Commons Sitting of 21 October 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 20th July, and agreed to.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended; deferred till Thursday next.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

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:—
County borough of West Bromwich;
Urban district of Willenhall
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 255 to 262, inclusive, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1915.
Copy presented of Return relating to the Rates of Import Duties levied upon the principal and other Articles imported into the British Self-Governing Dominions, Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ARMENIA (MASSACRES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the refusal of the German Government to express any disapproval to Turkey-concerning the systematic and wholesale massacre of Christians which has taken place in Armenia, whether he can state if any action is being taken by any neutral Power to save the situation and to protect the great American and other missionary enterprises in Asiatic Turkey?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I do not know what steps neutral Governments may have taken in the matter. The Vatican has made earnest and repeated appeals both to the Turkish Government to stop the massacres and to the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments to bring pressure to bear on the Turkish Government with the same object.

    TURKISH EMBASSY (OFFICIALS).
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked whether there were on the staff of Sir Louis Mallet, recently His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, officials able, to speak Turkish fluently and conversant with Turkish affairs; and whether Mr. Fitzmaurice, the first dragoman at His Majesty's Embassy, did not return to his post because the Turkish Ambassador in London made a request to that effect?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The principle underlying the organisation of His Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople, which was identical with that adopted by the other Embassies there, has been subjected to considerable misrepresentation. It has been the practice to attach to His Majesty's Ambassador a staff of permanent officials, recruited from the Levant Consular Service, who have expert knowledge of the Turkish language and are in close and continuous relation with the Turkish Ministries. At the time of the outbreak of the War with Turkey there were three such permanent officials on Sir

    1971
    Louis Mallet's immediate staff, having respectively seventeen, fifteen, and ten years' experience of Turkey. The Embassy was, moreover, in constant touch with the officials of His Majesty's Consulate-General, who have spent their lives in Turkey. The Ambassador was, moreover, assisted by the usual staff of diplomatic secretaries, who deal with the current business, which is, of course, conducted entirely in the French and English languages. Of these secretaries, three out of four had passed examinations entitling them to a special allowance for a colloquial knowledge of the Turkish language.
    The intimation contained in the second part of the hon. Member's question is not in accordance with the facts. At the end of February, 1914, Mr. Fitzniaurice had a serious and protracted illness, which rendered him entirely unable to return to his post for some ten months. His place was temporarily taken by Mr. Ryan, the second dragoman to His Majesty's Embassy, who was indicated for this position by his seniority in the service and by his exceptional experience and ability.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what arrangements have been made as regards the conveyance of letters and parcels to British subjects now interned in Magnesia and elsewhere in Turkey; whether parcels for these interned prisoners have now been stopped; and whether he will endeavour to arrange with the United States Ambassador at Constantinople that letters and parcels addressed to such interned prisoners shall be safely delivered to them?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: With regard to the first part of this question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 28th June to a similar question in this House with regard to letters and parcels for British seafarers interned in Turkey. I have received no information that the delivery of parcels to British prisoners of War in Turkey has been stopped. The third part of the question does not appear to arise; but if the hon. Member has information that the delivery of the letters and parcels in question has ceased, I shall be much obliged if he will give me that information so that we may make inquiries.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British merchant crews interned at Magnesia, in Turkey, were informed in September last that they would not be allowed to send or receive letters exceeding four lines; whether this restriction has since been modified or withdrawn; whether any similar restrictions are imposed on Turkish subjects interned in this country; and whether he will invoke the good offices of the United States Consul-General at Smyrna to obtain a withdrawal of these restrictions?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: My attention has recently been drawn to a statement to the effect that British prisoners of war in Turkey are not allowed to send or receive letters exceeding four lines, and I have requested the United States Ambassador to be good enough to inquire into the correctness of this statement. If it should turn out to be true, I would certainly do all in my power to secure the withdrawal of such a regulation. So far as I am aware, no restrictions are imposed in respect of the correspondence of Turkish prisoners in this country other than those contained in the general regulations in force in respect of the correspondence of all prisoners of war and civilians interned in this country.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are 1,131 prisoners of war in Germany belonging to the Royal Naval Division, divided among 15 camps; whether he is aware that a large proportion of these men are in camps under canvas; whether he is aware that it was stated that uniform and clothing for these prisoners were being distributed on the 23rd August last; whether he is aware that no parcels of uniform, clothing, or boots have yet arrived; and, looking to the fact that the weather is already very cold and that a large number of these men are in rags, and that insufficiency of food adds to their privations, will he take steps to inquire into the matter and send the necessary supplies of clothing immediately?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The subject of the Noble Lord's question demands and is receiving the most sympathetic attention. Plans, however, which have for some time been before the Board have had to be set aside by the announcement of the German Government to the American Ambassador

    1973
    at Berlin that they are bound by the rules of war to provide what is necessary for prisoners of war, and that they will not allow supplies of clothes to be received from the British Government, but that they will not object to supplies being sent by the prisoners' friends or outside associations. I take this opportunity of cordially acknowledging the efforts already made by voluntary associations and individuals in rendering assistance to British Naval prisoners in Germany, and would point out that the announcement to which I have referred makes it very desirable that their efforts, particularly in the way of providing warm underclothing, boots, and overcoats, should be sustained in view of the coming winter. Individuals anxious to send parcels will find exhibited in every Post Office information as to how to proceed. Further, the Prisoners of War Help Committee, 5–7, Southampton Street, Strand, W.C., will, I am sure, be pleased to furnish information and advice.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked what arrangements have been made to transmit clothing to British prisoners of war in Germany?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The various committees and societies which are caring for the prisoners of war will, I understand, shortly have completed arrangements for sending a supply of outer clothing and underclothing to every British prisoner of war in Germany. The articles sent will include greatcoat, jacket, trousers, shirts, vests, drawers, socks, and boots, in addition to other articles and it is contemplated to renew the supply periodically. These committees have the latest and most complete information about the requirements and position of individual prisoners; and, while it is desirable to decentralise this work in order to ensure its being carried out with promptitude, it has also been found necessary to leave it to unofficial organisations so as to meet the view of the German authorities, as to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has already made a statement to-day. The sending of clothing to the prisoners in the hands of the Turks is difficult, but a satisfactory arrangement has now been arrived at.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the resources of the various voluntary organisations are quite inadequate to deal with the provision of clothing during this winter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think my hon. Friend is correctly informed on that subject. I will tell him privately exactly how the matter stands.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of its importance, I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. TENNANT: May I ask my hon. Friend to do nothing of the kind?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why?

    BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked what is the present position of this country as regards the Brussels Sugar Convention; whether it is still bound in any way by that Convention; and, if so, in what respects?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: This country is no longer a party to the Sugar Convention. As regards the rest of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade to a question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Islington on 4th February last.

    BELGIUM (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state who was the British official responsible for the information given to M. de Margerie, set out in the letter from the Belgian Minister at Paris, and dated 16th August, 1914; whether, in view of the publication of this letter in Germany, steps will be taken to inform neutrals of the view expressed in this House by the Secretary of State regarding the inaccuracy of the letter; will he say where is the place described as Bonar, mentioned in the Count de Lalaing's letter of 17th August, 1914; what were the acts of hostility committed by Germany mentioned in the Belgian verbal note, transmitted by Spain to Germany on 8th November, 1914; and will the Foreign Office publish an official reply to the German memorandum regarding suspension of warfare in Central Africa?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have already said that M. Margerie's statement appears to have been the expression of his personal opinion. That is clear from

    1975
    the French original of the dispatch referred to, and I have no reason to think that any British official was responsible for the statement. I am not aware what claims are meant or that we had put forward any claims. As regards the second part of the question, I do not think it necessary to give further information to neutrals beyond the public statement in this House. Bonar is a new fortified post in the strip of Cameroons territory abutting on the Congo River. So far as I am aware, the first acts of hostility committed by Germany were the concentration at Ekododo and Bonar, first reported to the French Government about 11th August; a concentration at Karonga, first reported on 11th August, followed by an invasion of Nyasaland on 20th August; the attack on the port of Albertville, in Lake Tanganyika, on 22nd August; and a raid on Tsavo, in British East Africa, on 6th September.
    As regards the last part of the question, I have no objection to informing the House of my reply to the German proposal. That proposal was received through the United States Ambassador, acting merely as a medium of communication, on 24th September and on 20th November. I informed the United States Ambassador that "such a proposal would not be practicable in view of the hostilities which have already taken place on both sides, which include attacks made by German forces on British East Africa, British Central Africa and Albertville."

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (MULLINGAR PETTY SESSIONS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having regard to the fact that Edward Moraghan, sentenced to imprisonment at Mullingar, was offered release from custody by the magistrate of first instance on condition that he enlisted, and that his imprisonment is therefore punishment for not enlisting, while this offence is not yet legally punishable, whether the unanimous appeals of the Mullinger District Council and of Mullingar town commissioners for the immediate release of Moraghan will be acceded to?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No such offer as that referred to in the question was ever made.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the magistrate deny it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No such offer was made. If he had made it, he would not say that he did not make it.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the illegal conduct, if any, on account of which a banishment order has been issued against Mr. Alfred Monaghan; has he been arrested by the police; and whether he will state the terms of the order?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The person referred to was, by order of the competent military authority under the powers conferred by Regulation No. 14 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidated) Regulations, 1914, prohibited from residing in or entering the area of the County of Cavan. He disobeyed the Order and was arrested by the police on the 16th instant. He will now be tried for making the speech prejudicial to recruiting in connection with which the Order was issued.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will authorise and arrange the issue of tickets for workmen's fares to women canteen workers engaged at the Arsenal at Woolwich and other places, who travel by trains at any hour of the day or night to work in connection with the particular shifts that they are serving?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I have asked for the observations of the Railway Executive Committee on this matter, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of their reply.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the exaction of the full fares would prevent a great many poor women who are anxious to participate in this work from taking part in it?

    MILK PRICES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the Manchester district the price of milk, which was 3½d. per quart in the spring, has been raised to 5d.; that in some districts the poorest of the people buying in small quantities are paying at the rate of 6d. per quart; and, in view of

    1977
    the fact that the rate of infantile mortality will rise with the rising price of milk, whether he will take steps to fix maximum prices for milk as in the case of sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The figures cited in the question convey the impression of a greater rise in price than has actually occurred. I am informed that the price most usually charged for milk in Manchester was 4d. per quart last spring and is now 5d. per quart. While I recognise the evils resulting from a high price of milk, I cannot ignore those which would follow further reduction in supplies. The restraint on price suggested by the hon. Member would, I fear, involve danger of a decrease in milk produced for sale.

    RATES OF FREIGHT.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the present high standard of freights is due to the scarcity of tonnage, mainly brought about by the number of steamers requisitioned by the Transport Department of the Admiralty; whether he is aware that many of the steamers so requisitioned have been kept lying idle for lengthy periods, during which periods they might have been profitably employed, and thereby reduce national expenditure and bring freight to a lower level; and whether he will bring pressure to bear upon the Admiralty and War Office to release ships which are not urgently required?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: One of the causes of the present high rates of freight is undoubtedly the number of vessels requisitioned by the Admiralty. Any particulars of what appear to be undue delays given to the Board of Trade or to the Admiralty will at once be made the subject of investigation, and my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War are fully alive to the important considerations advanced by the hon. Member.

    GUERNSEY STONE CRACKERS (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been received in his Department from certain stone firms in Guernsey respecting an application from the men in their employ (stone crackers)
    1978
    for an increase in wages to compensate for the increase in the cost of living; whether he is aware that the wages of the stone crackers in the employ of the firms in question are 17s. and 18s. a week, and the firms have refused to submit the matter to arbitration; and, if so, will he, having regard to the fact that these firms have contracts to supply the Imperial Government with macadam, take steps to have the issue between the workmen and the firms considered by one of the methods of arbitration provided for in the Munitions of War Act?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Inquiries were made into this case by the Chief Industrial Commissioner in August last, when it was stated by the firms concerned that the state and prospects of their trade were not such as to enable an advance of wages to be given. I understand that, owing to lack of orders, it is only with great difficulty that the firms have been able to avoid closing their works. The men concerned are not engaged on munition work.

  MUNITIONS.

    RAILWAY EMPLOYES (BONUS).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any proportion of the war bonus paid to railway employés is borne by the National Exchequer; if so, what is the proportion; and whether the improved rates of war bonus recently announced will be extended to the clerical staff?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: One-quarter of the first war bonus granted to railway employés who come within the Railway Conciliation Scheme is excluded from working expenses for the purposes of the agreement between the railway companies and the Government. No information has reached the Board of Trade as to what increase, if any, is being made in the amounts of the war bonuses previously granted to the railway clerical staffs.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Will the Board of Trade make any representation in reference to this large staff of men?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I believe the matter is under the consideration of the railway companies, but, as my hon. Friend knows, this particular portion of the railway clerks are outside the scheme of the Government.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Is the Board of Trade not responsible for a certain proportion of the rate paid to these clerks, as well as to the staff generally?
    Mr. PRETYMANNo; I think not.

    WOMEN WORKERS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions if he will state what arrangement he proposes to make for the remuneration of women on munitions work who are prevented from working owing to breakdown, air raid, or other causes beyond their control?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): Provision to meet these points is made in the second paragraph of the recommendations to the Munitions Labour Supply Committee relating to the employment and remuneration of women on munition work, which reads as follows:
    "Where women are prevented from working, owing to breakdown, air raid, or other cause beyond their control, they shall be paid for the time so lost at the rate of 15s. a week, unless they are sent home."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Do you provide that women should be paid in case they are compulsorily idle, through, say, an air raid, as occurred recently?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rather think that there is another question directed to that point.
    Mr. ARNOLDasked the Minister of Munitions (1) what steps he has taken to carry out the undertaking embodied in Schedule II. of the Munitions of War Act that the employment of women on munitions work shall not prejudice the remuneration of the men customarily engaged on such work; and (2) what steps he has taken to carry out the undertaking embodied in Schedule II. of the Munitions of War Act that the employment of semiskilled and unskilled men on munition work of a class which, prior to the War, was customarily undertaken by skilled labour shall not prejudice the remuneration of the men previously engaged on such work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be a violation of the spirit and the letter of the Munitions Act if the employment of women or unskilled men on munitions work should be utilised for the purpose of lowering the remuneration of men customarily engaged on that
    1980
    class of work. The provisions of the Second Schedule to the Munitions of War Act have repeatedly been brought to the notice of the employers concerned by means of circulars and otherwise. They have also, through the National Advisory Committee on War Output, been brought to the notice of the trade unions concerned, who have been invited to call the attention of the Ministry to any cases in which it appeared that the provisions of the Schedule were being infringed. As a result of this, the Ministry is in constant correspondence with employers and otherwise with a view to enforcing the provisions of the Schedule. Recently, moreover, the question of the wages to be paid to women employed on work which was not recognised as women's work before the War, and to semi-skilled and unskilled men on shell making and similar processes, has been the subject of consideration by the Munitions Labour Supply Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is chairman. As a result, a statement of the wages recommended by the Committee to be paid in such cases has been prepared. It will be adopted for all establishments for which the Ministry is directly responsible, and will be recommended for favourable consideration to all other establishments engaged on such work.

    PRODUCTION OF TRENCH-MORTAR SHELLS.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that it was arranged more than two months ago that certain firms in the Perth district, having the necessary machines, should make a certain number of trench-mortar shells weekly, and that since the arrangements were concluded to start work the size of the shells to be made has been twice altered; and seeing that the work is again delayed by further alterations being proposed, whether he will see that, in future, such firms with whom arrangements have been made, and who are anxious to assist the Government, are not discouraged by such procedure as that in the transactions referred to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that it is in the public interest to discuss details of the arrangements made for the supply of particular munitions in particular districts, but I may say generally that I cannot admit the accuracy of the statements in the question. I shall be glad to

    1981
    give further information to the hon. Member privately if he will communicate with me.
    Mr. YOUNG: Does it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a very serious matter and most unbusinesslike in a Department delaying to make up its mind as to what is really required, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar complaints have emanated from various places, both in England and Scotland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If those complaints are similarly inaccurate to that of—
    Mr. YOUNG: I deny its inaccuracy.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the question is that the statement is inaccurate.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have it on the very best authority?

    TRANSFER OF MEN FROM PRIVATE FIRMS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the output of munitions of war is being prejudiced by the action of private commercial firms placing difficulties in the way of their men being transferred to firms engaged on the output of munitions of war; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certain difficulties have been experienced in connection with the transfer of war munition volunteers from firms who have represented that they are engaged on work of essential national importance. The Ministry have full powers to transfer war munition volunteers compulsorily, and if they are satisfied that the men are not engaged on work of the character represented the power has been, and will continue to be, exercised.

    RELEASE OF SOLDIERS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that, in some cases in which firms engaged on the production of munitions of war have applied for the release from the Colours of soldiers who were formerly skilled workmen in their employ, the soldiers have been released but sent to different firms; and, if so, whether he will state how such action is justified?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt that some such cases as those described by my hon. Friend have occurred. Where a firm wholly engaged on the production of munitions which are urgently required asks for the release from the Colours of a particular workman previously employed by them, that workman, if released, is returned to the firm. Bequests for the release of particular men are, however, not infrequently made by the firms which are only partially engaged on munitions work or are engaged on the less urgent types of such work. While regard is always paid to the desirability, other things being equal, of returning a man to his former employer, it must be clearly understood that all men released from the Colours must be regared as at the disposal of the Ministry for distribution according to the urgency of the work to be performed.

    AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
    Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Kent Education Committee, as the local education authority for that county, has refused to allow under any circumstances children to be excused for a limited period from school attendance in the parish of Keston in order that they may be employed on certain farms in that parish in getting in the potato crop, which, as sufficient other labour for the purpose is not available, will consequently be partially lost for consumption; whether this is in accordance with the Board's general instructions and intentions; and whether he will enable and influence the local education authority to grant forthwith the permission required?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this case, and he is making inquiries of the local education authority. I will let the hon. Member know the result.

    PARLIAMENTARY POLICE.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, notwithstanding his statement regarding the duties of the

    1983
    permanent staff of police at the House of Commons, changes have actually taken place, and that extra constables unfamiliar with the House are being drafted in to participate in the work of the police; if he will state what is the cause of the step; whether any complaints, and, if so, what, have been received on the working of the system hitherto in practice; and whether any further developments are contemplated?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): As previously stated, there has been no change in the duties of the permanent police staff of the House of Commons. In order, however, to enable the whole to get much needed rest, it has been found necessary to add two men to the permanent staff. The additional constables have been on the temporary staff for five years, and they are, therefore, not unfamiliar with the House. The Commissioner of Police is responsible not only for the protection of this House, but also for the discipline and the safeguarding of the interests of the police employed here, and I am sure that these matters may safely be left in his hands.
    Mr. W. THORNE:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a proposed alteration of the policemen's holiday of one day in seven, and will he make inquiry, because I understand that the men prefer to remain as they are?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on that point.

    AIRCRAFT RAIDS.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that during the Zeppelin attack on 13th October many motor cars with powerful lamps were observed in the main streets on the line of attack; and whether he will give strict orders to the police, and see that they are enforced under heavy penalties, against the use of such lamps on any vehicle, no matter who the occupant may be?
    Sir J. SIMON: No headlights are permitted (save in the case of certain military and naval cars on urgent duty) and other motor lights must be of small power, which in practice means they must not throw a beam of more than thirty yards.
    1984
    These regulations are enforced with all possible strictness, and their general observance by the public is of great importance.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the brilliantly lighted trains on the Inner Circle have no blinds, that these trains travel in the open air for some distance at various places in the south-west and west of London so as to be visible from above; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the trains are darkened during transit in the open?
    Sir J. SIMON: The regulation of the lighting and running of trains in the Metropolitan area, in view of Zeppelin attack, is carried out under the advice of the Admiralty, and is based on actual observation made from time to time from the air. The trains referred to are being so dealt with.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been found possible to take advantage of the presence at home of trained Artillery officers who have returned from the front wounded or otherwise invalided, but capable of rendering effective service in connection with the anti-aircraft defence of London, or whether the working of the defensive guns is entrusted only to the corps of anti-aircraft gunners, many of whom cannot have the same experience in the use of artillery?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): My hon. Friend's suggestion will receive consideration.
    Mr. BRYCEasked whether, in the event of the passage within range of hostile aircraft over an area or place where they can be more easily reached by military than by naval gunfire, or where no naval gunfire is available, the military authorities have permission to fire?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. BRYCEasked how many of our aeroplanes were aloft at the time when the Zeppelins first appeared over London on the evening of Wednesday, 13th October; and, if only three aeroplanes were aloft at some time during the attack, whether the authorities consider that three aeroplanes are an adequate defence against as many or more Zeppelins?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The degree to which it is desirable to use aeroplanes for night

    1985
    defences against Zeppelins is a very difficult one, and it cannot be properly dealt with in answer to a question. But under no circumstances do the authorities consider that an adequate defence against night attacks by Zeppelins can be provided by aeroplanes. As regards the action of aeroplanes on Wednesday, the 13th, the weather conditions in London rendered it impossible for any large number to go up.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state for how many hours the Zeppelins were over London and district?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am afraid not, but I can easily answer that if the hon. Member will give notice. They were not over London for any considerable length of time.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Was it not the case that they were over London between nine and ten o'clock and came back about twelve o'clock at night?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I should like notice of that question. There was one over a certain district late at night, but whether it was one of the Zeppelins that went over London earlier in the evening I am not quite sure. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the question I can give him all the information at the disposal of the Admiralty.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the report that six Zeppelins were flying over Harwich at two o'clock the same day?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think that is an invention.
    Mr. BRYCE: As to the state of the weather, is it not in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that on Wednesday, the 13th, the sky was perfectly clear?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think so. There were no clouds high overhead, but it was not clear down close to the ground.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral Sir Percy Scott still employs in the service of the defence of London against air attacks volunteers with intermittent attendance, of whom that service was until lately mainly composed; if so, what rates of pay do they receive; or whether the service is now manned by men properly trained in the use of guns and searchlights?
    Mr. BALFOUR: There has been no change in the personnel. The guns' crews
    1986
    work for twenty-four hours every other day, and are paid 4s. 2d. per day, finding their own food and lodging. The searchlight crews work from dark to daylight every other night, two crews dividing the night, and are paid 2s. 1d. per day, finding their own food and lodging. The officers go through a short course at a gunnery school, and men from the guns are now being sent to Chatham Gunnery School to be trained. Arrangements are also being made for men to be sent for training to the British Army in France. Experienced naval ratings are attached to the gun and searchlight stations.
    Mr. BRYCE: When is it considered probable that those gunners will be able to hit a Zeppelin?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether, in the case of recent Zeppelin raids, warnings of the coming raid were sent to the staffs in Government offices and munition works, as well as to certain persons in their private residences; and whether, in view of the possible saving of life, similar warning will, in the event of future raids, be given to the people of London generally?
    Sir J. SIMON: The question of how far and in what quarters preliminary warning should be given of Zeppelin attack is one which has been carefully considered by the Home Office in consultation with the Admiralty, and it would not be possible to explain the scheme fully in answer to a question.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If my hon. Friend raises this question on the Adjournment to-night, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a full statement?
    Sir J. SIMON: If that is desired, I will do so.

    PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. RONALD MCNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that quotations from Kipling and Browning have recently been deleted by the Military Censor from Press dispatches, he will instruct the Press Bureau to issue a list of British poets whose works may be quoted in the Press?
    Sir J. SIMON:I fear the hon. Member's suggestion might not be completely effective, for the difficulty does not arise from any military objection to poetry as such but to an occasional inability to recognise it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the official who censored Browning is the same gentleman who lately censored Kipling?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot tell my hon. Friend, but I think not. I understand that the quotation from Browning was contained in the dispatch of an accredited correspondent at the front.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are there two of them in the Department?
    Mr. MCNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that there are not two people who are capable of this?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the notice that has been called to the matter will cause all the censors to
    "strictly meditate the thankless Muse."

    ARMY (CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of officials in his Department who, failing to obtain permission, resigned their posts in order to rejoin their regiments in which they had previously undergone several years of training; whether these men receive any civil pay; whether their service in the Army is allowed to count as in all respects as if it were Civil Service; and whether any guarantee has been given them that their civil posts are open to them at the termination of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that there have been any cases at the Admiralty Office in London in which officials who had previously undergone military training have in default of official permission resigned in order to rejoin their regiments, and, therefore, the remaining parts of the question do not appear to arise. I should add that the necessity effectively to conduct the work of the Department has rendered it necessary to refuse permission to join the Forces of the Crown in a considerable number of cases. If my hon. Friend would like inquiry made on the lines of his question as to the other naval establishments, it shall be made.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of officials in his Department who have received permission to rejoin their regiments; whether the officials obtaining such permission receive their civil pay sub-
    1988
    ject to an authorised deduction from Army pay; whether their military service counts as if it were in all respects Civil Service; and if these officers are given a guarantee that they can return to their posts in the Civil Service on the termination of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: One hundred and eighty-one officials in the Admiralty Office in London have received permission to join His Majesty's Forces. One hundred and fifty-three of these are being paid the difference between Army pay and separation allowance and their civil pay; the arrangement being that non-commissioned officers and men are allowed the difference between the lowest rate of Army pay plus separation allowance, if any, and their civil pay. Commissioned officers, on the other hand, receive the actual difference between their Army pay as commissioned officers and their civil pay. Twenty-eight of the 181 officials in question receive no civil pay, as their Army pay as commissioned officers exceeds their civil pay. In all cases military service counts as if it were Civil Service, and the officials will resume their civil appointments after the War. The same conditions obtain in respect of officials joining His Majesty's Forces from establishments of the Navy other than the Admiralty. If my hon Friend would like inquiry made similar to that which I promised in the previous answer, it shall be made.

    COASTGUARDS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say why pensioners in the Coastguards do not receive any special subsistence allowance, as is the case in other branches of the Service; and will he remedy the grievance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know to what cases in other branches of the Service my hon. Friend refers. Subsistence allowance is not payable to pensioner Coastguard ratings called up and appointed to specific stations, in accordance with the well-established rule that such allowance is not paid at a man's usual place of duty. We are not prepared to make any change in this arrangement.

    MAIL SERVICES (SHETLAND).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he received a

    1989
    letter from the town council of Lerwick in August last drawing attention to the state of the Shetland mail service, in breach of the promise made by the Post Office in January that the service would be improved, letters having recently taken more than a week to reach Lerwick from Edinburgh; whether he is aware that he promised the council that the matter should have attention; whether he has yet ascertained by inquiry that a regular service is not only practicable but also necessary; and, if not, will he state when he expects to have inquiries made and a reasonable service instituted?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have received a letter on the subject from the Lerwick Town Council, and I hope shortly to be in a position to send a reply. My hon. Friend cannot be unaware of the difficulties now existing which affect the mail service to Shetland. A service which might not be reasonable in peace time may be unavoidable now.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the morning delivery of letters in the district lying between Dyffryn and Penrhyn-dendraeth, in the county of Merioneth, has since the 1st October been two hours late; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public, he will take steps to secure the arrival of the mails at the regular hour?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member.

    ARMY WASTE MATERIAL.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether quantities of Army saddlery, harness, and boots not suitable for reissue and incapable of being repaired are habitually burned instead of being sold to waste merchants at Calais and other places; and whether he will consider the practicability of allowing waste merchants to make tenders for such material in the interests of economy?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Stores which cannot be repaired and are not worth returning to this country are necessarily destroyed if they cannot be sold locally. Local sale is frequently precluded by the fact that duty has to be paid upon anything sold in France. If my hon. Friend
    1990
    includes English waste merchants in his suggestion it is, I fear, impracticable, as facilities could not be afforded to them for shipping their purchases to this country owing to the congestion at the ports both in this country and in France.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSFER OF OFFICIALS).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether within the past few weeks the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been approached by the War Office, who are short of men, suggesting the transfer of some men to that Department; whether the Commissioners have refused to comply with the suggestion, although there are under notice of dismissal over 2,000 men of the Valuation Department, who would be eminently suitable to take up the work; and whether he will, as far as possible, fill vacancies in other Departments with these men so as to retransfer them later when the work of the Valuation Department is resumed, and prevent the experience they have acquired from being lost to the country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension; the Commissioners have readily released from their service, without requiring the month's notice to which they are entitled, such members of the Valuation Staff as the War Office have desired to engage. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 14th instant to a question put by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the very serious character of this matter—the dismissal of 2,000 men, many of whom have been refused permission to enlist—will the Chancellor of the Exchequer do all he can in co-operation with other Government Departments to see if some kind of suitable work cannot be found for these men?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly; I am most anxious that work should be found for them.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Provided their record is good, will they have the first claim to suitable appointments arising in public Departments?
    Mr. McKENNA: Everything is being done to find suitable employment for

    1991
    them. I am unable to say whether they will have first claim in somebody else's Department.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: But in your Department?
    Mr. McKENNA: In my Department, certainly.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance, in view of the knowledge which these gentlemen have acquired already, of making provision to have them at hand when the work can be resumed?

    SUGAR PRICES.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the price of granulated sugar in bond in London and New York, respectively, on 31st July, 1914, and 14th October, 1915?
    Mr. McKENNA: The price of granulated sugar in bond on the 31st July, 1914, was in London 14s. 6d. to 14s. 10½d. per cwt., and in New York 3.30 to 3.40 cents per pound. The quotations in London were, however, very nominal at that date. The corresponding prices on the 14th October, 1915, were 22s. 1½d. per cwt. and 3.75 to 3.80 cents per pound respectively.

  FINANCE (No. 3) BILL.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government will consider the propriety of giving facilities for the payment of Income Tax in part by the surrender at par of War Loan Stock, and of empowering employers to pay a fixed and not inconsiderable portion of the wages of employés in War Loan vouchers, not negotiable until after the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: As at present advised, I do not see my way to adopting either of the suggestions made in the question.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what depreciation is allowed in calculating profits for Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax in the case of businesses, whether or not under control, whose plant, whether in use before or laid down for the War, is subject to excessive strain from extra work in the production of munitions of war?
    Mr. McKENNA: As regards Income Tax, the General or Special Commissioners are empowered by statute to make such allowance as they may think just and reasonable according to the circumstances of the case. As regards Excess Profits Duty, I would refer the hon. Member to the special provisions of Clause 36 (3) of the Bill.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether proprietors of indigo factories who receive remittances from India in this behalf are liable to Excess Profits Tax; whether, when all the proprietors are domiciled in England, and the concern is managed by a paid agent in India, profits whether or not remitted to this country are liable to Excess Profits Tax; or whether the exemption in respect of agriculture applies in the case of such enterprises, which have in fact been practically ruined by calculated, continuous, and finally successful German competition?
    McKENNA: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As, however, the pre-War standard of profits may be calculated on a percentage of the proprietors' capital employed in the business, it hardly appears likely that in the adverse circumstances which the hon. Member mentions any taxable excess profits will have been realised.
    Mr. DU CROSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that Excess profits of controlled undertakings shall be assessed under Part III. of the Finance (No. 3) Bill, as well as under Part II. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 30th ultimo to the hon. and learned Member for the City of York. I am causing a copy of this reply to be sent to him.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in many cases the only means of raising money for the payment of Death Duties is by the sale of ground rents or other securities which have not and cannot have any minimum price fixed, and which are unrealisable at the present time or can only be sold at a ruinous price; and if he is prepared to meet such cases of hardship, which have arisen in consequence of the War?
    Mr McKENNA: The experience of my advisers suggests that the hon. Baronet rather over-estimates the difficulty of raising money for the payment of Death Duties. I may, moreover, remind him that where at the time of death securities are depreciated in value, the relative charge of Death Duties, based on the value of the securities at that time, is correspondingly low.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: Is the minimum price in any case taken as the value of a security?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is the subject of investigation and inquiry at the present time. We are not taking the minimum price.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under the new recruiting scheme, the number of recruits expected from any area is to be based upon the units already supplied by that area, the men needed to bring them up to strength, and the men required for drafts; if so, whether this will mean that the greater the number of recruits already enlisted from any area the greater is to be the demand upon them for the future; whether that is the policy that has been decided on by the War Office; and, if so, whether he will consider the adoption of a more equitable basis?
    Mr. TENNANT: The new system is designed with the intention of providing a reservoir from which a constant supply of recruits can be obtained for units which require reinforcement. Each district is being asked to find as many men as possible. It is only natural that each area should be asked to keep up its own battalions as far as possible, but it is quite recognised that where patriotic efforts have been great the number of men of serviceable age may not be sufficient to meet the demand, in which case any shortage would be made good from districts which have hitherto not responded to the same extent. I am sure, however, the hon. Member will realise the great desirability of filling up local battalions with local men as far as possible.
    Mr. MOUNT: Will the recruits under the new scheme be allowed to choose the regiments to which they are drafted?
    Mr. TENNANT: As far as possible, yes, Sir.

    INCOME TAX (OFFICERS' PAY).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to deduction of Income Tax from the pay of officers serving in West Africa and other parts of the British Empire who are under the War Office; and whether, in view of the second paragraph of Schedule D, Section (2), of the Income Tax Act of 1853, as these officers are not exercising their profession within the United Kingdom, the profits and gains arising from the exercise of the profession should not be subjected to the deduction of Income Tax?
    Mr. FORSTER: Army officers' pay is assessable to Income Tax not under Schedule D of Section (2) of the Income Tax Act of 1853, but under Schedule E, under which Schedule their liability is not restricted to service in the United Kingdom, and their pay is taxable wherever issued.
    Mr. PETO: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that part of my question which refers to the pay of officers serving in West Africa, and does he propose to continue the deduction of Income Tax from the pay of those who are under the control of the War Office, while those who are serving under the Colonial Office, as well as Civil servants similarly placed, are free from Income Tax altogether?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will make further inquiries.

    REGIMENTAL OFFICERS (GAZETTING).
    Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the method recently adopted by the War Office of gazetting officers to a regiment and not to a unit of that regiment is causing inconvenience to the officers so gazetted as well as to the commanding officers and to those who keep a history of our old-established regiments; and whether he can see his way to arrange that the old system be again put into use, the name or number of the battalion of, for instance, the London Regiment being always given to which any officer is gazetted?
    Mr. TENNANT: I answered questions on this point on the 21st September and the 14th October. The change was adopted advisedly, and I cannot hold out to the

    1995
    hon. and gallant Gentleman any hope that the decision will be reconsidered. I do not think the publication in the "London Gazette" of the names of the units of regiments to which officers are appointed is essential to ensure the due preservation of adequate regimental records. I am assured that, with a little extra trouble, the distribution of newly-appointed officers between the various units of a regiment can easily be ascertained. By not pressing for an alteration of the present method of gazetting, officers commanding will be consulting the general interest as distinct from regimental interest.

    ARMY CONTRACT DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has considered certain correspondence between a well-known firm of merchants in Leith and the Army Contract Department; whether the latter, on being instructed to desist from the attitude assumed by it, sought to penalise the firm by depriving it of the status of a Government contractor and endeavoured to establish, by detective inquiry and the countenancing of rumours, charges of dishonesty against the firm and refused to accept its honourable assurances that such charges were without foundation; whether his Department, after investigation, instructed the Army Contract Office to accept in writing and without reservation the statements of the firm and to restore its name to the list of Government contractors forthwith; whether he is aware that the letter written to the firm in pursuance of these instructions really endeavoured to adhere to and repeated in effect the original charges or part of them and administered censure to the firm; whether he sanctioned this letter; whether he will now say that the firm has for many years, as in the present instance, served the Government faithfully and well and voluntarily incurred a loss on this particular contract through their anxiety to help the country on the outbreak of war; whether he will cause whoever is responsible for such behaviour to be reprimanded; and whether a large cash balance, months overdue and still held back by his Department, will now be paid forthwith and an apology sent to this firm acknowledging that it was well within its rights in defending its commercial honour from a mistaken charge of dishonesty?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention has been called to the correspondence to which the hon. Member doubtless refers. The firm in question were removed in June last from the list of War Office contractors, in accordance with the recommendation of the local military authorities, who reported that they had not carried out their contract satisfactorily. Upon further inquiry being made it was decided, after a review of all the circumstances, to retain the firm upon the list. There has been no attempt to prevent the firm from defending its commercial honour, which is not called in question. I understand that the cash balance alleged to be due to the firm is in respect of a claim to be paid for certain supplies at prices in excess of the contract rates. I hope that a settlement in regard to this matter may be reached at an early date.
    Mr. CURRIE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he saw the letter which was sent by the Army Contract Department to the firm in question the other day, censuring them for the general tone of their correspondence, and whether he approves of such a letter being sent on the part of the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think I have seen the letter, and under the circumstances I do not think it was an improper one to send.

    MILITARY GREATCOATS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the offer of a number of greatcoats; if the sale has yet taken place; if he will consider the advisability of disposing of the coats to our troops in the Balkans or to our 25,000 prisoners in Germany; and, if the sale has taken place, what price was realised for them?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject a week ago to the hon. Member for Plymouth. If my hon. Friend has in mind some other offer of greatcoats for sale and would furnish me with more particulars, I will have the matter inquired into.

    ARMY MEAT SUPPLY (SUPERVISION).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the

    1997
    total sum of money paid to Messrs. Perfect and Company for supervision of the storage, inspection, and delivery of meat to the troops from 4th August, 1914, to 30th September, 1915 (or to latest date easily ascertainable); whether the actual duty of storing and delivering such part of the Army meat as is imported from Australia and New Zealand is now performed by the Board of Trade; whether this has made any difference in the remuneration of Messrs. Perfect and Company; and whether he will state if the above sum of money includes the sums paid to Messrs. New, Rawson, and other meat experts called in at times to assist the operations of Messrs. Perfect and Company?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total to 30th September, 1915, is £20,966. The fact that the Army obtains the bulk of its meat through the Board of Trade has not affected the remuneration of Messrs. Perfect, who act as expert advisers and inspectors to the Board of Trade as well as to the War Office, but are only paid by the latter. The sum includes payments to persons employed by Messrs. Perfect.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, during the months of July, August, and September, a quantity of bacon was tendered to the Army and rejected as unfit for use; whether a great deal of this was sold to a contractor, named Webb, who was afterwards prosecuted and heavily fined for tendering the same on a local government contract; whether the medical officer to the City of London took a further quantity, also returned from the Army, and had the same condemned before a magistrate at the Guildhall; whether Messrs. Knowles and Wells are responsible for the inspection of bacon as well as meat; how did it come to be tendered to the Army at all; what firm supplied it; and what was the total amount returned?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiry made into the case referred to, and will let the hon. Member know the result. Messrs. Knowles and Wells have nothing to do with the inspection of bacon.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a contractor named Jones was fined at Warminster Police Court, on Saturday last, for supplying 60 lbs. of putrid sausages to a military camp in that district; that at the trial it was shown that no discovery was made of the state of these goods until they were actually
    1998
    in process of cooking; that in this case there is the same breakdown of the existing arrangements for military meat inspection as was evidenced in the case of Lyons and Company's meat at the White City; and that neither Messrs. Knowles nor Wells, nor the officers at the camps in question, discovered the state of the goods when delivered at night or served out for food the next morning; and whether he will now consider the advisability of organising the inspection of Army food supplies on a scientific basis, placing at its head some responsible medical officer of health, or otherwise well-qualified person, with instructions to secure the complete co-operation of imperial and local authorities in the supervision of all places preparing Army food and all contractors supplying the same?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inspection of the sausages referred to was purely a regimental matter in which Messrs. Knowles and Wells were in no way concerned. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the present system of food inspection.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it true that this particular gentleman was fined for supplying rotten sausages?

    NO-CONSCRIPTION FELLOWSHIP.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose authority the members of the Manchester branch of the No-Conscription Fellowship have been warned not to hold private meetings amongst themselves under the auspices of the branch; and under what powers this step has been taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret I am not in a position to give an answer, as I have not as yet received the report I am expecting.

    FIGHTING NEAR LENS (HILL 70).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Sir John French's special order of the day, dated 30th September, 1915, in which it was stated, with reference to recent operations, that the commanding position known as Hill 70, in advance of Loos, was finally captured, was inaccurate; and, if so, what steps were taken to remove the false impression created by the mistake of the Commander-in-Chief?
    Mr. TENNANT: Sir John French, in the special order of the day referred to, was speaking to his troops and not to the general public, nor to this House. By "Hill 70" he referred to the enemy position known to the troops under that designation. This position was on the western slopes of the topographical feature known as Hill 70, but was not co-extensive with it. The military position known as Hill 70 was captured and is still in our hands, though other works further East on the geographical feature known as Hill 70 are still in possession of the enemy. A communiqué which appeared in the Press during the last few days fully describes the present British position, and I do not think there is anything more to be said on this subject.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, why the military authorities have refused to increase the allowance of 7s. 4d. to 9s. 4d. per week to Mary A. Greham, widow, mother of Corporal James P. Greham, No. 3143, E Company, 4th battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, as recommended by the local pension committee; whether he is aware that this soldier before enlistment was the sole means of support of his widowed mother and a sister who is a permanent invalid; and will he have inquiry made into the case and see that Widow Greham is fairly treated?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will inquire and inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in the case of a soldier who in 1914 completed the full term for which he had enlisted, whose father died in that year leaving a widow wholly dependent on the. soldier son, who was entitled to go home in due course to support his mother but was detained on account of the War, whether, in these circumstances, the widowed mother will be treated as a dependant of a newly enlisted soldier; and, if so, what allowance will be made, and when, to Mrs. Wheatley, Killucan, mother and dependant of No. 9204, Corporal J. Wheatley, East Lancashire Regiment?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. Under the recommendations of the Select Committee
    2000
    Mrs. Wheatley cannot be treated as a dependant of the soldier since the dependancy, if any, did not exist prior to the outbreak of war. The case is one, however, which will be referred to the new authority to be set up under the Pensions Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: How does the hon. Gentleman justify giving a separation allowance or pension to a woman who marries a soldier, seeing she was not dependent upon him before the outbreak of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: Soldiers' wives have been treated very considerately.
    Mr. HOGGE: This was not a wife.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what the law or rule is settling the duration or period of continuance of allowances to dependants of soldiers who have died in action?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rule is to continue payment for twenty-six weeks from the date of notification of death, but, pending the settlement of a pension scheme for dependants, payment is being continued beyond that period at rates not exceeding the pension rates for widows and children.

    STEEL HELMETS.
    Mr. BRYCEasked on what date the order was placed for steel helmets; how many have been ordered; and how many have already been issued to the troops at the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is desirable that questions as to the exact date on which orders for this or that article of equipment have been placed should be put in this House, unless it is desired that the enemy should become aware of the details of our arrangements for altering equipment. But in any case the question is one which will be properly addressed to the Minister of Munitions. As regards the latter portions of the question, I may say that some thousands of helmets have already been issued, and it is expected that the number asked for by the Commander-in-Chief will very shortly have been supplied.
    Mr. BRYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French for six months have had these in larger quantities?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware of it.

    ARMY CLOTHING.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether further complaints have been received in respect of the failure of Messrs. Gurteen and Sons, Army clothing contractors, Haverhill, to comply with the requirements of the Fair-Wages Clause, especially as regards certain pressers whose rates the firm endeavoured to reduce after these had been increased under pressure from the War Office, and also as regards certain stock-keepers and warehousemen, some of whom are alleged to be receiving only slightly more than £1 per week; whether the case of this firm has been before the Department for several months; and, if so, whether the Department will without further delay compel their acceptance of the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, the firm undertook to comply with the requirements of the Fair-Wages Clause, but I am not satisfied, from the report of a recent inspection of their factory and records, that this is being done, and I am at present considering the further action to be taken in the matter.

    INDIAN ARMY (SICK AND WOUNDED OFFICERS' PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that officers of the British Army can draw full pay up to a period of eighteen months after being sent home sick or wounded from the front, and that an officer of the Indian Army, while sick or wounded in England, can receive full pay for a period of three months only, he will suggest to the Government of India the advisability of considering the question of giving more generous treatment to the sick and wounded officers of the Indian Army invalided home from the front?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my answer to his question of 14th October. As he is aware, the conditions of service (including the leave system) of officers of the Indian Army are different from those of the British Army. The British Army officer, though
    2002
    he may draw full pay during leave, loses at once his field allowance (a considerable item), and, with certain exceptions, he also loses his lodging allowance after ninety-one days; whereas the Indian Army officer draws full emoluments for three months. The leave-pay rates of the Indian Army are on the whole higher, and for the senior ranks much higher than the full pay of the British Army. I see no reason for an addition to the concession referred to in my former answer.

    National Penny Bank.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked when a further payment may be expected by the depositors of the National Penny Bank?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope that a further dividend of 2s. 6d. in the £ will be paid to the depositors of the National Penny Bank on 18th November next.

    Experiments on Living Animals.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say why the recently issued Return of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1914 has been altered in form from that of all such Returns heretofore issued, in that no explanation is given of the meaning of the various certificates alluded to under which such experiments are allowed to be done; and is he aware that this omission impairs the value of such Return as a public document?
    Sir J. SIMON: It was decided this year, on grounds of economy, in this and other Home Office Returns, to exclude any matter not really essential. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Retrenchment Committee has recently made a strong recommendation to this effect. The information specied in the question can be readily obtained by reference to the Return for any preceding year.
    Mr. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the name of the foreign professor mentioned in the recently issued Return of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1914 who performed an experiment while not holding a licence, and was subsequently granted a licence to perform such experiments in this country?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his Written Question of yesterday.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this Gentleman still holds a licence in this country?
    Sir J. SIMON: Which gentleman?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The gentleman referred to in the question, the foreign professor.
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice.

    Yorkshire West Riding Asylum (Enteric Outbreak).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an outbreak of enteric fever among the patients at the West Siding Asylum, Storthes Hall, near Huddersfield; whether he is aware that, as a consequence, members of the asylum staff have contracted the fever with fatal results; whether the asylum visiting committee propose to pay funeral grants of £10 each to the bereaved parents of the deceased attendants and nurses who had sacrificed their lives in the service of the visiting committee, such payments being intended to cover funeral expenses incurred; and will he state his reasons for withholding the sanction of the Local Government Board to the payment of these grants?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I regret to learn that three members of the staff at this asylum died from enteric fever. If the application which has been made to my Department for the payment of £10 to the father of one of the deceased nurses, as a contribution towards the expenses incurred by him in connection with his daughter's death, is renewed, I shall be happy to give the matter further consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PANEL DOCTORS (EDINBURGH).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the Commissioners in Scotland have had their attention drawn to the fact that there are panel doctors in Edinburgh and neighbourhood whose remuneration per visit works out at several pounds, whereas the average
    2004
    remuneration per visit is a small and reasonable figure; and whether the Scottish Commissioners or the Joint Commissioners are authorised to avoid or modify expenditure on this scale, or whether the administration of the Act was outwith the scope of the recent deliberations of the Retrenchment Committee?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): As I have previously explained in answer to a similar question, the remuneration of doctors under a capitation system is not governed by the number of attendances given, but by the extent of the liability for furnishing treatment to insured persons which falls upon the doctors. This remuneration is payable under the agreements between doctors and insurance committees, and is on a uniform scale throughout Great Britain, but the method of payment in the area referred to in respect of insured persons who have not selected a doctor has been modified since the first year of the operation of medical benefit. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. CURRIEasked (1) how many panel doctors there are in Edinburgh and neighbourhood whose remuneration per visit as set forth in official statistics works out at a sum exceeding £2 sterling; and whether, in any of these cases, the doctor renders any other services which have the effect of reducing the average pay per visit to less than 35s.; and (2) whether, in the case of the Edinburgh panel doctor who received £76 14s. 2d., although his solitary panel patient required not a single visit, the further liability to attend on other parties assumed by him in common with other doctors resulted in this doctor not being so called upon; or, if this were not so, how many visits he paid from first to last in respect of this £76 14s. 2d.; or whether the only trouble he was put to consisted of signing a receipt for the money?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: For the reasons explained in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question, the basis of the remuneration payable to doctors on the panel in the area referred to would render any such calculation as is suggested in these questions inappropriate as indicating the extent of the responsibility undertaken by a doctor, since the liability contingent upon his membership of the panel may not have accrued during a particular period.
    Mr. CURRIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether as a matter of fact this doctor did anything at all in exchange for the sum of £76, and is not such expenditure extravagant?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: He held his services available for a considerable number of insured persons.

    Bacterised Peat.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture has declined to take action, and still refuses to act, in developing the discovery of Professor Bottomley of the use of bacterised peat as a plant stimulant; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I have had the pleasure of meeting Professor Bottomley, and understand from him that he does not desire to suggest in anything which he said in his recent lectures, either that any report of his recent work had been made to the Board of Agriculture, or that arising out of this work any request or application had been made to the Board for their assistance in developing the production of bacterised peat. There is, therefore, in the present position no question of the Board declining or refusing to take action. On the contrary, in addition to the Grant which the Board has already made this year and last year, to assist the scientific work which is being done at King's College, the Board would be willing to do their best to arrange for trials of humogen in garden and agricultural work under the best conditions, if they were asked to do so. With regard to plant production on a limited scale, the use of humogen in fairly large productions has already produced remarkable results in stimulating plant growth, and the Board and Professor Bottomley are entirely in agreement in their desire to have its utility tested and proved upon a larger scale.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not an offer was made for this humogen by a German professor on behalf of the German Board of Agriculture, and in view of that will he secure it for this country?
    Mr. ACLAND: Professor Bottomley's efforts and discoveries are, I am glad to say, at the disposal of this country.
    Sir W. BYLES: Does the Department wait until it is asked, and could it not take the initiative in this important matter?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is very difficult for a public Department to take the initiative to develop a private patented process. All the assistance that we could give in the scientific investigation that underlies this process has been given and will continue to be most willingly given.

    Bank of England (Brokerage Commission).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state to whom or to what classes of business men or institutions brokerage in respect of public business is recognised as payable by the Bank of England; and whether, in making such payments, the Bank of England acts as agent-disburser for the Government and the taxpayer?
    Mr. McKENNA: Commission on allotments of stock made in respect of applications for Government issues is only paid by the Bank of England to "bankers, brokers, and financial houses" whose stamp appears on the form of application. The Bank of England deal with all such claims on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in paying, or engaging to pay, brokerage commissions to Mr. Horatius Stuart, solicitor, Edinburgh, the Bank of England was in any degree influenced by a belief that he was not following actively the legal profession; if so, whether such belief was based upon statements or letters of Mr. Stuart; whether such a misapprehension has existed over a course of years; what commissions have been paid or promised to Mr. Stuart; whether Mr. Stuart has given notice that he does not intend to renew his licence as a law agent in Scotland; whether he is aware that a council meeting of the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts in Scotland considered this matter at a meeting held on the 12th instant; and whether any communication from the society, or its council or president, has now reached him?
    Mr. McKENNA: In paying and undertaking to pay commission to Mr. Horatius Stuart the Bank of England did so entirely on the strength of Mr. Stuart's written statement, made in February last, that he was entirely engaged in financial business. A sum of £2 10s. was paid to Mr. Stuart for commission in respect of

    2007
    the 3½ per cent. War Loan. This, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is the only payment which has been paid to him in respect of a Government issue. I have no information as to Mr. Stuart's intention with regard to the renewal of his licence as a law agent, nor as to the meeting of the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts. No communication from the society, or its council or president, regarding Mr. Stuart's position has so far reached me.

    Indian Civil Service.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India what examinations for admission to the Indian Civil Service are to be held in the next two years, and on what dates; whether the Regulations about such examinations have been printed and published; and if he can state the rules regarding the age of candidates?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), who is unable to be present, has asked me to reply to these questions. It is intended to hold the usual examination during the next two years, and at the usual time. The alterations which it is proposed to make in the existing Regulations relate to the age limit and will enable candidates who have rendered military service to compete at a slightly higher age. Notice of these alterations was published in the "London Gazette" of the 12th instant. I will send the hon. Member a copy.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Bill to enable persons to be appointed or admitted to the Indian Civil Service without examination, if he will state in what way and by what standard the Civil Service Commissioners will satisfy themselves that a person to be appointed without examination possesses the necessary educational qualifications; and whether the rules prescribing the means to be used by the Commissioners for satisfying themselves have yet been made and published or laid before Parliament?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There are obvious inconveniences in dealing by means of question and answer in this House with a Bill which is now under discussion in another place, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to defer an answer to the first part of his question until the Bill comes before this House. If, in the meantime, he
    2008
    or any other Member would wish to make any suggestions to me on the subject, I shall be very happy to see them.
    Sir J. JARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to come here?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

    OUTBREAK NEAR BATH.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he can make any statement as to the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. ACLAND: On the evening of yesterday (20th October) telegraphic intimation was received from the police at Bath of the suspected existence of foot-and-mouth disease on two sets of premises at Monkton Combe, a village 2½ miles south-east of the town of Bath, and a veterinary inspector of the Board was instructed to investigate the report. Later in the evening the police also reported the suspected existence of the disease on three other sets of premises in the same village.
    Between noon and one o'clock this afternoon the Board's veterinary inspector telegraphed that he found that disease existed on three of the premises, the lesions in one case being well marked, and that he would report again later in the day.
    The veterinary officers of the Board accepted his diagnosis and instructions were at once given for the preparation for immediate issue of an Order prohibiting the movement of animals over an area of approximately 15 miles radius from Monkton Combe.
    As the City of Bristol is comprised within the area provision was made temporarily for the landing of animals consigned from Ireland to Bristol for detention in the lairages until further notice after landing, and the Irish Department were requested to take immediate steps to prevent any further shipments from Irish ports to Bristol.
    No mention is made in any of the telegrams as to the number or species of the animals on these five sets of premises, and it is not yet known whether the remaining two premises had been visited at the time of the veterinary inspector's first telegraphic report.

    2009
    No information is yet to hand as to the possible origin of disease. The necessary staff of inspectors has been instructed to proceed to Bath, arid further information may be expected at any moment.
    I will make a further statement on the Adjournment, if I have any further information.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state what the business will be for next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Tuesday and Wednesday we propose to continue the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
  On Thursday we shall proceed with the other Bills on the Order Paper.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH RATES (STATUTORY LIMITS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Variation of Statutory Limits for Post and Telegraph Rates.)
  For the purpose of enabling effect to be given to certain proposed changes of postal and telegraph rates, the following variations shall have effect with respect to the statutory limits applicable to those rates:—

  (a) The maximum rate for an inland book packet under Sub-section (1) (b) (ii.) of Section two of the Post Office Act, 1908, of a halfpenny for every two ounces or fractional part of two ounces shall cease to have effect except as respects inland book packets which do not exceed two ounces in weight; and

  (b) A maximum rate of a halfpenny for every six ounces in weight or for every fractional part of six ounces over and above the first or any additional six ounces up to such maximum weight as may be fixed by the Postmaster-General shall be substituted for the maximum rate of one halfpenny for each inland registered newspaper under Sub-section (1) (b) (iii.) of Section two of the Post Office Act, 1908; and

  (c) A maximum rate of ninepence for the first twelve words of each ordinary written telegram or for an ordinary written telegram of less than twelve words shall be substituted for the maximum rate of sixpence under
  2020
  Section two of the Telegraph Act, 1885; and

  (d) The maximum rates for Press telegrams under Section sixteen of the Telegraph Act, 1868, shall be varied as follows:—

  A rate of a shilling for every eighty words shall be substituted for the rate of a shilling for every hundred words transmitted between the hours of six p.m. and nine a.m. to a single address;

  A rate of a shilling for every sixty words shall be substituted for the rate of a shilling for every seventy-five words transmitted between the hours of nine a.m. and six p.m. to a single address;

  An additional charge of three-pence for every eighty or sixty words, as the case may be, of the same telegraphic communication transmitted to an additional address shall be substituted for the rate of twopence for every hundred or seventy-five words as the case may be;

  but rates for Press telegrams shall not be raised above the limits existing immediately before the passing of this Act until after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
  Sir W. BYLES: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
  I feel quite sure that the Post Office will not be able to defend this proposal in the Bill. It proposes to charge ½d. to carry 2 ozs. and 2½d. to carry 2 ozs. and a fraction. It proposes to charge, say, for a 6-oz. packet, 4d. to convey from Charing Cross to Westminster and 1½d. to convey from Bombay to Westminster. These are among the anomalies which could be pointed out. I feel sure it cannot be defended, and equally that it could not be maintained if it were enacted, inasmuch as there are at least three ways of avoiding its effects, one by printing abroad the communications that are too heavy for the 2 ozs., and using the lower postage which is available from foreign countries; secondly, by cutting up a 6-oz. packet, say, into three 2-oz. packets, and thus getting it within the ½d. rate; and, thirdly, by employing, as I am sure would be employed, new organisations for hand delivery. I believe that the proposal would defeat its own ends. I believe that it would bring, not an increasing revenue to the Post Office, but instead a serious loss.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal in the Bill would bring in no revenue. On the contrary, there is a not inconsiderable revenue involved. At the same time, I cannot dispute his contention that the new rates which have been proposed could be to a large extent evaded. The hands of the Post Office in all matters of rates are tied to a very great extent by the International Postal Union, which fixes rates for international traffic, and which cannot be altered except with the consent of the International Postal Union assembled in conference. The consequence is, whenever the Exchequer wishes to get more revenue out of postal charges, it is liable to be met by the fact that it would be charging more for sending a packet from one part of a town to another part of a town than for sending a similar packet to the other end of the earth. It is also the case that, under the international arrangement, packets could be posted from, say, Holland, Belgium or France, and sent over here at a much cheaper rate than those which were proposed by the Retrenchment Committee, and, if that practice were adopted, the British Post Office would have all the trouble of distributing these packets, and at the same time would receive no revenue, while the British printing trade would run the risk of orders being given to competitors in foreign countries in order to save the expense.
  Further, in connection with the proposal which has been made in this Bill, the point has to be considered that a very heavy charge for postage would be levied on monthly periodicals. Scientific magazines and other periodicals would have to pay an exceedingly heavy charge at the same rate as letters under the new letter scale. In view of all these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to continue the rate of printed packets as now of not only a ½d. for the first 2 ozs., but also a ½d. for each successive 2 ozs. It is not enough for me to stop there, because the question of samples must also be considered. The old sample post was 4 ozs. for a 1d., and 2 ozs. for a ½d. above the rate of the first 4 oz. There was no ½d. postage for sampled; the post was ½d. for 4 oz., and a ½d. for each additional 2 ozs., and that is also the international rate. In 1897, as the House will remember, when the Jubilee postal concessions of that date were made, the letter rate for ordinary letters was
  2022
  made 1d. for 4 oz, and a ½d. for each additional 2 oz., and consequently it was identical with the sample rate, and the separate sample post was abolished. Now samples, as before, go both within this country and outside, at the rate of 4 ozs. for a ½d. and 2 ozs. for a ½d. beyond the first 4 ozs. I think the business community would be very much affected if an alteration was not made back again, and if the sample post was not re-established, and consequently with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I propose to do that. The effect generally will be that while the charges for letters will be raised from what they now are to 1d. for the first ounce and 2d. for two ounces, and a ½d. per 2 oz. above; that samples will be charged as now, 1d. for the first 4 ozs. and a ½d. for each additional 2 ozs., and printed matter will be charged as now: a ½d. for the first 2 ozs. and a ½d. for each successive 2 ozs. I do not want to make the sample post identical with the printed matter post, because that would be giving those who send samples a cheaper rate than they pay now, and this is not a time for making any additional concession. The alterations in the letter rate can be effected by Warrant, and the alteration in the sample rate can be effected in the same way, and does not require legislation, because it does not go below the initial 1d. The ½d. rate for printed matter can be left as it is by leaving the Statute as it is—that is to say, by omitting from this Bill the Sub-section which would modify the existing Statute of 1908, and on behalf of the Government I accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Sir W. BYLES: I desire to express my thanks and the thanks of the traders and printers for whom I have been acting, for the very important concession that has been made by the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: What revenue is the right hon. Gentleman giving up?
  Mr. HOGGE: I am astounded that the Postmaster-General should yield these matters, although I am glad he has done so. It seems to me that the only people who can get concessions out of the Cabinet and the Postmaster-General are those who can bring pressure to bear. The right hon. Gentleman has made concessions with regard to samples and newspapers, but he is insisting on extra taxation upon those of us who write ordinary letters. I congratulate the Postmaster-General and the Cabinet on having been squeezed.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: This is the third or the fourth recommendation which has been accepted of what is known as the Retrenchment Committee with regard to postal arrangements. All the municipalities in this country are now taking into consideration the question of retrenchment, but they appoint a committee within their own body and from their own body—
  The CHAIRMANrose—
  Mr. SAMUEL: I was just going to point the moral. It is really a waste of the time of Parliament that we should come here and discuss these matters in the way we are doing—
  The CHAIRMAN: Then the moral is out of order.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I cannot help thinking that the House has not been dealt fairly with in regard to the production of this Bill, seeing that bit by bit the original proposals are being given away, and we are face to face with the prospect of nothing remaining of the Bill but its title. I think if the Postmaster-General and those who advise him went into this matter with a view to discovering the amount of revenue likely to be derived, they would find that either they would gain very little, or they might even lose by the proposed alteration. The strongest argument for the elimination of one of these proposals was that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to act because he could not bring into line with him his confederates on the International Postal Union. If, therefore, he still at the back of his mind thinks that these things are desirable, I should very much like to know whether he has taken any step to bring about an agreement on this matter with the International Postal Union.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Could the right hon. Gentleman at the same time tell us what increase of revenue he thinks he will get, providing no more concessions are made? I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I have been telling all my Constituents that we are at war, and that they must be ready to pay increased charges. I presumed that the Government had thought out their Bill before they introduced it, and that it was my duty to support them. What position am I in? Every day we have a concession. It is, therefore, no use attempting to support the Government,
  2024
  because after you have said that you intend to support them you have no opportunity, because they yield to clamour and withdraw practically the greater part of the charges which they have put on. When the Government bring in a Bill at a time like this they ought to consider it and to stick to it. If it is not right, they ought not to bring it; but, having brought it in, I do not think that they are doing right to withdraw under pressure practically the greater part of the proposals they have made.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise to dissociate myself from the observations made by the last two speakers. The Post Office has suffered sufficient humiliation in regard to the proposals made in the Budget speech by the alteration of the postal rate, and it is wise not to court further humiliation by putting such a proposal as this before the International Postal Union. I am perfectly certain such a proposal would never for a moment be entertained by it. I would like to join in the expression of thanks for the concession the Postmaster-General has made. It would have been an intolerable burden upon many useful industries and enterprises in the country if the original proposals had been adhered to. I should like, if I might without intending in the least degree to be offensive, to give just one word of warning. It may be that other proposals, quite as absurd and ridiculous, will be submitted by that extraordinary body known as the Retrenchment Committee. I would suggest, therefore, when proposals with regard to postal rates do come from that body, that the Post Office, in the future, should give them very careful consideration indeed. I am quite sure, if they will do that, it will save the reputation of the Post Office, which in the past has possessed a fairly considerable amount of common sense and business ability. My hon. Friend behind me protested very strongly against the proposals which are being made by the Post Office for the raising of the letter rate. If it were an alternative between lowering the weight carried for 1d. and any restrictions, I should not hesitate for a single moment as to which alternative I would choose. I would like to see the present letter rate maintained, but still I have often said that I know of no instance where cheapness has been carried to such an absurd extent as in the case of the present letter rate in this country. To be able to send a letter of ¼lb. for 1d. from one part of the United Kingdom to another is either a

  2025
  wonderful achievement in business organisation or economy or it is an instance of loss resulting from generosity on the part of the State.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Before we consent to any Amendment of the Bill, could we not get a statement from the Postmaster-General as to the changes he proposes to make, not merely by this Bill, but in postal arrangements generally? We are asked now to give up a particular matter which is in the Bill, but we want an assurance, if we give it up, that some other tax will not be put upon us.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman's observations would lead a very long way, and I think he had better try them on the Third Reading, when he would, perhaps, have a better chance.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: We have not been told what is the general scheme of the Post Office. We cannot ask, and we do not know it. We must therefore look very carefully, indeed, upon any suggestion made by the Post Office. We had a very strong appeal from the Postmaster-General, on the Second Reading, as to the care we ought to take, and it is very dfficult to know whether to support the Amendment, which is substantially accepted by the Government, by leaving out the Clause altogether, or whether we ought to press the Government to keep to the charge they have proposed. We are acting to that extent in the dark. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that pressure was brought to bear upon the Post Office which was not brought to bear upon any other trading community. Bearing in mind that pressure is brought to bear upon hon. Members who have a large number of Post Office employés in their constituencies, it is our duty to go very carefully into proposals of this kind. The Postmaster-General himself has told us that hon. Members who have Post Office employés in their constituencies have pressure brought to bear upon them and they in their turn bring pressure to bear upon the Post Office. Therefore, we should fully understand any extra charge that is being put on. We all feel it is important that we should know what we are doing when such a trustworthy Member as the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) has concessions granted to him without the House knowing what it is going to cost the nation.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Various suggestions have been made as to the reason why the Postmaster-General sees his way to withdraw this particular Clause. One hon. Member suggested a squeezing process, and another hon. Member suggested pressure; but, if I might place my own construction upon it, I would say that it means, if I might say so without offence, that the Postmaster-General is one of the few business men in the Ministry, and, instead of yielding to pressure from hon. Members, he has listened to the representations of business men in the trade affected. I would add my thanks on behalf of the Labour side of the trade to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I should like to ask whether after accepting this Amendment this particular branch of the Post Office will pay its way. I maintain that there is reasonable ground for suggesting that each branch of the Post Office should pay its way. There is no reason why the general body of taxpayers should be burdened for the benefit of special classes or special trades. It was suggested the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) that no business concern would proceed in this way to increase its rate; but would any business concern be able to be carried on at all on the lines on which the Post Office has been carried on in several of its branches? It has been carried on with very serious loss in some branches, and were it not for what has been regarded as the unfathomable pocket of the taxpayer the business could not be carried on at all. Therefore, the question ought to be asked, "Will that particular branch of the Post Office be self-supporting if the Amendments and concessions which are being dealt out so freely are carried?"
  Mr. CURRIE: I should like to ask two questions, both of which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman can easily answer. First, looking at his proposals as a whole and giving effect to the concessions which he has just intimated, how much additional revenue will be left; and, in the second place, will he consider the practicability of curtailing the number of deliveries in small villages? Three, and sometimes four, deliveries are being made in small villages—
  The CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be raised at this stage.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In all these matters of increases of rates we have to take into account the advantage of getting more revenue on the one hand and the disadvantage to the public and inconvenience of creating possible postal anomalies on the other hand. That is obvious, and we have to weigh those two factors. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to get anything approaching an exact financial estimate in such a matter, but a very rough speculative estimate of the result of this proposal to make all printed matter above the first 2 ozs. fall into the ordinary letter post and be charged at letter rate puts it rather over £400,000.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is that the cost?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No; the additional revenue that would be derived if printed matter, instead of going 2 ozs. for a -½d., were to go 2 ozs. for the first ½d. and then above that be treated as letters. That £400,000 would be sacrificed by this Amendment. If £400,000 of revenue can be realised, it is worth a good deal of inconvenience to the public and worth creating a number of anomalies. Consequently, the Government proposed this plan and put it into the Bill. Since then it has been pointed out—and, of course, we knew it before—that undoubtedly a certain number of traders, perhaps a great number of traders, having large numbers of catalogues weighing more than 2 ozs., weighing, say, 4 ozs., instead of sending them by letter post and putting 2½d. on each, a very heavy cost on the postage of a large number of catalogues, would divide them into two sections, each section weighing below 2 ozs., and the Post Office would only receive ½d. on each. It would have to carry two packets instead of one and receive the same revenue as now.
  Sir W. BYLES: Has any account been taken of reduced traffic?
  Mr. SAMUEL: A considerable loss of traffic has been allowed for in the estimate of £400,000, but whether that estimate is adequate or not only experience can show. It is quite certain that a considerable number of traders would post their catalogues from abroad as I have stated, and there being this danger of the Post Office being brought into discredit by these obvious means of evasion the question arises whether it is worth while proceeding in order to get that additional revenue at that cost. It has been further pointed
  2028
  out that the effect of these proposals would undoubtedly be very serious on the printing trade and also upon the publishers and proprietors of monthly periodicals which have not the advantage of the newspaper rate. On a review of all the circumstances, it has been thought that perhaps on the whole it is inadvisable to proceed with this proposal, even though such a considerable revenue as £400,000 is involved. This estimate cannot from the nature of the case be regarded as really reliable and trustworthy, and it might be that when the new rates were brought into operation the sum involved would be found to be much less or it might be much greater than £400,000. Those are the reasons why the Government have proposed to accede to the representations that have been made to them and not to go on with this proposal. In answer to the hon. Member for Windsor I have to say it is estimated that a ½d. for a 2-oz. packet is just remunerative to the Post Office. Probably there is no profit in it. There is a trifling profit on the postcard, which weighs a good deal less. There is a loss on newspapers which weigh more than 2 ozs., and the loss on newspapers may be taken very roughly as about equal to the profit on the postcards. The ½d. packet of 2 ozs., I think, just about pays, so that the ½d. post as a whole—newspapers, packets, and postcards taken together—brings in no appreciable profit and causes no appreciable loss to the Post Office. That is, as I am informed by my advisers, the best estimate they can make. With respect to the question of the hon. Member behind me, whether it is not possible to arrange with other countries to alter the international rates, these rates can only be altered at the International Conference which meets once every few years, and which, of course, in the present condition of the world, cannot conceivably meet at the present time. The total amount of revenue which would be derived from all the Post Office changes, those made by this Bill and by warrant and including the savings on expenditure, will approach £3,000,000. The changes will include those announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as modified by my own statement on the Second Reading of the Bill, and as modified by the further concession involved by this Amendment.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Surely these primeval dodges for evasion were considered by the Government before they made their original proposal?
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Sir W. BYLES: I beg to move, at the beginning of paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "six" ["six ounces"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
  I do not propose to press this Amendment very hard. I put it down in order to obtain reconsideration by the right hon. Gentleman of the question whether the rate for trade journals especially cannot be slightly increased over the 6 ozs. A good many would come well within 8 ozs. The change would make a serious difference to many of them.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps I had better say that this is an Amendment which I cannot accept, and I am glad my hon. Friend does not propose to press it. The newspaper post, of course, is unremunerative, and the House generally approved a modification of the present regulation which allows a paper weighing even as much as 5 lbs., and many weekly papers weigh 2 lbs., to be carried for ½d. That is quite indefensible, and by general agreement it was felt that a lower limit of weight ought to be imposed. The question is what should that limit be? We thought we ought to put our limit at such a figure that the ordinary daily newspaper would still be able to go for ½d. We do not want to discriminate between particular classes of newspapers, charging 1d. for some and ½d. for others. Consequently the figure was put at 6 ozs., which covers the bulk of the daily papers. It is true that there are one or two newspapers which occasionally, or even frequently, do exceed 6 ozs., but these papers consist to a very large extent of highly remunerative advertisements.
  Sir W. BYLES: Not all.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: We think the taxpayer ought not to be called upon to carry them at a very heavy loss in consideration of the fact that they differ from other newspapers mainly in the additional advertisements that they contain. Another reason why we do not want to lower the rate from 6 ozs. per ½d. to 8 ozs. is the effect it would have at the second point in the scale. It would mean that a newspaper weighing between 12 and 16 ozs. would go for 1d. instead of being charged more, and these weekly papers weighing up to 1 lb. again include great numbers of highly remunerative advertisements. We
  2030
  think that they ought to bear a charge which approaches more closely the cost to the Post Office of distributing and delivering them. As I stated in my remarks on a previous Amendment, to be remunerative a newspaper ought to be charged a ½d., not for 8 ozs., nor for 6 ozs., nor even for 4 ozs., but for 2 ozs., and I think the State is going far to consider the interests of the newspapers, and also, of course, to meet the convenience and requirements of the public at large, by carrying a weight up to 6 ozs. for ½d. I ask the Committee to maintain that figure in the Bill.
  Colonel HARRY LAWSON: Proverbially a little knowledge is rather a dangerous thing, and I do not want this to be left in the position stated by the Postmaster-General before the Committee adopt this Clause. It is not the case that only occasionally daily newspapers exceed the weight of 6 ozs. As a matter of fact, both in the provinces and in London, there are many that are looked upon as principal newspapers which habitually exceed that weight.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL Mr. H. SAMUEL dissented.
  Colonel HARRY LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman contradicts me, but perhaps on this particular matter he will allow me to speak with somewhat greater fullness of knowledge than I could with regard to letters. The "Glasgow Herald" is one of the cases in point. These papers, of course, are harder hit by the change than if the uniform rate originally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been maintained, because they vary, and, therefore, it is not possible to shift the burden, even if they wish, on to the subscribers. Nor is it the case that most papers mainly consist of advertisements, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. The increased size is generally due to special pages or supplements dealing with special phases of national life, trade, and agriculture, and kindred matters which are published for the benefit, let us say, of the whole of the community. I do not put the case of the daily papers. I am thinking much more of a category in which I have no interest—that is to say, trade papers and weekly papers. They are really the commercial intelligence department of the nation, much more so, perhaps, than the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade—not that I am underrating much of the work it does. They supply all the trades of the country—and I wish to draw

  2031
  the attention of the members of the Retrenchment Committee to this fact—with the data upon which they act from week to week, with the information on which great commercial and industrial firms conduct their business. They are part of the commercial and industrial mechanism of the country. This is going to be a bad burden in a very high degree, and the papers will be largely crippled by the changes now proposed.
  I do not make that statement without authority. I have had special communications from the proprietors of weekly newspapers and periodical publications pointing out that this new scale will impose a crushing burden on many trade papers, and stamp some of them out of existence. That is the opinion of those who know. I certainly should not dream of asking the Committee to divide on the question, as obviously it is one in which I have some personal interest, but I want to put the case of the trade papers before the Committee so that they may know what they are doing. If they wish to diminish the commercial intelligence of the country and to put a burden on the whole of the framework of our national industry they are quite right to adopt the scheme proposed. But they should do it in the full knowledge of what they are doing, and not solely in the light of information furnished by representatives of the Post Office to the Committee. I do not suppose anything more can be done now. I hope it will not be put as a permanent burden. I confess I view with great misgiving the effect it will have upon our being able to respond to the call of neutral markets, and on our being able to take advantage of opportunities that must arise especially in the immediate future, and after the War, for the supply of commodities from this country abroad. Having made this statement on behalf of the weekly newspapers and trade journals I do not propose to press the matter any further.
  Sir W. ESSEX: In reply to the remarks of the last speaker I would like to point out that these journals, whether they be weekly or daily, have this enormously enlarged bulk from time to time because they issue special supplements dealing with trade conditions which appear to them to justify the increase of size. They may be national agencies for the encouragement and development of trade, but the cost to the owners is very largely discounted by the enhanced advertisement charges which
  2032
  are made on these special occasions. If I had, as an advertiser, to go to the advertisement manager of my hon. and gallant Friend or anyone else connected with the Press, I should expect, and rightly so as a business man, to be met with a quotation for the advertisement which would be justified by the added interest which attaches to the compilation of the journal or periodical, an added interest which would be represented by these increased fees. I think, therefore, too much can be said on that side of the matter. I do not want the Post Office or any other Department of the State to be ungenerous to our magnificent Press enterprises But the advantages are not all on one side and neither is the burden put on one pair of shoulders. Immediately you increase the bulk of a paper you increase the value of its advertisements, other things being equal, and if you increase the revenue on one side it is fair that that revenue should be taxed in times like these, without there being laid upon the taxpayer charges which the Post Office seeks to distribute more equally.
  Sir J. D. REES: Without possessing the special knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member for Mile End (Colonel Lawson), I should like to say I have received from a good many quarters representations which lead me to say how strongly I agree with all he has said. The concessions the Post Office has made will give very great satisfaction, but still what my hon. and gallant Friend has said should also receive consideration. There is great danger lest we do damage to trade in this respect and cause greater loss than any immediate gain which may accrue to the Post Office from the actual increased postage in the particular cases concerned.
  Sir W. BYLES: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Supplemental Provisions.)
  (1) Any contract for the supply or delivery to subscribers of newspapers, periodicals, or other publications, at rates including postage, so far as the contract includes the supply or delivery of publications, the rate of postage on which is increased after the passing of this Act and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixteen, may be determined

  2033
  by any party to the contract, as from the date on which the rate is raised by notice given to the other party to the contract not later than fourteen days after the increase of rate takes effect.
  (2) In computing, for the purposes of Sub-section (2), of Section two of the Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882, the amount of the remuneration to railway companies for the carriage of parcels, there shall be excluded from the gross receipts of the Postmaster-General any increase in those receipts which is attributable to any increase in the rates of postage of parcels which is made after the passing of this Act and during the continuance of the present war and a period of six months thereafter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I desire to ask the Postmaster-General what is the meaning of this Clause? Sub-section (2) practically rescinds the statutory agreement made with the railway companies for the purpose of carrying parcels, and the rate of remuneration of railway companies as to the price paid to them for carrying parcels. There is nothing about the alteration in the parcels rate in this Bill at all. Why should we break a contract with the railway companies in respect of a matter that we have not in any way sanctioned by way of alteration in the postal rate of parcels to be carried under this Bill?
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Alterations in the parcel post rates are made by Warrant, therefore it would be improper to include them in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech that it was intended to effect certain increases in the parcel post rates by warrant. It was also stated in the White Paper which was circulated to the House, and also stated, I think, elsewhere. Under the Act referred to in this Clause—the Post Office (Parcels) Act, 1882—a railway company is entitled to claim for its share of the cost of conveying parcels 55 per cent, of the Post Office receipts. These increased charges are levied, in the special circumstances of the time, simply for the purpose of increasing the national revenue and helping us to meet the charges' of the War. I am sure it would be regarded on all hands as absurd that more than one-half of the increased charges paid by the public should go to the railway companies, who have no increased expenses to meet in respect of these parcels, and who, therefore, are not entitled in any way to
  2034
  receive the larger half of the new revenue. On the contrary, the railway companies will gain, because they are themselves carriers of parcels. The Postmaster-General has no monopoly in respect of parcels and the position is not like that of the letter post. Owing to the increase of the Post Office charges an increased traffic will accrue to the railway companies in respect of parcels. Therefore, I think the railway companies cannot have any claim for participation in the new revenue, but, will, indeed, derive advantage from the changes effected by the Warrant.
  Mr. DENNISS: I understand that the railway companies will do no more work for the money they are being paid.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Postal and Telegraph Rates Act, 1915.
  The CHAIRMAN: The proposal which has been handed in by the Government should come in as a new Clause; therefore we should negative this Clause and put in a new Title Clause.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Title.)
  3. This Act may be cited as the Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1915, and may be cited with the Post Office Act, 1908, as the Post Office Acts, 1908 to 1915, and, so far as relates to telegraphs, with the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1913.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time; read a second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Surcharge on Postage Stamps.)
  During the currency of the present War there may be stamped upon the face of every postage stamp issued for use and used for postal purposes in the United Kingdom the words "War surcharge one farthing," and all such stamps shall be charged at ¼d. each in addition to the charge appropriate to the face value of the stamp.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  In moving this Clause, I take advantage of your ruling, Sir, based on Mr. Speaker's

  2035
  ruling with regard to the nature of these postal charges. Mr. Speaker ruled that these postal charges were not taxes, but payments for services rendered, and in view of that you have informed me that I am in order in proposing an increase in certain of these postal charges. In order to keep with the Short Title of the Bill I have limited my Clause to postage stamps used for postal purposes only, and I do so more readily because the Bill itself provides for an increase of approximately 50 per cent. in the minimum charge for telegrams; therefore, so far as telegrams are concerned, the Bill is a real and substantial contribution towards the increase of the postal revenue. With regard to the Title of the Bill, you have been good enough to point out to me that as the Title is:—
  "To alter certain statutory limits of postal and telegraph rates, and for purposes connected therewith"
  that in the first line of the proposed new-Clause where I have used the word "shall," I ought to use the word "may." I shall therefore move the Clause with the word "may" instead of "shall." In that case I am not under any fear that it will limit or injure the value of the Clause, because I feel quite confident that I shall be able to show the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is a Clause of such substantial merit from the point of view of providing the sinews of war, that if the Committee are good enough to empower the Post Office to make a surcharge—a war surcharge of ¼d. on every postage stamp issued for use and sold in this country for postal purposes—the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to put that power into force.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: One farthing on all stamps?
  Mr. PETO: Yes, on all denominations. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee just now that the alterations just made in the Bill to meet the representations of certain trades and interests in this country will reduce the additional estimated revenue by about £400,000. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the 2-oz. packet for ½d. just about pays its way, balancing the profit on postcards and the loss on newspapers. We have here a Bill which he tells us, in spite of the whittling down in Committee in comparison with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, with the administrative
  2036
  changes he is going to make which are not in the Bill, yield £3,000,000. It is not possible for any private Member to know how much such a proposal as that I am putting before the Committee would be worth, because he has not the information. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, if he has taken the trouble to have any estimate made, would be good enough to tell the Committee, so that they may know what the amount involved is. I have been told that from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 would be the additional revenue for the Post Office, which would be in turn handed over to the general national revenue as profits, which accrue to the Post Office. Therefore, in taking advantage of the opportunity I have on this Bill to propose this surcharge it cannot be said that I have put down an Amendment which is not a substantial contribution to what really interests the Committee most of all, that is, providing a substantial contribution towards the cost of the War. I admit that the Bill as it stands is worth the time of the Committee it has taken and the printing and so forth, but it would be a really substantial War measure if the right hon. Gentleman included the Clause I have put down.
  May I enumerate briefly one or two of the merits of the surcharge I propose. First of all, although it would bring in an immense revenue to the Post Office, it is about as cheap to collect as any form of revenue. All that is necessary is that stamps of all denominations shall be surcharged—every Member will know what I mean by that—upon the face of them with some such words as I propose, "War surcharge, ¼d." It does not interfere with the Postal Convention, because I limit it to stamps sold and used in this country. From the internal postage stamps used in this country the revenue I refer to would be brought in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that one of his purposes in the Budget is to bring home the fact that we are at War, and give some inducement to economy to every class in the community. I cannot think of any method cheaper or more effective of doing that, and of warning every person who uses the Post Office that he is expected to make some little contribution to the War than that of a special postage stamp which bears on the face of it a statement that it is a War charge. I do not think it will bring about any material diminution in the postal revenue. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) expressed regret that so many

  2037
  of these proposed charges had been whittled away, and that he was very sorry there was so little left in this Bill, therefore I shall count upon his support, at any rate, for this Clause. I need not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants money. I propose by my Clause to give the Postmaster-General the opportunity of handing over to him a sum, which no doubt he will tell us in detail, but which I am within the mark in saying is double the value of the rest of the Bill put together. The trade and the public have asked, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mile End (Colonel Harry Lawson) pointed out on the Second Reading, for some assurance that these increased charges are strictly limited to the period of the War and are War surcharges, therefore I hope that he will support a perfectly fair proposal not to discriminate between one value of stamp or one kind of parcel or letter or another, but to put on a stamp which will carry on the face of it, as proposed in my Clause, a statement that it is a charge limited to the period of the War.
  It is a very good thing that the proposal, which was one of the most substantial made by the Retrenchment Committee, to increase the ½d. postage to a 1d. straight off has been dropped. Undoubtedly it has been shown that that was too steep an increase. But in respect of postcards and many other particulars no increase is put on the ½d. postage at all. That being so, it is reasonable to propose, as I do, a charge only one-half as great as the one which has been rejected. In spite of spending an enormous amount of time on this question it has been finally decided to do nothing at all. I would mention one other virtue of my proposal. We should be acting in concert with some of our Allies and some of the Dominions of the Crown in putting a special surcharge on War stamps. I beg the Postmaster-General not to follow the Chancellor's of the Exchequer's lead in the matter of Import Duties. Do not let him have this portion of the proposals, which were put forward originally as one whole, whittled down until they are not worth the time that would be spent upon them. Let us realise, apart from any special interests, that it is the business of the Committee to find and pass means of bringing in substantial blocks of revenue to meet the enormous exenditure on the War, and let us put aside, as I hope hon. Members will
  2038
  put aside, all the small objections that may be raised to this proposal for one reason or another, or from one interest or another. The Postmaster-General has just said that the proposals he has dropped would have produced £400,000, and that considerable inconveniences and anomalies were justified if he could get a revenue of £400,000; therefore, I hope that I shall not be met with the claim that there might be slight inconvenience, one way or another, when I am proposing to obtain a revenue, not of £400,000, but probably £7,000,000 or £8,000,000.
  What are the objections? The first objection I am quite sure I shall be met with is that a poor person going into a Post Office to buy a single ½d. or 1d. stamp will have to put down two coins—in the case of a 1d. stamp, 1½d., receiving ¼d. change; or in the case of ½d. stamp putting down 1d. and receiving ¼d. change. The ¼d. is still a current coin of the realm, and it is not asking Post Office officials very much to keep a certain amount—a very small amount indeed—of this smallest coin to give in change where people ask for single postage stamps. In the case of any larger purchase, of course, the inconvenience is reduced to nothing at all. It is merely a question of being prepared to pay what is admittedly a contribution to the expenses of the War. A 1s. worth of 1d. stamps will cost 1s. 3d. A 6d. packet of postcards, where we now have the postcard itself thrown in for 6d., will cost 9d., and I do not think that is an unreasonable suggestion under the circumstances. A 2s. book of stamps, which many people find very convenient, I admit does not come out at a very easy figure. It comes out at 2s. 7½d., because it contains thirty stamps—eighteen 1d. and twelve ½d.—but it would be very easy for the Postmaster-General to put in a few more ½d. stamps and so make it even money—say 3s.
  There is another objection to be raised. For some years now we have been accustomed, and the traders of the country, I admit, have found it convenient, to use an ordinary 1d. postage stamp when giving a receipt, but a few years ago special receipt stamps were printed and I quite admit, if the Postmaster-General does not care to enlarge my Clause so that it would cover receipt stamps, which I cannot do under your ruling as to the title of the Bill, it would be necessary to issue receipt stamps. I do not think that is a very great hardship at all. It might also be pointed out that it would cause a little inconvenience because you would have to

  2039
  have another set of stamps for telegraphs. They would be telegraph stamps, and only a very few denominations would need to be printed. Each 1d. probably up to 1s. would cover the whole of the possible stamps to be used. People would buy their telegraph stamps, if they wanted to keep them in their pocket, or the postal officials at the end of the counter where telegrams are dealt with would have that class of stamp in their till or in their book, and the other officials where you buy postage stamps would keep postage stamps. I admit there would be a trifling inconvenience to the Post Office in having the stamps printed. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General very seriously to consider whether he would not be giving a good lead. I should like to see this system of war surcharge carried very much further. I only mention it now because it is an argument for making a beginning. I should like to see it carried as far as the tickets for all amusements.
  The CHAIRMAN: The only ground on which the hon. Member puts his Clause forward is that of charges for services rendered. His speech in in great danger of rendering his Clause out of order.
  Mr. PETO: I need not say I quite agree with your ruling, but I thought I should be in order in pointing out that in making the change I am advocating, the right hon. Gentleman would be giving a lead in suggesting to the public mind a method of producing an immense amount of revenue. I do not want to carry it any further. I use that as an argument, and I think a substantial argument, in favour of making a beginning in the matter of postage stamps. I would ask the Postmaster-General, in his own words, not lightly to throw over this proposal because he may be able to point out some trifling anomaly or inconvenience to the public or the Post Office, but to be guided by his own dictum that £400,000 is worth anomalies and inconveniences, and I ask the Committee to consider how much of these inconveniences and anomalies £8,000,000 are worth.
  Mr, H. SAMUEL: This is one of those proposals that occur to ingenious minds, and which seem very attractive on paper but which do not bear examination from a practical point of view. There are several difficulties, any one of which would wholly prevent the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal. In the first place, although he assumes that it would not interfere with
  2040
  the regulations of the International Convention in effect it would, because the 2½d. stamp put upon a foreign letter in this country is bought at the Post Office and used in this country and you cannot without a breach of the International Convention charge 2¾d. for that letter. Similarly for the 1d. postcard which goes to a foreign country, or the ½d. packet of printed papers. Consequently, you have to exclude foreign correspondence from this proposal. Secondly, there is the difficulty of receipt stamps. The whole nation is accustomed to use an unified stamp both for postage and for fiscal purposes, and it would be intensely annoying to find that a receipt was invalidated because the wrong stamp had been used. On the other hand, the hon. Member proposes to raise the fiscal charges not by 25 per cent., or ¼d. in the ¼d., but by £d. for each stamp, no matter what its amount might be. Further, stamps are used for defraying the cost of telegrams. The hon. Member would have a separate series of stamps for that use, which would again cause the greatest inconvenience to the public and to the administration of the Post Office. Also stamps are affixed to postal orders for the transmission of odd amounts, they are used for savings bank deposits, and also for accounting purposes in the General Post Office. These are the minor practical objections. The major objections are the great inconvenience to businesses that depend on the use of the ½d. post in having their expenditure increased by 50 per cent., and, lastly, the trouble and annoyance and irritation, which would be widespread, owing to the absence of farthings. The farthing, although still a current coin, is very sluggishly current. It hardly circulates at all; and there would unquestionably be the greatest annoyance on the part of members of the public going in to buy a postage stamp if they were required to pay for it not 1d., but 1¼d. I imagine that if the hon. Member's proposal were to be adopted in legislation it would be almost unanimously condemned by an exasperated public; the Postmaster-General of the day would be torn to pieces by an irritated nation, and it would be little consolation to him to know that the hon. Member who had proposed the scheme would share his fate.
  Mr. J. MASON: My hon. Friend's proposal is not an improvement on the suggestion of the use of the ½d. war stamp; but, as regards the yield it would give, there is no doubt that, if carried into

  2041
  effect, the right hon. Gentleman would derive a revenue from it, as far as I can see, of about half the amount he would from a ½d. war stamp. As regards the difficulty of the ¼d. coin, I am sure the rarity of that coin is due to the little use to which it can be put, and if there were any use such as is proposed in this Clause undoubtedly it would very rapidly come into use, and the public would not find a very great inconvenience in adapting itself to it. But if the proposal is not accepted I press upon the right hon. Gentleman once more to seriously give consideration to the question whether the use of a war stamp of some kind on all postal packets is not the easiest way to derive a revenue, which is very large in proportion to the amount of the charge, which is probably the least irritating and would cause the least friction of any method by which he could otherwise raise the sum of £4,000,000, which that ½d. stamp was calculated to yield.
  Mr. PETO: I should like to point out one thing I ought to have said before, that obviously in the case of receipts it will not be necessary to invalidate a receipt that had a postage stamp on it. If anyone liked for his own convenience to put 1¼d. instead of 1d., that would be an end of that inconvenience. I should be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I feel quite sure he takes a wholly wrong view of what the public think of this proposal, if he would tell the Committee, before he finally turns it down and dismisses it from his mind as not worthy of consideration, how many millions he is throwing away.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I could not state that without knowing how many stamps would be excepted for foreign postage, for receipts, and for all the various other purposes I have mentioned. You cannot assume that all the stamps in use would in fact pay the extra ¼d. It is impossible without information like that to give an estimate.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I think there are some difficulties as regards the proposed Clause, but I cannot but regret that the Postmaster-General takes such a decidedly hostile attitude to any idea of a more or less general war charge by way of stamps. He has carefully avoided saying anything about the Canadian system, which consists of putting an extra ½d. on all ordinary letters and an extra ½d. on all ordinary cards. I believe there was no violent
  2042
  opposition, or indeed criticism, in Canada when the thing was put forward as a general war charge for the period of the War, and some such proposal as is involved in the Clause might be seriously considered by the Post Office. It was proposed by the Retrenchment Committee. Both the hon. Member (Mr. J. Samuel) and the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) showed themselves very ignorant critics of the Retrenchment Committee. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Samuel) thought there was not a single Member of the House of Commons on it.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: No, I did not say that. I said they were not composed wholly of Members of the House of Commons.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The number of Members of the House of Commons on it is seven, of whom two sit at present on the Treasury Bench and two used to sit on the Treasury Bench, so that their weight should be very considerable. Of the remaining four members, most people we meet say that most of them are thoroughly business men. The complaint which was made the other day by the right hon Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) was that there were not enough business men upon it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Earlier in the Debate, when that was attempted to be raised by the hon. Member (Mr. J. Samuel), I ruled him out of order.
  Motion and Clause negatived.
  Bill reported.
  As amended, considered.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I should be glad if the House would take the remaining stages of the Bill to-day, for this reason: that I am anxious to bring the new charges into operation on the 1st of November. It is convenient that the new charges should be levied from the 1st of the month. I want to bring them into effect as soon as possible, for the mercenary reason of getting more revenue. As the Bill effects changes important to the public, I want to give some notice before the new charges are levied.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: These changes are of great importance to the whole of the commercial community, and I think the House ought to have an opportunity of considering them, and, if necessary, conversing with people outside as to the effect of the changes that have been made. I am very reluctant to oppose anything the right hon. Gentleman asks for, but unless there is

  2043
  overwhelming reason for taking the Bill to-day, I think it would be fairer that notice should be given.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I hope the hon. Member will be good enough not to press his objection. I do not think I have received any representation of any opposition to the remaining proposals to speak of, certainly none that are pressing. The objections that have been made have been met. I do not think the hon. Member can quote any interest of importance that raises any objection to any provision in the Bill as it stands. If he presses his objection, the result will be to postpone the Bill. We are now at the 22nd of October, and, as I have said, I desire to bring the new charges into operation on the 1st November. It would be wrong to bring in the new charges without some notice. The effect of the hon. Member pressing his objection would be that we should lose possibly a month, certainly some weeks, of the additional revenue that we desire to obtain.
  Mr. DENNISS: I should like to say that the Postmaster-General has given us more than we have asked. Not only has he met us on the points raised, but we have got the concession about samples thrown in. Then there is the question of concession in regard to monthly trade circulars. I am sure there is no opposition outside.
  Sir J. JARDINE: I should like to know whether there is anything in this Bill that touches correspondence between this country and India, or the Colonies.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I think there is nothing. I am not quite sure about letters between 1 oz. and 2 ozs., but the Id. rate is not affected.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Sir W. BYLES: I am very well content with the way in which the Postmaster-General has met all the objections that have been raised. I am quite prepared to give him the Third Reading of the Bill now. I know perfectly well that his object in proposing these postal changes is to obtain revenue to help us to pay for the terrible War in which we are engaged.
  Mr. J. MASON: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that there has been no Report stage?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Report stage has been taken by general agreement.
  Sir W. BYLES: I agree to an increase in postal charges with reluctance. I would suggest that the real way of obtaining revenue by the Post Office is by a progressive and enlightened policy. That has been so ever since Mr. Fawcett introduced a Bill of any importance at all. I firmly believe that a progressive, enlightened and forward policy in Post Office matters would be far more likely to result in an increase of revenue than increased charges.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CLUBS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the Government have brought forward this Bill in this particular form. They seem to me to have made no difference between clubs which are well conducted and clubs which are badly conducted. I do not for a moment wish the House to understand that I am in any way standing up for night clubs. I have no experience of them. No doubt many of them are badly conducted, but I do think it is a great pity that because one or two clubs are badly conducted, a Bill of this sort should be brought in to apply to all clubs, good or bad. I will not take the case which I believe was taken by a friend of mine, when the Bill was introduced, namely, the National Liberal Club. I will take the case of the Carlton Club. Under this Bill, if any member of that club is in his constituency speaking, and he has to come back to London for a meeting of the House on the following day, it will be impossible for him, if he comes back after a certain hour, to obtain any refreshment in the club, because, in a few isolated cases, certain people have misconducted themselves at another club. The whole thing seems to me so utterly unreasonable that I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he should withdraw the Bill for the moment, and bring in another measure which, while it would be very much simpler, would have exactly the same effect, and would not press hardly on existing well-conducted clubs.
  I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should bring in a Bill which would

  2045
  enable the police to go to any stipendiary magistrate, or to any justice of the peace, and on making out to the stipendiary magistrate or the justice of the peace a prima facie case that a given club is not properly conducted, the magistrate should, under those circumstances, give the police a warrant, enabling them to enter the club at any hour. Then the police would be able to enter the club; they would see whether or not it was properly conducted, and if it was found that it was not properly conducted, they could bring an action against it. They could summon the proprietors before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and a penalty to meet such a case could be put in the Bill, if the penalty does not exist at the present time. That seems to me to be a much simpler course. It would deal with the people who ought to be dealt with, and at the same time it would leave properly conducted clubs, who are committing no offence against the law, to enjoy the privileges for which they have subscribed and paid. I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—he has not heard what I have said, but no doubt my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General will tell him—will give my proposal serious consideration. If it is impossible for that consideration to be given I trust that we are not going to have any attempt made to take the stages of the Bill at one sitting, but that the Committee stage will be taken when we have had a reasonable opportunity of considering it.
  Sir J. D. REES: Little as I like this class of legislation, I think we must trust to the responsible persons who bring forward the Bill. I should like to know why it is that under this Bill clubs are put on a different footing as compared with public-houses. Why is it that the competent naval and military authorities and the Minister of Munitions have not the power to control the clubs in the same way that they have power to close public-houses? Glancing at the Bill, we see that the Secretary of State, the local authority, the police, the justices, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and so on, all have certain authority under the Bill, but nowhere is any provision given such as that which I have suggested ought to be given.
  An HON. MEMBER: Clause 3.
  Sir J. D. REES: I noted Clause 3, to which reference is made. It only provides that the police, or the person authorised for the purpose by the competent naval or military authority, may enter the club. He
  2046
  may examine it, he may take the names and addresses of any persons found therein, but he has no power, apparently, to close the club. Why is not the same power given by this Bill to the competent naval and military authority and the Minister of Munitions to close the club in the same way that they can close a public-house? There still remains that galling inequality of treatment. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say why that inequality exists.
  LOCKWOOD: I thoroughly approve the idea of the Bill, that we should put an end to various institutions known as night clubs, which are detrimental both to society and to the morals and health of young gentlemen who form the greater proportion of the patrons of these clubs. My objection to the Bill is founded on the same grounds as those of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). My objection is to our tarring with the same brush—to use a colloquial expression—the great political and Service clubs of London, in order to get at and to destroy these night clubs. I quite agree with the hon. Baronet that in other institutions, like the great political clubs and Service clubs, those members are taken away by their patriotic work, or their professional work, to various parts of the Kingdom, will be precluded from getting any refreshment after certain hours of the night. It is perfectly true, for I have made inquiries on the subject, that many of the big clubs close of their own accord at 12.30 at night, but that does not relate to all of them. It refers to a number of clubs which nobody uses after certain hours in the evening. I understand that the reason for the inclusion of all clubs in the Bill is owing to the difficulty of defining a night club. I would suggest that if a register of clubs, whether they sell intoxicating liquor or not, was made compulsory, and if there was power to refuse registration to any club which is believed to be a disreputable place, that would have the effect of meeting the case sufficiently without going to the extremity of saying that all clubs must be included in this Bill, because there are certain disreputable places where disreputable scenes take place in London. I think it is a great slur on the great clubs—clubs, for instance, like the Athenæum, which is frequented by bishops. That club, which is frequented by bishops, is to close at 12.30 at night, because there are certain places where the bishops do not go to,

  2047
  that ought to be closed at that time. I appeal to my right hon. Friend that these places should be dealt with in a simpler and more comprehensive way. We should have a register of all clubs in England: no club should be allowed to exist unless it is on that register, and we should have power to strike off that register any club misbehaving itself or any club where there was an assembly of people who created a disturbance or whose presence there was detrimental to the well-being of the State. I do not object to the Bill, and I shall be glad to see it passing if I could only see it limited to the places which it was meant to destroy.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am entirely out of harmony with the speeches to which we have just listened. First of all, let us acknowledge that there is an evil here, which must be grappled with in some form. There is no doubt that the evil is rampant, not only in London and on the South Coast, but also in the Midlands. Everyone agrees to that proposition, and the only question is what form the remedy should take. My hon. Friends refer to this evil as existing in only one or two isolated cases. Reference has been made to the Carlton and the Athenæum, and it has been said that this Bill is not intended for bishops; but I think that it would be a good thing for all bishops to be in bed at half-past twelve o'clock. The difficulty, of course, is to give a comprehensive definition of night clubs. My complaint of the Bill, if I have one, is this: We make it a statutory obligation that every club of every kind in London should be closed at 12.30 o'clock. This is a time of war, and I cannot say that I agree with what my hon. Friend said as to the lateness of hours. I think that in a time of war it would be a very good thing that every club in London should be closed at half-past twelve. If a stray person comes to the Carlton and wants food, I think that he must suffer. The real truth is that these clubs do such an amount of harm that if a few people suffer in other places they must only suffer for the general good. There have been, I think, lately about sixteen clubs closed—drinking, gambling, and dancing clubs—and my complaint is that this legislation, like many another example of legislation, has come very much later than it ought to have come.
  I believe that as far back as February last the Bishop of London pressed for such legislation as this. What has come out is
  2048
  this, that in these clubs drinking and gambling go on with the collusion of moneylenders. A great deal of drinking goes on. I have seen myself letters from the fathers of young officers who complain of the physical and moral wrecks produced by these clubs. Therefore the only question is, What is to be the remedy? My hon. Friends have taken a somewhat hostile attitude to this Bill, basing their opposition, as I understand, upon the impossibility of defining a night club. I think that a night club is a club that is open after certain hours. The Home Secretary, in introducing this Bill, said that one of the difficulties with which he had to contend was the difficulty of defining clubs and the difficulty of defining night clubs. I think that you are proceeding in the only way in which the difficulty can be met by saying that all clubs must close not later than the licensed premises in the neighbourhood.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Not earlier?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: They must not be closed later than half-past twelve in London. For my part, I say that they should be closed at half-past ten in London, the same as the licensed premises. However, the Bill, I think, meets the situation fairly; it does not press hardly upon any club in London. If some of us belonged to clubs in London—I happen to belong to the Athenæum myself—for my part I am perfectly content that these clubs should be compelled to close at half-past twelve, or whatever hour the Home Secretary thinks right in order to safeguard our young officers. [A laugh.] The right hon. Member may laugh, but it is no laughing matter. I have seen correspondence from the fathers of young officers which would make Members of this House very anxious to find some remedy for a crying evil. Something must be done; something ought to have been done many months ago. Now, when my right hon. Friend brings in this Bill, my hon. Friends say. "We believe that something should be done, but let it be done in a different way and not in the way proposed by this Bill." That is not a fair attitude towards this Bill. If we believe that there ought to be a remedy, that this Bill provides a remedy, and that there is no alternative remedy, as I understand it, the House will adopt this measure. How can you really, according to the suggestions of my hon. Friend, shut these

  2049
  clubs? How are you going to find out night clubs? My hon. Friend says that if there was a club which was suspected you should go to a stipendiary magistrate, swear an information and get a warrant to go there. That is one of the difficulties of the present Clause, the difficulty of getting sworn information. What have we got to say? We have got to say that the club is habitually used for this or that purpose. But these people are clever enough. They know the law as well as my hon. Friend, and perhaps they are more clever than my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. They move their premises from day to day, and it is impossible for anyone to say that the premises are habitually used. The best provision of this Bill is that it enables representatives of the police to go to a club without warning. These applications for warrants become known. Under this Bill an inspector of police will be able to go to these clubs without any warning and see how they are carried on.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Not being a lawyer, perhaps I did not make my meaning quite clear. When I said a prima facie case, what I meant was, that if a magistrate was satisfied that the police had reason to suspect he would not want them to produce evidence or anything of that sort, but he could give a warrant which they could execute at any time within the next fortnight or month, and therefore they would have the opportunity of going in without warning.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: These are the dilatory tactics with which my hon. Friend has often been associated in this House. But that procedure takes time. What this Bill does is, it enables the inspector of his own initiative to go into these premises and see how they are carried on. The next provision is an exceedingly good provision. It enables not only the inspector of police, but also the representatives of the military authorities, by order of the Commanding Officer, to visit these clubs. However much the police may know about these clubs, I have reason to know that the military authorities know much more. The military authorities are equally urging upon this House to provide some such remedy as that which is contained in this Bill. I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, because I am quite sure that of the many duties that have been imposed upon this House recently, there has been no more urgent or no more
  2050
  necessary duty than the passing of some such Bill as this to put an end to institutions all over London, in the Midlands, and on the South coast, which have done immeasurable harm to the young officers of our Army.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My hon. and right hon. Friends object to this Bill on the ground that it applies not only to disreputable clubs but also to very reputable clubs. The extent of inconvenience to which respectable clubs are put is extremely small. Really, having regard to the fact that we find ourselves in a time of war, having regard to the further fact that an overwhelming case is made out by the military authorities as to the great injury which is done to young officers in many cases, those of us who belong to what are described as more reputable clubs have very little to complain of if the Home Secretary says that a club will not be closed until half past twelve. No other course is open. No other suggestion has been made in the course of the Debate except the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of London of going to a magistrate, where there was a prima facie case, swearing information as to the grounds of suspicion, and obtaining a warrant to be executed within a fortnight or a month. The evils which are dealt with in this Bill, the evils which satisfy soldiers, who are certainly men of the world, that these things require to be dealt with, are evils which require to be dealt with at once. These are not clubs which ought to be allowed to go on for a fortnight or a month, as is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. You may suspect and you may not be able to offer evidence which will justify asking for a warrant; but then what harm is done by seeing the club? If it does turn out that gambling is proceeding in the club, then there is something gained by the visit. But, if not, no harm is done. If these things are found to be going on, a remedy will be found. I am convinced that the more the House contemplates the position of these clubs, and the more the House reflects on the position of these young men who are for the first time let loose in London with their cheque books and also the appetites of youth, the more resolutely will the House set itself, even if it involved far greater inconveniences than any which are suffered under this Bill, to the work of providing a remedy. And I say to the House deliberately that this is the remedy

  2051
  which after most careful and deliberate consideration has been adopted alike by the military authorities, the naval authorities, and the Home Office.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I confess that I am not altogether satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Nobody denies that there is an evil, and an evil that ought to be dealt with. The question which has been submitted to the House by some of my hon. Friends is whether this Bill is really the right way in which to deal with that particular evil. But it is also admitted that the evil in question is limited to a very small number of clubs.
  Sir F. SMITH: No; there is a very large number of clubs.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Not large in comparison with all the clubs in the country which are dealt with under this Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that this Bill is intended to deal with anything beyond a very small proportion of the clubs in the country.
  Sir F. SMITH: My right hon. Friend originally said that he understood that the evil applies only to a small number of clubs. That statement is not correct. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that taking the total number of clubs, this Bill applied only to a small proportion. Of course, that is so; but the number of clubs in which these practices go on is very large.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Let me say about other clubs that they are immensely numerous in all parts of the country. There is a vast number of working men's clubs, a vast number of rich men's clubs, and a certain number, I believe, of women's clubs, which are constantly becoming more numerous, and all those clubs are to be penalised because of a certain comparatively small number of clubs, for which we all admit and agree that there ought to be a remedy. I confess that I am unable at present to see why this question cannot be dealt with and dealt with effectively without penalising all those other clubs without any reason whatever. Let me call attention to the second Clause of the Bill:—
  "If any person having control of a club knowingly permits it to be used as an habitual resort or place of meeting of reputed prostitutes," etc., etc., etc.
  2052
  It is rather a disagreeable thing to have respectable clubs—and the vast majority of clubs in the country are all respectable—treated in a Bill, one of the objects of which is to prevent the introduction of prostitutes. I confess that it seems to me very unreasonable, and I personally feel very reluctant—
  Sir F. SMITH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under some misapprehension as to the effect of Clause 2. Clause 2 can only be applied to any person, having control of a club, knowingly permitting it to be used as a resort of prostitutes.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That is the one case you particularly want to deal with. Why can we not have a different Bill altogether to deal with clubs guilty of these offences, and deal with them alone? I confess it does seem to me extraordinary that every club throughout the whole of this country is to be penalised because of an evil which we all admit has recently arisen. I have heard an observation about night clubs, but night clubs are not mentioned in the Bill at all. The expression is nowhere used in it. I join with my hon. Friends in pressing upon the Government that there must be, or there ought to be, some other means of dealing with an evil like this which has arisen, without tarring every club in the country with the same brush.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that the Bill is not to be extended to Scotland and Ireland?
  Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has expressed a strong view, but I know him well enough to be aware that he will give a perfectly fair and candid consideration to the argument which has induced us to present this Bill to the House. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in the first place to notice that he is wrong when he says that this Bill will apply to every club in the country. I am not for the moment referring to Scotland or Ireland. It is not true that the Bill is a Bill that would apply to all the clubs of England at all. It is a Bill which provides that in an area which is scheduled in the Order, certain consequences shall follow. It is perfectly true that one of those areas, beyond all doubt, is London. That is quite true, but it is desirable in the first place that this should be understood.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I just for one moment be allowed to illustrate exactly

  2053
  what is the position, because the very first line of the very first Clause in the Bill says:—
  "The Secretary of State may by Order direct that all clubs," etc., etc.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman when he reads the first sentence of the Bill, instead of reading the next sentence, says, "etc., etc." The Clause says—
  "The Secretary of State may by Order direct that all clubs"—not "etc., etc.," but— …."within any such area as may be specified in the Order."
  Therefore, the Bill has no application except to such an area as we are advised by the police authority it is found to be necessary to put under this Regulation.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Why are Scotland and Ireland not mentioned?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: We have nothing of the kind in Ireland; you have a monopoly of it in London.
  Sir J. SIMON: It is a mistake to say, and this should be carefully borne in mind, that this Bill automatically puts all clubs into this objectionable position. So far as concerns Scotland and Ireland, it was not thought necessary, under the advice of those whom we consulted, to provide for any area to be so prescribed in those countries. Scotsmen and Irishmen, as far as we know, amongst other virtues go to bed at such an hour, and conduct themselves in such a way that it was not thought by the authority necessary to take those powers. And there is a further reason, that the whole licensing law of this country, which includes the law relating to clubs, is different in England and Wales from what it is either in Scotland or in Ireland; and, therefore, you could not legislate in one and the same Bill for all parts of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted two or three considerations which really decide this matter. In the first place, it is agreed on all hands that there is a very urgent evil to be checked and corrected in the so-called night clubs. I quite understand that whatever criticisms may be made they are not made by people who seek to defend these discreditable institutions. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not bring in a Bill to legislate about night clubs, and leave it at that. If the right hon. Gentleman, or anybody else, will give me something like a watertight definition to put into this Bill, and say that this Bill
  2054
  applies to night clubs with a definition included of what you mean by night clubs, I will alter the Bill at once.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I simply stated that night clubs were not mentioned in the Bill.
  Sir J. SIMON: I agree, but the difficulty is that you cannot use the expression "night club" in a Bill. It is a very convenient description for discussion or as a journalistic expression, but in a Bill you have got to define the meaning of the words "night club." A night club, in the sense of which the expression is used, merely means a club which you are sorry you have been to after you have left. It is no good endeavouring to define a club by talking about it, and saying that it is a night club. There is a second difficulty. Assuming that you know what goes on inside a club, if you know that, and can prove it, you do not need any new powers. You might go to a magistrate and prove what has gone on, and get the person who manages the club convicted of allowing drinking after hours, or of making the place a gambling house, or of some other offence. But the difficulty is that you cannot know what goes on inside a club until you get inside. That is the point. It is said that this is tarring all clubs with the same brush. Is it too much to ask when you want to deal with a definite evil of magnitude and seriousness, that you should have power to enter those institutions that claim to be clubs, in order to ascertain that they are properly conducted.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I do not dispute that in the least.
  Sir J. SIMON: Let me say that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the authorities to use this power of entry for any other purpose excepting to see that the evil we are aiming at in this Bill is stopped. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there are great numbers of working men's clubs. There is not the slightest intention of using the powers of this Bill for the purpose of police inspection of ordinarily well-conducted clubs, whether working men's clubs or what are known ordinarily as West-end clubs. It is no good at all to say that you are going to take powers in regard to night clubs without defining the words; it is no good to say they are disreputable clubs; we have no means of knowing that they are disreputable until we have been inside to see. Therefore we must take powers in

  2055
  general terms, and exact, if you please, from the authorities the undertaking that they are not going to use the powers of inspection except in cases where there is any evidence affording reason for exercising it. There is only one further point. This Bill makes provision not for all the clubs in England, but in respect of clubs in areas defined by Order, requiring them to be closed at a particular time. That is open to two observations. In the first place, it does not insist on a particular hour of closing without possibility of exemption.
  You may have a club which, though perfectly willing to set an example by closing at a regular hour, desires on a particular occasion an extension of time. Why not? Certainly if there is need for it they could, in London, apply to the Commissioner of Police, who would have to administer this Statute in London, and is empowered by the Bill to grant exemption in a proper case without any question of its being contrary to the scope of the Bill. There is also the case of a club which, owing to the special occupation of its members, or owing to some other special reason, might fairly ask that the closing hour should be later for the club, not on one occasion but all occasions. Clubs connected with the gentlemen of the Press are a good example, and there are no doubt others. We consequently provide for that. Is it really unreasonable in towns and areas where great numbers of people congregate and go to these night clubs to say that there ought to be some regulation as to the time at which those institutions close? I cannot see why it should be reasonably said that in such an area as London, where restaurants keep open until an early hour in the morning, nobody should propose that clubs should close before them. The question whether they should close earlier or later is one to be decided in consultation with the authorities, and set out in the Order. The general provisions by which a reasonable closing hour is prescribed surely is a provision to which people who resort to clubs will not seriously object. I have had inquiries made, and I find that in nearly every club so few members are to be found there late at night that most of them at their own motion have made temporary provisions by which to close earlier than usual. I cannot think, if this measure is reasonably worked and applied to areas where it is found to be needed, that we are
  2056
  asking more from members than they would be perfectly willing to grant.
  Mr. RADFORD: I confess any legislation introduced into this House with regard to clubs has been a matter of anxiety to a huge number of members of clubs throughout the country. I am not speaking of West End clubs, which may well look after themselves, and for which I do not mean to say a word. My anxiety is not allayed by the statement of the Home Secretary, that he regarded club law as part of the licensing law. The law with regard to clubs is very different from that with regard to public-houses. I maintain it ought to be, and I hope it will always be so regarded by this House. Clubs in this House are in danger of not being treated quite fairly, because this House, in the main, consists either of Members who are teetotallers, and think men ought not to drink at all, or else they are representatives of publicans, who think men ought only to drink in public-houses. I appeal to my right hon. Friend under those circumstances to take clubs under his protection, and to see that they are not the victims of any unfair legislation. I think it is a pity that such a Bill should have to be passed at all, and the only justification for it is contained in the title, which says that it is to remain in force during the continuance of the present War. That is borne out by Sub-section (3), of Clause 7. Having some knowledge of clubs to which working men resort, as far as I have been able to ascertain, they do not resent the provisions of this Bill, and they are prepared to accept it loyally, just as we all accept a great many other objectionable things, because we are at war, and for no other reason. I hope that no-precedent from this Bill may be claimed, and no argument contrary to the interest of clubs, which I believe myself are a great advantage to the nation, and a great source of temperance and good-fellowship, and that after the star of peace returns we may go back to our normal legislation, which very properly differentiates between public-houses and clubs.
  Colonel YATErose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already addressed the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next (26th October).—[Mr. Walter Rea.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th October], "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Debate which began last Thursday on this very important subject was not completed, and I was under the impression would be continued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). I am prepared to give way to him, but if he does not wish to speak now, I propose to make my remarks. I was sorry I was not able to be present on the last occasion, but I was glad to notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gold stone) stated explicitly that there was a large section of opinion in this House who did agree with the House of Lords in the Amendments that they suggest to the Bill, which we sent up to them. I desire to give my reasons for supporting that position and urging upon the Government even yet, though it is late in the day, to consider whether or not they cannot make this Naval and Military War Pensions Bill a real live measure. I shall be interested to know when the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House why the Government could not see their way to adopt the proposals which he was good enough to make to the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening this discussion, pointed out that the original proposal before the Committee was for a complete reconstitution of the different authorities who now deal with pensions, and the absorption of their various functions by one new Government authority. I regret extremely that the original draft of the Bill did not carry out what the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge now (Mr. Hayes Fisher) had in his mind with regard to the whole measure. We know one reason why the Government declined to proceed with the whole of that scheme, and the Chancellor, in his speech, pointed out one of the reasons when he said that the new body which was to be created was to be founded upon the Royal Patriotic Corporation, and to be primarily supported by voluntary funds as is the case with that corporation. It is upon that rock that this particular scheme has been wrecked, because I think before this discussion is completed we shall have con-
  2058
  vinced the House. We do not need to convince the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because he agreed before he was in charge that what we are proposing now is the right thing to do. I think also we will have no difficulty with the House. The only difficulty we may have is with the Government, and I hope before we have finished the discussion we may convince them that it is worth their while to go back on their proposal, and, at any rate, to accept so much of the Lords Amendment as will make this Committee a real national one.
  I would remind the House of the very serious statement which was made, first in the House of Lords and then in the House of Commons. When this Bill was being discussed in the House of Lords, Lord Crewe stated, in the course of the discussion, that it had never been the intention of the Government, and I want hon. Members to realise what this means, that the operations of this body that they were setting up to deal with pensions, disablement pensions, pensions on account of death and so on, should be subject to the daily questions of Members of Parliament. The Government stated, through the mouth of Lord Crewe in the House of Lords, that the Cabinet had never intended, from the beginning, that the interests which are bound to be under this most important human Bill affected, and the welfare of those who are bereft in the War, and the partially and totally disabled, should be the subject of any questions put in this House by Members. That was repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the whole Bill was framed on the principle that it would be a voluntary body and that it would not be a Government body, and that they should never allow, so far as they were concerned, the Members of the House of Commons to interrogate daily, if they cared, some Minister who was in charge of this scheme. We know that already there have been two important Committees to deal with this matter. One dealt with the pensions which are to be given to the widows and children of men who were killed in the War, and to partially and totally disabled men. The second dealt with the pensions which were to be given to the wives of officers who were killed in the War, and to their children. The House of Commons has never discussed either of those two White Papers at any length, and they remain, presumably, with all their defects, the considered judgment of the Cabinet.

  2059
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervenes in this Debate, I want to know from him how it is that the Cabinet can justify, for example, the difference in the pension that is paid—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question does not arise on considering the Lords Amendments. It is a wholly different question, outside this altogether. We are now considering the question whether we shall take the Lords Amendments into consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: I understand that what you desire is that we should confine our remarks entirely to what can be grafted into the machinery of the Lords Amendments, and presumably I was not in order in referring to those two Committees, as they are outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: On a point of Order, on this question of the Lords Amendments, I submit that it is absolutely essential for this House to consider the aspect of the case which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) proposed to deal with. The gist of the change made in the House of Lords, as stated by Lord Crewe there, was to convert the Statutory Committee proposed by the Bill from, so to speak, a private or voluntary Committee on which there was Government representation into a Government Committee on which there was voluntary representation. The whole difference between the Bill as amended in the House of Lords, and as it left this House, is substantially this, that as it left the Commons it was a Bill setting up private voluntary machinery with Government assistance, and it came back from the Lords as a Bill constituting a new Government Committee responsible to Parliament. The question of disabled soldiers, and their training, I submit to your consideration, is strictly relevant to that point for this amongst other reasons, that the business of training the disabled soldiers and fitting them for their return to civil life is one of the functions deputed to the Statutory Committee in the Bill. Under the existing Royal Warrant for military pensions in regard to partial disablement, the pension is made proportionate to the incapacity of earning, and the two functions cannot be separated, and have both got to be dealt with by the Statutory Committee. My submission to you, Sir, is this, that the Statutory Committee is deputed to do the public duty of dealing with the training of dis-
  2060
  abled soldiers, and also of dealing with supplementary pensions, and in the course of those duties it has functions of estimating the capacity of the disabled soldier and all those public duties which are cast upon it. The House of Lords has said that this, shall be a public Committee, and it is germane to the inquiry in this House to-night to decide whether or not the Lords proposal that the Statutory Committee, which is the central body, to administer these new functions, should be essentially a Government Committee or a private Committee. In that sense I submit respectfully that we cannot decide satisfactorily on the real merits of the Lords Amendments without going into the question of the functions which are deputed to it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that the point which the House has to consider is whether this Committee is of a proper nature, or whether it is to be a Statutory Board set up by the Government to administer Government funds. The idea that upon that discussion we can go into the question whether reports of Committees which have already been issued make adequate provision for those they were intended to compensate is quite outside the discussion. You cannot discuss that. It has no relevance whatever either to this Bill or to the question of whether we are to consider the Lords Amendments.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: I quite understand your point of view, Sir, and I think I can put my case without referring to either of the two Select Committees, of which the House have in their possession, I think, three White Papers. May I remind the House of the rather serious position in which Members are going to allow themselves to be put, even if they accept the Lords Amendments, by the declaration of policy in the House of Lords by the Cabinet through Lord Crewe, namely, that it has never been the intention of the Government that Members of the House of Commons should be able by the ordinary method of questions to control the operations of this new pensions authority? That is a very serious point requiring some amount of consideration. But leaving that, I will put my appeal on this ground—that if we accept the part of the Lords Amendments which makes a difference in the constitution of the Committee, making it a real national Committee instead of a Committee dependent upon voluntary funds, we thereby improve the Bill. The

  2061
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the Government's policy is to reject certain parts of the Lords Amendments. He pointed out that they were going to ask the House to disagree with the main Amendment, which reconstitutes and renames the statutory authority, striking out all association with the voluntary side, and making it a complete Government authority. I want to give reasons why the Government should persuade themselves that that is a mistake, and why they ought to adopt the Amendment passed by the House of Lords. If you, Sir, think that that would be more conveniently done on the direct Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment, I can speak then instead of now; but I thought that if I could do it on the general Motion, I need not speak again when we come to the question of agreeing or disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, and thereby save time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite entitled to proceed now if he prefers to do so. The matter is open for discussion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Possibly the best way will be for me to finish my remarks now, and avoid speaking on the second opportunity. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill one or two simple cases, showing why we ought to accept some part of the Lords Amendment and make this a National Committee. There are a great number of cases which the scheme sent up to the Lords by the Commons does not touch at all, but which ought to be touched by some method or other, and which deserve the consideration of the House of Commons. I have in my hand, for example, a typical letter, which came to me in this morning's postbag—a letter which illustrates this point, and incidentally proves that what the Government's scheme proposes to do is a hindrance to the recruiting effort which is now being made. The writer says:—
  "I am one of two sons who are the sole support of a widowed mother and a brother who is mentally deficient and a permanent invalid. If one of us joins the Army, in the event of his being killed, would his mother be entitled to any pension: and if she predeceased her invalid son, would the pension be continued in the hitter's favour?"
  There is the ground of one's objection to the House of Commons scheme, and of one's support of the House of Lords scheme. Every Member of the House knows that in addition to the widows and orphans of soldiers there are a great
  2062
  number of other people to whom no pension is guaranteed by this scheme, and to whom any pension at all must be paid out of voluntary contributions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now going into the question of the amount of the pensions, and the persons to whom they are to be granted. That is a matter of administration, which is settled by the naval or military authorities. It is a matter for criticism of the naval or military authorities who issue the particular pensions scheme. It is only very remotely, if at all, connected with this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: If I may respectfully say so, I think you are labouring under some misapprehension. This Bill does deal with pensions, apart from those which are decided by scale, and which are, as you say, administered by the War Office and the Admiralty. There are, under this Bill, all the pensions which are not settled by scale, all the allowances given to any kind of dependants, and all the care, training and employment of partially and totally disabled soldiers. That is all within the Bill. I respectfully suggest that what you said applies to the scale pensions, which I left alone.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Out of what funds are those pensions to be paid?
  Mr. HOGGE: The words of the Bill are "out of funds at their disposal." What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was that the first effort was to be a voluntary one, and that if that effort failed the Treasury would then supply the money. The gravamen of the criticism which many of us want to make is that there are any number of duties, including those which I have mentioned, cast upon this Committee, but there is no promise of money. The Lords Amendments make it necessary to provide that money.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that that was what the hon. Member was driving at—that what he wanted was money, that he wanted to screw money out of the Government for this particular purpose. That cannot be done on the Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." The only way to do that is in Committee, and in Committee the only way in which a Grant can be made is on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown. It is futile to discuss that on the question whether we shall agree or disagree with Lords Amendments.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I would like to submit to you that so far as these dependants' pensions are concerned, I understand that the matter is entirely left to the local committees—that is to say, the local committees will advise the Statutory Committee as to the amount of the pensions. But, in addition to that, we have been given definitely to understand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the funds to support this Bill, which are supposed to be voluntary, are inadequate, then the State will come forward and assist them.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is asking is that the State should do it now. That cannot be done on this Motion. The hon. Member is quite entitled to say that, in his opinion, in the event of the State eventually finding the money for the pensions, the body set up by the Lords is a better body to administer it than the body set up by the Commons. The hon. Member is entitled to use that argument; but to take particular instances, and to say that a man has not got what he ought to have, or a widow has not got what she ought to have, and that proper arrangements have not been made, is not relevant to the present discussion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps I should draw my remarks to a conclusion by confining myself to the one point which is essential as far as the House of Commons is concerned—that if we accept the Amendments sent down to us by the Lords we will be enabled to keep a better grip, and a better control of this measure than we could under the form in which the Bill left this House. We have been informed that it is not at all the idea of the Government that we in the House of Commons should be able to put such questions, for example, as we have been in the habit of putting in regard to insurance payments, or anything of that kind. There is no Minister in control of the scheme, and the only authority is an outside authority. We had therefore better watch what we are doing. If we agree to the policy suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall lose our opportunity of criticising this scheme when necessary. As it is perfectly obvious that the State must ultimately come in and do its duty by these people, the machinery provided by the House of Lords is infinitely better than that provided by the House of Commons. Therefore I hope the House will not agree with the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am
  2064
  sorry if I got out of order in my criticism; it was quite unintentionally. Presumably on the various Amendments we may come in more direct contact with these points if necessity arises.
  Mr. SCOTT: I desire respectively to concur most strongly with every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to the great superiority of the machinery provided by the Bill as amended in the House of Lords over that provided by the Bill as it left this House. I will keep myself strictly within the limits of your ruling, Sir. The main question which we are discussing in the general Debate on the Lords Amendments as a whole is this: Is it better that we should have a public, official, Government body to deal with the functions entrusted to it by the Bill, or that we should have a private voluntary body with some, it may be good, Government representation upon it and, it may be, much Government assistance, but still in essence a private charitable body not responsible to Parliament? On that question I submit the main consideration must be: what are the functions given by the Bill to be administered by this body? Are they functions essentially public in character, or are they functions which are really private and properly attributable to voluntary charity?
  My submission is that they are plainly public functions, public duties, and public duties of the first importance—duties with an importance which is both permanent and temporary. They are of temporary importance because the provision which we make under this Bill is one that must greatly affect recruiting, and they are therefore very important at this minute in this day of this week in view of the recruiting rally which is going on, and which we all wish well. They are also of great permanent importance. I want, as I myself have had particular opportunity of considering that aspect of the matter, to begin with the question of the training of disabled soldiers—the bringing of them back so far as possible into civil life by putting them in the way of again earning their own livelihood. I was one of the members of Sir George Murray's Committee. We were all absolutely unanimous in our Report on that subject. That duty, in my view, is expressed by the Committee as essentially a public duty. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of your ruling, that it is germane to this Debate, merely as a

  2065
  statement of principle, to quote the paragraphs in the Murray Report which laid down the proposition that this is a public duty, and that the State ought to perform it. I submit it is relevant, because, if it is a public duty, then it is improper to delegate that public duty to a purely private body. At the outset of the Report in paragraph 2, in the very forefront of the Report, we said:—
  "At the outset, we desire to express our opinion that the care of the soldiers and sailors who have been disabled in the War is an obligation which should fall primarily upon the State, and that this liability cannot be considered as having been extinguished by the award of a pension from public funds. We regard it as the duty of the State to see that the disabled man shall be, as far as possible, restored to health, and that assistance shall be forthcoming to enable him to earn his living in the occupation best suited to his circumstances and physical condition."
  At the end of the summary of our recommendations, which we completed in paragraph 31, we say:—

  "(i.) The care of soldiers and sailors disabled in the War is a duty which should be assumed by the State.

  (ii.) This duty should include (a) the restoration of the man's health, where practicable; (b) the provision of training facilities, if he desires to learn a new trade; (c) the finding of employment for him, when he stands in need of such assistance."

  For the purpose of carrying out these functions we propose, in paragraphs 17, 19, and 21, the formation of a public committee acting under a Government Department, and therefore—we did this deliberately—and for this reason responsible to Parliament.
  "Paragraph 17. We have already expressed the opinion, on which we desire to lay particular stress, that the care of the soldiers and sailors who have been disabled by reason of service in the War is an obligation which should be undertaken by the State But it is evident that no single Department of the Government could conveniently exercise functions so varied and so extensive—including, as in our view they do, the care of the disabled man's health, the provision of industrial training, and the finding of employment for him.
  Paragraph 19. In order to ensure that proper attention is paid to the various needs of the disabled men we recommend the appointment of a Central Committee for the care of disabled soldiers and sailors, acting under the direction, of some existing Government Department—"
  and so on. I need not read the rest of the paragraph.
  "Paragraph 21. Such a Committee should include representatives of the Admiralty, of the War Office, of the Board of Trade, of the Local Government Board, of the Board of Education (in relation to technical training), of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, of employers of labour, of trade unions or other labour organisations, and of the existing voluntary agencies obtaining employment for discharged sailors and soldiers."
  Those duties are duties which in my submission ought to be performed by a public body to which money is supplied annually by Parliament. This body is to be a private body, and you can judge of the
  2066
  private character of the body by the way the representatives of the Government have said that they intend to deal with it. In the House of Lords the other day Lord Crewe said, "We do not intend to give an annual sum of money; that is not our proposal at all. We only propose to give a lump sum." I ask the House, is the giving of a lump sum of money once and for all the proper way of supplying—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members cannot get away from this money question. This is not the proper time for dealing with it, and I have said so repeatedly. I will ask the hon. Member not to digress wider by introducing this larger question, which can only be raised in Committee. There is a Standing Order which says that all questions of demands for money can only be introduced first in Committee on the proposal of the Government of the day.
  Mr. SCOTT: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, but may I say that your attention was engaged for the moment, for I said I merely took the money question to illustrate the private character of the body to which the Government proposes these duties shall be entrusted. My argument was that if it was not a purely private body, obviously the Government would never have made such a proposal, which I venture to characterise as a preposterous proposal. I am not asking for money, and I obey your ruling most strictly. The one question is as to the character of this body and its functions, and I shall confine my attention solely to these, and I give you my assurance I will not say a single word which, in my opinion, is not strictly relevant to those points. The next point is this: Under a Royal Warrant of last year there was a provision in regard to pensions for disabled soldiers who should be dependent on their capacity, or incapacity, to earn for themselves. To-day that is so. That being so, obviously you must have some body, some tribunal, some authority whose duty it is to estimate the soldier's earning capacity. Are we really going to be faced with this position, that the military authorities will estimate the earning capacity of a soldier and that this private body will be entrusted with the duty of putting that individual soldier in the way of earning his livelihood for the future? Can anybody imagine such a ridiculous suggestion? I say ridiculous, because it does seem to me that you cannot imagine anything more calculated to make men who do not want to go to the trouble to earn because they have got a pension. One

  2067
  thing we have got to be careful about is that we want to assist men in such a way that it will be better for them and better for everybody.
  The only other aspect of the matter that I desire to submit for the consideration of the House is this: We shall have to face an army of able-bodied soldiers at the end of the War, who, if I may use the expression, will have to be reintegrated into our industrial fabric. That operation is obviously one of a very much vaster character than the operation of providing disabled soldiers and sailors with employment. I do not know if the House knows what at the present time are the figures of disabled soldiers. Roughly they are about 1,000 a month. The total up to date is something between 13,000 and 14,000. I am not for the moment calculating sailors. The number is a comparatively small one, and the evidence we have had is that up to the present time there is no difficulty in those disabled sailors getting employment. Of course, there will be a big difficulty. What I want to put before the House is that it is quite obvious that a body which may be capable of dealing with disabled soldiers may not be a suitable body for dealing with the vastly larger problem of putting back into our industrial system, and our agricultural system, a whole body of able-bodied soldiers at the end of the War. I do say this: it will be much easier to find employment for disabled soldiers, if you do not separate the work from that of the body identified with the solution of the larger problem. The relevance of that consideration is this, if the body to which the administration of this Act is entrusted is a public body starting as a public body, subject to Parliamentary control, it will, so to speak, to begin with, get in training with the work upon disabled soldiers, and it can be enlarged at the end of the War for the purposes of the larger problem.
  In regard to some industrial employments it may be that the advantage of having the same body will not be as great as in others. In some of them, and hon. Members below the Gangway will agree with me in this—it is very desirable that the two problems should be dealt with by the same general organisation, local and central. But as regards agriculture—there is a peculiar emphasis that one can put upon this consideration!—obviously you will only get men into agriculture who are, so to speak, sardined in, or sandwiched between others, placed head and tail
  2068
  amongst able-bodied men. This Bill proposes to leave the whole of the functions of dealing with disabled men for all purposes, industrial and agricultural, to this voluntary Committee. I say, with great respect, that we should have a public body which will be subject to public control, and subject to the directions of Parliament, and in regard to which we can, if we think fit—and I think it is probable we shall think fit—at the same time, say, in regard to agriculture we leave the matter to the Board of Agriculture and its organisation, allowing this Committee merely to ascertain the numbers of those who want to go into agriculture. These would be handed over to be dealt with by the Board of Agriculture and the local organisation, whatever it may be. If you have a public body for the purpose, it is capable of development along the lines I have suggested. In conclusion, I put forward two reasons: Firstly, in its nature and for all purposes, a private body will be unsuitable for any of the functions under this Bill, except subsidiary, voluntary functions in regard to supplementary and additional allowances. That can be worked into the public body. Secondly, the public body is one which can be developed on even wider lines when we have to deal with the larger problem.
  Mr. CURRIErose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I would like to explain the position in which we stand. Last July a Bill passed this House to make this supplementary provision for pensions, grants, and allowances to our soldiers and sailors, their widows, and their dependants. That Bill received considerable consideration at the hands of this House. It was debated, certainly at two full sittings, and after that consideration it was sent to another place. It was, at an unfortunate time, sent to the House of Lords. At that time they had no desire, or had not the time, to give that treatment to it that they thought the subject deserved. At a later period they drastically altered the Bill, both as to its nature and constitution. What we have got to consider is, not whether we can substitute for this Bill a very much bigger one dealing with the subject perhaps from a much larger point of view, but whether or not the Bill as it was returned to this House is better

  2069
  machinery for the proposed carrying out of certain arrangements that must be made for supplementary pensions, and the carrying out of these arrangements for the time being, until we can get a bigger Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, standing at this box a week ago, gave every encouragement to the House to believe that His Majesty's Government were ready to consider a much bigger Bill than this. The House knows perfectly well, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said to-day that so far as I am concerned I have always been in favour of a larger Bill. I have always thought it was absolutely necessary to have a larger Bill to bring into order the confusion and the chaos. A condition of affairs suitable, perhaps, for the Crimean War, and possibly suitable as a makeshift for the Boer War, is not a state of things which we can possibly support when we have to treat this subject on such a gigantic scale, and with the new development, if I may say so, of public functions. I was very glad when my right hon. Friend, the other day, gave every indication in his speech that he, too, was of that opinion. He said there were three alternatives, the first thing being to drop this Bill and bring in a new Bill. He gave his reasons why we cannot do that. He said the Government were too busy, the Cabinet had not the time to give it proper consideration, the Departments were too busy, and that we must wait for a little time, probably the spring of next year, for that measure. But I want to assure the House that that matter is under the most careful consideration of the Government at the present time, and that we have every reason for hope, now that everybody is being persuaded that this subject requires a much more drastic and thorough treatment.
  Let me indicate to the House what happens. Take the case of a soldier discharged from the Army, disabled either from wounds or disease. To whom does he go to have his pension fixed? To the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. I was myself a Commissioner of Chelsea Hospital for three years, and I do not want to underrate the value of their work. I know what splendid and hard work is done there. At the same time, does anybody know who are the Commissioners, or who will be sitting there on a particular day? Supposing a sailor is discharged from the Navy through injury or disease, he has to go to the Admiralty or Green-
  2070
  wich Hospital. But supposing, as my hon. and learned Friend says, after his discharge he has got his pension, and the State undertakes the new obligation, which I quite agree ought to be, of providing for him, caring for him, training him, and finding him employment, then he has to go to an entirely different body. Under this Bill, as it passed the House of Commons, it would have been to the Statutory Committee; under the Bill, as it passed the House of Lords, it would have been to a more or less other Government Department. But, at all events, it would have been to some utterly different Department from the present institution. With regard to the pensions, at present the new Statutory Committee is to decide who are dependants, and, after the Statutory Committee has decided that, then the War Office or Admiralty is to decide what scale is to be adopted, or, at all events, at what they ought to be assessed.
  Mr. HOGGE: Where is that in the Bill? After you have assessed who are dependants, where does it say in the Bill that the Admiralty or War Office will provide the money?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It does not really say it in the Bill, but my hon. Friend knows the Government have undertaken it.
  Mr. HOGGE: Only for scale pensions.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I was alluding to scale pensions. I say there is chaos and confusion at present in dealing with this class of case, but the Statutory Committee will have to decide who are the dependants, and then the War Office or the Admiralty will have to decide what amount of pension they receive. It is quite true that they may come back to the statutory body and ask for a supplement to their pension; but confusion, I think, is only more confounded by that. Take the case of widows. The War Office or the Admiralty will examine and decide the Government rate of pension to the widow, but if she wants more than the flat rate, and ought to have more than that, she would have to go to the Statutory Committee. It would not make very much difference if it was to another Government Department. There would still be two Government Departments dealing with the same set of papers, calling the same evidence, and making the same inquiry. I could goon multiplying cases to show it is absolutely necessary to my mind that, when

  2071
  we have a big Bill, you must really reconstitute all these Departments, co-ordinate them, and bring all matters connected with pensions, allowances and grants to soldiers and sailors, under one pension board in one pension building. That is my argument. After the men are discharged from the Army or the Navy they are no longer soldiers or sailors of a military, fighting quality. For my part, I think it would be infinitely better—all my colleagues, perhaps, are not in agreement with that, but I am stating my own view, and it is certainly held by a great, and, I think, an increasing number—that all these matters ought to be decided by one pension board in one pension building, so that everybody interested in any one of these cases in any aspect whatever may know where to address himself, and may know that the body which decides shall be found. It should not be some War Office clerk or Admiralty clerk, however estimable, but these matters of vital importance to the individual should be decided by some tribunal responsible to Parliament for these matters. If we could have the scheme, I should then like to see all the auxiliary bodies, if they could not be in that building, at all events in close communication with it.
  Mr. SCOTT: Voluntary bodies?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Auxiliary voluntary bodies collecting funds, so that they could take the many hard cases which there always must be, I do not care what rules or regulations are made. However generous you may be, there are always cases which do not come within your rule and those could be sent on to an auxiliary or voluntary body. But, as I say, the Government have not the time to give to this subject just at present, and considering that it is a year since the hatching of this Bill began by the Select Committee that we appointed last November, considering that we want to deal with this matter thoroughly, you must have some kind of inquiry by some committee or other into the whole of the circumstances surrounding this very difficult problem. Therefore, I say we cannot expect a Bill, at all events, till the spring of next year. Meanwhile, what are we to do? Are we to adopt the alternative of dropping the Bill and have no machinery going on all through the winter for supplementing the flat rate of pension, for giving pensions and allowances where
  2072
  perhaps they are not given at all, for dealing with innumerable cases awaiting decision as regards dependants, and of setting up some kind of machinery, inadequate it may be, to make a beginning in dealing with the discharged soldiers and sailors totally disabled, as many of them are, or partially disabled?
  Mr. SCOTT: What is the harm of the Lords Amendments?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient, I was submitting my reasons for dismissing the first alternative of dropping this Bill and waiting for a bigger Bill. The hon. and learned Member says, "Why do you not accept the Lords Amendments?" My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his reasons for that. He says, "No, the Lords Amendments practically set up another Government Department, looking solely for State money."
  Mr. SCOTT: Not solely.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Personally, I believe that if you set up a body of that kind, not connected with any voluntary organisation, you will not get a single penny. If it is known that a Government Department is set up for relief with State money, then I do not think you would get any voluntary subscriptions or voluntary aid. The hon. and learned Member asked me, "Then why do not you take the Bill as it left the House of Lords?" I am giving reasons why my right hon. Friend would not accept the Bill as it left the Lords. My right hon. Friend said he could not set up another Government Department looking solely for State money, unless that Department was framed on entirely different lines from those framed by the House of Lords, and unless that Department were reconstituted, and the other Departments absorbed within this, or reconstituted, as he puts it, so that there shoud not be public money running from every possible tap. I must say, if I had been Chancellor of the Exchequer I should have said exactly the same thing. I should have been perfectly willing to have a reconstituted board relying inanity on State money, but I would never have constituted it as it is under the Bill as amended by the House of Lords. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said what he is going to do, and I hope the House will accept his advice, that is, put the Bill back again, accepting many of the Lords Amendments that are good, but put-

  2073
  ting it back in its main feature of restoring the connection with the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, thus making it a more or less voluntary body, more or less relying on voluntary funds.
  The hon. and learned Member kept on alluding to this body as a charitable and private body, and he said the body set up by the House of Lords would be a public body, an official body, and a Government body. Do let us look at the Bill. Can you really say that this body as composed in the Bill as it left this House is a private, a charitable, and a non-Government body? And can you call the other body, as composed by the House of Lords, on the other hand, a public body, an official body, and a Government body? What is the difference? The House of Lords reduced the members nominated by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation from six to two, but they did not only do that. They struck out the Local Government Boards for England, Scotland, and Ireland, and they struck out the representatives of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee. They gave eighteen nominees to the Government, instead of twelve, but they struck out the nominees of the Local Government Boards. I do not think it is possible to say that one of these bodies is a public official body and the other is a charitable, non-official body. There really is not all that difference between the two. The body proposed to be set up is in the main a public body. After all, the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation only nominates six members. You cannot say that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation controls this body. Of course it cannot. It will be a body entirely independent of the Corporation. The Corporation consists of all the lords lieutenant, the chairmen of county councils, the lord mayors, and mayors and the heads of all the great local authorities throughout England, Ireland and Scotland. By making them practically members of that Corporation you establish a connection between the central body and the local body. As the Bill left the Lords there is no connection between the central body and the local body. The great advantage of connecting it with the Patriotic Corporation is that you do not get this connection, and I hope this fact will commend itself to the House.
  One or two points have been raised with regard to the treatment of the disabled. Surely this statutory body is as good a body as the one set up by the House of Lords. One of the first things which the
  2074
  statutory body will have to deal with is to frame a committee for the special purpose of dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors. On that committee you must put representatives of the Board of Trade, Labour Exchanges, employers and employed, and people of that character. Surely it is quite possible that the Statutory Committee set up in this Bill will form at least as good a Committee as the body indicated by the House of Lords. Some day we shall know a great deal more about this subject and how to treat it. All we can do now is to experiment. I quite agree that you must link up in all probability the operations of any committee that you set up to deal with discharged soldiers and sailors and wounded soldiers with some other body when this War is over, and that body will have to deal with the vast number of men after demobilisation, who will have to find some way into commercial employment in this country. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer says quite plainly that if the House does not like the Bill as it left the House of Commons, with some Amendments made by the House of Lords, it will have to go without it, and he cannot go to the extent of setting up a separate department as indicated in another place. Under these circumstances it is not advisable that we should take this Bill as an experiment, and work it to the best of our ability during the next six months, and then we shall have learned a very great deal more than we know now as to the extent and scope of this problem I think it would be a gigantic mistake to lose the Bill, and set up no machinery, and go six more months without doing anything in this matter. I am sure that would cause great disappointment throughout the country. Meanwhile, if we adopt this Bill, we can set up our 240 local committees and see what we can do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he will make a substantial Grant to this body, and with that we can carry on a great deal of very useful experimental work. We all want to accomplish the same thing, and get to work, and treat this problem seriously. None of us want to go back on the word of our leaders on this subject, namely, that those who have fought and bled for us, and are still fighting and bleeding for us, shall be more generously treated by the country than they have ever been before. We will not go back one iota on

  2075
  that, and therefore I think we shall be well advised if we adopt this measure as the best machinery for the present for dealing with a question which requires a great deal more experience than we have yet had. Then we may look forward next year to a more substantial treatment of this question with a view of dealing with it in a more drastic and proper way.
  Mr. DICKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has appealed to us not to lose this Bill. The best way to do that would be to agree to the Lords Amendments. I must say that although the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary has been an able one, he has not convinced me that it would be wiser to risk a further disagreement with the Lords than to accept their Amendments. I think the right hon. Gentleman has treated this matter rather lightly, because really the situation is a most serious one. This question was first brought forward by the Government on the occasion of a Bill which was framed upon a very distinct understanding, and that was that the money, practically all the money, was going to be forthcoming from the Prince of Wales' Fund. If that had not been in the mind of the Government we never should have had this Bill at all. We know the history of this question. It was found impossible to obtain any promise on the part of the Prince of Wales' Fund trustees of money from them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was then appealed to, and he announced here, and the same announcement was made in the House of Lords on behalf of the Government, that the Government would see that the necessary funds were forthcoming for the finance of this Bill. It became perfectly clear that public money must to some extent be expended under the provisions of this Bill. The whole question was changed when that announcement was made, and the Lords in attempting to set up a body more responsible to Parliament than the body proposed in the original Bill were only carrying out their duties and were really teaching the Commons, if I may put it in that way, what their duty would be in this respect. I do not think we need to argue the point that where public money is given, in whatever shape or form, there ought to be some means of raising the question of its method of expenditure in this House. Under the Bill as it stands it is acknowledged that there are no such means. It has been said that that is the
  2076
  object of the promoters of this Bill. We say that there ought to be some such means, and the Lords say so as well, and for that purpose they propose a body which at any rate would have a certain responsibility to the Government and the public.
  The right hon. Gentleman has asked what is the difference between the two proposals. It lies in this, that the Government Bill was based upon giving authority to what they call a Statutory Committee of the Royal Trustees of the Patriotic Fund Corporation. That is a private corporation, and they would have no responsibility to the public. On the contrary, the House of Lords has set up a body called a Board, the great majority of its members being appointed directly by the Crown. Undoubtedly it would so operate that any important question in regard to their administration and expenditure of public money could then be brought before this House. I think the Government are making a very grave mistake in not availing themselves of the opportunity which the House of Lords has given them of retreating from an unsustainable position. I still hope that the Government may be able to see, from the observations made in this House, that there is some real reason why they should reconsider their position. It is suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if we set up a body like this, we ought not to do it except by a big Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed that we are going to have a big Bill. I would ask him when? Is it to be this year or next year?
  It is important that this question should be taken in hand at once. The Government are to blame for having taken more than a year to deal with it. It was brought up last March, and the measure could have been referred to a Committee, but the Government did not do that. They retained the matter in their own hands, and the result has been that we have not had an opportunity of thoroughly discussing this matter. Apart from the question of a big Bill, I suppose that the proposals made by the House of Lords afford by far the best first step towards the larger measure. If we are going to have a measure under which all the various pensions authorities are to be brought together, we had much better start with a nucleus such as is provided by this Bill than give to another private body the functions which undoubtedly will have to be given to the existing body. The Chancellor of the Ex-

  2077
  chequer has said he cannot do all this without interfering with Chelsea and Greenwich, but I do not see why we cannot. Chelsea and Greenwich are very useful institutions, but they only deal with one kind of pension. I think I am right in saying that the origin of those two institutions was the pensioning of soldiers and sailors after their term had expired, and after injury either in peace or war. It was not to meet the enormous question of how you are going to deal with widows, children and dependants of the thousands of persons who die in a great War like this. In my opinion Chelsea and Greenwich could go on perfectly well, notwithstanding the existence of a new Government Department, to deal with a much larger question. Inasmuch as it is foreshadowed that we are not going to leave things as they are, it would be very much better to have a Department to consider the whole question, and start them as a Board at once responsible to this House. We might start them with the duties mentioned in this Bill, and also give them the duty of formulating a scheme and bringing it before the Government, and, if possible, promoting legislation, or advising legislation, to place the whole question of pensions on a more satisfactory footing in the course of the next few months. If we have Chelsea and Greenwich and the new body all working independently without anybody having a permanent position, we shall find things get worse. We want to deal with this subject more rapidly, and we want the best men we can get in responsible positions to advise the country and the Government about the various scales of pensions, and I think it would be very much better for us to recognise that this new body is to be responsible to Parliament, instead of being merely a committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I hope, therefore, the Government may see their way to allow this Amendment, which cannot do any harm to the scheme, in order that we may really get on and be in agreement with the other House, who undoubtedly, in this case, have given far more consideration to the problem than the Cabinet itself gave to it before this scheme was brought before this House.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I would like to add a word in support of what has been said from these benches. The main Amendment put forward by the House of Lords, in my view, very much strengthened the broad
  2078
  principle adopted and accepted by the Government. I gather that this Bill is regarded as a mere makeshift measure, which will have to be amended very soon, and perhaps in the course of this year. Even if that be true, and I think it probably is true, we had best begin as well as we can and with the best sort of committee that we can get. My own view is that once the Royal Patriotic Corporation is firmly embodied in this scheme it will be very difficult to get any change. We have nothing at all to say against the good work that has been done by many of the voluntary organisations dealing with our soldiers and sailors. We believe that matters like the training of disabled soldiers for work ought to be distinctly within the control of this House, and ought to be done not by a committee which will once a year make a report, but by a Committee directly responsible to this House, under some Minister to whom we can address questions day by day as grievances of soldiers arise. I do not believe that can be done under the scheme put forward, and I find myself in the unusual position of believing that the Amendments of the House of Lords strengthen the Bill. Many of us, on the Second Reading, before the Bill went to the House of Lords, took exactly the same line, as will be remembered, as the other House has taken. I believe that a larger measure will be required presently, dealing with the whole question of the training and employment of disabled soldiers; but, in my opinion, it will not delay the measure in the least if this Amendment is now accepted. The measure could go forward just the same. When we hear about delay, we know that this Bill was hung up in the Lords for six or seven weeks. The result of their Amendments has been to improve the Bill, and even if we disagree with some of the other Amendments I hope that this main Amendment with regard to the Committee itself will be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. HOHLER: When the Bill was first introduced I opposed it on the ground that no provision was made by the Government in regard to funds, but since then, as the result of the opinion of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pledged the Government to make some financial provision, and I understand a generous one, in regard to these wounded soldiers and sailors. He has also told us that if we insist upon the Amendments proposed by the House of Lords in their entirety this Bill will be lost, and we shall have to wait

  2079
  till some future and indefinite date when the matter may be rediscussed and considered and a new Bill introduced. Much as I should have preferred the Bill on quite different lines, and much as I should have preferred a Department to deal with it, with a Minister to whom we could address questions, I honestly believe, now that we have got a pledge from the Government in both Houses that this money will be forthcoming, we should be doing our wounded soldiers and sailors a great disservice if we accepted the Lords Amendment and practically killed the Bill. Really, this Amendment introduced by the Lords falls far short of what this House, when the matter comes to be considered and discussed, will require. These various bodies who deal with pensions should be all coordinated, and should form one single body. There should not be these public funds dispensed here, there, and everywhere, at considerable expense, with different staffs. We have never really had a fair opportunity of discussing either the pensions scheme for soldiers and sailors or for officers. We had a general Debate upon it, but we had no opportunity of proposing Amendments, and I am satisfied that there are an infinity of cases which will arise and as to which no provision has been made at all. Under this Bill these bodies will be called into existence throughout the country. They will have to propose their scheme, and we shall see what it is by the time any future Bill which will be inevitable is introduced. Meanwhile, what is happening? Let me give one illustration. I know a number of such cases, but one is good enough. A young fellow joined the Army. When he left his father was in full work, maintaining a wife and family. It is quite true to say that he asked for no separation allowance, and indeed he could not have obtained it if he had done so, because there was no need for assistance, but since he has been serving at the front the breadwinner has died, and there is a widow and family.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member was not here when we went very thoroughly into that aspect of the question and when I was obliged to rule that it was not pertinent to the matter which we are now discussing. It is proper criticism of the War Office, or Admiralty, or whoever administers those particular funds, but it is not relevant to this matter.
  Mr. HOHLER: Should I be in order in saying that I am quite satisfied under the provisions of the Bill, if we pass it substantially as it passed through this House, defective and insufficient as I think it is, great relief can be given to many deserving wounded soldiers and sailors and those dependent on them. I therefore do ask the House to reject the House of Lords Amendment and pass the Bill substantially as it passed the House. I am personally satisfied that a longer delay will be disastrous both to our men, and also to voluntary recruiting which we all have so much at heart. I therefore do ask that this Bill shall go through and that the Amendment shall be rejected.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Many and in fact all of us in this House who take a particular interest in this matter have been very sorry indeed to find that the Government were not able in another place to come to some definite arrangement and agreement. We all feel that this is a very urgent matter, and every one of us would rather have an imperfect Bill at once than have a delay which may be followed at some future, indefinite time by another Bill. I understand my hon. Friend behind me to say that he would not. I wish I shared his ardour for the ideal and his confidence that it will be realised. I wish like him we had sufficient confidence that we could get a really first-rate Bill if this one were destroyed. I do not think that would be the case. I rise for the purpose of saying two things. In the first place, there are many things in the Lords Amendments which we prefer to the particular way in which this Bill left this House, but I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in regard to the dispensing of public funds has the last and the dominating word, adheres to the original scope of the Bill, because that indicates for the time being that recourse is to be had to private funds and that public funds are only to come in to assist. If that is the case, one can understand the argument for the Committee. I also understand that if we have a Board, as we certainly ought to have in any really thorough-going Bill, the Board would not be constituted exactly as the House of Lords suggested, but it would be much more closely connected both to the Exchequer and much more closely responsible to this House.
  It seems to me that what this House has to do now is to take those steps which are

  2081
  best calculated to get a Bill of some kind on this point at once. I have very grave doubts whether if we agree to the Lords Amendments we are not injuring the prospects of the Bill even more than if we differ from many of them, but I do ask my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Colleague to do all that they can even now when this goes back to the other place to come to some friendly agreement with the House of Lords in the matter. This is precisely one of those cases in which the two Houses of Parliament ought not to find any difficulty in agreeing. I hope that the Government will try to accept as many of the Amendments of the other place as possible in order that the Bill, so made up and so completed, shall have the really cordial support of the other House as well as of this House. On these grounds, with a good deal of reluctance, I shall support the Government in their Motion to reject the main one of these Amendments, not because I think the Government plan is very good, or because the House of Lords plan is perfect, but because, after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it seems to me that we run more risk of losing the Bill than if we try and adhere to these Amendments. But if to save the life of a very imperfect and inadequate Bill we reject the principle of the Lords Amendments, I do hope my right hon. Friend will indicate to this House when we come to deal with the Amendments that there are a number of them which he can accept. I hope particularly that those which deal with the local committees, subject to rather careful scrutiny of some of the phrasing of the Sub-sections, will pass into law, together with that part which came from this House, because it seems to me that the work of the local committees is quite as urgent, if not more urgent, than the work of the Central Committee. However much you alter the central authority and perfect it, and however closely you make it responsible to Parliament, it is upon the work of the local committees that you must rely, and I am anxious to get these local committees at work at once, because otherwise the enormous amount of work which has to be done will never be overtaken by those persons who wish to undertake it to the best of their ability.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.)
  (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
  (2) Of the said twenty-five members—

  twelve (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

  one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

  one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

  one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

  one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;

  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;

  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;

  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;

  six (of whom some shall be women) shall be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation;

  (3) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.
  (4) There may be paid to the chairman or vice-chairman, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
  (5) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
  (6) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
  (7) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.
  (8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.
  Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation)," and insert instead thereof the words, "Board to be called 'War Allowances Board,' and hereinafter referred to as 'the Board.'"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: This would appear to give an opportunity of dealing with the main issue presented to the House, whether this body shall be under Government control and directly responsible to this House, or whether it shall be a statutory body more irresponsible and, therefore, not quite so open to our criticism as a Government Department would be. On that I venture to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the moment should have used the threat to the House which he has used. Practically what he holds over our
  2084
  heads is this: "If you press for full power of control for this House and succeed, then the Bill goes."
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I must ask the hon. Member to quote. I have said nothing so ridiculous. I am certain of that.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am in the recollection of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman disclaims the statement I will not pursue it further, but in defence of my statement I may add this: the right hon. Gentleman says if we pursue the matter and get a body which is responsible to Parliament and constituted in the main of representatives of Government Departments, this would involve Government responsibility which the Government is not prepared to undertake, and therefore, if we are successful, as I understood him, the Government will disclaim responsibility for the Bill. I will say no more on that point. I am prepared to allow the matter to be judged from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  May I say in justification of my statement that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) so understood the right hon. Gentleman, and it is because of the fear of losing the Bill that the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "I am prepared to support this Bill rather than lose it, and thereby postpone the adequate treatment of those who are now being disabled in our service." Then, that usually astute gentleman, the hon. Member for the Middleton Division, has been similarly mislead. It is quite clear, too, that the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Scott), indicated that he was prepared to withdraw his opposition, not that he liked to do so, but on the pledge which the Government had given. It must be quite obvious to the whole House that not a speaker has stood up in his place to say that he approved of the constitution of the statutory body, as outlined in the Bill when it left this House, and it is obvious, further, that the whole House, if judged by the speeches made, is against the Government in this matter. The majority of the House of Lords is against the Government, too, and it is curious that it is the House of Lords which has tried to make this Bill more democratic, and to show us a way of retaining our grip over matters which ought to be under our adequate control. For the second time since the War broke out that House has suggested to us that liberty, either

  2085
  personal or Parliamentary, is fully worth retention. The opinions expressed here are shared by the public and the Press outside. Take the "Manchester Guardian." What does it say on this Bill in respect of the changes suggested by the House of Lords? In its leading article, on the 15th of the present month, it says that the change is of great importance, and
  "If the House of Commons were to reverse it, it would be making the Bill still very inadequate, indefensibly bad."
  I associate myself entirely with that criticism. I could quote other papers, like the "Morning Post," the "Daily News," the "Westminster Gazette," and the "Standard," all expressing dissatisfaction. The same may be said of the provincial papers. Indeed, I find it difficult to quote any paper which has not expressed its approval of the chief change proposed by the House of Lords. Therefore, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Press, and, as far as one can gather, public opinion are all opposed to the Government in this matter, and if the Government succeed in defeating the proposal of the Lords it will be by means of this threat. I am sorry it has been made. What is it Members desire? They desire, after all this lapse of time, that the soldier and the sailor shall no longer be dependent on voluntary agency to get his pension and training and employment assured to him when he returns to this country. It is because the Government is afraid of the amount which it may involve that to-night they say, "You risk the Bill if you attempt to set up a body which shall be represented by the Government Department."
  If I may be allowed, I would like to criticise in one or two details the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He said, "There is a vital principle involved. We desire a voluntary agency. Our opponents desire a Parliamentary and Departmental one." The right hon. Gentleman called that a vital issue, but later on in his speech he asked, "After all, which is the more public body," adding, there is very little difference between them. If there is this very little difference between them, why will he not accept the much better principle outlined in the Amendment of the Lords? The right hon. Gentleman went on further to say this is experimental. Let us try what this voluntary body can do before we set up a much larger body and take the whole subject under review. In passing, may I say how heartily I welcome the suggestion that there should
  2086
  be a much more comprehensive Bill, and that we should have a Pensions Department where the whole work can be consolidated? But I would say this: Once set up the nucleus of a charitable body to do the work you give it a vested interest in it.
  If this is experimental why not experiment with a body over which Parliament has control? Why not experiment with representatives of Departments whom you can replace? Once you allow this charitable body, with people added to it from various departments who are always in a minority, you place in a superior position this one individual charitable organisation. You give it a vested interest, and when the time comes for replacing it, and a larger Bill comes along, we shall have difficulty in removing the irresponsible charitable organisation from its privileged position and in placing Parliament where it might be placed now if we accept the Amendment which the Lords have suggested to us. If Parliamentary control was thoroughly secured under this Bill we should have representatives of Departments not at present included.
  The Murray Committee has been quite overlooked in regard to essential matters in its Report. It did most valuable work, and its work was most satisfactorily done. The Committee suggested that, in view of the fact that disabled soldiers might be placed on the land, the Board of Agriculture should be represented on the Statutory Body. But the Board of Agriculture finds no place in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. The Murray Committee also suggested that, in view of the question of training, representatives of the Board of Education should be placed on the body. There is no representative of that body provided for. In view of employment, the Murray Committee suggested that representatives of the Board of Trade should have a place on the Board, but no representative of the Board of Trade is included in the Statutory Committee. It is inadequate and irresponsible. It puts our soldiers, on Trafalgar Day above all days, once more in the hands of the charitable, instead of the State quite frankly and fully accepting full financial responsibility for their upkeep and training and their place in industry.
  Is it not clear that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Departments have no time to deal with this matter is quite absurd even on a superficial examination? On the Statutory Committee as contemplated there are to

  2087
  be members of Government Departments. It is not proposed to add to the number of representatives from each Department contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. All that is proposed is to add representatives of other essential Departments—Departments more essential for the purposes of the Bill than those already mentioned. You merely invite them to be represented on this Committee, without adding immensely to the work of the Department concerned. The Amendments of the Lords give an opportunity to the Government to select representatives from all the important Departments affected, and also to invite representatives of labour and of the employers who are not now adequately represented on the Statutory Body, and if that is carried you will then have the inestimable advantage of full Parliamentary control, with a right in Members here to challenge what is done, to ask questions, and to keep the thing on right lines, in the interests of the men whom it is our object to serve to-night. May I reiterate this point? Under the Bill as it stands, thanks to the constitution of the Statutory Body, its Report, forsooth, is to be part and parcel of and a subsidiary matter to the Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. It is to be buried away in the pages of the Annual Report of that body to Parliament.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Perhaps it may save a little time if I say we accept the Amendment of the House of Lords that the Report shall be made direct.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I express my satisfaction at finding the right hon. Gentleman repentant, after refusing the Amendment which I moved in identical terms in this House. This shows that the Lords have given a consideration to the matter which we did not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, we considered it!"] It is true we did give it consideration, but our main criticisms were rejected, and now the House of Lords, having given careful consideration to the matter, is showing us the better way. It used to be said of a former Leader of the late Opposition that he merely raised his finger as an indication to the other place of what their duty was. May the Chief Whip of the Labour party emulate that great Parliamentarian and indicate to the other place that their duty is obvious in this matter, that they should adhere to their decision, and, if the Government tell us to-night that if we persist
  2088
  they will not accept responsibility for the Bill, let us throw on the Government the responsibility of doing their duty to our soldiers and sailors. I hope that the House of Lords will adhere to their decision.
  If the Government defeat us to-night—and we are going to a Division on this matter—we feel so strongly that we shall welcome the opposition of the Lords to the decision of the Government, because we believe that the view of the House of Lords in this matter is the right view. For these reasons I venture to express the hope that the Government even now will see that they are acting against the sense of the House, that they are acting directly in the face of public opinion, that they are attempting to throw upon us who desire the better way the onus of possibly wrecking the Bill. Then what shall we say to the friends of our disabled soldiers and sailors when we meet them in our constituencies? For my part I have a complete answer, an answer which I am satisfied will prove convincing, because it will be that we throw on the Government, and not upon a charitable organisation, the duty of finding the necessary funds in order that we may do the right thing by those who are fighting our battles.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I entirely agree with the last speaker. This is a bad Bill which will not only defeat its own object but which will cause considerable irritation, and I think even worse, among those whom it is intended to benefit. These soldiers and sailors have gone out to fight for our Empire, and their dependents ought to be taken up and mothered by the State and not by any charitable institution whatever. I am not saying one word against the splendid work which charitable institutions have done for them; there is no denying the great efforts some of them have made, but I point rather to the nature of open administration. I hardly know how to express it, but they have been expecting these people to tell them more than they should expect to be told. They have not gone in the way that a Government Department would have gone. They have made it more or less a favour to go and see them, and have asked them questions that I do not think it was necessary to ask on many occasions.
  The point remains that it is the duty of the State to look after these people, who have fought for and defended us and who

  2089
  will win for the State, when they come home, as well as to look after their dependants. The best thing to be done is to withdraw the Bill altogether and frame a new Bill, of which the Government will take charge. The funds necessary for that Bill should be State funds, and should be managed by people qualified by the State to manage them. The management of the concern should be taken away from the Patriotic Fund. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which has done very brilliant work, is not capable of looking after these enormous numbers of men who will come home and who will require much greater funds than either of those societies can supply. The best thing the Government can do is to withdraw the Bill altogether. Even with the Lords Amendments it will be a patched-up Bill. They should bring forward a perfectly clear Government Bill, supplying the funds for the whole of this great work and putting the whole thing under Government management and in charge of this House, where the different questions can be debated. Let us have a Bill that will be satisfactory to this House, satisfactory to the people, and, above all, satisfactory to those whom it is our bounden duty to look after, from the State and not from any charitable organisation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill as a whole. There is no question of withdrawing it, nor is that possible. The only question is whether the House is prepared to accept or to reject an Amendment proposed by the Lords.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have been rather surprised to listen to some of the remarks made in the course of this Debate on the Amendments, and the cheers which have been given by my hon. Friends behind me, because if there is any possibility that the Bill is to be wrecked upon those Amendments, it would certainly be a most serious matter to those dependants who, by thousands all over the country, are now asking that their pensions should be fixed under this Bill. I would remind the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) that this Bill does not in any way touch the pensions paid to disabled soldiers, because they are provided for, or the pensions paid to the widows and families of soldiers, which are also provided for. This Bill simply deals with the pensions that will be provided for the dependants. Under this Bill the Govern-
  2090
  ment is setting up committees in every town in the country, who will provide the Statutory Committee with information upon which they will base their decision to recommend what pensions those persons should receive. That is all this Bill does with regard to that aspect of the matter, and it does not touch the other points the Noble Lord raised.
  If I could believe with my hon. Friends in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) that the Amendments made in the House of Lords in any way give the powers which my hon. Friends around me desire, which I should like to see given, and which will be given in a new Bill, placing complete control over the whole question in the House of Commons, I should be with them. But there is nothing in the Amendment of the House of Lords dealing with the re-constitution of this Committee that will give any such power. I should like to put to my hon. Friend (Mr. C. E. Price) one or two points. Where is there anything in the Amendments of the Lords with regard to the reconstitution of the Statutory Committee that would in any way give you the power that you are seeking? You say you want more money. They do not propose to give any more money, and they do not propose to alter the Bill in regard to its semi-voluntary principle. So far as the Lords are concerned, they could not do it, for they could not give us more money. In the second place, where is the power in this Bill, even with the Amendments, that would give Parliament control over the whole question? If you look at the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept you will see that it contains the same principle as is contained in the Bill—that is to say, that this Statutory Committee will now report directly to this House once a year. When they present that report we shall have the power to review what they have done. There is nothing in this Bill or in any of the Amendments of the Lords that will give my hon. Friends below the Gangway, or any other Members, the right to put questions week after week and month after month to any Minister with regard to the administration of this Bill.
  My impression is, as concerns the voluntary funds is that they will only be required to pay the supplementary grants. At the present time supplementary grants are paid to families who are in receipt of separation allowance beyond the 4s. per week paid by them in rent. That is paid out of the Prince of Wales' Fund. The

  2091
  question is whether the Prince of Wales' Fund is large enough to continue this money to this Statutory Committee. I am under the impression that it will not be. The Prince of Wales' Fund has become seriously depleted, and so far as the contributions are concerned they are practically nil, apart from the fact that the working men themselves are contributing to this fund. Therefore I am as certain as I am standing here, that within the next twelve months, or even the next eight months, the Government will have to deal with this question from the point of view of finding the whole of the money for the supplementary grants. Anybody who is watching the Prince of Wales' Fund knows that it is being depleted, and that the fund must retain an enormous sum of money towards assisting the depression that may occur when this unfortunate War is over. I am rather surprised at the remarks of my hon. Friends who are opposed to this Bill, because we debated the whole of these points both on the Committee stage and the Report stage We practically accepted the decision of the Government. The Bill went to the Lords, and the Lords have amended it where we failed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer states that he cannot accept those Amendments, and if we defeat this Bill, we shall thereby deprive thousands of mothers from obtaining their pensions during the coming winter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That will be the effect. I have had a large number of applications myself. These Committees must be set up, because the War Office and the Admiralty will not consider any pensions for dependants until these Committees are set up. Therefore I plead with my hon. Friends not to press this matter to a Division. If they do, I shall vote with the Government, because I want to save this Bill in the interests of the unfortunate dependants.
  Mr. HOGGE: This Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill desires us to reject, is really the keystone to the position with regard to those of us who are in favour of these alterations, and I take it that if we cannot get the Government to accept the Lords Amendment, it really does not very much matter whether or not all the others are accepted. I am afraid I cannot be taken in so easily as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) is, by the specious promises about a new Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when, we
  2092
  have got experience of this work, we could look forward at a later date to a new big Bill, and we will have more leisure and opportunity to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said it was to be introduced in the spring. But this present Parliament dies in January, 1916, and nobody in this House, including my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, can stand up and give us a guarantee that this Government will be in office in January, 1916. Therefore, what is the use of their promising to this Parliament a new big Bill in the spring, when we have got greater experience. Let us look at the experience we shall have at that time. This is the 21st October. What has to be done under this Bill? We have to set up a new Statutory Committee. In addition, we have to appoint in every municipality throughout the length and breadth of the country an auxiliary committee. We have then to make an appeal for public funds, and when we have the public voluntary funds we shall have to invite those not otherwise entitled to pensions to apply to this committee. Can that be done within the next ten weeks? It cannot be done this year, and I believe it cannot be done until well on in 1916, and by that time, having had no experience, we are invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a new big Bill to settle this matter, and the hon. Member for Stockton believes that—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I do.
  Mr. HOGGE: He believes that kind of specious announcement. What is the proposal of the House of Lords? It is a very simple one. It is to reduce the representation of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. It does not wipe out the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, because, if hon. Members will turn to the Amendment Paper, they will see that one of the Lords Amendments further down provides for the appointment of two members from the General Council of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; so that, if we adopt this, the Statutory Committee will consist of eighteen representatives appointed by the Government, one appointed by the Treasury, one appointed by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, two by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and two by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. The original Bill said there should be a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, consisting of twenty-five members, made up in

  2093
  a different way. The Lords do not propose to wipe out the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, who will be still represented on the new Statutory Committee; therefore hon. Members are labouring under a misapprehension if they imagine that the body the Lords propose to set up is so much different from the other body. You have ruled already that we cannot digress into matters which would be relevant to other occasions, but I should like to remind the House that the Board will be able to deal with cases which no Statutory Committee can deal with, as set out in the original Bill. I would remind my right hon. Friend, for example, of such cases as that of a widowed mother who is not entitled to any pension from anybody, and who would come to this Board or Statutory Committee for her pension. The War has been in operation now for fourteen months, and it will be several months before the new Committee or Board can be set up, and cases of that kind are not yet in receipt of any money. If you have a Board which is responsible to the House of Commons, the rights of that class of person are much more likely to be satisfied than if you relegated that work to a Committee which submits once a year a report of its work to the House of Commons, and which provides only one occasion, namely, the discussion of the vice-chairman's salary out of the Consolidated Fund, for public criticism of what it is doing. It is really ludicrous to say we have any control over this Committee when the only occasion on which you can criticise it is on the Consolidated Fund Bill, because we use those occasions, when we have no such great engrossing topic as the War to divert our attention, for big political subjects, and a subject of this kind would never get in.
  I am glad my hon. Friend (Mr. Gold-stone) and others, who think alike with us, at any rate mean to go into the Division Lobby on this point, and I invite as many Members of the House of Commons to go with us there as can. I hope hon. Members will not be frightened to divide on this Amendment, because of the fact that you have a Coalition Government. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take off the Coalition Whips. I have never understood why there should be Whips in a Coalition Government. Surely, in a House which is supporting the Cabinet, we ought not to have any Whips at all, and the Cabinet ought to accept the wish of the House of Commons in a matter of this kind. I am perfectly certain that
  2094
  outside the walls of this Chamber the average Member of the House of Commons wants this Statutory Committee directly responsible to the House of Commons. If we put in this Board as is suggested by the House of Lords, that Board is made up of a majority of people appointed by the Crown. That is the most democratic suggestion that has been made yet with regard to this Bill. Let us never mind what happens with regard to the Division, but let those of us who believe that this matter should be kept within the power and within the control of Members of this House go into the Division Lobby in favour of retaining the Lords Amendment. It is an excellent Amendment to the suggestion which was made by the House of Commons, and I am perfectly certain that on no public platform outside this House will the Members of that Front Bench defend their proposals as against the wider proposal for dealing with the dependants of those who have gone to lay down their lives for us. It is up to the House of Commons to do their duty by these people. It is no use over and over again mouthing phrases about what we do for these people. It is no use putting time off and off. Here we have a chance to put into the Bill an Amendment from the House of Lords which creates a public body, the majority of its members being elected by the Government, and we shall be betraying our responsibility and our duty if we do not vote against the Government and against the Coalition. It will not damage the Coalition. It will not put the Coalition out of power. It will not even destroy this Bill. It is all nonsense for Members on that bench to say, "If the House of Commons prefers this matter, merely a question of arrangement, as being better than the one on that Table they are going to delay the Bill." People outside will hold the Coalition Government responsible if in six months from now they go to the country without having made adequate provision for these people, and they are doing it now on a day when we have been discussing such things as night clubs. There were far more people in this House listening to the discussion on night clubs than to the discussion on this Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House has already determined to consider the Lords Amendments now.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: I think the position in which we find ourselves now is, to say the least, an unfortunate one. There

  2095
  is apparently a great deal of divergence of opinion in this House, and we know that there is divergence of opinion between this House and another place. But there is one point on which I may say we are definitely agreed, and that is not only that we should do something, but we should do something at once, and if we do not do so we shall not be proud of ourselves. I am going to suggest a way in which I think this House, and Parliament generally, may get out of the difficulty we are in. Time is of the essence of the whole matter. Nothing would please us more than that this question should be settled and put into working order during the coming week. It is rather extraordinary that we should be discussing this matter on the anniversary of the day when the soldiers and sailors of the British Empire laid one of the greatest foundation stones on which the British Empire has been built. Surely today we are not going to waste time on a matter concerning the interests of soldiers and sailors and their families so enormously! Surely we are not going to waste time in what I may call useless arguments! Cannot we endeavour to see what may be done? Here is a divergence of opinion. I do not profess to argue about it at this moment. We know the Government come here impressed with the feeling we all have that something must be done at once. I have no doubt the Government are proposing, in what they have to lay before us this evening, certain things that they want us to agree to. In the course of the Debate we have had they must be aware of the great divergence in this House as to what ought to be done. Would it not be the simplest way of getting on with the business if we agreed, as I am quite prepared to do, to the points and let the Bill go through the House now on the understanding that when the Government have got their way now they will go to the House of Lords and carry out at once and without needless discussion whatever, between this House and the other place, may be thought to be the best and most complete and most practical solution of the difficulty for the moment which will enable us to do something for our soldiers and their dependants during the next six months?
  I do not think it really signifies much in the present circumstances where the money comes from so long as we get it, so long as there is money enough volun-
  2096
  tarily, or from the State, or got in what-ever way you choose, to provide for the soldiers and sailors and their dependants during the coming twelve months. That is all we have to do at present. I am very sorry that anyone should argue about the matters we have been arguing about, because what have they to do with the well-being of the soldiers and sailors and of their wives and children. If I might make a suggestion, I would say let us to night agree to whatever the Government want us to agree to at once. I am extremely glad to see that we have such an able Parliamentarian at our head as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I would ask him therefore to tell us now exactly what he wants and we will agree to it. Then let him go across to another place. He and the Government are quite aware now what the wishes of the House are—I will not say only of the House but what the wishes of the country are. What we want is a practical body to get to work on this important subject at once. I would ask him, therefore, to take charge of the whole matter and when the Bill goes to another place to see that it comes back to us here, and I would ask the Government to see that it comes back to us here in such a shape that we can agree to it as the best means of dealing, for the coming six or twelve months or until we can do something else, with one of the largest and most important questions that the British Parliament in all its branches has to deal with. Let us by all means get as good a solution as we can, as quickly as we can, and with the help of both Houses, and with the help of all the nation, and let us, at any rate, in the course of the next few days, show that we have done something for those to whom we owe so much, the soldiers and sailors who have fought for us, who have died for us, and have left behind them families and children that we ought to be proud to do something for.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is hot unnatural that there should be a great division of opinion on a question of this kind. No one pretends—I have not heard anyone say—that the original proposal of the Government was an ideal proposal. My right hon. Friend certainly has not said so. But this body is set up more or less as a temporary body to deal with supplemental pensions, not pensions given by the State according to scale, but with supplemental pensions, the money for which is partly to be drawn from charitable funds

  2097
  and partly from the Grants which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has over and over again stated he would be willing to place at the disposal of that body. My right hon. Friend says if we are to have a new Bill we should have to wait a considerable time before we can possibly frame it. We are now exceedingly busy, we have much to do, the difficulties are great, and we can hardly hope to have that Bill at all events until next spring. Meanwhile we have to accept either the proposal of the House of Lords or the proposal of the Government founded on the Report of the Select Committee and passed, after all, through this House without division on this point. What did my right hon. Friend say about the proposal of the House of Lords? Why did he so strongly object to it? Why should I equally object to it if I were Chancellor of the Exchequer? This is what he said about it:—
  "I shall submit to the House when the time comes that you cannot set up a new Government Department by amending a Bill which was framed upon the voluntary basis. The whole scheme and system of the Bill is not adapted to that purpose."
  Here are the important words:—
  "If the House desires, and if Parliament desires to have a new Government authority to deal with pensions, that authority must absorb the existing authority. We cannot have a Government Department at Chelsea administering pensions with considerable latitude and a Government Department under this Bill also administering pensions and dealing with the same people, and likewise with considerable latitude in dealing with public money. We shall have public money flowing out at every tap."
  Again he said, later on:—
  "The second course is to accept the Amendments made in another place and to set up a new Government Department dealing with identically the subject-matter which two Government Departments are already dealing with. That is a course which I also cannot recommend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1915, col. 1560.]
  What would be the effect if you were to set up this body as desired in another place? It would be to set up an appeal court from Chelsea and from Greenwich. There would be an appeal in every single case. You would have rival bodies dealing with exactly the same set of people under the same set of circumstances, each having public money at its disposal voted by the House of Commons. That is really an absurd position which you cannot expect any Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all, besides thinking of the soldier and sailor—and my right hon. Friend really has been very generous in this matter—has got to protect the national Exchequer. He has got to think of the taxpayers, and particularly of the taxpayers of the future. If a new body is to be set up, and I tell
  2098
  the House of Commons again and again I want a new body set us, it ought to be so constituted that it absorbs the other bodies. It is not a rival to them, but one body to be paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, getting Votes from this House and under the full control of this House. The hon. Member (Mr. Goldstone) seems to think that I did not want to bring the body under the control of the House. No one has ever wanted more than I to bring it under the control of the House. There will be certain Grants from the Exchequer, which will be under the control of this House. This new body should be responsible to this House, and should have someone to answer for it, so that the whole question that we have to deal with may be dealt with by somebody who is directly responsible for it. I speak in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was given good reason for not accepting the body as reconstituted in another place. If his view is not taken, and if the House of Commons chooses to adopt this new scheme, designed in another place, they must not be surprised if my right hon. Friend refuses to finance that body, which he himself is not responsible for, and over which he says he will not have that control which the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly ought to have. This body will have to stand millions and millions of public money in the course of a year. It will be one of the biggest spending Departments of the State. Is the House of Commons, under those circumstances, going to deny the Chancellor of the Exchequer some voice in shaping that body, and some voice in controlling that body? He ought to have that voice in the interests of the taxpayers of this country.
  8.0 P.M.
  Some day, before long I hope, a new body will be set up. I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend (Lord C. Beresford) that a new body ought to be set up, and that a new scheme ought to be framed. Let us take part in framing that scheme. At all events we cannot deny that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in saying that he should have a leading voice in the framing of a scheme under which millions of public money will be spent. He has adopted a reasonable attitude, and I hope we shall not run the risk of losing this Bill which, although not perfect, will set up a body which will have at its command substantial Grants given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which I hope will also have at its command a considerable sum of money

  2099
  given from charitable funds, which can be distributed during the next six months in supplemental pensions to any cases of great hardship which cannot be met at present.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There are only two questions which arise out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The first question is whether, in dividing upon this Amendment, we are going to support a real control by the House of Commons, or only a shadowy control. The proposal which the Government supports is a proposal which sets up a new authority. In fact, both proposals set up new authorities. So that it is not really a question as to whether we are to have double authorities. A new authority is to be set up, and the question is as to the nature of that authority. Under the Bill as it left the House of Commons, we had only a shadowy control over the new body, because our control was limited to the vote on the salary of the vice-chairman. Under the scheme as it has come to us from the House of Lords we shall have a real control, in that this body will be really representative to the House of Commons. I think, therefore, that on the merits the House of Commons, as representing the democratic element in our country, should support the proposal put forward by the House of Lords. The second question is whether we should divide upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman adduces as an argument why we should adhere to the original scheme the fact that on the former occasion it was passed by the House of Commons without a Division. Now we are told that this is a temporary scheme, and that there is to be another Bill, which is to set up a new central authority. When that proposal is brought forward as an improvement upon the present scheme, if we do not take the opportunity of dividing to-night we shall then be told by the Minister of the day that this scheme was passed by the House of Commons without a Division. It is, therefore, upon both these grounds our bounden duty to divide in order to secure popular control of this new institution.
  Mr. DENNISS: What the right hon. Gentleman told us just now has put a very different complexion upon the Debate; but I want some further assurance about it. He says that this House will have control over the Statutory Committee, but in the Bill I see nothing which gives that control.
  2100
  I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consent to an Amendment presently that a Report shall be presented to this House; but that alone does not give that kind of control over this Statutory Committee that the House desires. The House desires that there shall be someone here responsible for the actions of that Committee, who can be questioned day by day in the House, so that its operations may be satisfactory to the House and the country. We are told that if we accept this Amendment of the House of Lords the Government will drop the Bill. What will happen if we reject this Amendment? May not the House of Lords refuse then to pass the Bill? We are placed in a very melancholy position to-night. The Bill is a bad Bill because it is founded on charity. I would like to sweep charity out of all our Bills. It is a very late Bill, and for that reason there is not time to construct a proper authority to deal with the whole question. It is a very late Bill, and therefore we must act at once. Something must be done for the coming winter. We stand between two stools. We may lose the Bill to-night, or lose it when it goes back to the other House. I feel rather inclined to think that hon. Members opposite will be disposed to withdraw their opposition if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to some compromise under which this House would have some real control over this Statutory Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to endeavour to arrive at some compromise by which there would be real control by this House over the doings of the Statutory Committee whilst it is in existence, and until it is put an end to by the big Bill which we are promised by and by, I think hon. Members opposite might be inclined to withdraw their opposition and not simply to divide for the sake of dividing.
  Mr. PRATT: My excuse for intruding upon the House is that when the Bill was in Committee here I had an Amendment on the Paper to strike out the Patriotic Fund Corporation. However, I hearkened to the voice of the Parliamentary Secretary and withdrew that Amendment. I regret exceedingly now that I did not press that Amendment to a Division. There are many weak parts in the Bill, especially as the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks the House to accept it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Denniss) has put his finger on the worst spot of all, and that is the element of charity in the Bill. Specially in

  2101
  respect to one matter do I want to emphasise that point of view. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few questions. I understand that the proposal is that disabled sailors and soldiers should come under this fund for the purpose of restoration to health or the purpose of training—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the topic we are discussing. The topic now is whether this body is to be called the "War Allowances Board," or the "Statutory Committee" of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. That is the only issue now before the House.
  Mr. PRATT: That seems to me to be wrapped up with the question which it would be out of order for me to raise now. There is no question which the people of this country at the present time are more keenly interested in than that full and complete justice shall be done to the men who have been broken in our wars.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That, as I have just pointed out, is not the topic which we are now discussing, and I must ask the hon. Member not to continue discussion on those lines. If he had been here during the last two or three hours, he would have heard that ruling repeatedly laid down.
  Mr. PRATT: I much regret that I have not kept within order, but I have been away on public business to-day, otherwise I should have been conversant with the ruling you have laid down. I shall confine my remarks, therefore, to the question of public control. The subject which is wrapped up in this measure is one that will touch the House of Commons year after year for generations to come, and if we are not to have full and complete control of the working of these allowances, and particularly of the treatment of disabled soldiers who return from the front, I have great doubt as to whether the promise that was given to us by the Colonial Secretary early in the War will be fulfilled. When the Colonial Secretary was Leader of the Opposition he stated in a very noble sentence at the Guildhall that those who fight our battles can rely upon being treated as the children of the State. How can we secure that that promise, upon which the manhood and the womanhood of this country have relied, can be fulfilled unless we place this work of primary importance in the hands of a body which is kept constantly under the eye of the House of Commons? Matters of great im-
  2102
  portance from week to week and day today will arise in connection with this scheme while the House is sitting, and which ought to be met at once by Members of the Treasury Bench. We ought to be able to have such matters dealt with at once here, and not have to go through the long official circumlocution of the various agencies that are mentioned in the Bill. We ought to be able to go direct to the Treasury Bench, week by week and day by day, to see that the promises that have been held out to the men who are fighting our battles are fairly and generously fulfilled. I am sorry that I cannot support the Government on this occasion.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Mr. Speaker has pointed out how very narrow is the issue which we are discussing. It is really a question between two different forms of statutory Boards, or Committees, who are to manage this particular fund. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has said quite fairly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have control over these funds, and he points out that very large public funds will have to be administered by this Statutory Committee. I do not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have any better control over the funds if they are in the hands of the Statutory Committee that exists in the Bill than if they are in the hands of the Committee which is suggested by the House of Lords. The whole question appears to be as to which of these two bodies is the best. In my judgment the best of the two bodies is that which is suggested by the House of Lords. Although Mr. Speaker has pointed out that the whole matter between us is the question which of these two bodies is the best, we are told by the Government that unless they get the particular body which they want they are going to drop the Bill altogether. I must say that that appears to me to be rather temper than statesmanship. The Government say that if they are not able to get exactly the composition of the administrative body which they want they will drop the Bill altogether. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will really take the responsibility of dropping the Bill with the consequences which he knows it might have to people who have the very first claim upon us. At any rate, if a Division takes place I will not be intimidated by that, but will vote in favour of the body suggested by the House of Lords.
  Sir J. SPEAR: If I intervene for a moment it is because there are a great many soldiers' and sailors' dependants living in my Constituency, and I feel very anxious as to the question under Debate. I am convinced that the method of treating the question adopted by the Government is altogether inadequate, and that the Lords have taken the right view. We shall not get adequate treatment for the dependants of our soldiers and sailors unless we have complete and effective control of the House of Commons. I am satisfied that under the arrangement of the Government sufficient funds will not be forthcoming to do justice to the claims of those who have served their country so well. We cannot get sufficient money for the purpose unless we have complete Parliamentary control. Therefore, I think that the Amendments of the House of Lords should be accepted, and I wish with all my heart they were. But if the Government will not do so, and if this is to be regarded as a temporary measure, then rather than run the risk of losing the Bill finally, and thinking of what a terrible catastrophe this would be to some of my constituents' dependants, I shall have to vote, very reluctantly, for the Government if there is a Division. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has shown

  Division No. 16.]

  AYES.

  [8.25 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Berks.)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hinds, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brace, William

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, Michael

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Cosgrave, James

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Dawes, James Arthur

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Denniss, E. R B.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dillon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Stewart, Gershom

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Doris, William

  Morrell, Philip

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Duffy, William J.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yale, Colonel Charles Edward

  Gordon, John

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Hackett, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  NOES.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Snowden, Philip

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Crooks, William

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Wllloughby H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Pratt, J. W.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldstone and Sir C. Nicholson.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowlands, James

  that he recognises, as fully as anyone, the rights of those people to generous treatment at the hands of the State. I am sure that that is the general view of the people of this country. Hitherto we have not treated the dependants of our soldiers and sailors sufficiently well. We recognise that stronger measures will have to be taken before this matter is finally settled, and that that can only be done by retaining in the hands of this House complete control over the whole machinery for giving effect to this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Report of the Statutory Committee will come before the House, and therefore we shall have some limited opportunity of giving expression to the feelings of the House on the matter. With the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he recognises the rights of soldiers and sailors and their dependants to have fair treatment, and rather than run the risk of delaying for a considerable time the relief which is so necessary, I feel unable to support the Amendment and obliged to vote for the Government.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 21.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "twelve," and insert instead thereof the word "eighteen."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out the words
  "one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;
  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;
  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;
  one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland."—Disagreed with.
  Insert the words, "two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association."—Disagreed with.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move to leave out the word "twenty-five" ["twenty-five members as hereinafter appointed"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven." This is consequential, as the Lords carried an Amendment appointing two.
  Proposed Amendment made. Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Leave out the word "six" ["six of whom shall be women"], and insert the word "two."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out the words "General Council of the Corporation," and insert instead thereof the words "Royal Patriotic Fund."—Disagreed with.
  Insert the following new Sub-section:—
  "(3) The Board shall be a body corporate with a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out Sub-section (3):—
  "Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation."—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out the words "and other allowances," and insert instead thereof the word "expenses."—Agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment, leave out the word "Committee" and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  Consequential Amendments disagreed with.
  Leave out the word "and" ["and the Statutory Committee may appoint."— Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (7):—
  Leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out the words, "Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office."—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (8), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  After the word "may" ["may employ a secretary"], insert the words "with the consent of the Treasury."—Agreed to.
  After the word "may" ["may establish a scheme"], insert the words "pay out of funds at their disposal to such secretary, assistant secretaries, clerks and servants, such salaries or remuneration as they, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, and may with like consent".—Agreed to.
  After the word "employment" ["in their permanent employment"], insert the words "or grant pensions to such persona on retirement."—Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment of Local Committees.)
  (1) For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the Statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that,

  2107
  having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established.
  (2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory Committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

  (a) for the appointment by the council of the county borough or urban district of at least a majority of the local committee; but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and

  (b) for the appointment by the council of the county borough or urban district, from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council, of a chairman; and

  (c) for the inclusion of women and representatives of labour among the members of the local committee.

  (3) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district, and that the council thereof shall have the right of appointing at least a majority of the members of the sub-committee, and in the appointment of every such sub-committee some of the members appointed shall be women.
  Such a sub-committee may, but need not, contain any members of the local committee; and a local committee may delegate to a sub-committee any of its powers and duties under this Act.
  (4) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.
  (5) In the application of this section to Scotland "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh whose lord provost or provost is, as such, a member of the corporation, and "borough" or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.
  (6) In the application of this section to Ireland a reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less
  2108
  than ten thousand shall be substituted for the reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than twenty thousand.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board," and consequential Amendments.—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "county" ["council of the county"], insert the word "or."—Agreed to.
  In paragraph (b), leave out the words "council of the county borough or urban district from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council," and insert instead thereof the words "local committee from amongst their own number."—Agreed to.
  Insert after paragraph (c) the following new Sub-section:—"(3) If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee, the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee."—Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "district" ["for each such district"], insert the words, "which sub-committees are hereinafter referred to as district committees."—Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "sub-committee" [members of the subcommittee"], and insert instead thereof the words "district committee," and consequential Amendments.—Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "and a local committee may delegate to a sub-committee any of its powers and duties under this Act."—Agreed to.
  After Sub-section (3) insert the following new Sub-section—
  (4) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee as aforesaid shall provide for the substantial representation on the local or district committee of persons who have within the area either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, or otherwise, those to be performed by local committees under this Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I suggest that instead of the word substantial you should state definitely some representation, and that the Government should agree, say, to two representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, and one from the Sailors' Help Society.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this point. After all, substantial representation must be proportionate to the total number which is not stated. Three would not be substantial out of thirty, but it would be very substantial out of nine. I think it would be a great pity to tie the scheme up to a definite number of three. "Substantial" is not a term usually found in the drafting of a Bill, but in this instance it gives prominence to our desire to have on these Committees those who have shown by experience, goodwill, and capacity, and desire to do this work.
  Lords Amendment: Insert the following new Sub-section,
  (5) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes as aforesaid the Board shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes.
  Amendment made in Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "Board" and insert instead thereof the words "Statutory Committee."
  Lords Amendments: Insert the following new Sub-sections:—
  (6) A local committee or district committee may also appoint sub-committees, either for any special purposes or for any special parts of their area, and any such committee may consist either wholly or partly of members of the local or district committee, and in particular may appoint a special committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour for the care of disabled officers and men.
  (7) Any two or more local committees may combine together for the joint exercise of any of their powers and duties under this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee, and may agree as to the proportions in which
  2110
  the several local committees represented on the joint committee are to contribute towards the expenses of such joint committee.—Agreed to.
  Insert the following new Sub-section,
  (8) A local committee may delegate to any district committee, and a local committee or district committee may delegate to any sub-committee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers and duties under this Act, whether with or without any restrictions of conditions as it may think fit.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."
  Mr. SAMUEL: This Sub-section proposes to give power for the delegation of powers from the local committee to the district committee or sub-committee of the district committee. I think that is really very extensive power, which has never been given to any sub-committee. I suggest that the words "may delegate to any sub-committee, whether appointed for any locality or not," should be left out, and then the Clause would read:—
  "A local committee may delegate to any district committee any of its powers and duties under this Act, whether with or without any restrictions or conditions as it may think fit."
  No public authority up to now has had power to delegate to sub-committees.
  Mr. DICKINSON: May I draw attention to the fact that the power of delegation was in the Bill as it stood, and it is unnecessary in the Amendment?
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  Sub-section (5), leave out the words "whose lord provost or provost is as such a member of the Corporation," and insert instead thereof the words "with a population of not less than fifty thousand."— Agreed to.
  Leave out Sub-section (6), and consequential Amendments.—Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (1), after paragraph (d) insert the following new paragraph:
  "(e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pen-

  2111
  sions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted."—Agreed to.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (1), paragraph (g) leave out the word "committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  In paragraph (h) leave out the words "committee by the Corporation or," and insert instead thereof the word "Board," and consequential.—Disagreed with.
  After Sub-section (2), insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Board shall appoint a special sub-committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour."
  Amendments made in Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "Board," and instert instead thereof the words "Statutory Committee."
  Lords Amendment:
  After the Sub-section last inserted, insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) The Paymaster-General shall be the treasurer of the Board, and he shall keep such accounts on behalf of the Board as the Treasury may from time to time direct, and the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Board shall be audited in such manner and by such persons as the Treasury may from time to time direct."—Disagreed with.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-section (3).
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," because we have restored the old machinery which was in the Bill as it left the House of Commons.
  Lords Amendment disagreed with.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation."—Agreed to.
  In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board," and consequential Amendment.—Disagreed with.
  In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "War Office," and insert instead thereof the words "Army Council."—Agreed to.
  Leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—Disagreed with.
  Leave out the words "Statutory Committee shall," and insert instead thereof the words "Board may."
  Amendment made in Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "Board" and insert instead thereof the words "Statutory Committee."

  CLAUSE 4.—(Functions of Local Committees.)
  The functions of local committees shall be:—

  (a) to inquire into any case referred to them by the Statutory Committee, and to report to the Statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto;

  (b) to collect and furnish to the Statutory Committee such information as may be required by the Statutory Committee with respect to any matter, and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances with information and advice, especially in the event of payment being unduly delayed;

  (c) to distribute any supplementary grants made by the Statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committee;

  (d) out of any funds at their disposal for the purpose, to make contributions towards the funds administered by the Statutory Committee, to increase pensions, grants, and separation allowances and to make grants or allowances where no pensions, grants, or separation allowances are otherwise payable;

  (e) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid;

  2113

  (f) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.

  Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a) leave out the words "Statutory Committee," and insert instead thereof the word "Board," and consequential Amendment.—Disagreed with.
  After paragraph (d) insert the following new paragraph:—
  "(e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any persons out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences, or during which the payment thereof has been actually interrupted."—Agreed to.
  Leave out paragraph (e).—Agreed to.
  In paragraph (f), after the word "provision," insert the words "subject to the approval of the Board."
  Amendment made in Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "Board," and insert instead thereof the words "Statutory Committee."
  Lords Amendment: After paragraph (f) insert as a new paragraph:—
  (g) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Corporation.)
  (1) Any lord mayor or mayor, lord provost or provost, who is as such a member of the Corporation may, if he is unable or unwilling to act as a member thereof, appoint some other person in his place to be a member of the Corporation; and any person so appointed shall hold office so long as the person by whom he is appointed holds his office as lord mayor, mayor, lord provost or provost.
  (2) In addition to the persons whom the general council of the Corporation may co-opt under the Patriotic Fund (Reorganisation) Act, 1903, the council may co-opt as members thereof any number (not exceeding thirteen) of persons having special experience in work of the character to be performed by the Corporation; but in exercising this power of co-option the
  2114
  council shall include some women as well as men amongst the members so co-opted.
  (3) Every member of the Statutory Committee appointed under this Act shall, by virtue of his office as member of that Committee, be a member of the Corporation; but shall not as such be entitled to act or vote in respect of any question arising before the Corporation as regards matters dealt with by the Corporation independently of this Act.
  (4) The purposes of this Act shall be included amongst the purposes for which the Corporation may solicit and receive contributions from the public and donations of property.
  (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall affect the constitution or powers and duties of the Corporation.
  Lords Amendment:
  Leave out Clause 5, and insert instead thereof Clauses A and B—
  A. Power to Delegate Functions to Existing Organisations.—Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, if in any area functions similar to those entrusted to a local committee are at the time of the passing of this Act being performed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or other organisation, such association or other organisation may, if the local committee so desire, and so far as the local committee may direct, discharge with in such area the functions of the local committee during the continuance of the present War, provided such association or other organisation shall so long continue to perform within such area such functions to the satisfaction of the local committee.
  B. Summary Penalty for False Declaration.—If any person, with a view to obtaining any such pension or grant or allowance as aforesaid, makes or uses, or has before the passing of this Act made or used, any declaration, application, or other written statement knowing the same to be false, he shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and for the purpose of proceedings in respect of any such offence the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place where it was actually committed or at the place where the offender may happen to be, and any declaration on an appropriate official form bearing a stamp purporting to be the office stamp of the Admiralty or Army Council, or any sub-department thereof, with a date

  2115
  subsequent to that on which the declaration purports to have been signed, shall be evidence that the declaration has been used with such view as aforesaid unless the contrary is proved.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to leave out Clause 5."
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend, in his speech a week ago on the consideration of the Lords Amendments, gave almost a definite promise to hon. Members sitting behind him that he would move to disagree with the insertion of Clause A. Personally, I have rather a liking for the new Clause. I think, on the whole, it will be an improvement to the Bill. Yet seeing my right hon. Friend did make a statement that he would move to disagree with the Lords, and seeing that I am more or less acting for him, and in charge of this Bill for him, I feel that there is no chance for me but to move to disagree with the Lords. I beg to move to this effect.
  Lords Amendment to leave out Clause 5 disagreed with.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the Amendment to insert Clause A."
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: My right hon. Friend very rightly carries so much weight in his utterances, that I really cannot quibble with him when, in moving to disagree, he really indicated that he leaned towards the Lords Amendment. Many of us who are sympathetic to the Lords Amendments have to undergo strategical movements of our consciences to-night in entirely agreeing with the Government. We do disagree very much with this, and for this reason; while we thoroughly agree that he Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association should be represented on the local committees, and agree with that Amendment of the Lords, which has already been accepted here, and which provides that they shall have adequate representation, we all feel that if you hand over to them, or any organisation, the complete discharge of these duties in any locality you are thereby arousing the great opposition of other sections of the community who are not represented on these, and cannot be. I have it represented to me both in Lancashire and North-
  2116
  amptonshire how much objection there is to altogether handing over, in any locality even to so admirable an association as this the executive powers which have been given under this Bill to a local committee. Therefore, I hope it will be thoroughly understood that the Government do oppose this, not because they do not wish to give to this admirable association more representation, or as much representation on the district committee as the House of Lords suggested—for with that I am sure we are all thoroughly agreed—but because it would not be practicable for them to be allowed to be the exclusive carriers out of this policy in many parts of England where, through no fault of theirs, but owing to the circumstances of the case, they cannot express the views of various sections of the community in the way in which the ordinary local committees can.
  Lords Amendment disagreed with.

  CLAUSE 6—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915.
  Lords Amendments:
  Leave out the words "naval and military," and after the word "pensions," insert the words "help to disabled men."—Agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr. J. Samuel, and Colonel Yate.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, reported later, and agreed to
  To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

  ULSTER CANAL BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel and Agents heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[The Attorney-General for Ireland.]

WAYS AND MEANS.— [21ST SEPTEMBER: REPORT.]

  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CHARGES.
  Order read for further consideration of—
  Thirty-first Resolution—
  "(1) That it is expedient to make such Amendments in the enactments relating to the rates of postage and other sums to be charged in respect of postal packets as will enable the rate of postage—

  (i.) for an inland postcard to be increased from ½d. to 1d or, if it is a reply postcard, from 1d. to 2d.;

  (ii.) for an inland book packet the weight of which does not exceed two ounces to be increased from ½d. to 1d.;

  (iii.) for an inland registered newspaper to be increased from ½d. to 1d.

  (2) That it is expedient to make such amendments in the enactments relating to the charges for the transmission of telegrams as will enable—

  (i.) the charges for the transmission of written telegrams throughout the United Kingdom to be fixed at a rate not exceeding 9d. for each telegram of twelve words, or for each telegram of less than twelve words, and ½d. for each additional word; and

  (ii.) the charges for Press telegrams to be fixed at rates not exceeding 2s. 6d. for every 100 words transmitted between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m., and 2s. 6d. for every 75 words transmitted between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., to a single address, with an additional charge of 8d. for every 100 words or for every 75 words, as the case may be, of the same telegraphic communication transmitted to every additional address."

  read a second time.
  Order discharged.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

  OUTBREAK NEAR BATH.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do not adjourn."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I promised at Question Time to make any further statement which I could in regard to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somersetshire. Further information which has come to hand this evening shows that the disease has been confirmed in five of the suspected outbreaks reported from the village of Monkton Combe. In the course of the afternoon reports of suspected disease have also been received from another set of premises at Monkton Combe and from one in the adjoining parish of South Stoke. There are, I am sorry to say, indications that the disease has been present, unrecognised, for a considerable number of days, and that some recent movement from infected premises has taken place.

  AIRCRAFT RAIDS.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I want to raise a question that I mentioned during Question Time in regard to the Zeppelin raids, and the advisability, or inadvisability, of giving warning in the towns that are threatened with these raids. I am not myself going to express any very definite opinion on the matter, but I think it would be well if some fuller statement were given by the Home Secretary, so that there might be the largest amount of reassurance, so far as the general public are concerned. I think there is no need at all why there should be panic or scare in this matter, but it is advisable that we should calmly discuss the best means of reducing the loss of life. It is pretty clear that the approach of the Zeppelins is known, and is known to the authorities. I think it is quite safe to say that warnings are given in certain directions, to certain offices, and so on, and the question arises as to whether it would be wise or unwise to extend these warnings to the public generally. It may be said that this in itself would lead to something in the nature of a scare or panic, but, so far as I have observed—and I have been within a very short distance of where bombs were actually falling—the people seemed to take the matter with a great

  2119
  deal of detached interest. But there is this about it: if warnings were given, I think the streets would very quickly be cleared of people, and, quite apart from the actual bombs that fall, there is a good risk from pieces of falling shrapnel from our own anti-aircraft guns. It is certain, I think, that children would be taken out of the streets if warning were given in time. I will not say more, but I think it is desirable that the pros and cons of the question should be discussed with perfect calmness as to how we can reduce the loss of life in the best possible way. It is purely from that point of view that the question should be discussed, and not to raise any passion or feeling against the Government, or anything of that sort, because I think it is wicked to use a matter of this kind for political or semi-political reasons.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question, because I agree with him that it is one in which it is desirable that the arguments on the one side or the other should be placed at the disposal of the public. I am also much obliged to him—and I am sure everybody in the House is—for the entirely reasonable and moderate way in which he has put the matter before us. The question whether public warning should be issued by the authorities in advance of the arrival of the Zeppelins in the London area is a question which has been more than once most carefully considered by the authorities responsible. Indeed, the last occasion when it was minutely examined was so lately as this morning, when I had the advantage of hearing in detail the views of the Department at the Admiralty which answers for the gun defence of London. Let me just interpose at this point this observation: There is really no confusion here between the responsibility of one Department or another. The defence of London from Zeppelin attack is in charge of the Admiralty. The way in which the Home Office comes into the matter is this: that as a consequence of such attacks there may very well be special and most urgent action to be taken by the police, and there is also the question of the regulation of lights. These are necessarily police matters, and it is these matters of a non-military character which the Home Office endeavours to administer, but always subject to the advice of the Anti-Aircraft Department of the Admiralty.
  2120
  Now, how does this matter of warning the public as to the approach of Zeppelins stand? Let me say at once that my anxiety in it is not that London will become panic-stricken. Nothing is more remarkable, nothing is more worthy of praise, than the consistent coolness with which the population of the Metropolis has taken the visits of these airy strangers when they happen to drop in. That is not really the difficulty. The difficulty is a twofold one, and I would like to put it quite plainly to the House. First of all, it must not be supposed that when the authorities first have reason to think that there may be a Zeppelin attack on a given night they are in a position to assert that there is going to be a Zeppelin raid in the London area. The first news, of course, which the authorities here are able to collect, is news of the passage of these Zeppelins, it may be across the North Sea, or across, what I believe some people used to call, the German Ocean. It has constantly happened that Zeppelins have been out for a nocturnal airing of that sort, and have never got inland at all, and it has constantly happened that, although they do touch some portion of the coast of this land, they have wandered about in a perfectly aimless way and dropped these destructive bombs on various agricultural areas, or sometimes, whether by accident or design, on perfectly innocent people in various provincial towns and villages. The House will see, therefore, that when one speaks of the authorities knowing there is going to be a Zeppelin attack, the first thing that is known is nothing more than that there are some of these visitors on the way, but whether they will ever get here, or whether, if they do get to England, they will succeed in making their way to this particular area of London, is a thing no one can possibly prophesy with confidence, and, therefore, if you are going to give warnings to the public, you must face this, that nine times out of ten—I just choose a round figure—I do not know whether I shall express it rightly when I say, the public will be disappointed. That is the first difficulty, and it is in connection with that fact, of course, that arrangements are made to protect, not only London, but other parts of the country, as rapidly as the information at the command of the authoriies permits.
  I do not think this is a matter on which public interest at all requires that one should preserve complete, silence, and I

  2121
  am most anxious that the public should understand how very thoroughly and systematically this problem is being studied, and attempts at a satisfactory solution are being made. It is a matter of the greatest importance that we should not ourselves, by foolish gossip and indiscreet statements, assist these invaders in the slightest degree to identify the part to which they have come. It is the universal opinion of those who have studied this thing, not only on the ground but in the air, that nothing would be less to the interest of the country than that we should make statements of that sort, and, of course, I am not going to do so. But there is not the slightest reason why the public should not understand the sort of way in which this invasion is sought to be dealt with. As soon as it is known there may be such an attempt, and long before it is known with any certainty that London is going to be the successful object, of course steps are taken in order that all possible observation shall be kept by those whose duty it is to keep the observation on the different areas of the coast. If they reach the coast steps are at once taken so as to control the railway traffic in the area affected in order to reduce to a minimum the risk of trains acting as guides to this place or that. That does not mean, of course, that at a moment and in a flash we stop all the trains coming to and from London, but it means that you control the traffic and the most careful arrangements are made to secure that this is effectively done. Arrangements are made in advance to do this in such areas as are material to the purpose for checkmating the invader. It may be that at a later stage some better and some more certain judgment can be formed as to whether the London area is likely to be reached. This sometimes happens and sometimes it does not.
  There are some things which obviously ought to be done and which are done as a precaution forthwith. At a suitable moment the special constables are warned. The system by which we secure the service of doctors in London at different suitable points is all put in motion. You cannot tell what portion of the London area is likely to be attacked for the best of all reasons that the Zeppelin itself has not the remotest idea, and we have strong reason for believing that it has not only no idea in advance but a very hazy idea after the event. It has been thought after the most
  2122
  careful consideration that it is better not to make any preliminary announcement at large to the public, for instance, by the ringing of church bells or the sounding of a hooter. I cannot imagine a better guide for a Zeppelin wandering about the flats in Essex or about Epping Forest than constantly hearing a unanimous chorus of all the church bells and steam whistles of the Metropolis. That is the first difficulty we have endeavoured to face, and that is the conclusion to which we have come. There is a second point. I said it was not panic which disturbs us. After all, if you do tell the men and the women and children of the Metropolis that it may be in the course of an hour or two hours' time that we shall be honoured with a visit from a Zeppelin, what is it exactly which the men, women and children are expected to do? Of course if those who conduct these invasions were careful to do no damage to civilian life; if they really were prepared and were able to take precautions not to strike private property, it would be a very reasonable thing to secure that everybody went home. But our own experience goes to show that the Zeppelin does not pay the slightest attention to things of that sort.
  Supposing you tell the population of London that there might be a Zeppelin coming, I cannot help suspecting that what most of them would do would be to go out into the streets and have a look at it. I think our own experience has really confirmed that. It is an instance of the coolness and courage, and of the contempt with which the Londoner regards these dastardly outrages. But that does not assist to protect the lives of Londoners. I asked the other day that the papers should be analysed, in order that I might know in regard to the different casualties in the London area, whether they had occurred in the open air or in the houses, and the House may be interested to know that a very substantial proportion of the casualties, both fatal and otherwise, have occurred in the streets, and observe, although these attacks occur at night, and at a time when the larger part of the population would naturally be under cover. That goes to show that the probable consequence of telling everybody that there may be a Zeppelin to-night would not reduce the number of people suffering injury. Let me say frankly, that there have been one or two cases in which I have been much puzzled as to what would be the better course to take. Let me take an extreme

  2123
  instance, to show what I mean. It may happen before we have done with these invaders that a theatre gets struck, and the people assembled there, for perfectly peaceful and innocent enjoyment, may suddenly find a bomb dropped among them. If, unfortunately, that did happen it might do damage to a number of innocent people, and great as the coolness of the Londoner is, it might create some sort of local panic.
  I thought at one time that it might be desirable that we should arrange with the theatres that in certain events they should be warned of this possibility, but I ask the House to consider the arguments the other way. In the first place, it is questionable what the effect would be on a theatre audience. I heard of a case the other night. It was a cinema where there was some such intimation given, and I believe the proceedings were stopped and afterwards one or two persons present bitterly complained that having paid their money they wanted their money's worth. A great many more people thought the alternative attraction was too good to be missed and promptly went out into the streets. Supposing you urged these people to go home. A large number of them go by train. If there is any immediate risk of a Zeppelin attack in the London area we stop the trains, and the result would be that if you were able to warn our peaceful population a large proportion of them would assemble at the termini of the railway companies. Trains could not run out, and the consequence would be that you would have a great collection of people under another roof which, if the enemy paid any regard to ordinary military considerations, would be a more suitable object for his attention than a theatre or a music hall. You have all sorts of other assemblies.
  I wish to tell the House that I am glad of this opportunity of telling hon. Members here publicly that the view which is presented to me by the Admiralty and which we have felt it right to adopt—always subject of course to alteration in the light of further and greater consideration—is that on the whole it is better not to attempt to warn people of the suggested approach of the Zeppelins. The public must therefore understand that if they feel, as some of them very naturally may do, that this leaves them in more than one sense in the dark, they really must take their own risk if they choose to go to places where a number of people are
  2124
  assembled together at night. They will be able to estimate the extent of that risk, and I have no doubt that they will act in this matter reasonably and fairly. I apologise for having taken so long, but the matter is one which very closely affects the interests of all of us, and upon which the man in the street is very naturally and closely concerned. I was anxious to show to the House that this has not been some hasty, careless, and despotic policy of the Government to conceal from the people of England the truth, but a deliberate policy adopted as a practical decision after most carefully weighing the pros and cons of the matter.
  I might say, in conclusion, that I believe there are some areas in England, some towns in England, where the alternative policy has been actually tried. I have not had any representations from any hon. Members representing those areas as to how it has worked, but in one such area I have reason to know that the number of false alarms that have been given have produced a very great deal of consternation and disappointment, and the total result, to say the least of it, is extremely doubtful from the point of view of perfect public security and safety. The truth is that in this and other matters, since we are at war, and since our enemy chooses to adopt these devices, we have got to show him that it is not an idle boast, but that it is a genuine fact that Englishmen, men and women, Londoners no less than others, are prepared to face even the tragic incidents of war with courage, calmness, and resolution. Londoners and others may be perfectly satisfied that everything that can be done shall be done in order to minimise any risk to which they may be put. Nobody can feel more keenly than the Government do the seriousness of the individual tragedies which have been created by these horrible attacks, but just as it is the determination of our people to carry this War to a victorious conclusion, so it is, after all, an incident, though a very grave incident, which we here at home have got to bear, and which is small in comparison with the daily and nightly risks run by our heroes on the field of battle.

  ULSTER CANAL BILL.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to enter a protest against the action of the Government in taking the Ulster Canal Bill and referring it to a Hybrid Committee without any notice whatever. There was no notice on the Paper that this Bill was to be re-

  2125
  ferred to a Hybrid Committee. It is a wholly unusual thing to do, and in view of the history of the Bill, the Government certainly should not have lent themselves to a manœuvre of this kind. This Bill twenty-seven years ago was crammed down our throats by the late Mr. W. H. Smith refusing all Amendments, and declaring that it should be read a third time without the smallest consideration for this House. He got the late Mr. Stansfeld to move that Motion. We had the Treasury foisting on to a little Ulster Committee a burden which they had borne, and we prophesied that this little Ulster Committee would be practically unable to run the canal. We were overborne by Conservative votes, the Treasury was relieved of its obligation, and by a manœuvre such as this House had never heard of before, this private Bill was rushed through the House without Amendment, all our Amendments being absolutely wiped out. What has happened? Everything that we said has turned out to be true, the whole traffic on this canal has become paralysed, and the Government bring in a public Bill for the first time to amend a private Bill. If anyone takes the Bill in his hands he will see that it is a provision entirely to amend this private Bill by a public Act. What, forsooth, is the Amendment? It is to close the canal to traffic for one year. That is the remedy which the Government proposes to apply, instead of saying to the Treasury, who foisted this Bill upon this small Ulster Committee by these coercive measures of twenty-seven years ago: "Everything the Irish Members prophesied has become true. We will take up the burden upon ourselves, and upon the Imperial taxpayer once more." Instead of doing that the Attorney-General for Ireland, being a member of a Coalition Ministry, thinks it well to help his friends in the North of Ireland to gloss over this gross and unpardonable scandal by moving to-night without any notice to us to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee.
  The procedure of this House during this War has fallen very low, but I did not think it had fallen below zero. Apparently it has fallen below zero, and now we have a hybrid Committee set up without notice to the House to amend a private Bill and to relieve these gentlemen who stepped forward in the year 1888 to take over a Treasury burden of the obligations which they voluntarily undertook, and to close this canal to the public of Ulster,
  2126
  and to the traders of that large and influential community. I call on the Government to do that which Mr. Gladstone always did whenever Members complained that they had had no notice of what was being done, and to discharge the Order referring this Bill to a hybrid Committee. I say that they are bound in honour and fairness to do so. I never believed for a moment that the Government intended to take that course to-night. I have to complain that the Attorney-General has taken a course which is utterly irrational and uncalled for. The Government had no business to refer this Bill to a hybrid Committee without notice. We are entitled to such notice, and the fact that there is a great War existing in Europe does not affect the question of notice being given to Members of this House. I tried to get from the Private Bill Office the report of the examiners, but the gentleman in charge there told me that they could not give me the Report. I do not know whether the examiners have reported or not. It is not a matter for the examiners, but for this House. It is a matter of the public conduct of the business of the House, and it is a shame that by a manœuvre a Bill of this kind should be rushed through in this way without notice to us. I hope the Prime Minister will be in his place on Tuesday next, and well enough to take part in so small a matter. I hope that as this is a vital matter affecting the north of Ireland, and the faith of the British Treasury towards the Irish people, the Prime Minister will on Tuesday next consent to discharge this Order referring this Bill to a hybrid Committee, and allow us to search the conduct of the Treasury for the last quarter of a century in respect of this measure. I say that a more uncalled-for act than this taking of a sharp turn on us to-night, when the Irish Members were not present, was never committed. I am surprised at the Attorney-General. But he is new to his office, and I am sure that when he has had further experience he will not repeat such action.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. John Gordon): I really do not understand what all this indignation is about. This Bill was presented to the House, it went before the Chairman of Committees, who at first considered, and rightly so, that there were no Standing Orders that had to be complied with, and that it should come before the House as a public Bill. Mr. Speaker, on looking into

  2127
  the matter, came to the conclusion that it ought to be referred to the usual Committee in cases of this kind, and he intimated that to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I mentioned the matter again before the Bill was moved to-night.
  Mr. HEALY: Why was not notice of it an the Paper?
  Mr. GORDON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give my answer. I mentioned the matter to Mr. Speaker, and asked if I would be in order after the Second Reading to-night, in moving to refer the Bill to a Committee in the usual way, to a Committee composed of three Members selected by the House of Commons and two by the Committee of Selection. I was told that I would be in order, and I would remind the hon. and learned Member that yesterday the Minister of Munitions, who was in charge of Government business, when asked what the business would be for this day, named several Bills, and added that, if time permitted, this Ulster Canal Bill and another measure would be taken. That was distinct and definite notice.
  Mr. HEALY: It was not notice of an intention to refer it to a hybrid Committee.
  Mr. GORDON: The ruling of the Chair was that it could be done in the way we have done it to-night. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill. All the Government wish to do is to preserve the right of those interested in canals in the North of Ireland and they can only be preserved if this Bill is passed. If it is wrecked you may destroy the usefulness of this canal. An hon. Member of this House interested in one of the canals which this Bill gives power to the Board of Works, with the sanction of the Treasury to close approached me on the ques-
  2128
  tion, and I at once communicated with the Commissioner of Works in Ireland and was able to give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that the canal would not be interfered with. It is only five or six miles—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a little bit anticipating the inquiry by the Committee to which the House has referred the Bill.
  Mr. GORDON: I fear that I was, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman makes a suggestion of sharp practice on my part, I do think he should have some more solid grounds for it.
  Mr. HEALY: My complaint is that there was no notice of your intention to refer it to a Hybrid Committee.
  Mr. GORDON: If I had known that the hon. and learned Member was going to be in the House to-night I certainly would have told him, but I have not seen him at all. So far as I am concerned, I say I am absolutely blameless in the matter. I have done nothing more than take the ordinary course in accordance with the Rules of the House, and I am merely trying to do some good to Irish interests.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes before Ten of the clock till Tuesday next (26th October) pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

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