was unfortunately killed at the beginning of the action. By his untimely death the public service has lost an able and gallant officer of great promise.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Was Captain Shake-spear at the time on a political commission in connection with the Great War?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Will the hon. Member kindly put that question down.

  SALVATION ARMY.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some 9,000 or 10,000 soldiers, members of the Salvation Army, have joined His Majesty's Forces since the War commenced; whether the Salvation Army has applied to the War Office for the appointment of two or more chaplains to minister to those who belong to that body: whether he is aware that the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have each appointed Salvation Army officers as chaplains and that the reports of their work are in every respect satisfactory; on what ground the application of the Salvation Army to the War Office for the appointment of chaplains has been refused; and who is responsible for such refusal?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have no information as to the number of men connected with the Salvation Army who have enlisted. As a rule, such men declare themselves as adherents of other religious bodies. I am informed that the Canadian Government has appointed one Salvation Army chaplain and that the Australian and New Zealand Governments also each appointed one with their respective contingents. There does not at present appear to be a sufficiently large number of Salvationist soldiers at any one military centre at home to justify the appointment of a chaplain, but the local military authorities have been instructed to afford the Salvation Army all possible facilities for working among their members in the Army. I may add that the Salvation Army have expressed their sincere thanks for the steps taken by the Army Council.

  CENSORSHIP OF MAILS.
  Sir W. BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, during the last few weeks, three ladies have been dismissed from the office of the Censor of Mails for irregularities; if so, whether he will state the nationality of the ladies in question; and whether the information they obtained in the Censor's office is likely to be of value to an enemy or neutral country?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the negative. I gave this answer last Tuesday, but I am afraid that, in answering three questions together, I may not have made the position clear to the hon. Gentleman.

  COMMISSIONS (GAZETTING).
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the public interest and in order to reduce the delay now experienced in the gazetting of commissions he will consider the desirability of simplifying the machinery through which the papers have to pass, either by reducing the number of channels or otherwise?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have carefully considered the various steps taken in dealing with applications for commissions. Every effort is made to expedite matters, but I
  1250
  do not think it is advisable further to curtail the present procedure, having regard to the necessity for the exercise of proper care in eliminating doubtful or unsuitable candidates.

  SCOTSTOUN DEPOT, GLASGOW.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Lord Lieutenant of the county recently reported to the War Office that the Scotstoun depôt, Glasgow, where over 500 men are in barracks, was unhealthy; whether this statement was inquired into without delay by the War Office; and whether the facts were found to controvert the original report sent to the Department?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; a representation from a private individual with regard to the depôt referred to by the hon. Member was forwarded by the Lord Provost of Glasgow to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, but on the matter being investigated the report proved to be based on hearsay evidence, and to be quite unfounded.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether estimates have been taken for the erection of a wooden recreation or dining room at Scotstoun depôt, Glasgow; if so, at what date; were these estimates sent to the head office in Edinburgh: if so, at what date; has anything been done in the meantime to put up suitable shelter for the men during their recreation or have they to occupy a canvas tent; and will he say whether the wooden erection is to be proceeded with or not?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that a wooden dining hut is not necessary, as the men dine in existing buildings. Marquees are used for recreation tents, and building for this purpose is not contemplated owing to the early approach of the camping season.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that estimates were taken for a wooden erection and that they have been under consideration at the Edinburgh office for some months?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not able to say whether or not that was so, but whether or not it was so, a decision has been arrived at that no building shall take place.

  TARTAN (MANUFACTURE).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that enough tartan can be manufactured weekly in Scotland to clothe six battalions; and whether he can say how much greater the demand of the War Office is?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I regret my information as to the manufacturing output of tartan does not agree with the position suggested in the question. In answer to the last part of the question, it was found, on a recent review of the position, that the contractors were in arrear to the extent of sufficient tartan to clothe more than nine battalions.
  Mr. HOGGE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the names of firms who will supply sufficient tartan for six battalions will he give them orders?
  Mr. TENNANT: I shall have to refer that to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I will certainly see that those contractors and others are given due consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the town of Peebles alone the manufacturers can supply weekly, tartans for three battalions?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I was not aware of that; I am very glad to hear it.

  OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  Mr. PAGETasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if leave has been refused to form new corps of the Officers' Training Corps, for instance, Merchant Taylors and Crosby School, refusing to allow existing corps to be enlarged, such as the County School, Cambridge, and reducing existing corps, as in the case of Westminster and other schools?
  Mr. TENNANT: Such offers have been received, but, while the zeal and patriotism which has prompted them is fully appreciated, it is felt that the personnel and facilities for military training in existence should not be used at this juncture for the instruction of persons who cannot take part in this War, and it is considered that present needs are better met by concentrating effort on existing contingents rather than by increasing their establishments or forming new contingents. It is not proposed to reduce any of the existing contingents.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (AMBULANCE MEN).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in consequence of the closing of one of the base hospitals in France, certain ambulance men who signed on for the duration of the War, and who have hitherto been paid at the rate of 4s. per day, have had their engagements terminated at a week's notice, and upon their return to London were informed that they could sign on with either the Military Home Hospital Reserve or the Royal Army Medical Corps at the rate of pay of 1s. 2d. per day; and whether, as the men are all certified ambulance men, he will consider the propriety of continuing to pay them at the rate of 4s. per day?
  Mr. TENNANT: None of the men enlisted into the Royal Army Medical Corps under the terms of special Army Order of the 4th August, 1914, at a rate of 4s. a day have been discharged on a week's notice. If my hon. Friend is referring to men employed in one of the Voluntary Hospitals, I may say that these men were not enlisted but were engaged on a purely civil contract, and paid by the Voluntary Hospitals.

  SOLDIERS' LETTERS (PUBLICATION).
  Mr. LEACHasked if any payment is made to the Government by newspaper proprietors for the letters which appear as from soldiers who are, or have been, at the front in the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.

  INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the hardship imposed upon officers of the Indian Army who have been posted for training duties with the New Army in England, in that they have to pay for their billets and rations, while all the other officers of the same regiment get those items free; whether officers of the Indian Army are charged rent for Government quarters if they happen to be quartered in them, while officers of the British Army are not so charged; and whether steps can be taken to put these various officers on an equal footing in these respects?
  Mr. BAKER: These officers are drawing Indian rates of pay, which are generally much higher than British rates and are consequently being treated under the Indian code, which provides for certain stoppages.

  OFFICERS' PAY.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how the scheme for an immediate increase of officers' pay, which was under the consideration of the Treasury on 16th November last, is progressing; and when he hopes to be able to announce the result?
  Mr. BAKER: The scheme was published in Special Army Order of the 24th November last.

  ARMAMENT FIRMS (BADGES).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the issue of badges is limited exclusively to men employed by the armament firms; and whether he will give directions that they are to be issued to all men of a recruitable age who are employed on War Office work by firms holding War Office contracts?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday on this subject to the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield.

  RELIGIOUS SERVICES (SOLDIERS' ATTENDANCE).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether soldiers are obliged to attend religious services; and, if so, what arrangement is made for those who are not members of the Church of England?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Haggerston on Thursday last.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TERRITORIAL OFFICERS' PAY).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Sectary to the War Office why officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial
  1254
  Force) receive their pay monthly in arrears, while officers of other corps receive pay monthly in advance?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 1st March on this subject to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, a copy of which I will send him.

  FOULNESS ISLAND (FARMERS' TENURE).
  Mr. WILESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the position of farmers in Foulness Island who, owing to the uncertainty of the tenure on which they hold their farms from the War Office, are ceasing to fully cultivate the land, and that, consequently, labourers are leaving the island; is he aware that many of the leases terminate next Michaelmas, and that, unless the farmers obtain an early assurance of a further renewal, this fertile island, which produces large quantities of corn of fine quality, is likely to go out of cultivation and become depopulated; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Notices to quit at Michaelmas next have been served on the tenants of farms recently purchased by the War Office, to enable the Department to deal with the land falling within the danger zone of the experimental ranges. The question of reletting the land after Michaelmas is receiving consideration, and it is hoped that it will be possible, at all events in the case of land outside the danger zone, to allow such of the existing tenants as wish to do so to continue in occupation for another year, subject to such conditions as may be necessary to meet military requirements.
  Mr. WILES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the farmers will receive those notices?
  Mr. TENNANT: They ought to have received them by now; they have been served.

  THEATRICAL SCENERY (TRANSPORT).

    CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: (1) Whether he is

    1255
    aware that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, which carry His Majesty's mails, have recently capriciously declined to carry theatrical scenery or baggage after having done so for the past twenty-five years; (2) whether he is aware that this action prevents the important theatrical companies visiting Ireland; (3) whether he is also aware that there is Irish money, exceeding half a million, invested in theatres and music-halls in Ireland, which, by the action of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, is being seriously jeopardised; (4) whether he is also aware that if the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company continue in their present attitude that practically the whole population of Ireland will be debarred from sharing in the pleasure of witnessing the important theatrical events as enjoyed by the inhabitants of Great Britain; and (5) whether, in view of the fact that the carrying of His Majesty's mails creates more or less a monopoly to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and having regard to their action, the President of the Board of Trade should not give some consideration to the advisability of making the continuation of the present mail arrangements conditional upon the reinstatement of the usual transport facilities?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations were made to me some months ago by the Theatrical Managers' Association with regard to the withdrawal of facilities hitherto given to theatrical companies by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of theatrical scenery on the mail steamer leaving Dublin on Sunday for Holyhead. The Board of Trade have been in communication with the company, but I regret to say the company have not seen their way to restore the facilities referred to. The Board of Trade have no compulsory powers in the matter. The mail contracts are a matter for the Postmaster-General, to whom I will communicate the suggestion in the last of my hon. Friend's questions.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask if my right hon. Friend has any reason to believe that this action on the part of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company has in any way been induced by representations from the Postmaster-General?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; so far as I know, there is no reason to believe any
    1256
    Government Department has actuated the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company in refusing to take these portions of their usual cargo. They have done so of their own free will, I understand.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to give notice that I will raise this on the Adjournment to-morrow.

  OFFICERS' ESTATES (VALUATIONS FOR PROBATE).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman private notice, namely: If his attention has been called to the fact that the estates of officers killed in action between August and December are being valued for probate on the assumption that prices were the same as on 30th July last, whereas most, if not all, Stock had depreciated between that date and the reopening of the Stock Exchange, and will he see that the Stock is valued on the basis of prices ruling at the reopening of the Stock Exchange?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member over-estimates the extent to which the prices ruling on the 30th July last have been taken as the criterion in the assessment of Death Duties during the period from 30th July to 4th January whilst the Stock Exchange was closed. If, however, in any case where independent evidence, e.g., price on sale, was not available, those prices were adopted and their adoption can be shown by reference to date of death or other circumstances to have operated harshly in the light of prices ruling on the 4th January, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would be prepared to consider an application for a review of the assessment.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give a definite assurance that the widows of officers killed in action, or those inheriting their estates, should not be asked to pay on imaginary values that do not exist at all? Is the right hon. Gentleman not well aware that Stocks in nearly every case have depreciated, and will he not give a definite assurance to this House that the lower scale shall be accepted?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This matter does not apply merely to the widows of those who have fallen at the front. It

  1257
  applies to every case of deaths since 30th July, and I propose that the rule should be acted upon in every case.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when it suits the purposes of the Treasury they do not mind going back five years to get the value, and will he make it a few weeks?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I had made it perfectly clear; if not, let me assure the hon. Member that was what I thought was the purport of my answer.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (NAVAL AND MILITARY PAY).
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) asked me a question yesterday which I was not able to answer fully at the moment. Perhaps he will allow me to supplement my reply to-day. It was with regard to inquiries which have been made with reference to the naval and military pay which a certain number of Members of Parliament are receiving. What happened was this: About the middle of January I received an intimation from the Treasury requesting me to ascertain what pay was now being received by nearly two hundred Members of Parliament who are serving His Majesty in various capacities, some of them for pay, and, I believe, some without any pay, and it was impossible, apparently, for the Treasury to discover that, and they requested me to ascertain. Therefore, I instructed the clerks in the Department charged with the pay of Members' salaries to make those inquiries. I ought to add that, so far, no deductions have been made from the salary of any Members, but the question will arise at the end of March. I pronounce no opinion as to whether any deductions are to be made or not, or whether I have any power to make any such deductions, or whether any Department has any power to make any such deductions. I offer no opinion.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether Members of this House are reduced to the position of Civil servants, and that everyone who has accepted salary has vacated his seat?
  Mr. PETO: As this House will not be sitting on 31st March, will it be in order for any deduction to be made from salaries without the House being given any opportunity to debate this subject?
  Mr. SPEAKER: These are some of the difficulties that will arise. I think the House will have to settle it.
  Mr. HEALY: Would it be in order to discuss the matter on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think it would.
  Mr. GWYNNE: May I ask whether the case did not arise last year, when salaries were paid and many Members were serving in the Territorial Force and for six or eight weeks received salary? Did not the case arise then, and was any inquiry or deduction made?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand no deductions have been made at all.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Act.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of applications for small holdings in Scotland, under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act; the area applied for; the number of applicants satisfied; and the area allotted, together with the administrative cost incurred in connection therewith?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Up to 31st December, 1914, there were 5,473 applicants for new holdings and 3,857 for enlargement of existing holdings. The area applied for cannot be stated, because many applicants do not say how much land they want. Four hundred and thirty-four applicants for new holdings and 239 for enlargements had obtained entry by the end of the year, the total area allotted being over 48,000 acres. The administrative expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the financial years 1912–13 and 1913–14 were £20,434 and £32,652, respectively, but this includes the expenditure, not for small holdings only, but for all its varied duties, in regard to which I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reports of the Board. The Civil Service Estimates contain further particulars as to these and also as to the cost of the Land Court. The salaries of the chairman and members of that Court are on the Consolidated Fund.

  Congested Areas (Scotland).
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the potato crop in Harris was a failure last year; that the people in the townships of

  1259
  Geacrob and Lickisto have applied to the Board of Agriculture for a supply of seed which they will pay for at Martinmas; and that the Board of Agriculture has declined to supply the seed and has referred the people to the Scottish Agriculture Co-operative Society; whether he is aware that this work has hitherto been done by the Congested Districts Board and that the duties of that Board have been handed over to the Board of Agriculture; and if, under these circumstances, he will ask the Board of Agriculture to reconsider its decision?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I understand that the potato crop was poor in Harris last year and that the position with regard to measures of relief is as stated by my hon. Friend. The Board of Agriculture did follow the method of the Congested Districts Board in the spring of 1913, but thereafter arranged with the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society to undertake the duty of supplying seed oats and potatoes to crofters at market prices, and made an advance of working capital for this purpose. The Board do not propose to depart from this arrangement, which was intended to meet the results of poor crops such as that of 1914.
  Sir J. DEWAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a sum of over £70,000 allotted to the Congested Districts Board was taken over by the Board of Agriculture and a sum of £25,000 per year earmarked for the congested areas, and that the Board of Agriculture has spent little or nothing during its existence in those areas?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A much larger sum than that referred to by the hon. Baronet has been spent in the congested areas beyond any manner of doubt.

  Beer and Spirits (Production of Materials).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the acreage of land in the United Kingdom now used for the production of material used for the manufacture of beer and spirits?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 4th March to the hon. Member for Hanley in reply to a similar question.

  Singapore Riot.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any further information concerning the recent riot or mutiny at Singapore; and as to the circumstances which led to the loss of life of so many officers and soldiers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I cannot add anything at present to the information which has already been given in the Press and by the Secretary of State for India in another place, but I am expecting a full Report from the Governor, and on its arrival I will consider what further information can be made public.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total sum of money expended by the Government on land, under the Small Holdings Allotment Act, during the last five years?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the money spent by local authorities. The total amount of loans sanctioned for small holdings purposes during the five years ended 31st December, 1914, is £4,358,061, of which £3,581,259 was for purchase of land and £776,802 for works of equipment and adaptation.

  Southern Manchuria (British Trade).
  Sir W. BULLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the amount of British trade with Southern Manchuria for each of the years in this century?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that no statistics on this subject are available.

  Training Ships (Sickness).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what is the number of boys in His Majesty's ships "Impregnable I.," "Impregnable II.," and "Impregnable III." at present on the sick list; what is the nature of the illnesses; and what steps are the Admiralty taking for moving them to more healthy surroundings?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number victualled on board the three ships mentioned at the end of last week was 1,512; there were twenty-six hospital cases and twenty-seven on the sick list, the most

  1261
  numerous being pneumonia. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that the erection of a training establishment on shore is under consideration.

  Osborne Cottage (Sanitation).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, with regard to the unhealthy condition of Osborne Cottage, in which there are now 136 cases of illness, and having regard to the constant state of ill-health among the cadets, and the fact that the college was built over old stable drains and soil soddened with tetanus germs and the prevalency of the complaint called pink-eye, the Admiralty will appoint a commission of medical men to inquire into and report on the case?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There has been no case of tetanus at Osborne, and no epidemic, but only isolated cases of the form of conjunctivitis alluded to by the Noble Lord as "pink-eye" during the last two years. I may say that investigations were held in 1905 by the members of the Medical Consultative Board, together with Mr. Fisher, oculist, and independently by Dr. Louis Parker, the sanitary expert, and again in 1910 by Dr. Louis Parker and Dr. A. E. Russell, F.R.C.P. Practically all the alterations and improvements recommended in the reports of these commissions have been carried out. Further, from time to time other medical men have visited and reported on Osborne. It is not considered necessary to adopt now the suggestion contained in the last sentence of the Noble Lord's question.

BILL PRESENTED.
  CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) BILL.
  "To amend the enactments relating to Customs during the present War." Presented by Mr. ACLAND; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914."
  The House will agree that it is vitally important to this country that we should increase the output and every facility for the output of munitions of war. The duration of the War depends upon it, and I think the success of the War depends upon it. We took powers in the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, to take over and exercise control over any works where war material was being actually produced. We now seek to take powers in respect of works where war material is not being produced at the present time, but which are capable of being used for that purpose. There is no doubt that by organisation it would be possible to utilise a good many works which, at the present time, are turning out engineering material of one kind and another for the purpose of extending and enlarging our output of munitions of war. We are not doing so because we have experienced any difficulty with any individual employer or workmen, but, at the moment, when we propose a very considerable extension on these lines, we think it is better even for the employers that it should be done in obedience to an Act of Parliament rather than at a request from the Government, because those that are limited liability companies especially have to consider their shareholders, and they have responsibilities to them, and they have also to consider their trust deeds and articles of association, and there are diffi-
  1272
  culties of that kind which can only be overridden by the express direction of an Act of Parliament. We have, therefore, proposed to take these statutory powers, not because we anticipate difficulties with employers, but purely and simply in order to enable employers themselves to get over difficulties which they might otherwise experience.
  Therefore, the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce at the present moment is a Bill to extend the powers which we already possess in respect to firms and factories turning out war materials. We propose to extend those powers to firms and factories which are not being used for that purpose, but which we hope to use and use very soon. There was some doubt as to what the position of an employer would be in these circumstances, where he had entered into a contract for the supply of that particular commodity he was turning out. Take motor works, for example. There are several motor works at the present time which are turning out war material, and we hope that many works of this kind will be used for that purpose in the immediate future. Suppose they were under a contract to deliver, say, 1,000 motors. If the Government took over the works for the purpose of making War material, they could not carry out their contract. I believe under the common law they would be exonerated from any liability, but, in order to put it beyond any doubt, we propose to insert a Sub-section in this One-clause Bill for the purpose of protecting them against such consequences and their inability to carry out their contract because they are devoting their works to assisting the Government in the turning out of war munitions. That, I think, includes every point which we propose to invite the House to legislate upon. I should very much like, if the House would consent to it, to get this Bill through in the course of to-day, because we wish to make arrangements at the earliest possible moment for these very large extensions of the arrangements we have made for increasing the output of munitions of war. As I am going to ask the House to do this to-day, perhaps hon. Members

  1273
  would allow me to read the Bill itself. It is as follows:—
  "Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
  1.—(1) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914 (which gives power to take possession and use for the purpose of His Majesty's naval and military services certain factories or workshops or the plant thereof), shall apply to any factory or workshop of whatever sort, or the plant thereof; and that Sub-section shall be read as if the following paragraphs were added after paragraph (b):—
  (c) to require any work in any factory or workshop to be done in accordance with the directions of the Admiralty or Army Council, given with the object of making the factory or workshop, or the plant or labour therein, as useful as possible for the production of war material; and
  (d) to regulate or restrict the carrying on of work in any factory or workshop, or remove the plant therefrom, with a view to increasing the production of war material in other factories or workshops; and
  (e) to take possession of any unoccupied premises for the purpose of housing workmen employed in the production, storage, or transport of war material.
  That is a difficulty which we have already experienced in regard to some of our arsenals. That point seems to have been forgotten. It would increase the output if we could house the workers in that particular neighbourhood, and it is absolutely necessary that we should have those powers.
  (2) It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any person of any contract is interfered with by the necessity of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of the Admiralty or the Army Council under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, or this Act, or any regulations made thereunder, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceedings taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference.
  1274
  (3) In this Section the expression "war material" includes arms, ammunition, warlike stores and equipment, and everything required for or in connection with the production thereof.
  2.—This Act may be cited as the Defence of the Realm (Amendment), No. 2, Act, 1915."
  I trust the House will enable the Government to get this Bill at the earliest possible moment, in order to enable us to proceed with the plans of the War Office and the Admiralty in order to increase the output of munitions of war.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Attorney-General kindly gave me a copy of this proposal yesterday, and I have, therefore, had an opportunity of considering is. I wish to say at once that the powers which are now demanded are probably the most drastic that have ever been put to any House of Commons. They enable the Government to go to any factory and tell them what they are to make and what they are not to make, or to go to any factory and tell them that their machinery is not being employed to the best advantage, and that we are going to take it away and use it for another purpose.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For war material.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: They are tremendous powers and powers which, if abused, would do incalculable harm to the industries of this country. If they were abused even from want of consideration—which I do not expect—or through not completely understanding the circumstances of the factory, they would do great harm. At the same time, I am not prepared to offer any opposition to the proposal of the Government or even to the suggestion that it should be carried through in the rapid way the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. I have said before in this House, and I think strongly that, in a crisis such as that which exists now, there is only one thing we can do: We have got to make the Government more or less dictators and to trust them to do what is wise in this matter and give them full power to use to the utmost all the resources of the country, including the industrial resources. I say, without hesitation, that there is one point which I have not looked into which I think ought to be considered, and that is the question of compensation. Perhaps it is dealt with in the previous Act. If so, I have nothing to say, but

  1275
  before we come to the Committee stage I do think that we should make sure that the powers are not being used unfairly and that proper compensation will be given if the powers are exercised. I say that we are all ready to give the Government the powers for which they ask, but I feel it right to say that this Bill, more particularly the way in which it is being introduced, does cause me a great deal of anxiety. We have been sitting now for two months, we have not been very busy, and the fact that the Government come on almost the last day of these sittings and ask us to rush it through in this way suggests that even the most vital things are being done in a casual way which does cause some ground for anxiety. That, at all events, is how it strikes me.
  There is a more serious side even than that. I said, speaking in this House last Monday, that I had some doubt whether in one respect the Government were doing everything that they could to end this War. I expressed the doubt—I had no knowledge then, and I have none now—whether we had a shortage of ammunition or of other munitions of war, and I said that if after seven months of war in a country like this, which is the greatest manufacturing country in the world, and where there is immense power of adapting one form of manufacture, to another, there was that shortage, then I did not think that the industries of the country had been used to the greatest advantage. I cannot understand why, if this Bill is necessary to-day, the necessity for it could not have been foreseen in August or September, and why it should not have been introduced then. I hope that the Government will give me credit for believing that I do not wish to embarrass them and that I am much more anxious about what can be done now than about what has been left undone in the past; but I do think that we have not mobilised the industries of the country in the way in which it was possible to mobilise them for the purposes of this War. Let me, if the House will permit me to do so, give an account that was given to me by a French friend of the way to which the industries of France were mobilised at the outbreak of War. The whole country was divided into districts, and every factory in each district was considered from the point of view of the use to which it could be put for supplying munitions of War. The result has been to
  1276
  my knowledge—at least I was so informed—that they have been increasing the output of high explosive ammunition, for instance, seven times. Works not in the least adapted for it were at once turned to that purpose, and I am informed—I can repeat it, because it was not told me officially—that the Renault Motor Works in Paris are turning out something like 3,000 rounds of high explosive ammunition per day. I see no reason why the same thing could not have been done in this country. If there is going to be any shortage of this kind of thing, and if the Government are going to depend to an extent which is not necessary on what we can buy from other countries, then—I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels it as strongly as I do—we are really running as great a risk of failing in this War as if we made every possible mess in the conduct of our Fleet or our Army. It is not enough for the Government to take these powers; what they have got to do is to utilise them.
  I am going again to repeat an old complaint which I think is well founded, and that is that the Government have not utilised and are not utilising now the organising capacity of the business community of this country to get the best results in cases of this kind. The complaints I have hitherto made have been in regard to waste of money. I think even now that the waste of money is of some importance, and it will be of big importance when the War is over. But, after all, that is not the main thing. The question we are considering now is far more important than the waste of money, and I at least am convinced that- if the Government attempt, either through the head of the War Office—I have shown by what I have said in the House that no one has greater admiration for Lord Kitchener than I have or a greater respect for the services which he has rendered his country—or merely through ordinary officials to utilise this industry we will not get the best results. In my belief the only people who know from experience and training what can be done by our manufacturing industries are the people who are connected with them; and, if I may, I would like to correct what from conversation I believe to be a general feeling among Civil servants and among politicians. The feeling is that if you employ a business man engaged in the trade, he will try to make money for himself and his friends. That is a natural

  1277
  feeling, but I think that it is wrong. I am sure that if you simply deal with them as merchants they will try to make what they consider to be a reasonable price, but what other people may consider to be more than a reasonable price, but, on the other hand, the one thing of which I have been convinced in the whole of my experience through life is that if you trust people in nine cases out of ten they will not betray you; and in the same way, if you will take into your confidence the people connected with the manufacturing industries of this country and tell them what you want, I believe that you will get better results and that you will find that you will get them at less money. I think that it is a pretty strong thing to ask us to rush this Bill through in one day; yet since the Government are going to act upon it, I think that we should give them what they want and allow it to go through in that way.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill is brought in under "the Ten Minutes' Rule," and I must assume, for the purposes of order, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was one in opposition to the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, and the Attorney-General. Presented accordingly, read the first time, and ordered to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the Second Reading, I would like to say one word by way of reassuring the House after some of the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It certainly is not proposed to run this without full consultation with all manufacturers. The idea is that they should be summoned together, and summoned together in their district, and that we should take them into consultation. It is possible that we could get a business man at the head of the organisation. We are on the look out for a good, strong business man with some go in him who will be able to push the thing through and be at the head of a Central Committee. Then we propose to take all the manufacturers concerned into full consultation. We do not anticipate any real difficulty, but still it is much better to do
  1278
  as this Bill provides in the event of some manufacturer proving refractory and making it very difficult for others to come in because he stops out. We propose to organise the whole of the engineering community for the purpose of assisting us in increasing the output, and I am perfectly certain we are going to get the assistance, the willing assistance, of them all. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when we appeal to their sense of patriotism, they will respond. When we point out to them that it is not a matter of profit but a matter of the urgent need of their country, I am sure they will render every assistance in their power.
  Mr. HODGE: The speech of the Leader of the Opposition is an illustration of how trustful we are, as far as the Government is concerned, in the promotion of these Bills. We on these benches ought not to be very much concerned at the rushing through of Bills of this character because it gives effect to the contention of many of my Friends regarding collectivist effort. I am conscious of the fact that the Government have already taken over works which are engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war. I also know there are various other firms which are extremely anxious, from patriotic motives, to help the Government. I had an interview only the other day with a large firm who are very anxious in that direction. They find that men are so scarce that they have asked us to enter into arrangements with them so that the men should work twelve hours instead of eight, and thus not only help the firm but also help the Government. The men have very readily responded to that request. While, gene rally speaking, we approve of the desire of the Government to do what they propose to do in this Bill, may I say, as evidence of its necessity, that within a mile of this Chamber there is a large engineering establishment which could be employed in the manufacture of munitions of war, but which is busily doing nothing but manufacturing printing pressed. When one considers the general cry there is with regard to the lack of skilled artisans who can assist in turning out the armaments necessary for the defence of the country and for the arming of the men in training, that state of affairs is a disgrace to the people responsible, and it emphasises the point made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to trained business men being brought together for the purpose of helping the Government in this particular

  1279
  direction. May I go a stage further, and say it is as essential that representatives of working men conversant with these things should be consulted as that business men should be.
  There are one or two dangers connected with this matter which I desire to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Assume that certain works are taken over where hitherto the conditions with regard to wages have not been up to the standard of the district. In the event of the Government taking these works over, will they see to it that the wages are at once brought up to the standard paid by the surrounding competitors? That is very essential if there is to be that harmony in these particular works which ought to exist. I should like the Government to do it without too much red tape. I am sorry to say that at the present moment a great deal of the unrest and agitation amongst the workers engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war is due, not only to red tape, but to unconscionable delays in settling differences. I can speak from personal experience on this point, as two months ago I made a complaint about a Leeds firm who were not complying with the Fair-Wages Resolution of this House, yet nothing has been done to compel that firm to toe the line.
  I could give various other instances, but that is one simple demonstration of how unrest is caused. I know that those responsible for guiding working men have had an immense amount of worry and trouble in keeping men at work, and hon. Gentlemen will, I am sure, accept my assurance that there is not one of us on these benches who has not, from purely patriotic motives, been doing everything that is possible to minimise these troubles and to urge upon the men that it is not right because an employer does wrong that they also should do wrong. We have tried to impress upon them the necessity for realising that their wrong-doing is going to cause injury to their comrades who are at the front. I hope, therefore, that when the Government take over these works they will show a little more energy and a little more speed in reconciling any differences that may arise. I trust, also, that what I have said will impress itself on the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the difficulties I have mentioned will be met in the way I have suggested.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I fear it will be found that the Bill is somewhat defective so far as breaches of contract are concerned. Every manufacturer in the country is, at some time or other in the course of his trade, dependent on engineering shops, and I think there should be some provision in this Bill so that, where there is a genuine defence, an action for breach of contract should not be commenced in face of the fact that the Government have taken over the works. On the other hand, the ordinary customers of the works are also entitled to some little protection. It may be that only a portion of the works may have been taken over. The customer may have ordered goods as from 1st of March, whereas the works may not have been taken over until the 1st of April, and, in a case like that, it might be that an unsatisfactory excuse for non-fulfilment of contract might be put forward.
  4.0 P.M.
  Questions as to breach of contract will inevitably arise out of the passage of this Bill, and I fear that the Government have scarcely given that point sufficient consideration. I would suggest that when any shops or works are taken over by the Government they should be scheduled in some Government Department, and that persons who have had business transactions with the shops or works shall be able to learn when the shop or works were scheduled, at what date they were actually taken over, and until what date they were required. If they are not taken over for the whole duration of the War the customers should be entitled to say, "You are only taken over for a certain period, and you did not begin on my job in proper time." These are matters which are likely to lead to a great deal of litigation if the Government find it necessary to take works over to any great extent, and trouble will arise unless some definition, such as I have suggested, is laid down. I would, therefore, suggest to the Government the insertion of a provision for scheduling the works, showing the date upon which they have been taken over and the probable duration of the time they will be required. With regard to works generally taken over, if contracts are broken the person whose works are taken over ought not to be subjected to litigation such as might arise without leave being obtained for it. It would be a monstrous thing if the Government seized certain works and some customer—everybody is not reasonable—should have power to launch an action for breach of contract. The person

  1281
  so attacked should have the power to take the writ off the file, or the Government ought to provide that litigation should not be commenced against a person whose works were taken over. As the Bill is necessary I do not oppose it, but on the legal side some further consideration is necessary.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his decision with regard to the passing of this Bill though all its stages this afternoon. The Government cannot complain of the attitude of the House in regard to rapid legislation, for it has been very acquiescent. There is a certain danger in absolutely blindfold legislation, and it is quite impossible to appreciate the far-reaching nature of a measure of this sort by only listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow us to have the Bill in our hands and to pass it through the remaining stages to-morrow, we should be able to appreciate much better the extensive character it seems to possess. One of the results of the Bill, so far as I can see, would be that in all the works that are taken over by the Government the employés would be placed under military law.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, there is certainly nothing approaching that. I read the Bill out and there is not a single provision in it which would justify that statement.
  Mr. PONSONBY: It was very difficult to follow exactly, but it appeared to me that the employçs would become Government employés. There may be a certain amount of misunderstanding on points of this sort, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if twenty-four hours' notice could not be given, so that we may have the Bill again before us to-morrow.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I did not intend to oppose the Bill for two reasons, first, because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has given it his sanction, and, secondly, because I do not quite know what the Bill does. But I do wish to raise a protest against this method of bringing in legislation. The right hon. Gentleman could perfectly well have made the speech he has made to-day at the beginning of business yesterday. Then the Bill could have been printed yesterday, we could have seen it to-day, and it could have gone through all its stages. It is quite impossible for any Member of this House listening to what the right hon.
  1282
  Gentleman said—I am not saying he did not speak clearly or that he did not put the matter properly before us—but it is quite impossible for anyone, even a trained lawyer, to grasp from the speech he made what is really the effect of the Bill until he has seen it in black and white. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been sitting here something like five weeks. We have generally gone away early. I do not complain of that, but surely we had plenty of time to consider proposals of this sort. If it was so urgent, there was nothing to prevent the Government yesterday, or the day before, giving us notice of it and letting us see the Bill. We have been at War for seven months, and apparently the Government, have suddenly woke up to something which is of vital importance, yet they cannot tell us what is in the Bill except in a speech from a Minister at the Treasury box. We are to pass a Bill which deals with the livelihood of all sorts of people, with capital and all sorts of things, without in the least knowing what is in the Bill. My right hon. Friend said he thought there ought to be compensation for those whose works or factories were taken from them. Perhaps by error the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have forgotten if anything was contained in the Bill on that question.
  My right hon. Friend has given me a copy of the Bill, and so far as I can make out it says that not only may the Government take over the factory for the purpose of managing the work they are doing, but may close that factory in order that other factories may do the work. There is nothing said in the Bill about compensation. In the short time at my disposal I have looked at the Defence of the Realm Act which was passed in September, and the second Defence of the Realm Act which was passed in November, and there is nothing about compensation in either of them. Therefore, what may happen unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an Amendment in Committee, is that a man may have a factory taken away from him, not for the purpose of working it, but in order that work may be done somewhere else, and have his means of livelihood taken away from him, without my compensation at all being given. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to take all the stages of the Bill in one single day, he ought, at any rate, to have brought the Bill in in such a form that it did not require amendment. I wish to make a very earnest appeal to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will

  1283
  agree that on this side of the House, from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition down to the newest Member here, we have done all we possibly could to assist the Government. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he is going to take manufacturers into his confidence. Might not the Government take the House of Commons into its confidence and show that it really trusts in the House, and let it see the Bill the authority for which the Government ask. It is a little hard that we should be asked to abrogate our position altogether. It would be much more simple to say to the Government, "You are in power; we are at war, we have confidence in you; do anything you like. We will give you a one-clause Bill under which, during the continuance of the War, the Government can do anything it likes." Then we could all go away. But if we are to come down here and to be told there is a Bill we must pass without knowing anything about it, that is treating the House with disrespect, and is not recognising the patriotism of the Opposition when we are doing what no Opposition has ever done in the history of this country.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will facilitate matters if I reply at once to one or two things that have been said with regard to the time the House of Commons wishes to devote to an examination of the Bill. If there is a real desire to see the Bill first of all in print and to examine it before it is passed, I shall certainly assent, so far as power lies with me, if we are able to get the Second Reading to-day, to putting it down for the Committee stage tomorrow, but I hope that to-morrow the House of Commons will see its way to put the Bill through its remaining stages. With regard to the question put to me as to wages by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), the moment the factory is used for any Government work the usual Fair-Wages Clause will apply. That is the answer to my hon. Friend. As to the question of compensation, that is entirely in the same position as any other power given under the Defence of the Realm Act. If the hon. Baronet will look through that Act, he will find that very much more drastic powers were taken there than any of the powers we propose to take here. There are powers with regard to houses and lands; there is power to close public-houses, and nothing is said in the Act about compensation. It
  1284
  is not that compensation is not contemplated. On the contrary, the War Office is making arrangements to pay compensation in all these cases, although it is not mentioned in the Act of Parliament. But the War Office cannot be embarrassed at the present moment by having 5,000 or 50,000 cases of compensation to be adjudicated upon by the Courts. Therefore, a more summary method has to be devised of paying compensation than that adopted by the ordinary course. There is certainly power to pay compensation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Under what power is it paid?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under the Vote of Credit. The Government have full powers to pay it. For instance, in the case of farmers the land is torn up, outhouses and buildings are destroyed, and some people's buildings have been completely swept away and their houses completely destroyed. Of course, there is no provision such as that for arbitrations under the Land Clauses Act. It is utterly impossible to conceive that the War Office should deal with that method of compensation. The methods adopted for compensation must be much more simple than under ordinary conditions. That is what we propose here. We do not propose that you should sweep away the whole of a man's interest in his factory and machinery, close his works and deprive him of his income and yet give him nothing in return. If we put in an Amendment of the kind suggested by the hon. Baronet, that would mean we should have to set up some sort of tribunal and have litigation, with which the War Office could not possibly deal at the present time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not suggest any Amendment. I merely suggested that compensation should be paid, and that the Government should have power to pay the compensation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not necessary at all to have an Amendment. There is no power taken in the other Acts. We are advised that we are entitled to pay compensation to farmers and others for what is done under the Defence of the Realm Act. We are advised we have full power under the Vote of Credit to pay. If it is necessary to have any Bill at all, it much be something more than this, and must deal with all cases where property has been interfered with by the War Office. I must say this word for the War

  1285
  Office. Complaint is being made that this is being rushed at the last moment. The War Office and every Government Department has been overwhelmed with work. It is not that we have been careless, negligent, or indolent, and that we are rushing this Bill in at the last moment. An enormous number of questions have been considered. This matter has been under consideration for some time, but I could not get this Bill until last night. That is not because anybody has been careless, but because everybody connected with it has been absolutely overwhelmed with work. I would ask the House for some indulgence to the War Office, especially under these conditions. That is the only explanation of the fact that we are asking the House, at the last moment to consider this Bill instead of introducing it later. If the House of Commons prefers to see the Bill in print, I hope they will to-morrow enable us to get the Bill on to the Statute Book.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the announcement he has and that he proposes to take the Bill to-morrow, because really it was very difficult to understand why the pressure should be so great and should arise so suddenly as to make it necessary to adopt this very strange procedure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to us what is really a very important announcement. He entered a plea for the War Office. I am sure no one desires, either on this or any other occasion, unduly to criticise the War Office, and certainly no one is likely to ignore the fact that throughout this War they have been charged with labours of the most stupendous character, but if it is true, and I am sure it is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, that one cause for this action is that the War Office are so overworked that they have not been able to bring this particular matter forward before, the reason for it is very largely that the War Office itself—and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a suggestion or two to them, because it would come with very great force from him—have had abundant opportunities of doing that without which they will never overtake their arrears, which will go from bad to worse. It has been suggested in this House, and it has been pressed upon them by representatives of town and country, and they have had abundant offers; but for some extraordinary reason they cling with the most remarkable tenacity to every detail of their work, and
  1286
  the result is that they are clogged and over-borne with work which they cannot do, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the state of things which he has described as existing at the War Office—namely, that they are so overburdened with work that matters which he himself describes as being of vital consequence fall into arrears, will become worse rather than better unless they avail themselves of the only possible method by which they can avoid this condition of things and adopt—as they could adopt to-morrow if they liked—one comprehensive system of devolution under which the work would be at least as well done, and would be done more promptly, and which would bring to the assistance of the War Office local knowledge and experience which will be of great value.
  The right hon. Gentleman has made an announcement in regard to compensation. Really, here we are not unreasonable. I do not think the Chancellor knows that the War Office have made communications upon this subject of compensation, and it was because of our experience in the matter that it was found necessary to raise it on this Bill to-day. The War Office have informed people who have made claims for compensation—at least I say this on information which I have received; I have not got it on me, of course, but I have received it from a variety of sources, and most reliable ones—and whose property—I am really not exaggerating—has been absolutely ruined by the erection of camps, and work consequent on their erection, that compensation was not legally payable.—I am not quoting the ipsissima verbe, but only the sense—but that as an act of grace the question of compensation will be considered. That is entirely different from the important announcement which the Chancellor has just made. He has told us, and we all agree with him, that in a moment like this, when we are at war, you could not approach this question of compensation as you do in the ordinary way. To invoke the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts and all the rest of the procedure would be absurd and ridiculous. We do not ask anything of the kind. We do not ask anything which would delay the War Office. What we ask is that the principle shall be recognised and if necessary laid down here that where, in the interests of the State, you take a man's property or do definite injury to him, you shall give him fair compensation, not as an act of grace but as a matter of right.

  1287
  If there has been not only doubt about this matter but considerable dissatisfaction, it has not been due to us or to any negligence on our part—we have acted with great patience—but it has been due to the fact that the War Office, whom the right hon. Gentleman has cited today, have themselves told people in the country that, under the Acts to which he referred, they are not bound to pay compensation. He has to-day given the full weight of his authority to a totally contrary view. I do not seek now for a moment to press him any further. I am a very firm believer in never pressing those who are willing fairly to consider your request beyond a certain point, therefore I am not going to press him to go further now, but I hope he will satisfy himself—the Attorney-General can very easily do this, no doubt, for him—that the Defence of the Realm Act and the other powers which the Government possess give them full power and authority to pay fair compensation where it has been found that injury has been done, and I hope also that, although we fully recognise the inevitable delay consequent upon the press of business, some of these cases of compensation may be expedited. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I know of cases where ground has been taken for camps. Here the War Office are really to blame. They have taken their camp and made their roads and approaches afterwards. The result is that double and treble the damage has been done than would have been done if they had gone to work in the ordinary way. For this they really ought to pay the individuals whose properties have been practically destroyed, and the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day that that is their intention and that they have got the power to carry it out, and I know him well enough and the House knows him well enough, to be quite certain that having said that, if he has not got the power he will ask Parliament to give it to him. We take it from him that this question of compensation is to be dealt with and I welcome that announcement—it is the first time it has been made—and I thank him for it, and it will give a very great deal of satisfaction to a large number of people in the country who, up to the present, believe they have suffered under a very real grievance.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEARCE: In acquiring factories there is certainly a series of
  1288
  questions which present great difficulty. Some large factories, for instance, are making a number of articles. The Government require one part of their plant only, and not the rest. Are the Government going to take power to take the part they want and leave the other loose? If so, it will be a great hardship upon certain people, because, although only one portion of the works is required for Government purposes, the whole system overlaps and dovetails. To take one part of the plant out of the factory puts all the rest to great disadvantage. In regard to the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) in the case of the Government acquiring a factory to work a contract, what is going to happen with regard to the contracts that the factory possesses? I know factories which may possibly be acquired under this kind of legislation which will have almost hundreds of contracts running, and all their customers will have a claim at law against them for non-performance. Is the responsibility for settling with these customers to lie upon the manufacturer or is the Government generally going to take powers so that the whole thing shall be cleared away and proper compensation paid? Of course, I understand it is not possible for the Government to say precisely what they intend to do, but it is important that they should have full power to meet every case of hardship arising out of the two causes I have indicated.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take this opportunity of not only inserting a Clause as regards compensation, but of inserting a Clause—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us not only that compensation will be paid, but on what system he is going to pay it? At present, so far as acquiring land for camps is concerned, the system has been, I understand, that the War Office has sent down assessors to decide whether they will give compensation, and, if so, how much. I asked a question yesterday as to whether some different tribunal could not be set up by which either an arbitrator or a judge or someone else could sit, and the party whose land had been taken could appear and the War Office could be represented

  1289
  too, because it is obviously a very un-English proceeding for the War Office to act both as defendant and as judge. Certainly in a case like the present, in taking over a man's business and his livelihood in the same way as taking over a farmer's business, it is only fair that a man should have the right not only to compensation, but of having the amount of compensation settled by some independent person. It has been arranged during this last week in the case of horses which were commandeered that the owner of a horse should have the right to appeal to the County Court judge if he was not satisfied with the amount awarded him by the War Office. The Attorney-General brought in the Clause himself.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. GWYNNE: In spite of the stress of war in which we are living now the right hon. Gentleman thought it important enough to bring in a special Clause to reform it. If it is necessary in the case of a valuable horse to give the owner an opportunity of appealing, surely it is much more necessary in the case of the livelihood either of a farmer or of a manufacturer! I feel sure that no Government can justify the contention that they can take a man's property and be the judge of how much they shall pay for it. Although we are all anxious to give any powers which are really necessary, I hope the House will see that rights to which every individual is entitled shall be upheld, and that the Government will give some undertaking that a third party shall decide how much compensation shall be paid.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has happily given way as regards one day, and I will ask him whether he could not possibly see his way to give way for a day more. If we take the Second Reading to-day, it means that no discussion on the general principle of the Bill will be possible on the Committee stage, and it would be impossible really at such short notice, and with the Bill in the hands of Members only a few hours before the Committee discusses it, to frame Amendments which will be necessary if we are to protect the interests of various people. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation which has yet been proposed. It will affect vital interests in every part of the country, and it is only fair that persons whose interests are going to be
  1290
  affected so vitally should have an opportunity of considering Amendments which it is necessary to put down. If the Second Reading is taken now, and Committee tomorrow, it will be quite impossible to frame those Amendments, and I would therefore ask if my right hon. Friend could not see his way to postpone the Second Reading until to-morrow and the Committee stage until the day after.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: My information coincides with that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) that the War Office regards this matter of compensation rather as one of grace than of legal observation, but I would go a little further than my hon. Friend did. I entirely accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assurance that it is intended in these very hard cases—and some of them will be very hard—to pay reasonable compensation, but does he think it quite fair to leave the decision as to the amount of that compensation entirely in the hands of either the War Office or the Admiralty? I do not think so. No doubt they will try to be reasonable. One knows that in many cases those who receive compensation are not always satisfied with the award, and there will be no difficulty and no delay arising from the fact that some kind of appeal is allowed, either to the County Court judge or some other authority. In the case of a person who is not satisfied that due compensation is awarded to him, I do not see why any Government Department should be regarded as infallible in a matter of that kind.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I ought to have explained that. The War Office do not intend to adjudicate upon this themselves. I have had discussions with the War Office. The intention is to set up what will, I think, be regarded as a perfectly impartial tribunal of men who are versed in this kind of matter. The difficulty is to find someone who is prepared to give the time for the purpose. It will not be a soldier or a sailor, but a man who will have some acquaintance with this kind of problem.
  An HON. MEMBER: Not a lawyer?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It might be a lawyer. I should be very glad if Lord Parmoor's Committee could take the matter up. They are perfectly prepared to undertake the compensation in Hartlepool, Scarborough and Yarmouth, but to undertake this question of compensation here would involve the whole of their time

  1291
  being devoted to it, and the difficulty is to find someone who can be regarded as perfectly impartial to adjudicate upon this matter. I think the House of Commons will not force any County Court litigation at this juncture upon the War Office. I should be very happy if anyone could give me suggestions as to names. We want someone who will command the confidence of everybody to undertake this task on behalf of the Government, the War Office, and the Treasury. Up to the present I have not been successful in getting anyone to undertake this very prodigious task. He must be a man of considerable weight. But the most important point is the settlement of the principle on which compensation is to be paid. The moment you settle the principle the other point becomes a matter of detail. You must have a man who will command the confidence not only of the Government, but of all persons concerned.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: He should have assessors.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should doubt very much whether the man appointed would not take someone with him to assist him. However, that is a matter for consideration and adjustment. We are really in agreement as to the desirability of avoiding litigation. We do not want anything in the nature of litigation, and I hope the House of Commons will not force that upon us. We do hope that we shall be able to secure the services of a perfectly impartial person.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I have no intention to force litigation upon the War Office or anybody else. What I say is that one man is not enough in this matter. You will be dealing with very different classes of business, and it appears to me that the man appointed should have in particular cases the assistance of assessors. Assessors who understand one kind of business would not understand other kinds of business.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should appoint a small Committee to work in conjunction with the man who is appointed to deal with these cases. The whole power in this matter should not be given to the War Office. As a rule, military men know little about business. There is no one single individual, as the last speaker pointed out, who can have
  1292
  knowledge of the different kinds of business involved in the cases which will have to be dealt with. During this War there have been an enormous number of contracts placed by different Departments and I think it would have been of great advantage and assistance to the War Office to have had such a Committee in carrying out the work they have had to do. Take what has been done in regard to wood by the Office of Works as one illustration. I trust that the suggestion I make as to the appointment of a small Committee will receive careful consideration. Another thing I would suggest is that there should be some relaxation made by the War Office in the way of giving greater power to local authorities to deal with repairs. I heard yesterday of a case where a military motor met with an accident. Those in charge had no power to send it to a local factory to get repaired. They had to send it to Aldershot, and meanwhile they had to hire a motor. That is simply nonsense. I have asked the man who informed me in regard to this case to supply me with a full statement of the facts in order that I may send it to the War Office. I would say that the War Office should give greater liberty to local people to take charge of their own affairs. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, as to the way in which things have been tied up by the War Office. I would suggest that a Committee should act along with the official who will be appointed by the War Office in regard to these matters of compensation.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I was intensely interested in the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that among those who would receive compensation, not as ex gratia payment, but as a matter of right, were farmers. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they would be included among the class who would receive compensation if it could be proved that operations necessary in consequence of the War had deprived them of their living or had interfered with their property in such a way as to render them unable to get their crops. I take it—and I am sure I quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that claims for compensation to farmers will be considered in connection with those of others who have lost their means of livelihood.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: We have had, as I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1293
  must feel, very satisfactory evidence from every quarter of the House that, so far as the Government mean to prosecute the War to a successful conclusion, they will have the support of all parties in commandeering not merely ships, but all the resources of the country that are necessary in the rapid prosecution of the War. I listened with gratification to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to compensation, because it marks a very important new departure on this particular aspect of the question which affects an enormous number of people in every part of the country. Take, for instance, the question of the ships that have been commandeered. Practically the whole of the colliers of the country have been commandeered, the Government agreeing to pay a price of 4s. per ton to London. When the Government bring in thirty-four interned German steamers—after taking the whole of the colliers which had contracted to carry coal to London at 3s. per ton—they are only paying the owners of the commandeered boats 4s. per ton. Well, it must appear clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is a very anomalous position of affairs. I hope the understanding that just and fair compensation will be paid to those who are injured by the commandeering of property on the part of the Government will apply equally to the commandeering of ships as well as engineering works. I hope we shall have it made absolutely clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the principle which he has announced to-day will be applied to every interest in the country that has been injured in consequence of commandeering on the part of the Government. I hope it will apply to everything which the Government have taken hold of to assist them in prosecuting the War. I trust that fair and equitable treatment will be given to everybody all round, including workmen in the country as well as employers and manufacturers. I hope also that we shall in that way secure the best backing the Government can get—the backing of the whole commercial community and of the whole nation.
  Mr. GOULDING: I venture to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he gets the Second Reading of the Bill to-day, I think he ought to give us twenty-four hours to consider its provisions before taking the Committee stage. This Bill gives the Government power to deal with very large undertakings. They have already very heavy obligations, and I do
  1294
  think that we ought to get time to consult the managers of these big concerns and others intimately connected with them, to see whether the conditions in the Bill safeguard them with respect to contingencies which cannot possibly be in the mind of the Government. If the Government get the Second Reading of the Bill to-day, I would suggest that the Committee stage might be taken on Thursday. As regards arbitration, I, for my own part, do not believe in large Committees. I believe in a single man arbitrator. But it is idle to suppose that there is any single individual who can have all the qualifications necessary to deal with the multitudinous cases which must arise under the Bill. Take the case of the individual who is going to adjudicate as regards compensation for land. He must be entirely in most cases, or, at all events, in some cases, ignorant of the particulars connected with big engineering undertakings, which would require a man with other qualifications. I venture to suggest that we should adhere to the single man arbitration, and that we should have different arbiters with the necessary qualifications for dealing with the vast variety of cases which must come up for adjudication.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the appeal made by the hon. Member, I do hope that the House of Commons will be able to wait until to-morrow. It is really very urgent, but I do not dwell very much upon that. I hope there will not be another day's delay in equipping the Government with full legislative powers in this matter.
  Mr. PETO: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would welcome any suggestions as to how this adjudication with regard to compensation should be carried out. May I suggest that it is quite impossible for a single arbitrator to be found with the qualifications necessary to deal with all these questions. I agree with the hon. Member who said that one man in each case is quite sufficient. The person appointed for each district should be one whose decision should carry the greatest weight. If you take the southern district, which is greatly affected in the matter of camps, it would not be difficult to get an experienced land agent or a person of that kind well known to the whole group of counties whose decision would be accepted as perfectly impartial and fair. It has been pointed out that someone should settle the principle on which these claims should be paid. That can be done by having the

  1295
  whole question of compensation referred to some eminent person such as Lord Parmoor to settle the principle on which compensation should be given. If, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to nominate for each group of counties some one arbitrator or person who could decide the claim, it would have the advantage that decisions would be given and the cases dealt with within a reasonable time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out the great difficulty of finding any one person to undertake what he calls this gigantic charge. If the work were limited to two or three counties in each case, it would be less gigantic, and it would be far easier to find a person to act for the Government, and the decisions of that person would be far more likely to be accepted than if, for example, a person whose usual business was in Wiltshire or Dorsetshire were asked to decide the question of compensation in the county of Northumberland. I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopts the principle of getting the main outline of the principle upon which compensation should be paid decided by someone, such as Lord Parmoor for instance, and appointing various persons in each group of counties, the business could be got through expeditiously and with fairness both to the Government and to the people whose properties are concerned.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: We all agree that it is necessary that the War Office and the Admiralty should have the power of deciding whether it is necessary that a factory should be taken over or closed or otherwise dealt with. But when it comes to working a factory, the question arises. Is the factory going to be under the War Office? The War Office has got altogether too much to do. If the War Office is going to take over factories, it ought to put them under a Department which is accustomed as employers to dealing with workmen. If these factories are taken over or put under Government control, they ought not to be under the War Office or Admiralty but under the Board of Trade, or at least the Home Office. I should like to know exactly what it is proposed to do? Are the Government going to have these factories worked by that already overworked Department, the War Office, which is depleted of its most efficient members who have gone abroad, or are they going to put them under a Department which is accustomed to such work?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: By agreeing to postpone the further stages of this Bill until to-morrow the Chancellor, I think, has done everything that is necessary to secure cordial unanimity in the passing of this Bill. For my own part I have such confidence in the Government in the present emergency that I would find a difficulty in, voting against the granting of any powers which they thought necessary for handling the present situation. But it is a somewhat different matter to vote for something which one does not understand. However loyal one may be, and however great the confidence one may have in the Government, one desires to know what one is voting for. One does not like to do it entirely in the dark. It is not because one has not confidence in the capacity of the Government that one feels like that, but it is exceedingly dangerous to set a precedent of that kind which might be applied by other Governments in which one had not such great confidence. It would have been just as practicable to have come to the House at the commencement of the War and to have passed a general Bill declaring that any act done by the Government during the continuance of the War should have the effect and authority of and be deemed to be a legal act.
  I think that the Leader of the Opposition put the matter very well when he said that in such an emergency we have got to entrust any Government in which we have confidence, in its handling of the situation, with powers which are something in the nature of a dictatorship and yet not altogether a dictatorship. It would be unfortunate, I think, if it went out to the country that we were really placing any Front Bench or any Cabinet or any Committee in a position of absolute dictatorship. I do not think that that is accomplished by any of these emergency powers which have been granted. I cannot say about this Bill because I do not know what the powers are. But I do not think, as regards any of the powers which we have granted, that the Cabinet is in a position of absolute dictatorship. It is still responsible to this House. It has to come to this House for the money whereby it may carry out its policy. It has to come to this House with all its new-legislative proposals, and if at any time this House did lose confidence in the Government, whichever Government it happened to be, this House would have power to get rid of the Government and

  1297
  to put in another, in which it had confidence, to exercise these extraordinary powers. Although we have given in these measures extraordinary and unusual powers to the Cabinet, the Cabinet still remains responsible to the elected representatives of the people, and they have the power, if at any time they lose confidence in the Government, to turn it out and secure a Government in which they will have confidence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENEMIES BILL.

    COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS.
    Order for second reading read.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    This is a Bill which I presented yesterday, and which was circulated with the Papers to the House last night. I do not ask that any further stage of the Bill be taken to-day, but it is a short Bill, and I hope that we shall find it possible to go through its other stages to-morrow. It is the result of a great deal of consultation with and consideration by business men and lawyers, both inside and outside the House. It deals with a topic which has been regarded as one of difficulty ever since the War began. It provides machinery by means of which the question may be answered, What is the effect of the outbreak of war upon commercial contracts which were running at the time the War broke out, and which, if peace had been preserved, would have come to be fulfilled in the intervening time, and the time still to come? That question is one which presented itself at the very outbreak of the War. Within the first few days of the War it was considered both by the Government and, as I know very well, by commercial and legal people in all quarters. At first sight it looked as though the best way of dealing with the matter would be to legislate in the form of a code, and to pass an Act of Parliament to say that the effect of the outbreak of war upon current contracts was either that they were extinguished or suspended, or were not interfered with, as the House of Commons might decide. As perhaps hon. Members will recollect that sugges-
    1298
    tion was made and debated in this House more than once in the early weeks or months of the War. It is a suggestion which has been most carefully considered. Here I speak of consideration given not merely by myself or other Members of the Government, but given by other Members of the House sitting in all quarters of the House for whose help I am very greatly obliged. It has been considered, in the same way, by a number of prominent business men who have been consulted, as well as by others with special qualifications, and the unanimous conclusion of all who have considered the matter carefully is that the question cannot be solved by the enactment of a code.
    There are two reasons. One is that the enactment of a code which will lay down what the law is in reference to pending contracts, so far as they are affected by War, is only practicable and wise if you have plenty of time in which to draft the language of your code, and a great number of legal decisions directly bearing upon it which illustrate and solve the various points at issue. Neither of these conditions exist here. This question is an urgent question, and therefore we have no more time for debating the precise language of a code. Of course, the difficulty which the question presents is due to its novelty, is due to the fact that neither in the experience of practising lawyers, nor in the work of the practical business man, nor in business has this precise question in this precise form presented itself before. Therefore, there really are no conditions existing which make it at all wise or satisfactory to attempt to enact a code. There is one further reason why any attempt to codify the law on this subject is bound to fail. The question of what is the effect of the outbreak of War upon commercial contracts is one which it is very easy to ask in general terms and, I am bound to say, it is one that I do not think is very difficult to answer in general terms. But it is a question which can only usefully be considered if it is capable of being applied to individual cases.
    Each commercial contract, as commercial people know very well, differs from every other commercial contract in the precise terms in which it is expressed, and it is not possible to find a simple formula which will automatically supply the answer "yes" or "no" as regards the infinite variety of commercial contracts in connection with which this question has arisen. Therefore, after the most thorough

    1299
    and careful consideration, it was unanimously agreed both by the commercial authorities whom I have had the opportunity of seeing, and by lawyers, Members of this House, and others whom I have consulted, that to attempt to enact a code would be certain to result in failure and disappointment. The alternative which suggests itself is that which is contained in this Bill.
    5.0 P.M.
    It is to provide some means by which a judicial decision can be obtained on the point in a limited number of cases, because once you obtain a judicial decision in a limited number of cases, I feel confident that those decisions will be regarded as a good and sufficient guide in many other cases, and may be brought in. I may be asked: "Why do you need an Act of Parliament in order to allow a judicial decision to be obtained?" No civilised Court of Justice could ever contemplate, a decision of a question of this sort between two different parties to a contract unless they first had presented to them, or at any rate have had the opportunity of having presented to them, the arguments which might be put not only on one side, but on the other. You cannot decide a question of this sort against the German party to a contract unless you have taken the utmost steps to give him notice of what you are doing, and also give him any opportunities that may be necessary to present his case for review. Therefore it was necessary to search for some method which would enable the judges to be made use of in deciding this question, while at the same time satisfying the substantial necessities of fair play in a judicial proceeding. This Bill is the result of efforts which we have been making, and I think I can in a few sentences explain to the House what are its provisions. If any hon. Member has a copy of the Bill before him he will see that it is not a long one, and, inasmuch as a great deal of time has been taken in its preparation, I hope it will be found to be a proper mode of dealing with the matter. We do not propose to deal with any case except cases in which the plaintiff is a British subject; and we do not propose to deal with any case except cases in which the defendant or one of the defendants is an enemy. That is a proper limitation in the first instance. We propose, when those conditions are satisfied, that the British plaintiff may issue a writ asking
    1300
    from the Court a declaration as to what is the position of his contract in view of the outbreak of War. It is not contemplated that a writ may be issued to get damages or an injunction, or anything else except a declaration, because all the commercial community needs in this matter is certainty; they want to know where they are, and I think that in many cases the matter which is most important to them is to have the question decided, one way or the other, as to what is their position, and they want to know it now.
    Once they know that, they can make their own arrangements, and when the happy time comes that the War is over, the consequential relief to which they may be entitled is a thing which will be got in the Courts in the ordinary way. Therefore, when those conditions are satisfied, when the plaintiff is a British subject and the defendant is an enemy, the writ may be endorsed with a claim for a declaration as to the effect of the present War on the rights or liabilities of the plaintiff or defendant. Then, when that is done, we think it would be right to authorise the Court to permit the service of the writ, in case of need, by advertisement, either alone, or together with such other conditions as the Court, in the individual case, think right. Obviously, you cannot send a clerk over to Germany, in the present circumstances, to serve a writ on the German defendant, and there are other difficulties of a technical kind, and we therefore thought it necessary to propose this new Statutory provision. The Court may be trusted to see to it that the conditions imposed are at once adequate to protect the interests of the German party to the contract while they reasonably safeguard the interests of the British party to the contract, and we propose to leave to the Court latitude, in any individual case, to decide what is right.
    The main thing is that the Court is authorised in these circumstances to permit the service of the writ by advertisement, a method—as Members of the House no doubt are aware, and may be others, too—which is already followed in very exceptional cases even under our own jurisprudence, and quite constantly followed under the jurisprudence of other countries in Europe. The defendant, who is advertised for, may not actually appear; if he does appear, or if he instructs Counsel to present his case, of course the matter can go forward in the ordinary way and there will be nothing exceptional

    1301
    about it. There is no question that, having been summoned by writ of the Court to appear, he will be perfectly entitled to employ an adviser in order to present his case. But supposing he does not appear, then of course the case has got to be dealt with by the Court without the assistance of the defendant's presentation of his own case.
    In that event we provide that we only permit this procedure if there is written evidence of the contract. Most contracts of any importance are contained in written documents, and if we have the written document presented to the Court, even if the defendant, after service of the writ by advertisement does not appear, the Court, in most cases at any rate, will be able to pronounce a decision declaring what is the effect, after the outbreak of War, on the rights of the parties under that written contract. Subject, therefore, to the limitation that there shall be written evidence of the contract we think the conditions which are proposed in this Bill may be found to work fairly smoothly. In order to work this scheme out, it will obviously need a certain number of rules and regulations, and Sub-section (2) of the first Clause of this Bill provides that the Lord Chief Justice shall give directions for expediting proceedings. Of course, despatch in this matter is of great importance, and regulating the procedure generally in a case. We go on to provide in these cases, when, owing to the absence of the defendant, it is not possible to observe to the full the very strict and precise rules of evidence which obtain in our Courts, that there shall be power in the Courts to admit, for example, the press copy from the letter book of the original letter, or the like, in order that they may have before them in substance the materials on which they have to judge.
    These are the provisions of this Bill, and the House will see at once that, assuming this is a proposal which ought to be passed, it should be passed with as little delay as conveniently possible. I do not propose to ask for more than the Second Reading of the Bill to-day; if we get that, probably we may be able to got the rest of the stages to-morrow, and place it on the Statute Book, with the assistance of the other House, without any loss of time; so that on those questions which arise, we will be in a position to solve them forthwith with the minimum of delay. Arrangements have been made, in view of this Bill when it is carried, for a special list of the
    1302
    cases to be drawn up. I am divulging no confidence, I think, when I say that the Lord Chief Justice will nominate some particular judge to deal with those matters, in order that all possible despatch may be secured, and by that means I hope it maybe possible to find out what is the effect of the outbreak of war upon the enormous number of commercial contracts which existed when the War broke out between this country and Germany. Once three or four really illustrative cases have been dealt with, the doubts which are entertained in many commercial quarters will, I hope, be very largely solved, and at the same time we shall have avoided doing anything which the most sensitive conscience could regard as any breach of the traditions under which justice is administered in this, country.
    Mr. DUKE: I do not apprehend that there will be in any quarter of the House any stringent criticism of this proposal of His Majesty's Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the project is one which he has submitted in every quarter where the need of some such legislation has been discussed, not only in this House, but among business men with a variety of interests outside. I think the right hon. Gentleman has also submitted it in quarters where it will have to be administered, if it become an Act. I hope no exaggerated expectation will be entertained as to what this Bill can effect. One cannot fail to remember the discussions which from time to time arose with regard to the necessity of some action by His Majesty's Government to enable the business community to obtain some degree of certainty as to the position of parties to a contract during a state of war, and there were proposals made which seemed to suggest the existence of an expectation that His Majesty's Government would offer a certain solution in every difficulty of the kind. I hope that discussion of the matter has put an end to that extravagant and unfounded belief.
    If business men supposed it possible that any means could be devised, either in the Courts of Justice or anywhere else, to put them out of the possibility of inconvenience occurring either during the War or after the War, or by reason of the intervention of a state of war, while contracts were in the course of being performed, I am quite sure that nothing but disappointment can follow from that expectation For a long time it was believed

    1303
    that you could not possibly decide cases such as are involved in this proposal except upon hearing both parties. The commercial community very naturally revolted from that, in a state of war which was not of our seeking but which had been thrust upon us, and it was thought that the community had a right to take some risk in giving judicial sanction with the strength of the whole community to decisions arrived at after the best hearing that could be got in circumstances of this kind. I think it is very generally believed, among those who have taken part in the discussion of this matter, that the proposal gives, not a discussion according to the everyday judicial procedure in time of peace, but it is the best discussion you can have, and a discussion which, if it is conducted under the safeguards that will no doubt be introduced, ought to satisfy the neutral States, and even belligerent States, that business interests are being dealt with in accordance with the traditions of which we are proud of in this country.
    One of the safeguards is that the litigant who comes to the Court to get what is, in most cases, a decision ex parte, will, as I understand the matter, be under the ordinary obligation which attaches to a litigant of that kind, with the sanction which is behind it, namely, that if he does not fairly state his case to the Court, no decision which he gets will be operative when the time comes to revise it. That is one safeguard. The other is this, that it will be in the power of the Court not only to examine written evidence of the contract but to take what steps the Court thinks necessary in order to protect the interests of the absent party, or to make sure—as the judges would desire to do, I am sure, in a subject of this kind—that, there is an investigation which will be fairly likely in its result to stand the trial and criticism when the War is over. Under these circumstances this Bill proposes that you may get a declaratory judgment as to whether the War is hindering one party or the other from further performance of the contract. The commercial community has called loudly for some step of this kind. This Bill, I believe, goes to the fullest length which it could go with anything like a common assent between those who take part in administering the law and those who are engaged in business transactions. I hope it will not be supposed that
    1304
    this Bill must necessarily provide an infallible remedy in all cases that arise. For my part, I respectfully suggest that the Bill is well conceived and well worthy of acceptance by the House.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I rise to give this Bill my most hearty support. I think it is a Bill which will be of great use to the commercial community. It embodies the means and the idea that always seemed to me to be the best means and the best way of dealing with this question, and in fact, I think, the only way. The point which was of most importance, according to my experience, to the commercial community was to get a decision if they possibly could as to whether a running contract which had to be performed in the future had been put an end to by the War or only suspended. They could go to this man or to that man and get his opinion, but what they wanted if possible was to get a decision of the Courts on the matter, and, as the Attorney-General has stated, as quickly as possible. I quite agree with what the Attorney-General said about codification. There are many reasons against it, but the main reason now is that if we went in for codification months and perhaps years might elapse before we could get any satisfactory results. That put it, out of court, and the only other way was to alter the procedure of our Courts. I think some of us hoped, and I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) was one of them, that we might get this done by the judges in the High Court, but they thought it was better to have legislation passed, and perhaps on the whole it was. This is, of course, an innovation. We are going to get power given to the judges whereby they may adjudicate on a matter when perhaps the enemy defendant has not in fact actually been served with notice. I do not think, however, that any alarm may or need be felt, and I do not think any injury is going to be done to the administration of justice in this country of which we are all proud, because, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, this Bill is limited in a very particular way.
    It is, first of all, going to deal with written contracts, and it is only going to deal with matters where the British subject is asking for a declaration against somebody who is an enemy and who cannot be served in the ordinary way, and which is in respect of a matter which is of great urgency. To give an instance, you may have a person with a large contract

    1305
    in this country, for perhaps a million pounds, and he may have made a subcontract with a German firm for a large part of that million pounds, and he does not know whether, as a matter of fact, the War has dissolved that contract, or whether it is only suspended, and he wants a decision on the point. It seems to me it would be very unjust if he could not get a decision in a case like that till after the War was over. This Bill will give him the opportunity of going to the Court, and, if the Court thinks right, to get leave to exercise the powers of service which are provided for by this Bill. The question of urgency is undoubted, and I entirely agree with the Attorney-General that the sooner this legislation is put into force the better, because, everybody who has had any opportunity of dealing with this matter knows that there are many cases of the kind, and many people in the commercial community will be glad to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill. For my part, I think it is exceedingly useful legislation, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: In rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill I wish to say on behalf of the commercial Members of the House that it is of the utmost importance that we should have, in many cases of most important contracts between British subjects and enemies, a declaration as to the effect of the present War on the rights and liabilities of the plaintiff or defendant in a contract entered into before the outbreak of the War. We had a largely attended meeting of the commercial Members of the House, when my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General was good enough to come and make a statement in regard to this important matter. I believe the unanimous opinion of those who attended that meeting, and as well of the commercial Members who were absent from it, but with whom we had opportunities of consultation subsequently, is that the simplest and best way to get the earliest decision by way of declaration for the guidance of British subjects who have these important contracts with enemies is the method provided for in this Bill. The commercial community is, indeed, indebted to the Attorney-General for the extreme promptitude with which, since that meeting was held, he has had the matter most carefully considered, and with which he has sought advice in many directions, with the result that I believe we have before us in its simplest
    1306
    form the most practical measure for promptly and quickly dealing with this most important matter. I therefore have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: There is one suggestion I would like to make. It is interesting to note that in the last two days the German Reichstag have presented a Bill practically similar to this. I do not know whether they copied the idea from the Attorney-General, but they have one Clause in it which I would venture to suggest for the consideration of the Attorney-General. That Clause is to the effect that the judges shall be guided very largely by and take note of the costs of the material or subject of the contract on the date on which the contract was proposed to be abrogated. I think that would simplify the proceedings if the Attorney-General, in the rules which he proposes to make, include one to the effect that in all cases of contracts where there is a question of material, such as cotton or whatever it may be, that note should be taken of the price of the particular commodity on the day when the contract is broken or determined, so that calculations shall be made promptly.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to ask what provision is made for Scotland in this Bill? I do not know whether the Attorney-General is aware that we have a commercial community in Scotland and that they require as much attention as the English commercial community. I notice that provision is made in this measure for dealing with Ireland, but Scotland is conspicuous by its absence.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a question of great importance and one which has not been overlooked. There are two reasons why Scotland is not mentioned. The first is, that that country is in so advanced a state of civilisation that its existing legal procedure gives facilities for solving these questions which do not exist in our barbarous communities. The second reason is that we thought it would be very wrong in a matter of this importance to treat Scotland as a mere appendage of England to be provided for in the Sub-section of some penultimate Clause. We propose that if Scotland requires legislation on the subject, on which I have no means of expressing an opinion, that it should have its own Bill introduced by its own lawyers.
    Mr. WATT: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that this measure is urgent, while Scotland is told that later on, perhaps when the War is over, Scotland will be dealt with. I would like to know, under those circumstances, where the Lord Advocate is; and why, since the commercial community of England are to be given this boon, Scotland should be deprived of it or put off with the promise of it at some future time? If I had the capacity I should speak at much greater length in order to delay this measure under the circumstances, but I shall simply enter my protest at the present time, remembering that there is a Committee stage, when perhaps we can bring the Lord Advocate to book.
    Sir PHIPSON BEALE: There is one point which has not, I think, been touched upon. It has been assumed that the question to be decided would be whether the contract was to be abrogated or not. I can conceive cases where it would not be desirable to claim abrogation even if an English Court would say that the contract might be abrogated. There are contracts of a continuing nature extending over a large number of years, such as the erection of machinery. In those kind of cases the man might desire to go to the Court and say, "I must do something; this is what I propose to do, and what view does the Court take if I adopt that line?" I should like to know whether that is one of the kind of cases contemplated by the Bill. I notice that in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 there are the words,
    "A declaration in accordance therewith shall not prevent any other declaration or any consequential or other relief being claimed in other proceedings or prevent the case being dealt with, although no such other declaration or consequential or other relief is claimed."
    I imagine it is contemplated that people situated as I have indicated should get the advice and assistance of the Court in order to tell them what is the right thing to do under the circumstances, and which would protect a man in case at the end of the War the alien party was advised to have recourse to proceedings in an English Court. I lay great stress on what was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), namely, that those affected by this Bill should not take an exaggerated view of its possibilities. It can give you protection in the English Courts, and, in my opinion, the difficulty about service is a matter of very little im-
    1308
    portance. I am glad that, such great facility is given by this Bill to get any sort of representation you can of the alien party before the Court. If you cannot get any, you still get the advice, and that would be sufficient for the practical purposes of the mercantile community. I welcome this Bill, altogether apart from the point of view of whether a contract is at an end or not. You must protect the British party to the contract in doing that which he, as a matter of common sense and justice, thinks the best thing to do, when the contract by reason of a state of war has become incapable of full performance.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There was a time when in consequence of the great anxiety felt in the commercial community on this question, I thought it might be possible for some rule to be laid down, either by the Government or in consultation with a Committee, which would serve as a guide for all the parties involved. On consideration I have come to the conclusion that that is not so. The diversity of contracts is such that it is necessary to deal with each contract on its own terms. Therefore, this Bill, I think, offers the best solution possible under the circumstances. I rose to put a question which seems to me to arise on Clause 1 (4), the terms of which I do not quite understand. It says:—
    "The Court or judge shall have power, where an enemy service order has been made and the enemy defendant does not appear, to order the plaintiff, though successful, to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the proceedings if he considers that it is just to do so in the special circumstances of the case."
    The plaintiff asking for a declaratory judgment cannot hope to get costs; but there will be a great number of smaller questions to be determined under this Bill, and perhaps the Attorney-General will consider whether it is quite wise to put in any provision which might deter people from seeking the relief which this measure proposes to confer, by holding in front of them the fear that they may have to pay, not only their own costs, but some other costs—I suppose the costs of the intervention of some third party to argue a question of importance which might arise in the case.
    Sir J. SIMON: As the hon. and learned Member will see, the Sub-section is not compulsory in any way. It only authorises the Court to do that which there

    1309
    might be some doubt as to its power to do, unless there was authority in the Statute. There are small cases where one would not expect the Court to make such an order, but, on the other hand, there are sometimes very big cases—one has already been attempted to be raised in the Courts—where it is so important for the plaintiff to get his position defined that it would appear to be quite right to say that, although he is successful in his contention, the costs ought to be provided by him.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: It is not worth discussing at length, but, personally, I incline to the view that if the Crown thinks it ought to intervene in the interests of the country—and that is the only reason on which it can ground its intervention—it might reasonably pay its own expenses, instead of putting the costs on the plaintiff.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I suppose there is another case to which the Sub-section might apply—that is, where the enemy alien does not appear, and the procedure laid down by the Chief Justice provides for appointing someone as amicus curiၓ to represent the alien enemy, or to put forward the views which he might desire to urge if he were there. In that case it would seem only right that the Court should have power to order the successful plaintiff to pay the costs of that person. In common with others, I desire to see this Bill passed as soon as possible; but there is one point I should like to raise. Is it quite certain that under the terms of Sub-section (2) the Chief Justice can give directions for someone to be appointed to represent the alien enemy and argue the case?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think so.
    Mr. HEALY: I do not think that we are sufficiently taking into account what our enemies are doing against ourselves. Under this measure, judgments might be given which would have international consequences. The judge would have to decide matters according to English law. When you are at law questions of policy cannot enter. I think it would be very desirable if the Attorney-General could get any information as to the kind of jurisprudence which is in vogue in Germany during time of war. I should like that same inquiry to be made in France and in Russia; because we are now, quite properly, taking certain steps,
    1310
    but we are taking the matter out of the hands of the Administration, and putting it into the hands of the Courts, which must be bound not by questions of policy, but by questions of precedence. While agreeing that legislation of this kind must proceed, I should like a little more information as to what is going on in other territories. The Law Courts should, if possible, take no step which would expose our merchants and those who have interests abroad to reprisals, because I greatly fear that the amount of money we have invested abroad is larger than any-thing that may be involved in the passage of this Bill. We are legislating to some extent in the dark, and I should like a little more information on the lines I have suggested.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Witnesses.)
    In Ireland a person charged with an offence against any regulations made under The Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, before a court-martial shall not, nor shall the wife or husband as the case may be of a person so charged, be a competent witness, whether the person so charged is charged severally or jointly with any other person.—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The moving of this Clause is due to a suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy). As the hon. and learned Member pointed out, the Criminal Evidence Act of some years back, though it applies to England and Wales, does not apply to Ireland, and consequently some special provision should be made to prevent that distinction, which is quite deliberate, from being overlooked when we are dealing with proceedings under the Defence of the Realm Act. If that were not done, this absurd result would follow—that if a British subject, charged with committing

    1311
    an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations in Ireland, chose to claim to be tried by a judge and jury, he could not give evidence, whereas if he left himself to be dealt with by a court-martial he could do so. Whichever principle is right—that an accused person should give evidence if he wishes, or that he should be incapable of giving evidence—it is unarguable that there should be one result if he chooses one tribunal and another result if he chooses another tribunal. Therefore I beg to move this new Clause, which will, I hope, meet my hon. and learned Friend's point, and secure that in the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland the understanding will be preserved by which the Criminal Evidence Act does not extend to that country.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Prosecutions.)
    The prosecutor in Ireland for any offence under this Act shall be a person of whose legal knowledge the Attorney-General shall be satisfied.—[Mr. T. M. Healy.]
    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Attorney-General stated the other day that in all important prosecutions of this kind he was present or was represented. Under those circumstances no improper questions would be asked of the accused person. But when these trials are held in remote parts of Ireland, without the assistance of a legal prosecutor, unfortunate results sometimes arise. I will give one instance, but I will not say where it occurred, in order to avoid making any reflection on the tribunal, because, in my opinion, the tribunal carried out its functions on the whole most admirably. A man was charged under the Defence of the Realm Act with having used certain language on the 1st February. What question does the House suppose the prosecutor put to him when he was examined in his own defence? The man was charged with using certain language on the 1st February, and he was asked, "Did the police search your house on the 19th November? I suggest that, as in these cases in England you have the great advantage of the Attorney-General directing the prosecution, so in Ireland it is very desirable
    1312
    that the prosecution should be taken charge of by some legal person. As to the language of the new Clause, there is a precedent for it in the Coercion Act, 1887, where the two resident magistrates have to be persons of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied. Without saying that the person appointed should be a barrister or a solicitor, I think he should, at any rate, have some slight acquaintance with our jurisprudence. Under these circumstances I hope the Attorney-General will see his way to give the accused person additional protection, either of solicitors or of those of the higher legal branch.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Motion.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to add to the Bill a new Clause providing that the prosecutor in Ireland for any offence under this Act shall be a person of whose legal knowledge the Attorney-General shall be satisfied. I am not quite certain whether the Attorney-General referred to is the Attorney-General for England or the Attorney-General for Ireland, but that is a detail that can be decided afterwards. The reason for the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is a reason which within limits everybody will sympathise with. Of course, if a really serious charge is being brought against a man who himself is not subject to military or naval discipline, but who is a private citizen, exposed to a charge before a Military Court because of the exigencies of war, it is perfectly clear that that charge ought to be presented in the fairest and most skilful way, and that the person should be given every fair opportunity to defend himself or to be defended. As a matter of principle nobody disputes that for one single moment. On the other hand, I think we must remember that there are, at any rate, some cases—I think most cases—of charges under the Defence of the Realm Regulations which are by no means serious cases. It is an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act not to shut down a particular light at a particular moment, to disregard regulations about a particular road, and to fail to observe any of a code of rules. Most of these cases are dealt with summarily, in a way with which we are quite familiar in cases of comparatively trifling offences.
    Though my natural temptation is all in favour of making quite certain that the

    1313
    person is one with whose legal knowledge I am entirely satisfied, I really think it would be going too far if we insisted by Statute that in every case there must be a provision of this sort. The thing must be met by administrative direction and regulation. I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for having called attention to this matter, because I will make it my business at once to communicate both with the military authorities and with the legal authorities in Ireland, in order that administrative arrangements may be made which will secure that in serious cases that which he has pointed out is needed in the sister island. The thing may be perfectly right, but I hope the House will not think this the occasion for adding this Clause to the Bill. I hope also that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that, if we do want a precedent in this matter, we should find a better precedent than that of the Coercion Act of 1887.
    Mr. HEALY: I will not press my Amendment after the promise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But I certainly think, in the speech he has made, he has omitted to consider the fact that very many felonies are dealt with in the Defence of the Realm Act. While, as he has said, small matters are dealt with, there are also large matters—at least, as regards felonies. I think it would be a monstrous thing that any man should be prosecuted for a felony by a gentleman who has no legal experience whatever and who might only have joined the Army the day before yesterday. Therefore, while I accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and will withdraw my Amendment, I hope, when he communicates with the Irish Office, he will also communicate with the Treasury.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Constitution of Special Commission.)
    His Majesty may by Order in Council establish a Special Commission for the trial of offences under this Act in cases where the person charged would otherwise be tried by a civil Court with a jury or by court-martial under this Act, or where the offence is not tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and by the same order may provide for the constitution and procedure before such Special Commission, and may direct what cases should be tried before such Special Commission instead of being tried by a civil Court with a jury or court-martial, and such Special Commis-
    1314
    sion may inflict the like punishment as if the offence had been tried by court-martial.
    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    When I put this Clause on the Paper my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had not put down his Amendment to Clause 1, which will come before the House in a few minutes. I admit fully that that Clause does remove one aspect of the Bill which was intended to be dealt with by the Clause I am moving, because that concession does make it clear that the Government, at any rate, may have the power of trial by jury in cases which otherwise would inevitably have gone for trial by court-martial. The reason why I still move this Clause is in order to ask the House to consider whether there ought not to be a further alternative in those cases which would otherwise be dealt with by court-martial. If there are any serious cases in those we are now dealing with, cases which are not tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, but charged under this Act, and the Government is not willing that they should be tried by jury in cases in which a jury could be claimed, they would be tried by court-martial. Some of us think, and have thought all along, that if there are any cases under this Act of a grave nature which cannot be tried by a jury, they ought to be tried, not by a military tribunal, but by a Special Commission of legal authorities.
    I move this Clause for the purpose of raising that, issue now on this, the last opportunity which we shall have in the discussion on this Bill. It seems to me that any case so grave that it cannot be tried in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, while at the same time trial by jury cannot apply, ought to be tried by trained legal intelligences more than by members of another honourable profession whose duties lie in other directions. If the Government can see their way to accept this Clause, to apply only to those cases which would otherwise be tried not by Civil Court or jury, but by court-martial, some of us would gratefully welcome that concession. I move the Clause in this form in order to put as pointedly as I can the issue before the House: that a Special Commission is the true tribunal for exceptional cases like these, and that a court-martial is not a

    1315
    suitable tribunal, except in those cases where the Civil Courts cannot sit at all, and where, therefore, civil justice is for the time at an end.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Motion.
    I would draw attention to the fact that the other day the Attorney-General in the discussion on the Bill suggested that the course now pursued under the regulations made this Bill necessary in order to secure the safety and efficient administration of the law. It seems to me that by the appointment of this Commission both safety and effectiveness would be much better obtained than by withdrawing from their military duties officers who, we are given to understand, are sorely needed. The appointment of the Commission would also do away with another thing. It would enable us to remove what seems to me a most serious blot on the Bill itself. That is the proviso by which the Government, at its own option, without any request on the part of the accused, is in a position to change the venue of the trial. As we pointed out in the discussion last week, this is a most serious inroad upon the privileges now enjoyed by the accused. I think it is a very serious matter indeed that the Executive should, under this Bill, be vested with the power of changing the venue. In the discussion in Committee it was pointed out that this might put the accused in a position where it would be extremely difficult to get at the necessary witnesses. Personally, I would welcome the course that is proposed by the Attorney-General for another reason. Notwithstanding all that has been said with regard to the efficiency of the Military Courts, I still pin my faith in the Civil Courts. We have found it necessary in the past to take our judges and stipendiary magistrates from gentlemen who not only were lawyers, but who had considerable practical experience in the law. I cannot conceive that in times when passion, prejudice, and feeling runs high it is wise to hand over the trial in serious cases to military officers, who in the past have had neither legal training nor training in the administration of the law.
    Sir J. SIMON: A proposal substantially in the same terms as this was made on the Committee stage of this Bill. It was discussed, and not adopted by the Committee. If there was no reason sufficient to adopt it then, I venture to think there
    1316
    is less reason to adopt it now. In the Amendment I have put down I have been largely influenced by the arguments which were addressed to the Committee by my two hon. Friends who have moved this new Clause. In the meantime I have put down on the Paper an Amendment which we shall reach shortly and which really—as I thought—went a long way to meet their main point. What was that main point? It was that as the Bill stood, in the case of a man who was a foreigner and not entitled to claim to be tried by a jury, there was this power to be tried by a jury, if he wanted so to be tried. They pointed out that that produced possible serious difficulties, including the difficulty of distinguishing with certainty between the man who was a British subject and the man who was a foreigner. I agree with them. I think the point they made so far as it went was a good point. In consequence I put down an Amendment which will at any rate make it impossible for a man who is not a British subject to be tried by jury, though it will not confer upon him the right to be so tried, so long as we are living in times of emergency. I have met, as I thought, the main point which the hon. Members had put.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Pardon me, the point I certainly made was this: Not that we wanted trial by jury but trial by Civil and not by Military Courts.
    Sir J. SIMON: I pointed out, at any rate, that so far as criticism was put forward in the Committee stage there was no power to try by Civil Court a man who was a foreigner. The Amendment I have put down will meet that. Now come my two hon. Friends—I make no complaint, but it is always interesting to see how rapidly arguments can be made applicable—and say: "Please do not imagine we are in favour of the jury—"
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I did not say so.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire served with great distinction on a Committee which dealt with this subject. He pointed out that the Commission of which he was a Member, presided over by Lord Mersey, did not have a single witness before them who did not regard the jury as a valuable and necessary element of the criminal trial. Yet now he says there ought to be a special commission. Is there to be a jury with special commission? I suppose not. What then is the proposal? Is it the prisoner who has to choose whether he is to be

    1317
    tried by special commission or a jury, or is it the Government that has to decide whether by special commission or jury? I call my hon. Friend's attention to this, because I am prepared to stand by the good traditional system of trial by jury. I am not going to support any new-fangled proposal.
    The only justification for departing from trial by jury is that for the time being, and within given limits, it is in the interests of the national safety necessary to have Military Courts to deal with certain classes of offences. If that is not a good justification then we ought to have juries all the way round. If it is a good justification, then the Bill, as hitherto accepted by the House, is in a correct form. But neither from one point of view or the other is there any justification for starting a new commission which, though it is not the same thing as a court-martial, is still equally far from traditional trial by jury. Either you should have the jury for all cases, or else in the cases where you do not have them recognise that this Bill is, within certain limits, exposing persons who are not soldiers or sailors to a military tribunal. I do not want to wrap that up by pretending we have got some institution which is neither one thing nor the other, and which ought to satisfy the community for all times. I want rather to say that it is emergency, and nothing but emergency, which justifies the use of Military Courts at all for persons who are not soldiers or sailors. Let us frankly face that.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to point out to the Mover and Seconder that the Clause goes a very long way indeed. I understood this Amending Bill was required in order that we might restore the right to claim a jury to persons who were affected by this Act, and who desired to have their liberties retained for them. But what does this Clause do? This Clause gives back to the Government the full power not merely of setting up a Special Commission, but also directing what special cases should be tried before the Special Commission. So away goes the liberty of the subject, away goes trial by jury, and all election on the part of those persons who are within the ambit of the Act; and my learned Friends who have been standing up here and discussing the rights and liberties of the subject are once more putting into the hands of the Executive power, by Order in Council,
    1318
    to decide what cases should be tried before such Special Commission. If the Order in Council decided that all persons were to be tried by Special Commission, away would go all the rights of trial by jury, away would go all the rights and privileges which this Bill was brought in to emphasise and enlarge, and away would go all the purposes of the Bill. On these grounds I think it is a most unfortunate Clause, and I hope it will be negatived.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am afraid that, after the strong condemnation of the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend, it is useless to attempt to persevere with this Clause, but, as one who has never professed an unreasoning admiration for the traditional method of criminal trial in this country, I confess, if it were possible to introduce this system at this stage, I should be in favour of doing so. The Attorney-General's speech was really exceedingly entertaining. It is very delightful to have something to relieve the gloom of these days as a speech such as that. Here was the representative of the Radical Government making a speech, hitting the box before him, and saying he would never be a party to departing from the traditional method of criminal trial in this great country I hope it was as sincere as it sounded. Surely, putting aside the trial by jury fetish, what we want to arrive at is a method which will secure the conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. That is the object we have in view. At times of great national excitement, as I have said in this House before, and I say it again, I do not think trial by jury is the best method of arriving at that result, neither do I think the court-martial is the best method of arriving at that result. Trial by jury is liable to popular passion necessarily, because the whole point is that the jury is taken haphazard from the population, and, if there is a great popular passion running over the country, the jury will necessarily share in that passion as in the other feelings of the community. Therefore, in times of great popular passion, I do not believe trial by jury is the best guarantee of the liberty of the subject.
    I do not wish to say a word against courts-martial, but it is really absurd to say that soldiers, who are trained and educated for a wholly different duty, can be regarded as the best tribunal for the trial of criminal offences. I admit that it is an obvious necessity that they should be

    1319
    entrusted with the discipline of the Army, and no one wishes to interfere with that. But that they should be entrusted with the trial of civil cases is a matter that should not be granted except under the stress of urgent necessity. It seems to me the real way out is to have a tribunal of skilled persons who will be more or less free, more or less above passions, and will not be necessarily moved—or, at any rate, will have their training and special experience to prevent their being moved—by popular passion, and will yet have the rapidity, the vigour, which are undoubtedly necessary in times such as we live in at the present moment, and which are the qualities for which we look in a court-martial. Therefore, if I may be pardoned the contradiction in terms, a civil court-martial is really what I should have thought was the best way out of the difficulty. But, of course, in view of the scorn with which this proposal was treated by those who preceded me, although I think there is a great deal to be said for it, I must say to the hon. Gentlemen opposite I do not think it is a very hopeful enterprise to try to introduce it at this stage under these circumstances.
    Mr. HEALY: The Attorney-General used a very interesting phrase. He said it is interesting to see how rapidly arguments in favour of a Clause can be applied. He refused an Amendment of mine a little while ago on the ground that really trivial matters such as putting out a light in one place, not having a road in a particular condition in another, were not fitting matters in which a man might have legal defence. And then he refers the hon. Gentleman behind him to his own Clause, which, he says, is a substitute for theirs. And what happens? You find that the moment he puts his Clause in operation these very trivialities will become felonies if he chooses to lay them before his Department. If I construe the Clause correctly, it means this: He claims the right, if a man does not put out his lights at a given hour, to send him before this tribunal, and thereby that act of triviality will be a felonious one. It is a pity the Clause is not framed more clearly—"an offence against any regulations," to wit, not putting out lights at a given moment.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not read the Clause.
    Mr. HEALY: I was going to when you stopped me.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry. Perhaps I may point out, then, that my Clause deals with offences triable by court-martial. There are some offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations not triable by court-martial which must be dealt with summarily. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause said "for any offence under this Act."
    Mr. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman then say that there is no offence against any regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Act that is not a felony? Will he get up and say that?
    Sir J. SIMON: With the permission of the House I will say it standing. There are some offences under the Act not felonies, and cannot be tried by court-martial, but must be dealt with by the Police Court.
    Mr. HEALY: Accepting the statement from the learned Attorney-General with the respect which it deserves, may I say that I think to some extent, so far as the argument is directed against him from his own benches, he has rather met it, and I think further that there is an inherent power in the Crown at common law to constitute the special commission without any Statute. I think there are precedents for it. Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not like any reference to coercion or to such a year as 1798 or 1866, but, although I was not very old in 1866, undoubtedly there were scores of special commissions then for particular purposes, sometimes with three judges, and sometimes with two, and, so far as I know, without any Statute. Therefore, I am prepared to say if the Government were disposed to set up a special commission, that can be done by the inherent power of the Crown.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of 7 Edw. VII., c. 23).
    Without prejudice and in addition to any enactment relating to the confirmation of sentences pronounced by courts-martial, where a person not subject to military law or to the Naval Discipline Act is in England or Wales convicted by a court-martial of any offence against any regulation made under The Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, he shall have the same right of appeal to the Court of Criminal

    1321
    Appeal as he would have had if he had been so convicted on indictment, and the provisions of The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, shall extend accordingly.
    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir W. BYLES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It is one which provides that a person who has been convicted by court-martial shall have the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is unnecessary to argue the point after the various speeches of the learned lawyers to which we have been listening. I was myself delighted to hear the phrase in which the learned Attorney-General held to the old institution of the jury, and I hope he will stick to that phrase. For myself, I neither revere nor do I trust a court-martial. I look upon it at the best as a necessary evil. You do not look for justice from a soldier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I mean for a judicial examination. I did not mean, of course, to imply for a moment that he was necessarily unjust as a soldier. You will forgive me if I accidentally suggested that; it was quite unintentional. But a soldier is a soldier and a lawyer is a lawyer, and each has his functions, and, therefore, when a person has been convicted at a soldiers' tribunal, I ask only that he should have the right to the Court of Criminal Appeal which is held by lawyers. I believe the Court of Criminal Appeal has worked well, and many a time has prevented injustice.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Motion on this ground: As I understand the Act as it stands, cases tried before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction would still have their right of appeal to the Quarter Sessions, as so many cases have which are tried in Summary Courts. Cases which are tried before judge and jury, I imagine, would have their right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and, therefore, it would only be those cases, on the one hand too serious to be tried summarily, on the other hand withdrawn from judge and jury, dealt with by courts-martial, which would have no right of appeal at all, or, if any, only to the Judge-Advocate-General, and I would earnestly ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not fitting that a civilian—for we are only dealing with civilians—accused of very grave offences under this Act should not have the same right of appeal which the vilest person in this country has under the ordi-
    1322
    nary civil law, a right which I am sure all Members of this House would agree has been of the greatest advantage to the administration of the law, and has increased the authority and respect for English justice.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend proposes that in cases dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act by court-martial there should be an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Let me say at once that the proposal which my hon. Friend makes is one which I think has many attractive features. It is one which I may be allowed to say had occurred to me and had occurred to the military authorities, and it certainly is not on any obscurantist ground that I am unable to accept it. Military justice is in itself a rather elaborate and carefully constructed machine, and I do not think it should be treated in such a rough and ready way as my hon. Friend has adopted. It has its own systems by which its sentences are renewed and revised, and that machinery is a very elaborate one, carefully worked out and pieced together. In regard to civil justice, I agree that it is based upon a different system. It is not only administered by civilians in the first and early stages, but it goes to an appeal as part of the same civil machinery. If you take the Act of Parliament which created the Court of Criminal Appeal, you will see at once that almost every Section of it is quite rightly based on the assumption that the case has been dealt with in the first instance by a civil tribunal and, indeed, by a jury. You have the summing up to be considered, and the matter of arriving at a conclusion by the summing up to a jury is conditional in a civil tribunal, but it has no counterpart in a military tribunal.
    In the same way you will find right through the structure of the Criminal Appeal Act that you cannot marry that form of appeal to a partner which is not at all of the same race or kind and which belongs to a different order of beings altogether. You cannot do a thing like that, and it really cannot be practically managed in that way. But you can do this: You can inquire what are the provisions existing inside military justice for revising and reviewing the decisions of courts-martial, and I would like to tell my hon. Friend what they are. It seems to be supposed that once a court-martial has arrived at a conclusion the sentence must be carried out and there is nothing more to be said. As a matter of fact,

    1323
    whether you are dealing with courts-martial in the Army or in the Navy, and whatever may be your view as to the general superiority of Civil Courts, there is no doubt about it that the machinery provided for reviewing the sentence is more complete in the case of military tribunals than in the case of civil tribunals. Every military sentence has got to be reviewed by somebody and the same is true in regard to naval matters, in which case an official exists for the express purpose of reviewing every such sentence. Something has been said in favour of having the matters dealt with by lawyers rather than by soldiers, but the official whose duty it is to consider every one of these cases is not a soldier but a lawyer. Every single sentence passed by courts-martial, not only corns before the Judge-Advocate-General, but he makes a report upon it, and in a proper case calls attention to the fact, that the sentence appears to require reconsideration. There is a machinery which is necessarily brought into play in connection with every court-martial for reviewing the sentence as an administrative act. They have the assistance of legal authorities and sometimes very eminent legal authorities, and this is in practice taken advantage of in reviewing any sentences passed by courts-martial under the Defence of the Realm Act.
    There is also this distinction. If you go to the Court of Criminal Appeal to appeal from the sentence of an ordinary Civil Court, the Appeal Court may say, "As you have appealed to us we are not going to reduce your sentence, but we are going to increase it," and the Court of Criminal Appeal does sometimes increase a sentence. No such thing is possible in reviewing a military sentence, because every military sentence, if altered after review, must be in a sense favourable to the accused. I know my hon. Friend is attached, and I am attached, to the methods of civil justice, but our only excuse from departing from those methods is the emergency in which we stand. I suggest that it is better that we should be frank in this Bill. Do not let us cloak what we are doing by saying that there is an appeal to be brought. If we expose persons who are not soldiers and sailors to a Military Court, I admit that we are departing from the traditions we have inherited, and which we are proud of. But our only excuse for doing it is the necessity of the
    1324
    time, and that puts upon us the most solemn obligation to get rid of this method as soon as it is possible to do so. I cannot consent to do more in this direction than the Bill does now. I ask the House not to endeavour to join together the Civil Court of Appeal with the Military Court in the first instance. The machinery will not work because the whole scheme of the Criminal Appeal Act is not suitable for Military Courts. Therefore, let us do Military Courts the justice of saying that they have their own method of reviewing their decisions which is a very complete one, and let us return as soon as we can without any qualification to the system to which my hon. Friend and many of us are sincerely attached.
    Sir W. BYLES: I am greatly indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend for his elaborate explanation of this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 1 (4) of 5 Geo. V., c. 8.)
    Sub-section (4) of Section one of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, shall have effect as thought—

    (a) the maximum term of penal servitude which could be inflicted under Section five of the Army Act were seven years; and

    (b) in the proviso, for the word "death" there had been substituted the words "penal servitude for life or any shorter term."

    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir W. BYLES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." This is a proposal for a mitigation of punishment. I confess that I have very little hope of it being accepted, but I have been asked by some of my friends outside to move it, and I do so because I am an invincible opponent of capital punishment, and I move it with all sincerity.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think my hon. Friend will realise that we could not on the Report stage of a Bill of this kind decide the serious problem as to whether capital punishment should be abolished.
    Sir W. BYLES: I raised the point when the Bill was first introduced.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think my hon. Friend will see that if capital punishment does exist in the ordinary law of this country, surely when some aliens betray the interests of this country capital punishment is all the more likely to commend itself in such a case to those who believe in the imposition of that punishment.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Right of British Subject Charged with Offence to be Tried by Civil Court.)
    (1) Where a person, being a British subject but not being a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to military law, is alleged to be guilty of an offence against any regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, he shall be entitled, within four clear days, from the time when the general nature of the charge is communicated to him, to claim to be tried by a Civil Court with a jury instead of being tried by court-martial, and where such a claim is made in manner provided by regulations under the last mentioned Act the offence shall, as respects the person so charged, be deemed to be a felony punishable with the like punishment as might have been inflicted if the offence had been tried by court-martial, and any prosecution and trial of the offence shall be conducted accordingly:
    Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the offence is tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
    (2) The Vexatious Indictment Act, 1859, as amended by any subsequent enactment shall apply to a felony under this Section as if it were included among the offences mentioned in Section 1 of that Act, but a felony under this Section shall not be friable by a Court of Quarter Sessions.
    (3) For the purpose of the trial of a person, for a felony under this Section the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed or in any place in the United Kingdom in which the offender may be found or to which he may be brought for the purpose of trial.
    (4) An indictment under this Section shall not be deemed void or defective by reason that the facts or matters alleged in the indictment for the felony amount in law to treason; and if the facts or matters proved at the trial of any person indicted for any felony under this Section amount in law to treason, the person shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be
    1326
    acquitted of such felony; but no person tried for such felony shall be afterwards prosecuted for treason upon the same facts.
    (5) In the event of invasion or other special emergency arising out of the present War, His Majesty may by Proclamation forthwith suspend the operation of this Section, either generally or as respects any area specified in the Proclamation, without prejudice, however, to any proceedings under this Section which may be then pending in any Civil Court.
    (6) In the application of this Section to Scotland "a Civil Court with a jury" means the High Court of Justiciary, and Sub-section (2) shall not apply.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, to insert at the beginning of the Clause,
    "(1) Any offence against any regulations made under the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, which is tr able by court-martial may, instead of being tried by a court-martial, be tried by a Civil Court with a jury, and when so tried the offence shall be deemed to be a felony punishable with the like punishment as might have been inflicted if the offence had been tried by court-martial."
    This is the Amendment to which I just now referred. As the Bill left the Committee there was no power to try offences against the Defence of the Realm Regulations committed by a foreigner. This Clause will confer power to try a foreigner by a jury, but it does not give him the right to claim such a trial. I hope the House will feel that this is an improvement in the Bill, and it meets the difficulty raised by some hon. Friends of mine. It will enable the Government to make more and more use of the Civil Courts as time goes on.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Who will decide whether the Civil Court will be used?
    Sir J. SIMON: The prosecution.
    Mr. W. ROCH: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for this proposal. I am still anxious, however, as to who is going to be the prosecutor. I understand from what the Attorney-General has said that the prosecution will decide whether it shall be a court-martial or a Civil Court. The effect of that is to give the Civil Executive the power of putting the law into force. In that I foresee this difficulty. I will assume that an offence is committed under the Defence of the Realm Act. Under this Amendment in

    1327
    the Bill, both the police and the soldier will have power to deal with it. Supposing the police and the soldier differ, who is to decide? This proposal might give rise to a greater difficulty, and I should like to feel more clear as to how it is going to work.
    Sir J. SIMON: The answer to that is that there are not two Executives in this country. It is true that the head of the War Office is one person and the Attorney-General is another, and the question as to which of them controls a particular prosecution is a question which may have to be decided in some individual case. When I say the prosecution determine, I mean the Executive as a whole has to determine how a case has to be dealt with. The House may be sure that within our powers the Civil Executive will take the proper course.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I thank the Attorney-General for putting down this Clause, which meets my point of not taking up the time of a number of our prominent soldiers dealing with courts-martial. I hardly think, however, that the Attorney-General has met the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite. We have had a good deal of divided responsibility in matters of Executive, and I really think that there is something in the point. This Clause provides that a case which otherwise would be tried by court-martial may be tried by the Civil Court. If it is going to be tried by court-martial in the first instance, the prosecutor would necessarily be a military man, and he would be subject to the control of some military authority. Therefore, primâ facie, it would be the military authority who would be able to say that it should go to a Civil Court. The Attorney-General says that is true, but he would work in concert with the Civil Executive, viz., himself. I think it really ought to be made more clear whether it is the military authority who is to send it to the Civil Court, or whether it is the Attorney-General. I can well see that a difficulty might arise in which the military authority would say, "I wish to keep this to be tried by court-martial," and in which the civil authority represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say, "I wish this to go to a Civil Court," and it would be well if the Attorney-General could suggest some form of words which would avoid any such difficulty arising. If he would put in some such words as "May
    1328
    upon the request of the Attorney-General be tried by the Civil Court," I think that we should get over the difficulty which might very well arise in the operation of this very useful Section.
    Sir J. SIMON: We could deal with the matter by regulation.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this Clause, which does meet to a considerable extent a matter on which many of us feel strongly. I quite realise that the point raised by my hon. Friend could be met by regulations, but regulations are only known to the persons concerned and not to the public. I do not know what difficulty there would be in accepting the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite: "May at the request of the Attorney-General," or "at the instance of the Attorney-General," instead of being tried by court-martial be tried by a Civil Court. Having made this concession and increased the use of the Civil Courts under this Act, I think that the more clearly it is laid down to everybody who sees the Act the better, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the matter.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I really do not think that there is anything in this point. It is quite plain that before the trial the Executive will, in some form or other, be able to intervene, and, if they thought that it was better to try the case by Civil Court, it is quite clear that the court-martial could be directed not to proceed, and it would be tried by the Civil Court.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "being a British subject but not being," and to insert instead thereof the words "not being an alien enemy nor."
    The Amendment has for its object the extension of the provisions of this Bill to Allied and to neutral persons in this country. The House will remember that this proposal was negatived in Committee, but we have a considerably larger attendance here to-day, and I venture to submit it to the House once more on its merits. The Government have never alleged on any ground of national safety that this Amendment is undesirable. Had they come to us and said, "We have reason to think that there is a danger in extending this right of trial by jury to neutrals and

    1329
    Allies," I might personally have maintained a private scepticism, but I should not be moving this Amendment. The Government, on the contrary, have opposed this Amendment for reasons which we are all in an equal position with the Attorney-General to examine. The first ground was the ground of administration. The Attorney-General told us that it was very easy to decide who was a British subject. If you brought a man into Court and he desired to claim this right, you put to him the question, "Are you a British subject?" and he could prove this comparatively easily. It was pointed out, in answer, that it may be exceedingly difficult to prove whether you are or are not a British subject if you happen to belong to some remote portion of the Empire and to have a Teutonic name.
    It was also pointed out that the Government had in point of fact divided the inhabitants of this country in quite a different way. They had divided them into alien enemies and all others. We were told the other day by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office in this House that every single alien enemy in this country is known and is at this moment under constant police surveillance. He also pointed out that every single alien enemy is known and registered under the Registration Aliens Act. That being so, surely on the administrative ground simplicity obviously ties with the Amendment. The Attorney-General also laid great point on the need for rapidity of procedure. Clearly the need for rapidity of procedure is met by this Amendment and not by the Bill. A man is brought before the Court, and, if the police certify that he is an alien enemy, he cannot claim the right of trial by jury; otherwise, he would have free choice. On the ground of administration, therefore, I am sure that the Attorney-General would have to accept the Amendment. In answering, towards the end of the Debate he took another ground. He said that the only division that occurred to one was that of British subjects and all other persons. There is no more difficulty in dividing the people into enemy aliens and others than in dividing them into British subjects and others The fact that the Government have already taken the first course for the purposes of national defence proves that they had no difficulty in the early period of the War in making that decision, and, whatever might have been the value of that logical argument, the
    1330
    Attorney-General has himself blown it sky high by the Amendment he made later on in the Bill itself.
    I do not know whether the House realises that it is now possible under this Bill for the wife of a German who has been a British subject to claim the right of trial by jury. If she happened to be a loyal wife, loyal to her husband and children and she happened to have her home in Germany, she might reasonably be expected to have German sympathies, but, whether that were so or not, she would have the right to claim trial by the civil authority. If that is the best this House can do in the way of logic or common sense, I venture to say that we are open to the criticism of the other House. Finally, I want to put before the House the argument of policy, which is a serious one. We are saying by this Bill that we are prepared to restore the right of civil trial to certain inhabitants of this country. We are not prepared to restore it to alien enemies, but we have the free choice of saying what we shall do with neutrals and Allies. We can say to them either, "We choose to-class you as Germans," or, "We choose to include you as British subjects." When the Bill was drafted that point may have been a minor one and of no importance, but, after the event of last week, surely it is very desirable for us to be able to say to Americans, Danes, Swedes, Belgians, and all neutral and allied persons that we are treating them well. I submit that it is a lamentable error of judgment at this moment to neglect paying homage to the rights of neutrals and making to neutrals a concession that would clearly be graceful.
    Mr WHITEHOUSE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: This matter was debited fairly fully on the Committee stage, and, while I realise that my hon. Friend has put again with great force the views which he holds in reference to the arguments I then used, I am sorry to say that I still think they were good arguments, and I must remind him that they found favour with the House in the sense that the proposal which he then made was not accepted. The real truth, as I then pointed out, is that you have to choose between two things: You must either say that the right to be tried by judge and jury is a right which attaches to an individual who is neither a soldier nor a sailor without any regard to his nationality, or

    1331
    else that you are going to restrict it to British subjects. There is no rhyme or reason why you should say that the right is attached to a person who is actively engaged in betraying this country's interests, but who claims to be a neutral of pronounced German sympathies, unless at the same time you are going to confer it upon the German himself. I defy anybody in all eases to draw a distinction with certainty between the two, or to ascertain to which of the two classes a man belongs. I am sorry, therefore, that we cannot alter the Bill in this particular.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: There is one consideration always left out of account. It is assumed that you are going to deal with the major offences under the Defence of the Realm Act, and if we proceed to make the necessary further assumption, it must be supposed that you are dealing either with a guilty or an innocent person. If you are dealing with an innocent person, you are not only entitled, but almost bound, to show more consideration to the subject of a neutral State than to your own subjects, in the interests of British justice which has made its name famous all over the world. If you assume that you are dealing with a man who is guilty, then I do not hesitate to say that the offence of helping the enemy is worse in the case of a British subject than in that of a neutral, and he is less entitled to our sympathy than a neutral subject in whom such conduct is infinitely more justifiable. When the Attorney-General says that on administrative grounds it is not possible to draw the distinction, I suppose that we must listen to him and not ask the House to accept this Amendment, but really you may be giving this privileged position of a right to a trial by a civil tribunal in a great many cases, and it is just possible the most important cases, to the least deserving of all the classes with whom you have to deal.
    Mr. M'CURDY: The speech of the last speaker proceeds clearly upon the assumption that in granting the privilege of trial by jury as an alternative to trial by court-martial for these offences we are conceding something really of very substantial value, and therefore that unless it be extended to the case of alien friends or neutrals we are depriving all our friends of some benefit. I feel bound to rise and protest against that view. I cannot help wondering whether, in the course of this Debate, the Attorney-General has not come to
    1332
    regret that this Bill was introduced at all. If we really looked the facts in the face, we should be bound to admit that the only purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, for which this Bill was introduced was not to remedy any defect in existing legislation and not to undo any mistake committed in haste at the commencement of the War, but to conciliate a perfectly unreasonable British sentiment, a British sentiment which thinks that trial by jury—a right established by Magna Charta—should be maintained in time of war, and that nothing shall be done which would imperil that palladium of the British subject. But what are the cold facts of the case? The country has been suddenly plunged into a state of war and a class of offences has come into existence, offences in which the possession of an alien name or appearance may constitute an element of risk—offences in which the feelings of those who have to try them may be inflamed by passion. It is proposed on one hand that there should be a suitable tribunal to try that class of offences, and it is also said that the proper tribunal under war conditions would be a British jury. Would any Member of this House suggest that, on questions of that kind, twelve men who may be found heatedly discussing these questions in a tramcar would be a really suitable and judicial body to whom to entrust the lives and liberties of fellow citizens? Does it materially alter their suitability that they should be confined within a box?
    On the other hand, we have at any rate in the community one class of persons who conspicuously have not lost their heads and who have preserved their balance of mind in this national emergency. In the case of a soldier and a sailor war does not introduce such a disturbance of the mental faculties as it does in the case of the average jurymen. To suggest, as has been suggested, that it is really an unfriendly act to a neutral, to a Dutchman or a Scandinavian, to say that he shall not be allowed to throw himself on the judgment of a British jury, instead of having his case tried by a trained tribunal, appears to me to be a grotesque inversion of the true facts of the case. If it were possible, when the interests of criminal classes are being considered in this House, for those classes to be directly represented, they would often have to say, "Save us from our friends." It is not long since that this House, in a passion of philanthropic frenzy towards suspected persons in this

    1333
    country, was engaged in passing the Criminal Aliens Act, which hon. Members opposite below the Gangway were too shrewd to allow it to be applied to their own country.
    Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. M'CURDY: The only effect of that Act has been to make it much more difficult for an accused person to obtain an acquittal. The effect of this Act, in restoring trial by jury, will be to expose to very great peril any person who may be accused of an offence involving espionage, the improper use of lights, or any other of those matters which so exercise the public mind at the present time, should they be so ill-advised as to select the tribunal of the British jury. It is because I think that that peculiarly British privilege should be reserved for British subjects that I venture to oppose this Amendment.
    Sir PHIPSON BEALE: The real question involved here is whether, in the case of a person who is neither an alien enemy nor a British subject, but an ordinary foreigner, it is for him to decide, or for the prosecution, whether he shall be tried before a jury or by a court-martial. I do not think that, in proper cases, the Executive would fail to send the accused person before a jury in preference to having him tried by court-martial.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Section (1), to leave out the words, "within four clear days from the time when the general nature of the charge is communicated to him to claim."
    The arguments in favour of giving trial by jury in all these cases have unfortunately not been accepted by the Government or approved by the House. Some of us believe that if trial by jury is to be restored—and some of us do wish it to be restored, in spite of the elaborate cynicisms of the hon. Member for Northampton—would like to see it done quite clearly and plainly, without all these elaborations which are introduced into this Bill. The Government must contemplate that everybody will exercise his choice in favour of having a jury in the future, and, if that be the case, why should it be made a matter of choice at all? My right hon. and learned Friend was so good, on the Committee stage, as to promise that he would inform the House, on the Report
    1334
    stage, of the particular words which will inform the prisoner that he can, if he chooses, be tried by jury. I know I cannot hope the Government will accept my Amendment as it stands, but I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would take this opportunity of communicating these words to the House. We under stand that it will be more convenient to have them in the Regulations rather than in the Act itself, but I think the House before it parts with the Bill, and through it the public, should be made generally aware of the definite phrase and words in which this power to be tried by a jury is to be made known to everyone charged under this Act. In order to secure that information I beg to move my Amendment.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend raised this matter on the Committee stage, and I think he will agree that it was then discussed from all points of view. He will, therefore, forgive me if I do not repeat the arguments which were then accepted by the Committee. But I am much obliged to him for affording me this opportunity of doing what I undertook to do on the Report stage, and to tell the House the form of words in which we shall give notice to the accused person that he has a right under this Section to go before a jury. It is well that it should be seated in the simplest and plainest terms, so that there may be no possibility of dispute. At the same time, we should also give the phraseology of the form in which the accused can make his claim. The first form will read:—
    "You are charged with [here will be inserted the general nature of charge]. If you are a British subject you will have a right to be tried for this offence by a Civil Court, with a jury, instead of being tried by court-martial. Do you wish to claim to be so tried? If so, you must, within six clear days, fill in and sign the appended form."
    This form, or notice, must, of course, be dated, and the six days will count from that date. Then the form of claim will be in the following words:—
    "I, being a British subject, claim to be tried for the above-mentioned offence by a Civil Court with a jury, instead of by a court-martial."
    This, too, must be dated and signed.
    Mr. HEALY: To whom must it be addressed?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is a perfectly good point. We ought, by the Regulations, to provide to whom this document should be addressed, and I will see that that is done. I imagine that the proper person to whom to address it would be the person who, on behalf of the Executive, declared the general nature of the charge. At any rate, I will see that proper provision is made for that.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words—
    "as respects the person so charged, be deemed to be a felony punishable with the like punishment as might have been inflicted if the offence had been tried by court-martial, and any prosecution and trial of the offence shall be conducted accordingly,"
    and insert instead thereof the words, "not to be tried by court-martial."—[Sir. J. Simon.]
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "or" ["committed or"], to insert the words "at the option of the accused."
    The effect of this Amendment would be that the Executive would not have the power to change the venue except at the option of the accused. I had hoped that to-day the Attorney-General would see his way to accept the Amendment. I wish to ask him whether or not, in this connection, he has considered the question of the expense to which the accused will be put when the venue is changed, in order to obtain evidence and secure the attendance of witnesses? In the Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman used these words:—
    "If you take, for instance, the rules of procedure which cover the much abused court-martial, one of them is that the accused, before he is arraigned, shall be informed by an officer of every charge on which he is to be tried, and also that on his giving the names of any witnesses whom he desires to call in his defence, the necessary steps will be taken for procuring their attendance, and those steps shall be taken accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1915, col. 718.]
    It is quite true the Attorney-General did not give an undertaking that that would be done, but he did undertake to consider the matter, and, therefore, I formally move my Amendment in order to secure from him a statement as to whether he has been able to meet us on this point.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of making a statement about this point, which is an important one. The reasons why we must keep the power to change the venue are known to the House—they are the simple grounds of urgency and saving of time. It does not follow that because you change the venue in all cases you will cause witnesses to go greater distances. It is easy to give illustrations where that would not be so, and where by passing over the border of a county you would get sooner to an Assize town. Still there may be cases, and I have made it my business to consult with the authorities in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and arrangements are made by which, in cases which they will have to conduct under this Bill, in any proper instance the poor prisoner who, owing to this change of venue, is put at a disadvantage to which he would not be put if he were tried in the county where the offence was committed, will be able to ask that a witness whom he needs shall be, if necessary, interviewed for him, and, if necessary, even subpœnaed by the prosecution.
    As a matter of fact, that is the thing which is not infrequently done, as some hon. Members know, in an ordinary civil trial. I have never known, since I have been Attorney-General, any charge of murder or any other serious charge being brought against a poor person where, in case of need, the prosecution have not themselves taken care to produce on the spot a person who really ought to be available to testify in the interests of the accused. It is a matter of great importance that we should make it plain to the public that in this country we do not conduct prosecutions on the principle that we ought to try, if possible, to prevent the defendant from calling the evidence that would help to defend him. In a proper case it has always been our position that the prosecution itself will see to it that some necessary witness, even although it is in the interests of the accused, and still more because it is in the interest of the accused, shall be available. That will be done in this case.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to thank the Attorney-General for his statement, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "War" ["special military emergency arising out of the present War"], to insert the words "by which the Civil Courts are rendered unavailable."
    I hope the House will forgive me for taking up time, however short, in moving this Amendment, because this, in the opinion of some of us, is the matter of all others in this Bill about which we feel most strongly, and about which we feel that our duty compels us to make a protest at this, the final stage of the Bill. This is a Clause which enables the Government by Proclamation to abrogate this Bill in time of invasion or any other special military emergency. The Amendment provides that this shall only apply when the Civil Courts are rendered unavailable. There have been throughout these discussions differences of opinion on detail and endeavours made by different Members of the House to extend or restrict the operations of this Bill, but whatever our views are as to the exact scope and extent of the Bill, or the details by which it is to be carried out, this is the very much larger and more important question as to whether the Executive ought to be given power under this or any Bill to use these special methods of justice, or to dispense even with this Bill at a time when the Civil Courts are available and to fall back on the far wider provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, which is the law at the present time.
    There are some of us who believe that the only time when martial law and courts-martial without alternatives are defensible is when the Civil Courts of the realm cannot be used. That has been the unbroken practice of our country in every kind of crisis and on every occasion on which our country has been at war. In times when civil freedom was least developed and least safeguarded the attempt was not made, and certainly was never carried out, to supersede the Civil Courts in time of war when those Courts were available. In spite of that restriction upon military action and upon the policy of the Executive, our country was able to shake itself free from civil discord and to go triumphantly through the wars of the last 200 years, in which, on some occasions, the country was in a position at least as grave—some of us think even graver—than the position in which the country is now.
    Sir J. SIMONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am quite willing to exchange historical opinions with my right hon. Friend. I would remind him of the time when England had lost command of the sea, when the American rebellion was successful, and when the position of this country was in, both as regards internal discord and external danger, was more serious than in the days of the great war with Napoleon. I know, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, how easy it is to take different views of historical problems. Whatever our views of history may be, to give this power to the Executive to suspend an Act like this and to restore the unmeasured abolition as regards these offences of the Civil Courts of the realm when those Civil Courts are available is an entirely new experiment and departure in the legislation of our country. There are those of us who take the view that as long as the Civil Courts are available we should have resort to them for trying civilians guilty of any crime.
    While we accept the restrictions put into this Bill, the least we can ask is that this Bill should be the law of the land throughout this War, under any circumstances. I know there is no hope of this Amendment being accepted, and that the Government have made up their minds while giving us this Bill—we are grateful for the Bill—to take this unheard of power to abrogate it at any moment when in the opinion of the Executive we are invaded, or there is a special military emergency. Those of us who cannot agree to that do not yield to the Government or to any of then supporters in this matter either in our love of our country or in our anxiety to help in every way we can the successful prosecution of this War; but we believe that in this matter, at any rate, the decision of previous generations and the unbroken traditions founded thereon are wiser than the present decision of the Government. We may be wrong. That the future will show. In making this pretest I hope we are not doing anything inconsistent with our view of loyalty to the Government and our due regard for the patriotism of men who are responsible for this in saying that we hope the future will show that the old method was the best, and that this new and evil departure, as we think it, may not form a precedent

    1339
    for any wider divergence from those customs and laws of our country which maintain unimpaired the supremacy of the Civil Courts whenever they were able to sit, and when they were not able to sit rely on that general martial law which in the end is responsible to the country and Parliament itself.
    Mr. DENMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope the Attorney-General will not think me ungrateful for the extent to which he has met many of us in the conduct of this Bill when I express my regret that it was ever introduced. For my own part, I was well content that the Government should have taken the autocratic powers they took last August, and I should be well content that they should preserve them now, believing that the real security is public opinion as expressed through this House, and being quite content with that security. When, however, this Bill is brought before the House we are bound to re-examine the whole position de novo and to scrutinise the position very closely. The time has now come when the principle might be reaffirmed that a British subject shall have the full right of appeal to the Civil Courts so long as the Civil Courts are avaiiable.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry that I have to resist the proposal of my hon. Friends. It is a proposal which was presented in very powerful terms during the Committee stage and one which was resisted then with the approval of the Committee. I must point out to my two hon. Friends again what the overwhelming reason is why we should not accept it. In the first place, they seem to think that all difficulties would be solved if you provided that the Amending Bill is to be suspended only if the Civil Courts are not available. There are two obvious comments on that: first, you do not need to put that into this or any other Bill Martial law, if the word is used in its proper sense—that is to say, rough and ready justice, administered as best it may be by soldiers at the very pinch of an emergency; martial law is only law in this sense, that it is the best thing you can have when you have the greatest possible doubt whether you are ever going to save your own lives. You do not need any Act of Parliament to say that.
    Secondly, do you think you are going to decide this matter by putting in the words
    1340
    "so long as the Civil Courts are available"? Who is going to decide that they are available? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Executive."] Do my hon. Friends who are claiming full consideration for our constitutional privileges say that what they mean is that the matter should be handed over to the Executive? The last time this question arose was in the middle of the Boer War. What was the result? A Dutchman, or a man with a Dutch name, claimed to be tried by the Civil Court rather than by court-martial. Was it an easy question to decide? It took months. I am not sure that it did not even take more than twelve months. It had to come before the Privy Council here, and it was argued on one side by an eminent legal authority. There was great disputing as to whether or not it was a case for court-martial, and to this day the precise way in which you should try these cases is a matter of very considerable dispute between one man and another. We really must face the fact that we are not living in a time when we can devote all our energies to this doubtless important but none the less highly involved and subtle and delicate discussion. I do not want to enter into any historical argument with my hon. Friend, but I a little deprecate that somewhat complacent way of saying, "Thank goodness we are not in a situation to-day which is to be compared with the situation which existed in the time of Napoleon, and what was found to be sufficient then would necessarily be found to be sufficient now." Let us be sure that we take adequate steps. We shall be forgiven by posterity if the steps we take are more than adequate, but we shall never be, and shall not deserve to be, forgiven if the steps we are taking are not sufficient.
    And really when one compares what I dare say was quite accurate, and well to be defended a hundred years ago with what I now propose in this Clause, does my hon. Friend not see how fundamental is the difference? At a time when communication was difficult, and the only moans you had of sending news across the English Channel was to put a man in a sailing vessel and hope he would sail across in time to tell them, I dare say you did not do any harm if you said, "We do not want any special machinery or any rapid organisation which will, if necessary, act in terrorem over those who are acting against our interests." What is that situation compared with the situation when, the moment a newspaper came out,

    1341
    if it was permitted to come out, announcing that particular troops are on the point of leaving a particular town for the front, that message in five minutes can be over in Berlin, and arrangements made for meeting and, it may be, overwhelming those troops on their journey across the sea? I see no resemblance whatever between the two cases. Although I assure my hon. Friends that I am as much attached to these constitutional traditions as they are, and as prepared, on what I think the right occasion, to defend them, whether they are popular or unpopular, as they are, I do not understand how anybody who realises the real nature of the problem we have to face can think it would be satisfactory to alter the Clause in the way now proposed. We must preserve this right. I hope and believe that we shall never have to exercise it, but we must preserve it. Really, it will not do for hon. Members to console themselves with the idea that the Bill we are now amending is one which was passed in a hurry in the first days of the War. It was not.
    The Bill we are now amending bears upon its face the date 27th November. It was a Consolidation Bill, and it was passed through this House in November. It passed by general consent, and I believe the House was right in passing it at that time in the form in which it was drawn. But, the time having arrived when we may make certain modifications, let us make some modifications but not forget that the main thing is even now to preserve in case of need that ultimate right, the exercise of that ultimate duty, to take any step, however novel, however far it departs from our traditional constitutional rights, if indeed that step is in the pinch of necessity justified, in order that we may protect the national interest. Therefore while I feel most deeply being parted from hon. Friends of mine on a point of this sort, where I so sincerely sympathise with the spirit which animates their proposal, I feel it my duty to resist it and to ask the House to reject it without the slightest hesitation in the national interest.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I do not quite follow the Attorney-General, because he is asking for a very novel power under very novel circumstances, a power which the Executive have never had, to dispense with the law.
    Sir J. SIMON: It has had it ever since 27th November, when the hon. Gentleman did not resist it.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I do not quite agree. Leave was given to introduce the Bill on 11th August, and it passed its Second and Third Reading.
    Sir J. SIMON: Then I correct my statement, and say the Executive has had the power since the early days of August.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Which is a great pity. We did not realise it, and advantage was taken of us in not explaining that departure which was then made. The Attorney-General now says that circumstances may be so serious that the Executive ought to have this power. He has already admitted that if the circumstances are so serious the Executive does not need these powers, and that martial law comes into operation automatically, and the military authorities may act upon that. Therefore without explaining why he wants this inferior power he has not explained what sort of conditions would arise under which it could be exercised. I am not very fond of Proclamations because there is no one who supervises them, and you cannot be at all certain that the law will be obeyed after the Proclamations are issued. I do not make that statement unadvisedly, because I find that on a very important occasion the law enjoined by Statute upon the executive Government has not beers followed.
    I find that on the 3rd August a Proclamation was issued which really abolished Parliament, because it tells us by authority of the Government that Parliament was not sitting on that day, whereas I am sure Parliament was sitting on that date. Yet here I read from the Proclamation "and whereas Parliament is not sitting," and the object of that was not to comply with the Statute of 1859, which stated that no such Proclamation could be issued unless Parliament had first been notified of the fact. That Statute was re-enjoined time after time right down to the present time. Yet in face of that Statute this Proclamation was issued and our existence was abolished by that Proclamation. I do not feel that we have very much of a safeguard in entrusting this power to the Executive to issue a Proclamation. I would rather make them take the great risk which there is in applying martial law on a grave situation arising in connection with the defence of this country. That is what has always been done in the past.
    Yet the Attorney-General has now given us no explanation of why they wish

    1343
    to alter that Act, and what the inferior conditions—because they must be inferior in danger—are for which he is asking for power to abolish the law by Proclamation. It is an enormous extension of the power of the Executive to give them this authority at their own will, and without any reason given or shown in the Statute whatever to clothe them with the power of not complying with a law of this kind. In the Absence of any explanation by the Attorney-General of the sort of occasion on which this is to be applied, I think we are perfectly justified in pressing upon the Government that they should either inform us what those occasions are or what kind of peril they anticipate which is short of that great peril which would authorise them automatically to use martial law, and asking them to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I wish to say a few words in support of the view which the Attorney-General has presented to the House. Most of us are agreed that the occasion may arise when it would be necessary to suspend the operation of this Clause. Would there be any safeguard or any use in the words which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment propose to add to the Clause? They would place the Executive in a serious difficulty if ever the occasion arose when they, unhappily, desired to make use of the powers given them by the Clause. They would have to determine whether an emergency had arisen by which the Civil Courts are rendered unavailable. What does that mean? Let us ask the hon. Members to explain themselves. Supposing on a Saturday afternoon, or a Friday, an emergency arises, and supposing the Assizes have recently been held and the Quarter Sessions also, and that there is no Court which is likely to sit for the next two or three days. Is that an occasion of emergency by which the Civil Courts are rendered unavailable, or will they be available in the ordinary course at a later period?
    You only ask the Executive to deal with a problem on which many minds might give various opinions. You do not really assist or shackle the powers of the Executive, because the Executive would determine, if they were so minded, that the Civil Courts were rendered unavailable. Someone else might question it and say that in a certain portion of the area there were some Courts which were available;
    1344
    but, after all, the Executive would be the persons who would have to make up their minds. They would have to make an authoritative decision, and the addition of these words, so far really from offering any adequate or real safeguard, only offer an incumbrance to the Executive which I believe it is not the wish of the House to impose, and for that reason I very much hope the House will come to a speedy decision in accordance with the Attorney-General's views.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (6) leave out the words "a foreigner" ["who has married a foreigner"], and insert instead thereof the words "an alien."
    At the end of the Clause add, "(8) This Section shall apply in the case of offences committed and persons arrested before as well as after the passing of this Act."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Punishment for Striking, etc., Superior Officer.)
    A sentence of death shall not be passed on a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act for striking, or with any weapon attempting to strike, or drawing or lifting up any weapon against, his superior officer, and accordingly for Section sixteen of that Act the following Section shall be substituted:—
    "Every person subject to this Act who shall strike or attempt to strike, or draw or lift up any weapon against, or use or attempt to use any violence against, his superior officer, whether or not such such superior officer is in the execution of his office, shall be punished with penal servitude or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think it is due to the Committee to explain precisely what the scope of this Clause is. I endeavoured to explain yesterday that it relates to Section 16 of the original Act only. That Section provides that the maximum penalty for striking or attempting to strike a superior officer with a

    1345
    weapon when engaged in the execution of his office is death, and that the maximum penalty is penal servitude for striking or attempting to strike otherwise than with a weapon, or for using or attempting to use violence against a superior officer in the execution of his office, and that penal servitude is the maximum penalty for striking or attempting to strike without a weapon, or using or attempting to use violence against a superior officer not being engaged in the execution of his office. For that Section 16 we substitute this Clause 1, which makes in every such case penal servitude the maximum penalty. As I pointed out, there might be cases in which the matter might be dealt with summarily, and the commanding officer could give a maximum of three months' imprisonment. Of course, he might ask for a court-martial and proceed to make a charge, and the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) asked how that would affect death being the maximum penalty in other parts of this Act. That is a question I wish to bear in mind. Death would remain the maximum penalty: For misconduct in the presence of the enemy, under Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5; for correspondence with the enemy under Section 7; for mutiny accompanied by violence under Section 10; for the ringleader of a mutiny unaccompanied by violence under Section 11; for inciting to mutiny under Section 12; for desertion to the enemy under Section 19; for not taking care of and defending ships under convoy, under Section 30; for burning any dockyard, magazine or vessel, etc., not belonging to an enemy, pirate or rebel, under Section 34; for murder under Section 45. In these cases death remains the maximum penalty.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he intends to put this in the Naval Discipline Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the 1866 Act there is a line printed as amended. We shall put that line at the top. We shall, as the result of the Amendment, include these emendations. In place of Section 16 there will be this Clause I.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Offences Punishable under the Act.)
    In Section forty-six of the Naval Discipline Act, which defines the cases in which offences are triable by court-martial, after the words "in any arsenal,
    1346
    barrack, or hospital belonging to Her Majesty" there shall be inserted the words "or in any other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, or in any canteen or other place frequented by seamen which may be prescribed by the Admiralty."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should explain that Section 46 of the original Act sets out a large number of places other than the High Seas in which sailors of the Fleet may be assembled. It enacts that all offences therein committed, may be punished by naval law, whether they are offences against the ordinary law or naval law. Clause 3 adds to the list of such places. Both the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) and the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) called attention to the phrase, "or in any other premises held by or on behalf of the Crown for naval or military purposes, or in any canteen or other place frequented by seamen which may be prescribed by the Admiralty." They objected to these words on the ground that we were taking rather too wide power. I felt the force of the criticism, and I am quite sure that hon. Members who have followed the Debate share the general desire which was expressed by my hon. Friends yesterday. Nevertheless, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I propose to make an Amendment on the Clause I moved to leave out the words, "or other place frequented by seamen," and to insert instead thereof the words "sailors' home or any place of recreation placed at the disposal of or used by officers and men of His Majesty's Navy." I understand that there may be cases where we may need jurisdiction in certain circumstances.
    Mr. HEALY: Will the word "canteen" remain in?
    Dr MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. HEALY: It is a remarkable thing that the teetotalers in the House, who are so angry about men in the trenches having to stand the horrors of war and the stench of shell, should object to a court-martial being held in a canteen. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to make the change which he has proposed. I would expect the poor men, who are nearly dead, would be glad to get a little glass of grog.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I think this addition to the Clause is a very great improvement. The real improvement in it will be that it will keep the jurisdiction in our own hands without having to go to the Civil Courts.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I think the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) misunderstands the attitude of teetotalers in regard to these matters. We do not object to any soldier being given rum if he asks for it. What we object to is that those who are total abstainers should have intoxicants practically thrust upon them. We wish that they should be treated on an equality with others.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power to Inflict Dismissal in Addition to Imprisonment.)
    A sentence of imprisonment may be accompanied by a sentence that the prisoner be dismissed from His Majesty's Service and accordingly at the end of paragraph (7) of Section fifty-three of the Naval Discipline Act there shall be inserted the words "and may be accompanied with a sentence of dismissal from His Majesty's service."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I wish to make a correction in an answer which I gave yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman asked:—
    "Does that mean that a man may be dismissed without a court-martial on a sentence inflicted by a commanding officer?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1915, col. 1182.]
    To that I replied:—
    "Yes, up to two years."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman asked:—
    "Over two years or under two years? Is any officer to have power to sentence a man to two years' imprisonment and to accompany that sentence with an order of dismissal from the Service without a court-martial?"
    To that I replied:—
    "I think the summary jurisdiction of an officer only goes up to three months' imprisonment, but if a Court awards two years' imprisonment then we propose it shall be in its discretion to accompany it with a sentence of dismissal."
    The former answer I gave is incorrect, and I take this opportunity of correcting it.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Place for Holding Courts-Martial.)
    At the end of Section fifty-nine of the Naval Discipline Act, which requires courts-martial to be held on board ship, the following words shall be added, "unless the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial in any particular case for reasons to be recorded on the proceedings otherwise direct, in which case the court-martial shall be held at such convenient place on shore as the Admiralty or the officer who ordered the court-martial may direct."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The general desirability of departing from the established practice of holding a court-martial on board ship was expressed by the Noble Lord. But he objected to the Court being transferred to any out of the way or distant place. He did not wish an accused person to be dragged to London, say. We never had that in mind, and I move as an Amendment, after the word "held," to insert the words, "at a port."
    Lord C. BERESFORD: This is a very good Amendment. No doubt, in the circumstances of this War, it might be necessary to hold a court-martial when a ship was away. In war time there would be at a port officers qualified to hold courts-martial. I am sure the Service will be glad of this Amendment.
    Mr. HEALY: May I ask whether the interest of an accused person will be prejudiced by the shifting of the tribunal? A man might prefer to be tried by his own officers. I can understand a sailor desiring to be tried by his own officers—men who have known him all the time he has been in the Service. Is it absolutely clear that a change of the tribunal, if it takes place, will not prejudice him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Any rights an accused man might have under the established law and the King's Regulations would not be prejudiced by the holding of the court-martial at a port.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) has expressed a view, very kind and sympathetic to the prisoner. I would point out that men are never tried by their own officers. They are tried by naval officers. They can

    1349
    ask for an officer of their ship to come and give evidence of good character, but accused men are really tried by officers of other ships. In the case represented by the hon. and learned Member there could be no prejudice whatever, the Court would be held under the same circumstances of naval law.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: How would the Clause as amended affect the case if the ship was in a foreign port? Would it be open to hold the court-martial in a foreign port? I understand that those on board a British ship are legally on British territory. I want to know whether the Clause as proposed to be amended will enable a British subject to be tried in a foreign port?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is a very important one. I think an accused person could be tried at a Colonial port, but I do not think he could be tried in a foreign port under this Clause as amended.
    Mr. PETO: May I suggest that the Clause should be amended so that the court-martial could be held at any port in His Majesty's Dominions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take care that the point shall have consideration, and, if necessary, whatever Amendment may be desirable shall be made.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: It is rather important to make the matter perfectly clear, because difficult questions might arise in certain circumstances and in reference to certain points. For instance, in the case of an Egyptian port it might be difficult to say whether under the present status of Egypt such a port was or was not under the jurisdiction of His Majesty. It ought to be made quite clear exactly where a court-martial could or could not be held.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree that the point should be looked into.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The Court could not be formed in any foreign port. We should not have any naval officers there doing duty for the Fleet, but if the right hon. Gentleman puts that in it would make the thing quite clear.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Discipline on Hired Ships in Time of War.)
    At the end of paragraph (5) of Section ninety of the Naval Discipline Act, which relates to discipline upon hired ships in
    1350
    His Majesty's service in time of war, there shall be inserted the words "Provided that in the absence of the officer commanding such hired vessel, the officer commanding the ship or vessel or station in which such person may for the time being be held in custody shall have such power as aforesaid."
    Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman has said that Section 90 of the original Act, which makes provision in respect of hired ships in His Majesty's service in time of war, invests the commanding officer of every such hired vessel with the powers of a commanding officer in the matter of naval discipline in respect of members of the crew. I wish that was an absolutely accurate statement of the effect of Section 90, but the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman says is qualified by the fact that the hired vessel in question must be either commanded by an officer of the Navy, or be an aimed vessel.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said in His Majesty's service.
    Mr. PETO: Would not the hired ship be in His Majesty's service even if it was not an armed ship and did not happen to be commanded by a naval officer? The question has arisen about the transports and the discipline upon them. It is one to which I have called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and which has been brought much more authoritatively to his notice by the memorial of the very large number of officers commanding these hired transports. I could no doubt move an Amendment, but I did not like to do so. I only take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Admiralty should consider very seriously whether during the remaining period of the War these hired vessels, which are in fact transports constantly carrying a very large number of troops, should be commanded by officers of the Navy or of the Royal Naval Reserve, and therefore brought under the terms of Section 90 which it is here proposed to amend. I am quite convinced that if that could be done it would be an enormous relief to those who have to undertake this responsible duty of the safe-conduct of His Majesty's forces over seas.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Revival of Parts of Naval Discipline Act.)
    So much of the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, as repeals the Preamble to, and

    1351
    part of Section 86 of, the Naval Discipline Act shall cease to have and shall be deemed never to have had effect.
    Mr. HEALY: I desire to ask a question on this Clause. I have a most vivid recollection of the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893. In that Act there is a provision that the Preamble of the Naval Discipline Act shall stand repealed, and the Government after twenty-two years propose to repeal that repeal and declare that the Preamble has never been repealed, whereas the very forcible draftsmen or printers of the Naval Discipline Act have never regarded the repeal as having any effect at all, and they bring in a drag-net Clause into every one of their Bills providing that in spite of that repeal there is to be no repeal whatever. If there is anything that would produce want of respect for the law and for lawyers it is the system of Statute Law Revision whereby you solemnly repeal all the laws. I remember when there was a proposal to repeal Magna Charta, made in this House by some person of a repealing mind who said that it was obsolete, but by a vigorous effort the proposal was stopped. When I sat on a Committee on Statute Law Revision, of which the present Prime Minister was a member, there was a proposal made that the priority of salary of the Lord Chief Justice should stand repealed, and the Prime Minister made an emphatic protest against that repeal taking place, and with great difficulty succeeded in preserving that most splendid relic of the Constitution. Here we have the most absolute absurdity demonstrated, not merely to this House, but to the public, and I ask what respect there can be for lawyers or for legislation when it is proposed here to repeal the repeal of a Preamble which every lawyer concerned in it for the last twenty-two years has never deemed to be repealed at all.
    It is certainly one of the most curious instances connected with legislation. For twenty-two years, notwithstanding the repeal of the Preamble of the Naval Discipline Act, you have ignored the repeal, and this couple of sentences has continued, as I understand, to ornament and adorn the forefront of these Bills. Why should we now in a time of war suddenly wake up to the consciousness that this repeal, of which nobody hitherto has taken the smallest notice, has taken effect. I always wish to meet Treasury clerks to see what sort of persons they are. One would like
    1352
    to meet the kind of man who has discovered this, and who sat up for nights, I suppose, planning that he would give the House of Commons some judicial entertainment by suddenly providing that the ghost of this repeal shall be finally laid by a Statute declaring that the repeal has never taken place at all. I would like to meet the gentleman responsible. Read the Clause, I think it is a classic instance:
    "So much of the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, as repeals the Preamble to and part of Section 86 of the Naval Discipline Act shall cease to have and shall be deemed never to have had effect."
    Whoever drew that had the courage of his convictions. What is the fact? That everybody connected with the Navy has insisted upon this Preamble continually, as if no repeal had taken place at all.
    Why cannot you leave it so? Because you have really this position: So far as my experience in Courts of Law has gone, every time you said to a Court that the Statute Law Revision Act has repealed a particular provision, the Courts took no notice of it. I remember complaining that no attention was being bestowed on the revision of the Irish Statute and, for my sins, the then Government, about twenty-five years ago, appointed a man who has mottled and dappled Irish legislation, so that when you require to consider the effect of bankruptcy laws, land laws and other things of difficulty and doubt, nobody can construe the Statute Law Revision, and consequently the Irish Courts have come to the sensible resolution that they will pay no heed whatever to the Statute Law Acts. I remember Lord Chancellor Ashbourne asking me, "Why on earth does the House of Commons pass such Statute Law Acts?" and I said that they were intended as a codification of the law, in order to make the law clear to the working man. That is the only explanation which I have ever been able to get of this system of legislation. To pass this Section now would mean a legislative declaration by the Government that the Statute Law Revision Acts have force, because they themselves, having refused to recognise the force of the Statute Law Revision Acts, now find it necessary to declare, as they do by this Clause, that in fact they believe that they have had force, whereas it was known to everyone that they had no force whatever.
    Therefore, when by the blundering of the gentlemen connected with the Statute Law

    1353
    Revision some Act is repealed, you can always say "that is a blunder and the drag-net Section will cover it, and therefore no harm has been done." But can you do that now? Because the moment you say, "Oh, the Government for twenty-two years never took any notice of the repeal and they put the Preamble forthwith into the Section," then it would be said immediately by somebody that there was a revival and a re-enactment. When you yourselves have given no effect to the repeal you should not now prejudice other legislation by this proposal. I have no doubt whatever of the reason of the repeal. This is only a dive back to the past. In the old days there used to be a question that the Preamble could be postponed, and you could debate that. Then there was a Standing Order passed that the Preamble should stand proposed with the Question. Then as Preambles had gone out of fashion it was possible, under the Navy Acts, I take it, to have a Debate on the Preamble, and so it came under the notice of the naval law revisor and he abolished it altogether for the sake of what he thought was Parliamentary convenience, and when he had done that the Navy, with glorious persistency, treats the repeal as having had no effect whatever. We have lived in that happy state of things for twenty-two years and now, in the midst of a vast war with the Teuton or the Hun, or whatever it is called, supposed to be threatening at our gates, we declare that we shall run up the flag once more and that the glories of the Navy shall stand blazoned upon our banners, notwithstanding the repeal of the Preamble of the Naval Discipline Act. I only hope that the Gentleman responsible in doing what he has done in this case will not leave for future times a puzzle for lawyers like the puzzle which was propounded in the case of the fly in the amber, as to how the mischief he got there.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: Whatever else the Naval Discipline Act has produced, all of us are grateful that it should have produced the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has told us a number of things which we are greatly interested to know, including the part which he has played in appointing those officials who in Ireland look after the revision of the Statutes, and also his opinion of the law. But my immediate reason for rising was this: he said that he wants to see the man who will admit that he has got any sort of responsibility for putting this Clause in this Bill
    1354
    at this time. I am, I hope, a reasonably retiring person, but, that request having been made, I feel it necessary to stand up and say that I am the man. We have enjoyed the hon. and learned Gentleman's review of the Statute Law Revision Act, but I am sorry to say that I do not entirely share his view that it could have no effect on anything whatever. Ireland, indeed, is a fortunate country in many ways, but in no way so fortunate as in matters of this kind; at any rate, last Monday, in our own Courts here, a judgment was being considered with respect to which I had to argue. It was given by three judges of our own High Court, a short time back, in which they agreed unanimously that a Section in another Statute Law Revision Act had, in fact, altered a very important part of the prerogative of the Crown. I am glad to say that before the Court of Appeal we found that to be groundless, and we restored ourselves to the position in which we were before. There are two reasons why this Section should be put in, and I hope they will commend themselves to the House. The first is, at any rate in the view of those who are responsible for advising the Admiralty, that there is some doubt as to whether the Statute Law Revision Act here referred to has not thrown doubt upon some decisions already given by the Admiralty authorities in respect of courts-martial. Everybody will agree that when you are administering naval discipline through naval courts-martial you do not want a court-martial to be upset on the ground of a pure technicality. That is one reason why the Clause is put in at this time. There is another reason. Generally speaking, the Preamble of an Act of Parliament is found very dreary reading, more dreary than the enacting Clause, and the more we get rid of those Preambles of old Statutes I dare say the better; but there is one exception, and it is that which is traditionally to be found in the Naval Discipline Act. Its pedigree goes right back to Charles the Second, and it is a simple and splendid Preamble which existed until the Statute Law Revision Act framed by those who cared nothing for these things, cut it out of the Statute Book. I think it is proper that we should restore it:—
    "Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the government of the Navy, wherein under the good

    1355
    providence and protection of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of the Kingdom is so much concerned."
    I do not think we are in the least to be reproached, even in the event of war, because, when we had on various urgent matters to improve and amend the law with respect to naval discipline, we should, in set terms, restore to the Statute Book that traditional and splendid expression, "Wherein under the good providence of God." I am the guilty person who has put in this provision, and I ask the House to accept it.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Printing and Construction of Naval Discipline Act.)
    (1) Every enactment and word which is directed by this Act to be substituted for or added to any portion of the Naval Discipline Act shall form part of that Act in the place assigned to it by this Act, and the Naval Discipline Act, and all Acts which refer thereto, shall after the commencement of this Act be construed as if that enactment or word had been originally enacted in the Naval Discipline Act in the place so assigned, and, where it is substituted for another enactment or word, had been so enacted in lieu of that enactment or word, and as if the Naval Discipline Act had been enacted with the omission of any enactment or word which is directed by the Schedule to this Act to be omitted from that Act, and the expression "this Act" in the Naval Discipline Act shall be construed accordingly.
    (2) A copy of the Naval Discipline Act with every such enactment and word inserted in the place so assigned, and with the omission of any portion of that Act directed by the Schedule to this Act to be omitted from that Act, and with the substitution of references to His Majesty for references to Her Majesty shall be prepared and certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited with the rolls of Parliament, and His Majesty's printers shall print, in accordance with the copy so certified all copies of the Naval Discipline Act which are printed after the commencement of this Act.
    Mr. HEALY: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give some explanation of Sub-section (2). It is a most desirable thing in the case of such complicated provisions as these. I only want to know, as in the case of the Army
    1356
    Act, how it becomes necessary in the Navy Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to reply now, perhaps he will give a reply on the Report stage.
    Sir J. SIMON: In the case of the Army Act it has been for many years the custom to reprint all the Amendments made, so that those who wished to see those Amendments might have them inside the four corners of one document. That has, in fact, been provided by Statute, and I think you will find that it is in the Army Act of 1885. The object in both cases is to furnish the document containing the existing law, complete in itself, and corrected up to date, instead of persons having to refer to half a dozen different books, in order to build up for themselves the Statute as it is. The second Sub-section, just as is the first Sub-section, is to provide that we may ensure that there is no mistake as to what is exactly the existing state of the law, both military and naval.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Corporal Punishment.)
    (1) No person subject to the Naval Discipline Act who is of or over the age of sixteen years shall be liable to corporal punishment, but nothing in this Subsection shall be construed as rendering any person liable to such punishment who would not have been so liable if this Section had not been enacted.
    (2) The maximum number of strokes which may be inflicted upon a person liable to corporal punishment shall be twelve.
    (3) Section fifty-three of the Naval Discipline Act is repealed so far as inconsistent with this Section.
    Proposed Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir W. BYLES: I beg to move, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood), "That the Clause be read a second time." I understand that the object of the proposal is to bring the law in regard to corporal punishment into harmony with the practice and Regulations of His Majesty's Navy. I remember long debates in this House about flogging in the Navy, and I thought that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how far those punishments have been abolished. At any rate, the object of this Clause is to make statutory what is already in practice.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will remember that the only corporal punishment now in force in the Navy is caning. He will remember that flogging has been definitely suspended since 1881, and it could not be reinstituted except by the special authority of the Board of Admiralty.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is it not abolished by law?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated that it has been suspended and could not be reinstituted except by the authority of the Board of Admiralty. He is aware that birching for boys has been similarly suspended since 1906. There remains the punishment of caning. That punishment may be administered to boys who are about the age of sixteen and under eighteen. Here, again, my hon. Friend will remember that in recent years we restricted the permission to cane. We went into the question very closely, and set up material restrictions. Up to 1906 the captain could delegate the power of caning to the commander, but in that year strict orders were issued that the caning should only be imposed under the actual order of the captain. Then, early in 1913, we issued instructions that caning was to be restricted to the serious offences of theft, immorality, drunkenness, insubordination, and deliberate and continued disobedience of orders. Further, at that time instructions were issued to the effect that, in the absence of the captain, the commanding officer is not to order caning to be inflicted unless the captain be absent from duty by permission of superior authority for more than forty-eight hours. It was also laid down that the punishment is not to be carried out in public. I may say further, in reply to my hon. Friend, that the instructions provide that the punishment is to be inflicted with a light and ordinary cane on the clothes. I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not enter upon a discussion at this time.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Does the hon. Gentleman want to do away with corporal punishment altogether?
    Sir W. BYLES: Certainly.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I point out that I am an example of corporal punishment. In one school I attended I was more flogged than the whole of the rest of the boys put together, and it did me a great deal of good. An impulsive, ener-
    1358
    getic, high-spirited boy often gets into more trouble and rows than the other lads, and he takes his flogging, and the thing is over. If you are going to punish him in some other way, if he is a high-tempered, spirited boy, and he is kept indoors, or otherwise punished, he will resent it, and the punishment will not have the moral effect which is derived from the use of the cane. The lad takes his caning, and thinks no more of it. He takes his punishment like a man, and it does him a great deal of good. It is true that a boy may be a thief, and a thief is a cur, and it is a very good thing to flog a cur at times; but I am speaking of high-spirited boys who get into mischief and submit to caning without thinking more about it. In the Service corporal punishment has been done away with, but when I joined the Service we had no discipline and plenty of "cat," but now it is thought a good thing to have plenty of discipline and no "cat." When I joined the Service, if a man offended he was flogged. Often a man would use rough remarks about the captain, and, if it was discovered, he was called out. It was a bestial punishment; it was a punishment suited to those days when men could not read or write, and when many of them were convicts, and when many of them were very bad characters, but it would be absolutely horrible now for a man to be tied up and get four dozen. Times have changed, but I still feel that the cane for the boy is good. It is not as if I had not had it myself. I had plenty of it, and I think it did me a great deal of good in those days.
    Sir W. BYLES: I do not think that this is the time to discuss the ethics of flogging, but if it were I could find a good deal to say in reply to the Noble Lord, who, no doubt, is a fine specimen of the mature honourable man, notwithstanding the flogging he got in his youth. Neither he nor my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have met the point, the only point I made, namely, that this is an attempt to make the Statute agree with the practice. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to us what the practice is in the Navy with regard to flogging, and I should like him to tell us what can be the objection to making that practice statutory.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Without going into that question, I am afraid it could not be done in this Bill, which we bring in as an emergency measure.
    Sir W. BYLES: I beg to withdraw the proposed new Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

NAVAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I.) AMENDMENT.— [MONEY.]
Resolution reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any further contributions that may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. HODGE: I desire to take this opportunity to find fault to some extent with the administration of the Department which is now asking the House to sanction more money. The Government are asking this money because of the War, but I do not think that they are asking sufficient to enable them to administer the Act as it should be administered. As a result of the War and the administration of the Act, a great burden has been placed upon approved societies. For instance, there is one particular approved society with a membership of sixty-five, in which one-third of the male numbers have joined the Colours. That society has made commitments with respect to rent, clerical staff and office furniture, and owing to the reduction of the amount permitted for administration from 3s. 5d. to 8d., those approved societies will by and by be in a state of bankruptcy. I raise this question in the hope of receiving a sympathetic reply from the right hon. Gentleman in charge, so that I may be saved the necessity of opposing the Bill founded upon this Resolution, Clause by Clause.
There is another point in connection with the administration of the Act, and it is this: In every single Government Department where men have joined the Colours they are receiving some proportion of the salaries which were paid to
1360
them prior to that event. The clerks of approved societies, while not directly employed by the Commissioners, are, at any rate, in the indirect employment of the Treasury. But the administration allowance which the approved societies receive is so meagre and has been so depleted by the reduction I have mentioned that they find it impossible to do anything by way of giving a portion of salary to those of their staff who have joined the Colours.
Then, again, all over the country at present wages are being increased because of the extra cost of living. The reduction of the amount of money for administration plus the fact that 3s. 5d. is altogether too little, does not enable the approved societies to increase the wages of their staff to cover the increased cost of living. I think that is a great injustice to the approved societies, and a still greater injustice so far as those employees are concerned. The money asked for by this Resolution is to some extent to cover the increased outlays of the approved societies so far as sickness is concerned and disablement. I venture to say that it is a very grave injustice to impose upon approved societies the burden of the wounded and sick as a result of the War, a charge which ought to be a charge upon the whole community and not on the employers and workmen who contribute so largely to national insurance. I hope not only that the Chancellor of the Duchy will be prepared to meet these various points sympathetically, but that he will give the approved societies an opportunity of representing to the Department the gross injustice that is being perpetrated, and of supplying data to convince them of that injustice. More particularly do I desire that there should be something immediately done to enable wages to be increased to meet the increased cost of living, and to give some greater allowance than 8d. to the men engaged at the front or in the Navy.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Montagu): I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for having raised these points, as they are of considerable importance. It is, as I think he will admit, fair that approved societies should have a reduced administration allowance for the men who are serving with the Colours. The only benefit they have to administer in respect of the soldier is maternity benefit, all the other benefits being in abeyance; therefore the administration expenses are not likely to be so great. Nevertheless it is

1361
perfectly true to argue that the administration expenses of the societies are largely permanent, and cannot be adjusted to the altered circumstances which arise when large numbers of their members join the Colours. For that reason I think the matter requires greater consideration. To-morrow morning we are to receive at the Insurance Commission Offices a deputation from one of the largest friendly societies, the Manchester Unity, when this subject of the administration allowance to soldiers is, amongst other questions, going to be raised, and I promise my hon. Friend that it shall have careful and sympathetic consideration from those concerned.
It would be very much resented by the societies, who are very proud, and rightly so, of their powers and liberties, if we attempted to dictate to them how the administration expenses should be divided. The servants of the society are not the servants of the State at all; we do not control them. They are the servants of the society, and the society must be responsible for the wages they give out of the administration allowance. As regards sick pay for soldiers, the whole of this Bill is designed to relieve approved societies of the burden which fell upon them from disablement charges resulting from the War. It carries out in its entirety the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House that the pensions for disabled soldiers and sailors should be a charge on public funds and not on approved societies, but that the other benefits arising under the Insurance Act should be maintained and paid by the societies. They took that into consideration when they fixed the scale of pensions which they recommended to the House. I suggest that if we follow them and adopt their recommendations we shall find that the relief given to the approved societies under this Bill will, as the societies themselves have recognised, be of enormous value to those societies in the working of the Act. Although the forms of the House make it necessary to have a Money Resolution for this Bill, it is only because we are redistributing sums already voted by Parliament; the passage of the Bill will involve no extra cost to the State.
Mr. BOOTH: I rise to express my obligation to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) for mentioning this matter, which the Chancellor of the Duchy admits is important. I should like to supplement in one particular his reference to the establishment expenses. It is quite true that the soldiers who have gone to the War are
1362
not requiring constant attendance by the societies except in the matter of maternity benefit. But, in addition to the point that establishment charges remain the same, I would remind my right hon. Friend that the men who have gone to the War are those certified as being in perfect health; therefore they should not be taken as people requiring an average amount of attention. They are the healthiest of the members, and those who remain at home represent a heavier draw on the establishment charges. That should be taken into account in dealing with the claim for a little larger allowance to the societies under this head. On the general question, I agree with my right hon. Friend. The purport of the Bill is to relieve the societies of a considerable difficulty, and I am sure that those societies are obliged to my right hon. Friend for the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. HEALY: Once more, as one who opposed the Insurance Act at the start, who maintains his hatred of it, and will always continue to do so, I must enter my protest, at a time when normal and necessary charges in Ireland are being cut down, against any proposal to launch into further expenditure in connection with insurance. I accept the statemet of the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill will involve no further charge on the State. In my opinion almost everything connected with the Insurance Act was bad. It was a bad Act, and is proving to be worse as it goes on. The War has made a tremendous difference, and the inequalities and injustices connected with the Act will become still more glaring in the future. The original 9d. for 4d. has all gone. That was burst up by the Act of a couple of years ago, and although it was denied by Mr. Masterman that any change was being made, yet we have proved that it was so.
Power is now being taken to make further subventions without, as far as I can see, a further Statute being required. The Insurance Act in its entirety, except the maternity benefit, is, in my opinion, bad, and ought never to have been passed. The Treasury allow any amount to be given to contractors, but as soon as they see a library to which working men flock, and where good books can be obtained, they say, "Here is a grant of £1,500; cut it off." That is the sort of economy practised by the Treasury. All I can say is that any proposals for further Grants or subventions under the Insurance Act will

1363
not come under the head of uncontroversial legislation as far as I am concerned. What was bad to start with cannot be improved by further money Grants. This is no time for extending those Grants, and I certainly think it a monstrous use of this Session, in which we were told there was to be no controversial legislation, for the Government to come down and vote more money in connection with these Insurance Acts.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: Whilst I welcome this Act as doing something to relieve the approved societies of the burden that would otherwise have to be borne by them after the War, I would like to say that it does not, in my opinion, go far enough, and I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in that respect. We must not forget that a considerable number of men who will return from the War will be more susceptible to disease than before, and so far as these men are concerned this provision does not cover them at all or help the liabilities of the approved societies. It will be found, therefore, in the near future, that it will be very necessary to have a further amending Act. I am very doubtful whether the contribution of the State with regard to injured soldiers is anything like sufficient. A very large proportion of the men who have gone to the front are married men, and I am very doubtful whether the amount in that case will be sufficient to meet the liabilities as far as they are concerned. I do not see why the Government should not relieve the approved societies of the whole of the 10s. sickness benefit paid during the first twenty-six weeks. A considerable burden will be placed upon the societies in connection with the men who come back injured, and who will draw the benefit perhaps for ten, twelve, or even twenty weeks. I take it that so far as this Bill is concerned, it does not make provision for giving a subsidy or assisting the approved societies in that direction. That being so, I think the Government ought to have gone further than they have done. I am not quite certain whether the Bill makes quite secure the recovery of the benefit that may be advanced by approved societies. I am not quite certain whether the Clause is strong enough for this purpose. It may be; I do not know. But at any rate I am so satisfied that within a very short period we will have to have an amending Bill, that I am not going to offer any objection to the passing of this one.
1364
I put this point hoping that the right hon. Gentleman will give some attention to it even now.
Sir J. D. REES: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) omitted one thing in his description of the Act, and that is that it is a German Act from beginning to end, and typical of the legislation that I hope, will be far less popular in the future than it has been in the last ten years.
Question put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I.) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Reduction of Benefits in the Case of Persons Entitled to Pensions in Respect of Total Disablement.)
(1) When upon his discharge there has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been granted to any person to whom Section forty-six of the National Insurance Act, 1911, applied at the time of his discharge, a pension in respect of total disablement suffered in consequence of the present War, the amount of any sickness or disablement benefit to which he may be entitled in respect of his insurance under the said Act shall as from such date as may be prescribed be reduced, so long as he continues in receipt of such pension, by five shillings a week, notwithstanding anything in the said Act to the contrary.
(2) The society, committee, or other body by which the sickness and disablement benefits of any such person are administered may, pending the settlement of his claim for pension, pay him benefit at the unreduced rate, and the amount of the difference between the benefit at the unreduced rate and at the reduced rate paid, pending such settlement or between the prescribed date and the date of the passing of this Act, shall be treated as an advance, and shall, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recoverable by deductions from or suspension of any benefits which may subsequently become payable to the person in question, or may, if the Admiralty or Army Council think fit, be repaid by them out of any arrears in their hands of the pension due to that person.
Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "and" ["and the amount of the difference"], to insert the words "where benefit at the unreduced

1365
rate has been paid pending such settlement, or has been paid between the prescribed date and the passing of this Act."
This Bill bears on the point of the hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson). I have two Amendments which are purely drafting Amendments. The object of the first Clause is to ensure that the insured person shall not suffer by delay. He is to get the full amount to which he is entitled, and then the approved society shall get any excess they have paid back when his claim for a disablement pension has been settled. The second part of the Clause is to meet the case of the disablement pension which may possibly have been made before the passing of this Bill. It is also to meet the case of the man receiving pay from his approved society in excess of what he would be entitled to when he has got his disablement benefit permanently settled. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Clause as drafted is not free from ambiguity. Therefore I suggest the insertion of the words which stand in my name, and which make no difference whatever to the intended effect of the Clause, but merely improve the drafting of it and make it quite certain that the approved societies will be paid.
Mr. HODGE: I think the Amendment is an improvement upon the Clause, although I did not rise for the purpose of saying so. I rose with more particular reference to the remarks which were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork. We are not asking for the subsidy in this Bill; we are only asking—
The CHAIRMAN: That is away from the point. We are now dealing only with an Amendment, the effect of which the hon. Member seems to approve. He cannot reply in Committee to speeches which were made in the House. The hon. Member will have to wait for the third reading to do that.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "paid, pending such settlement, or between the prescribed date and the date of the passing of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "for such period."—[Mr. Montagu.]
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
Mr. HODGE: What I could not say in Committee, I am now to be privileged to say. This Bill is not giving the approved societies any subsidy. The point of my observations was: That it was unfair that a man wounded in the War or men who came home sick as a result of the conditions under which they have been engaged at the front, should be a burden upon a section of the community. If they have been disabled from disease or wounds in fighting the battles of their country, they ought to be a charge upon the whole community and not upon a section of the community. I think the hon. and learned Member for Cork will agree with that contention. Another thing, so far as this Act is concerned, if the hon. and learned Member for Cork had the same experience as I have had amongst the poorest section of the community, he would say that the National Insurance Act was one of the finest bits of legislation which this House ever passed. That has been my experience, not only in regard to the point he named, of maternity benefit, but so far as sickness is concerned it has been a real blessing in thousands and thousands of homes of the poorest in the land.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that men who are wounded in the War should be taken care of by this House—in fact, I think we should insist upon it, and it should not be a burden upon anyone except the Imperial taxpayer. It would be most unfair to throw these burdens on any society whatever. As regards the Insurance Act, we know the fate of the Minister who has been most connected with the Act. It is a most extraordinary fact that a man greatly gifted and very popular in this House has not been able to secure his re-election at all. I am sorry I have to illustrate my argument by a personal allusion. The few people I employ have never been called upon to pay anything under this Act, because I think it is unjust to burden poor people with this system, which I cannot see the good of. I cannot find anybody who has been benefited by it so far as my people are concerned. As for this system of licking stamps, it is a ridiculous system. There is something wanting I quite agree, but this is one of the most mischievous and irritating Acts that has ever been passed.
The hon. Gentleman opposite now holds out to us a fresh vista of another Insurance Act. When is this tinkering with insurance to cease? Holes are always being found out, and then you have to put on a

1367
fresh patch. Here we are at this stage, and we are told that the result of this Insurance Act is that it will throw upon approved societies the burdens of war which we ought to undertake. Is it not a pretty example, if it be correct, that these approved societies should have thrown upon them the burdens which should be borne by the general public? I say it is a monstrous thing. There is not a Session since this Insurance Act was passed in which there has not been some amending Act. We are like a board of directors. We do not have to pay ourselves. We pass legislation and throw the cost on the taxpayers. The promises of four or five years ago, the 9d. for 4d., are forgotten, and, having started on a bad system, we proceed to put on bad Amendments. I verily believe, and I do hope, that one of the benefits this War will bring, and I believe it will bring many benefits to this country, will be that we shall have to overhaul the entire system connected with this Insurance Act, and I think it will be a happy day if we can jettison this Statute altogether. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to bolster it up, but the time will come when some man with clear-seeing vision will make up his mind that we cannot make fresh Grants to keep up the system.
Mr. BOOTH: I have spoken with scores and hundreds of very poor people in both Dublin and Belfast, and in other parts of Ireland, who are sincerely thankful that in time of great stress the Insurance Act contributions have come into their domestic economy week by week. I venture to say that at the present time the Act is being worked by the Catholic societies on the one hand, and by the Orange and Protestant societies in Ulster on the other hand, in a way which is second to nothing on this side of the Irish Sea. They are getting very good results out of the Act. Every week that passes means thousands of more homes assisted by the contributions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would go amongst the democracy of this country or Ireland, he would find that complaining has ceased. The opposition to the Act has entirely died away; the employers of labour no longer object to stamping cards, and the workpeople themselves have quite come to see that the Act is not a burden upon them.
Mr. HEALY: It acts as a dead letter over the whole of rural Ireland, and the Government dare not enforce it.
Mr. BOOTH: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying something I know is not true. I have made investigations in rural Ireland, and the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get the Catholic society in his own district of Cork, or the great Hibernian Society of Dublin, or the Orange or Protestant Society or the Presbyterian Society in the North of Ireland, to bear that out. They go into the rural districts as well as towns, and they are endeavouring to get the best out of the Act. After all, the huge machinery was set up by this House, and I am sorry to find that the only living person I have heard for months speak of it as a burden is the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is not true with regard to his own country, and it is not true with regard to this country. I do not think this is quite the Bill on which to enter into a long discussion, but I did feel it my duty, not on prejudice or hearsay, but on personal investigation, to give the House some inkling of what is going on at the present time.
I venture to say there is no Member of this House who from actual knowledge, and from the visiting of his own wife, knows more about this Act than I do. For months my wife has visited hundreds and hundreds of homes in London and in the provinces, investigating with regard to this Act, paying personal visits and hearing from the people themselves what they think about it, and she told me, after having gone into some thousands of homes in London, that she did not find one person, either employer or employed, who any longer complained of the Act. They, of course, want it administered well, but not a single one was in opposition, and if the hon. and learned Member would do me the honour of consulting the societies and the people who actually go into the houses distributing the benefits and collecting the cards, I feel sure he would entirely change his view on the subject.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot accept the hon. Member as an absolute judge, not only of this country, but of Ireland as well. The hon. Member is a man of great ability no doubt, but I should prefer to trust the opinion of the hon. and learned Member as to the feeling of Ireland itself to that of the hon. Member opposite. So far as this country is concerned, I do not pretend to have made an inquiry comparable to that which he says he has made, but I certainly cannot admit for one moment that there is nobody in this country who regards this Act with disfavour. My

1369
experience is very different indeed from that of the hon. Member.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) said the Act was the finest piece of legislation which had been passed by this House. The Act itself is not a bad one, but it is so bound up by harassing and irritating regulations that it is most difficult to administer. Instead of making it work smoothly the Commissioners and their officials seem to make things as difficult as possible. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) seems to be of my opinion in regard to this Act. Personally, I believe that the sickness benefit ought to be paid by the taxpayers without having to lick stamps, and that is the only way the Insurance Act ought to be worked. We have not, however, got to that stage yet. I wish to point out that our Insurance Act is not framed on the same lines as the German Insurance Act. So far as the Act of this country is concerned we have a substantial contribution from the State towards the financing of the Act, whereas in Germany almost the whole of the money is paid by the workmen themselves; therefore there is a great deal of difference in the construction of the German Act and our own Act. I would like to support what has been said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil). I know many societies appreciate the Act, but what they object to is the regulations that surround the Act, and the inquisitive manner in which the work of the Commissioners and their officials is conducted. They do not seem to recognise that the men connected with these societies have been practically administering an Insurance Act for many years, paying sick and maternity benefits, and they do not recognise that these men are perhaps better qualified to administer the Act than the Commissioners. The sooner they recognise that these men do know something about this business the better.
Sir J. D. REES: Although this is a contributory Act the contributions of the poor are paid with very great difficulty and suffering. I differ from what has been said by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and so far as my investigations go I believe the Insurance Act to be still as unpopular as it was proved to be by the position of Mr. Masterman.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury tell, us the arrangement for business for the rest of the week?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Gulland): Tomorrow we shall take the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, the Legal Proceedings Against Enemies Bill, and the Customs (War Powers) Bill.
On Thursday we shall take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, and, if possible, the Adjournment Motion.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to ask what is the intention of the Government with reference to the Welsh Bill which has been passed, at the instance of the Government, by the other House. I do not want to revive any controversy, but I must say frankly that if there is any question of not proceeding with that Bill during this Session, we shall regard ourselves as having been deceived.
Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps the Noble Lord will put that question to the Prime Minister to-morrow?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, I will.
9.0 P.M.
Sir J. D. REES: I venture to trouble the House upon a subject which must be mentioned by somebody before the House rises, because as soon as the House resumes the Budget will be introduced, and I want to make a few remarks which I trust will be considered when the Budget is considered. This is not a time for con-

1371
trasting the statements of one Minister with another, but certain statements have lately been made which I think may properly be touched upon, because they relate to domestic concerns which seem to lead to the probability of further taxation being raised upon the liquor trade, which has already been very hardly hit, and has been subjected to very severe restrictions during the War. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently spoken about "the lure of the drink." This is the Minister who has to prepare and bring in the Budget, and therefore particular significance attaches to his statement.
I find that he says that drink is doing us more damage in the War than all the German submarines put together. Then he asks: "What has Russia done?" and he deals with what Russia has done. I wish to protest against the absurd assumption that the position in Russia is anything at all corresponding to the position here in regard to the consumption of liquor. The Russian drink vodka is an exceedingly fiery, above-proof spirit which when consumed invariably produces a maximum amount of intoxication in the shortest period of time. The staple drink in this country, beer, is one which in no respect can be contrasted with the Russian spirit. It is a notoriously light, healthy, useful drink, and I regret that a further attack is to be made upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declares that Russia has said "I must pull myself together" and so forth, and she stops the drink. We have been told that absinthe plays the same part in France that whisky does in this country, but it does not, and there is not the slightest resemblance to it. If whisky is as damaging in this country as absinthe is in France, why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken steps to increase the consumption of whisky and reduce the consumption of beer? Why does the right hon. Gentleman describe whisky as being on the same plane as absinthe, and why then does he take the action which he has taken to increase the consumption of whisky? I find that a Bishop has been making some strong remarks about prohibition of the sale of vodka. It is the grossest kind of misunderstanding and exaggeration in which any man could possibly indulge. It is quite absurd to suppose that the industrial output of this country is reduced 30 per
1372
cent. or 40 per cent. or that the position is such as to justify any action like that taken in Russia. I welcome all reasonable restrictions, but I am bound to say that these words coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and followed as they have been by questions put upon the Paper, and which are to be answered to-morrow, lead me to think it is necessary that somebody should deprecate any further action of this description before the House rises and before the Budget is prepared. Any drink can be abused. It would be possible for a man to use water so as to drink himself into a dropsy in the vain effort to placate the extreme advocates of temperance in the House. Even water is capable of abuse.
The action already taken by the Exchequer in respect of the taxation of drink has proved a failure. So far from the House of Commons having encouraged, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the drinking of lighter beer, the drinking of all beer has been largely discouraged, and the drinking of whisky has increased, whisky which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says—I deny it—plays the same part in this country that absinthe plays in France. He said on 17th November that nobody would dream of taxing beer on the same basis as spirits, but I submit that is very much what he has actually done. Then he said that his action was not to interfere with any productive industry, but it has interfered with malt and hops, with the saccharine material trades, with the manufacturer of the machinery of the brewing trade, with the distribution trades, and with many other trades, and it would not be difficult to show that it has actually interfered with the milk trade, because the milk trade depends to some extent upon the consumption of brewers' grain by the milch cows and the supply has been very much reduced, as the production of beer is reduced, on account of the over-heavy taxation, as I submit, already imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on 24th November, that by the time the next Budget came in he would be in a better position to know the effects of the duty and to adjust the asperities of the tax. That showed some saving grace in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that he will take to heart what has already been sufficiently proved, and that he will be prepared to make such adjustments as may be just and necessary, instead of acting upon, I must say, the wild, whirling statements he makes about the possibility, the probability, and

1373
the propriety of taking action against the drinks which are customary in this country similar to that which has been taken in Russia, where, as anyone who knows that country is well aware, the consumption of vodka was a great national calamity with which nothing that goes on in this country can with justice be compared.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that the consumption of beer would fall by 23 per cent. It has fallen up to a certain point by 60 per cent. I will ask the hon. Gentleman to lay that fact before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to see that he is properly posted in the representations I make, though I am afraid the fact that I make them will not particularly commend them to him. I hope that he will verify them in such manner as may appear best to him, and take them into account when he is preparing his Budget. The trade has been hit in every possible direction. The times of day at which the public drink beer are the hours in which these licensed houses are now shut. No proper compensation has been arranged for to make up for these restrictions, and I confess that as I find a disposition to make use of the requirements of the War in order to hit a trade unpopular in some directions, I rather dread that some further interference with the trade is in prospect. I therefore determined, although the hour is late for our present Session, to say a few words which I hope will have some effect at the Treasury. I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a lucid interval one day described beer as being in alcoholic strength just above ginger ale. Why does he not give effect to that in his legislation, and why does he talk about the position in this country being such as it was in Russia before the great measure was taken, when, as a matter of fact, it is in no way comparable? The extent of drunkenness in this country is similarly exaggerated for political reasons, and, although I welcome all legislation for removing temptation from the troops, I do think, from the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I have referred, that
1374
there is a danger that again this honest, legal trade will not have fair justice.
I do not see anybody representing the Board of Education here, but I do not complain at all, because I was going to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and there has been a change of plan. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench (Mr. Acland) will be so very kind as to represent to the President of the Board of Education the very few words I have to say. They regard the School of Oriental Studies. This is a matter which I think may very properly be raised in war time, for the study of Russian is a study intimately connected with our present Russian alliance. Ten years ago I was one of those who went to see the then Prime Minister, and I made a speech, amongst others, upon the necessity for this School of Oriental Studies.
Ten years have elapsed, and when I asked the President of the Board of Education a question, he said that this school would be opened in January, 1916. I can I hardly think that the delay is inevitable. The delay has been really more than is tolerable, and I should like to represent that view, and to say that many others like myself who are interested in Oriental languages think that the delay has been unreasonable, and that some effort should be made to give effect to the frequent protestations of the Government. I also asked the President of the Board of Education whether Russian was to be included in the curriculum of this school, and he told me that it was. Since then he has written a very polite letter to say that he was mistaken, and that Russian will not be included in the languages to be taught there. That is a pity, and I am sorry that he was not right when he said that it was to be included. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to bring that matter before him.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members not being found present, the House was adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Nine o'clock till to-morrow (Wednesday).