HC Deb 15 August 1916 vol 85 cc1809-24

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

This is a Bill to provide for one particular form of War saving. The House generally will agree that it is desirable to adopt many measures for securing savings for all classes of the community for the purpose of providing the Government with the necessary money for the prosecution of the War. Experience shows that different methods appeal to different classes of the community, and even to people in different districts of the country. This particular Bill has been suggested by the Corporation of Birmingham, and the idea of it is to provide machinery by which members of the working classes willing to contribute small sums of money weekly through their employers may find a means of so employing that money and contributing it for the purposes of the Government through a municipal savings bank. This savings bank is only to be carried on during the War, and for three months from the expiration of the War. All the money will be invested through the National Debt Commissioners in certain securities specified in this Bill.

When a similar Bill was introduced some little time ago the bankers took certain exceptions to it. The Bill was altered to meet their objections, and at the end of June we received a letter from the Bankers' Clearing House saying that their Committee had considered the new draft of the Municipal Savings Bank (War Loan Investment) Bill, and in view of the fact that it had evidently been drafted with a view to meeting the objections of the bankers to the original Bill, they decided not to oppose its introduction. I cannot conceive that the Bill in its present form is at all detrimental to the interests of the bankers. It is evident that this particular business is not likely to be undertaken by bankers. It never has been, and is never likely to be.

I hope the House will take the view that it is our duty to provide as many avenues as possible by which the savings of the people may flow into the Treasury. If the Corporation of a great City like Birmingham asks for a particular method for the period of the War, without interfering, so far as I can see, with any other business, I hope the House will meet their wishes, because they are, after all, performing a patriotic duty. I do not think I need dwell upon the details of the Bill. They are perfectly simple. The whole of this money will be used for national purposes. The arrangements will be under the control of the Treasury, and the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Birmingham believe that there will be a successful collection of money by this method in Birmingham. Whether or not other great towns choose to take up the same method is a matter for themselves. There is one point in the Bill to which I might refer, that is that it is confined to towns with large populations. It is not desirable that there should be a number of these banks for small savings. It is really a method more suitable for large towns than for small places. I hope the House will allow this experiment to be tried and will accede to the wish of the Corporation of the City of Birmingham.

Sir F. BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has had certain communications some few weeks ago from the secretary of the Bankers' Clearing Committee. There was some misunderstanding about that communication. It should never have been made in that form, and, secondly, it was overridden by a communication which was made to the right hon. Gentleman verbally about ten days or a fortnight ago.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD

Since the date to which the right hon. Baronet refers, I have had an opportunity of seeing representatives of the bankers of London, and they inform me that they had no intention of going back upon the letter to which I have referred. That is the last news I have heard.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know that it is any use pursuing this controversy. I have had an opportunity of speaking to the Secretary of State for India. There has evidently been a mistake, but my statements are correct. I had an interview in the presence of my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) last Wednesday with the representative of the bankers.

Mr. MCKENNA

He is not the representative of the bankers.

Sir F. BANBURY

He was asked by the bankers to make a report to the Governor.

Mr. MCKENNA

I can assure the right hon. Baronet I have put that specific point to the Chairman of the Committee or the Sub-Committee of the Clearing House Banks, and he assured me that that was a mistake. Of course, the Governor of the Bank of England does not represent the bankers.

Sir F. BANBURY

The bankers requested him to represent them at a meeting at the Bank of England. The whole of the Bankers' Clearing Committee were present, and they unanimously made that request. I have told the right hon. Gentleman this before, and I am sure he is not questioning my veracity, as I Was present, and know exactly what occurred. However, the real subject before us is whether or not it is advisable to pass this Bill, and whether or not it will do what the right hon. Gentleman said was the primary object of it, namely, collect money for the purpose of the War, and hand it over to the Government. There are two objections, to my mind, to this Bill. One is a financial objection. The idea of the Bill is entirely wrong, because what it does is to take money which is repayable at seven days' notice and to invest it either in Treasury Bills or in any sum which the Treasury is authorised to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under any Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Act. That might be a five-year bond or a longer bond, and the consequence is that the money which the Corporation would receive, and which they would be liable to repay to the depositor at seven days' notice, might be locked up in five-year or longer bonds, and consequently they would be unable to find it in order to repay to the depositor what he had deposited. There have been certain institutions which have done something of this sort, though they have generally invested the money for longer periods. Anyone conversant with the City will know the institution to which I am referring, and it has always ended in disaster—because they have not been able, their money being locked up, to find the money, if there has been a run on them, which it is necessary to find for their depositors. In the years gone by, when money was very cheap, it was not an unusual thing for certain people to borrow money for a few days, and with that borrowed money to invest in longer-dated securities. So long as everything went on well that was quite cautious and answered; but when there was anything like a panic, or money became dear, the invariable result was that these people all lost their money.

The rates of a town are not meant to be used for proceedings of this sort. Financially, it is wrong, and if it results in a loss the ratepayers have to pay. The rates of a town were never meant for proceedings of this sort, and if we are to have municipal banking, there is no reason why we should not have municipal banking or brewing, or municipal anything else, of which, no doubt, some hon. Members are in favour, but to which I certainly am, and I believe a good many hon. Members of this House are, opposed. What about the effect of this Bill, and as to whether or not it will result in obtaining the savings of the working classes? I am glad that one or two—I only see one or two representatives of the Trade Unions are present. I would call their attention to a meeting which was held in Birmingham on the 12th of May of this year, and I am reading from a report of the "Birmingham Daily Post." The paragraph is headed: "Municipal Savings Banks. Opposed by Trade Union Officials—Resolution of Support Withdrawn."

This was a meeting of trade union leaders and secretaries which was held "at the Birmingham Council House last night"—that is on the 11th May—"to discuss the Municipal Savings Bank scheme initiated by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham. The Lord Mayor presided, and was supported by the following Members of the Committee"—whose names I need not read. Then the scheme was outlined, and it was supported by the Lord Mayor and others. Now comes Mr. Shakespeare, representing the National Union of Railwaymen, and he opposed the Bill. He said that his great objection to the scheme was the question of the employer, though that objection had to some extent been minimised by the explanation that had been given. What was meant by that was that this scheme—the right hon. Gentleman did not say so—the money which was to be invested in this bank, and I call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen to this, was not to be deposited by the workman themselves, but by their employers, and Mr. Shakespeare, representing the National Union of Railwaymen, objected to it on that ground. Then Mr. Crump, representing the Corporation Tramwaymen, asked how the City Council employés with their present wages could save, and said that as a Council employé he could not see his way to adopt the scheme. Another delegate declared that no scheme could be a success where the employer had any idea what a man was saving. Then, Mr. Cook, of the House and Ship-Painters' Union, said that at a meeting of his society called to discuss the scheme every man disagreed with the idea of letting the employer know how much he was going to save. Mr. Merrill, representing the Gas Workers' and Corporation servants, said that a majority felt strongly that it was impossible to do anything in the way of putting anything aside, and a representative of the Electrical Union while wholeheartedly supporting the scheme (Hon Members "Hear, Hear,")— that is the first one—voiced the same view in regard to his fellow-workers, The result of all this was that the resolution was withdrawn. That would look as if the workmen of Birmingham were hardly likely to support the scheme. It is financially unsound because it proceeds in the wrong way, and it is evident that the workers do not support it. Even if they did the only result would be that their savings, instead of going into the Government savings bank, would go into this bank. I do not know what the interest is going to be.

Sir FRANCIS LOWE

Three and a-half per cent., free of Income Tax.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is very nearly 5 per cent. It is a much larger rate of interest than is given by the Post Office Savings Bank, and the result would be that savings would be taken out of the Post Office Savings Bank and put into this bank. What earthly good that would do the Government I do not know. When I say 3½ per cent., free of Income Tax, I observe a smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The question is whether the income is liable to Income Tax and Super-tax.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know what wages workmen in Birmingham are getting at the present moment, but under the Finance Bill that was passed a year ago the limit was reduced to £120, and there must be a great number of workmen in Birmingham who are receiving certainly £3 a week and would therefore be subject to Income Tax on a certain portion of their income. I think that this is quite a novel principle, and there has been considerable objection to it. In fact, the first Bill has been dropped, and it is not right to bring on a second Bill for Second Reading without warning. I did not know until I got down here to-day at 3.15 that this Bill was going to be taken. There is a considerable number of Members who think with me upon this question. Suppose that this Bill is going to do what the right hon. Gentleman says, yet we have been at war for two years and there can be no hurry about this Bill. I really do not think it quite fair to take it at a quarter to twelve o'clock on a night like this without the slightest notice having been given that it was coming on.

The right hon. Gentleman said this is going to be limited to the duration of the War. There is a Clause to that effect, but is that the intention of the promoters? I have here a report of the Finance Committee of the Corporation of Birmingham, presented to the Council on the 4th April, 1916, of their proceedings upon this Bill. The report says, There is no doubt direct advantage but very little risk. There will he some additional labour, but if those of the working-classes who are now spending practically all their earnings can be induced to save a portion of them by means of this scheme, undoubtedly the country will stand to gain after the War, when employment may be irregular. There is nothing there about the State gaining, or money going to the Government; it is the city which is going to gain after the War. But this is what I want to call attention. We have been told by the Financial Secretary that this is a temporary measure for the duration of the War, but this report says, In addition, this scheme might become a permanent part of municipal administration.

Sir F. LOWE

That is not in the Bill, which is temporary.

Sir F. BANBURY

This is the recommendation of the Finance Committee of the City of Birmingham. Of course, it is not in the Bill; it would not be allowed to appear in the Bill, for the Bill would not go through if it did. This is not a temporary measure for the War; it is to get a little advantage under the guise of a temporary savings measure, which will promote saving during the War. In addition, this scheme might become a permanent part of municipal administration— although it is now only suggested as a war-time expedient, and it must exercise n highly beneficial effect in educating the people who have never saved before. I think I have shown, first of all, that the Bill is based upon unsound financial principles, and, secondly, that if it is anything at all, it will only take the money out of the savings banks, and therefore takes it out of one pocket belonging to the Government and puts it into another. The whole Bill is not a genuine Bill; it is an attempt to introduce as a near measure something which will be permanent. A very large number of the people of this country are strongly opposed to it. There was a Division earlier, 9 against and 68 for—that meant 77 Members in the House.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

There were 81.

Sir F. BANBURY

We will not squabble about the number, but at any rate there were under 90 Members present very nearly an hour ago. It will be useless to divide, for there is a strong body of supporters of the Government here: I shall therefore content myself by making my protest. But I must ask that the Committee stage shall be taken at a reasonable hour and with proper notice, so that those of us who are opposed to the Bill may come down and state our opinions and take what action we think right upon it.

The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)

I am deeply interested in the Bill as a Member for Birmingham, and as a relative, a near relative of the Lord Mayor of that city, who is deeply interested himself in this subject, and to whose efforts the adoption of the project, in the first instance by the Corporation, and now the presentation of this Bill by the Government, are largely due.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that as regards the attitude of the bankers there has been a misunderstanding. Nobody who knows my right hon. Friend would accuse him, nor would I any of the other gentlemen concerned of wilfully misleading anybody with whom they were negotiating or discussing any of these matters. But we can deal as a body only with the formal expression of the opinion of the bankers which they or their officer addressed to us. I agree that it would not be very useful to pursue that subject now. My right hon. Friend has often led me into the Lobbies of this House; once or twice in our comparatively long House of Commons careers he has been good enough to follow me. But I am certain he will not persuade me to-night, and I am afraid I shall not persuade him, because I think he has to this Bill a rooted objection which is connected with his whole outlook on political questions, and is not based on the particular arguments that he addressed to the House, a large portion of which I must say came with singularly ill-grace from my right hon. Friend. He impressed upon the House, in the interests of the supposed interests of the bankers, that this Bill would promote their being subjected to competition, which I think would merely stimulate their business by encouraging habits of thrift among the people and really cause them no danger whatever. He quoted with approval a statement that even at the present time no working man can save, and he gave his authority or countenance to the suggestion that no working man is safe if his employer knows he is saving.

Sir F. BANBURY

I was merely reading the statement; I was expressing no opinion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman was merely quoting for his own purposes; that is what I said. My right hon. Friend says that this is unsound finance, that the money is to be taken for short periods, and may be invested in long-dated securities, and that that is a most injudicious banking practice which has led certain institutions with limited resources and a limited clientele to disaster. My right hon. Friend has really misread the Bill. In the first place, the money is to be invested through the National Debt Commissioners, and it is to be invested as those Commissioners think fit. The dangerous Corporation in question cannot fling the money about as it pleases. It is to invest it in accordance with the directions of the National Debt Commissioners, either in Treasury Bills or in Ways and Means advances. That is the meaning of the rest of the Clause. It would not admit of investment in a new War Loan. It is not conceivable, as the bank is to be wound up as rapidly as may be after the War, that the Commissioners would authorise a long-dated investment when they know that all the securities must be realised at, whatever period the War may last, a comparatively early time. I venture to say, therefore, that the finance is not as unsound as my right hon. Friend thought.

Sir F. BANBURY

I quite admit that long-dated securities cannot be taken, but the actual words are these:—

"All sums.… shall be invested through the National Debt Commissioners in such of the following securities issued for the purposes of the present War as those Commissioners think fit, that is to say, either in Treasury Bills or in advances to the Treasury of sums which the Treasury may borrow for the purpose of raising any sum which they are authorised to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under any Consolidated Fund Act or Appropriation Act."

That would include Exchequer Bonds.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

No, I am advised not. I did raise the objection. I am advised it means Ways and Means advances. But I really do not rest my case upon whether these words mean Ways and Moans advances and nothing else or whether they do not. I rest my case on the fact that in the first place the Corporation of Birmingham are not fools, whatever my right hon. Friend thinks.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not say they were.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

And that really, in the second place, the National Debt Commissioners are not fools and are not going to invest money which on the face of it is to be released at an early date in a security which has a very distant date. They will not do so and they will not allow it to be done. My right hon. Friend said that banks of this kind were undesirable. He may be thinking of institutions which have come to grief and which had no other resources but their depositors' funds and which, on a sudden run, had investments not easily realised or not realisable. My right hon. Friend admits that in this case the bank would have the rates to go to. The ratepayers will look after that. They have very complete control of the Corporation of Birmingham; they have some trust in it and some knowledge of it. They can hold their representatives to account. How are they to make a loss. The Corporation might have, under the circumstances which my right hon. Friend imagined, and which I think extremely unlikely, to advance money for the account of the bank, but the securities will be perfectly good security and they will recover the whole of the money in a very short time and will make no loss except, at the outside, a small loss of interest. We come to the objections which my right hon. Friend, without endorsing, culled from the report of a meeting presided over by the Lord Mayor, and at which a resolution was proposed in support of this Bill and was withdrawn. The meeting took place a good deal of time ago.

Sir F. BANBURY

On the 27th May, I think.

12.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think the subject is better understood now, and I do not think that the same result would follow on the calling of a similar meeting to-day. There was not a single representative of any of the munition works of Birmingham present at the meeting, and the objections there were that the working men had no money to save. We know they are saving. I know one firm which collected from its employés and invested in Government funds on their behalf a sum of £10,000. It is a trifle compared with what we are borrowing, but it is a trifle worth having. That sum has been invested in War Loan by the employés of that firm which made facilities for its people to do so. Then the right hon. Gentleman said objection was taken at that meeting to the employers knowing the amount standing to the credit of their workers, but infinite trouble was taken by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in conjunction with the workmen, to devise a workable scheme. They never know what a man has to his credit, for they never know what he has withdrawn at any moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that that objection had been very largely removed, from what he heard. I think it has been wholly removed. The right hon. Gentleman said further that the employer makes the deposit on behalf of the workman. What does the employer do now when he has a large number of men to pay? He sends to the bank for so much gold or notes, so many half-crowns, so many two-shilling pieces, so many shillings, and so forth. If this Bill comes into force he will add to his list so many coupons, and the bank will send them to him. Then he will pay the worker—let us say a man earning £2 a week—a sovereign and a half sovereign in notes, eight shillings in silver, and a two-shilling coupon. That is what the right hon. Gentleman calls the employer making the deposit on behalf of the workman.

Sir F. BANBURY

made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

My right hon. Friend is really unreasonable. That is a security put into the Bill in order to protect the bank against undue competition with their present business, and this Bill is limited to getting the class of business which they do not get now, which nobody gets now, and which it is very much in the interests of the State and of the workpeople that we should get in some way or another. My right hon. Friend said you will only withdraw savings from savings banks. That is guarded against by the very provision to which my right hon. Friend now takes exception. It is put in to afford protection against that. You have got to deal with a man in receipt of wages subscribed through his employer, though precautions are taken, as I have said, that his employer shall not know the amount standing to his credit at any time. Being thus limited, if it attracts anybody it will attract people who do not now go to the banks and make deposits, who do not to any large extent go to the savings bank and make deposits there. We put in the Bill a Clause limiting the amount standing in any man's name in order to give the same protection to the banks against competition as there is in respect; of savings bank deposits. You have considerable numbers of working-people making bigger money than they ever made before. We know that it is in the interests of the State now to stop unnecessary expenditure and to secure the loan of all available money. It has been said that if the workmen spend the money, at any rate the shopkeepers will deposit it with somebody else. What happens in the meantime? So much labour is being employed on unnecessary work when necessary work is undone for want of it. So much money and so much effort has been wasted that might have been saved. More than that. My right hon. Friend quoted in condemnation of this statement of the Finance Committee that it would be in the interests of the City, that when the War is over and had times came, large bodies of working men would have accumulations to their credit. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend does not understand the meaning of what he quoted, or it would have his hearty sympathy instead of his condemnation. Clearly it must be in the interests of the City that instead of having citizens who have nothing with which to face a rainy day it has citizens with something in reserve after that rainy day? If in the crisis of this War, when thrift is being preached on all hands, as it is being preached, and that by thrift the working classes not only can help their country but learn habits of thrift by aiding this, you not only do something to serve the immediate interests of the War but something to promote a most desirable social—revolution I call it! At any rate a great social change for the better. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that if the experiment is successful it might be permanent. That is for a future House of Commons to decide. Hon. Members are net asked to make the thing permanent now. On the contrary, we are asked to say that it is for the War, and for the War only, and it has to come to an end as soon as may be afterwards. That can only be reversed by a new Act of Parliament. My right hon. Friend complains that the Bill is taken now at this late hour. The Bill was introduced—and experience has proved that we were right—with good reason to think that we had banking approval. My right hon. Friend opposed it, and in deference to his wishes it was withdrawn. The matter was hung up for a long time, all the good that it might do being jeopardised. A new Bill was then brought in designed to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend. Again it was postponed at his request. Now he complains, after all the way we have tried to meet him, that we are taking it in the closing days of the Session.

Sir F. BANBURY

What I said was that I thought we should have had a couple of days' or so notice.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

My right hon. Friend knows how legislation is dealt with at the end of the Session. But it is scarcely to the point that he should complain of the lateness of the Bill when it has been proposed as it has at his desire! He has made his protest and I hope he will not persist in his opposition to a scheme that I really believe to be in the immediate interests of the nation, and for the purposes of the War; to help those who at present are making good wages to make provision for bad times, and so save themselves and their families much trouble.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I have been intensely interested in listening to the two speeches which have just been delivered. The speech of the Secretary of State for India was particularly pleasing, for it was in the best traditions of civic development, associated, as the right hon. Gentleman deserves to be, with an honourable name in the development of municipal activity. The note which the right hon. Gentleman struck, indicating that he at least was not going to commit himself to opposition to the development of this idea, seemed to me to be quite praiseworthy. The same thought occurred as to how significant some recent developments have been arising out of a state of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London is now posing as the champion of trade union interests.

Sir F. BANBURY

No!

Mr. GOLDSTONE

At any rate, he is prepared to put forward what they say. The right hon. Gentleman is usually a little more acute. He did not disclose to the House that not a single objection was raised by a trade union leader in Birmingham to the principle underlying this Bill. The two main objections have already been indicated. First of all, there is the inadequacy of the money available for savings in respect of low-paid wage-earners; and the second is a very deep- rooted objection to the employer knowing the amount that a man is putting by. Not a single exception was taken at the meeting quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the principle of the Bill, and I am sure that if a resolution were put to any trade union conference advocating the setting up of municipal banks it would be carried with scarcely a dissentient. As far as trade union opinion is concerned, it is emphatically in favour of the establishment of municipal banks with the credit behind them that the rates can provide. The right hon. Gentleman is quite prepared to have national credit behind joint stock banks in an emergency, and to use the taxes to save joint stock concerns. What difference is there in principle between that and the municipal banks? I understood at the outbreak of war the banking position was saved because of the national credit which was guaranteed by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Surely the Bank of England was guaranteed, and the whole of the State credit was brought behind the banking movement and the banking interests to safeguard it. The Moratorium was granted to benefit the banks.

Sir F. BANBURY

Certainly not.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

It was intended to preserve their credit. The right hon. Gentleman is much concerned when dividends and the directors who take fat fees are affected, but he opposes legislation when it is a case of the people taking the business into their own hands because there is a possibility that certain monied interests will suffer and have work taken from them which they think is their legitimate concern. I regard this movement with approval, and if I have a criticism to make it would be that the rate of interest in the interests of the banks is kept so low that any municipal bank shall not enter into successful competition with joint stock concerns. At every point in this Bill the interests of the great banks of the country are concerned, and the thing is so hedged about with limitations that if this proves a success, having regard to the limitations imposed, it would seem that it would justify a very wide extension in post-war days.

Mr. HAZLETON

I am not going to enter into the quarrel with regard to the financial aspects of this Bill. I would only like to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London with regard to his views on municipal savings banks. There are, however, just one or two things in this Bill which I do not understand. Section (a) is a very curious provision, in view especially of the arguments we have heard from the Treasury Bench in advocacy of this Bill. It says that the banks shall not receive any deposits except from persons in the employment of some other persons and made through their employers. That is in itself a very curious provision. I do not say that I am opposed to it, although I do think some objection could be urged to that proposal as it stands. If the anxiety of the Treasury is very properly to get as much money as they can for war purposes and to utilise the savings of the people in every way, why do you, in a Bill of this kind, make it impossible for anybody else to invest their savings in these municipal banks except through their employers? Why should not anybody be free to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "To oblige the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London."]

Sir F. BANBURY

I had nothing to do with the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. HAZLETON

That is a point I do not understand, and I should be glad to hear some explanation of it. The only other point on the merits of that Sub-section is one which I am sure the Labour leaders have looked carefully into, and no doubt they can give us some assurances I that this is not a Sub-section which can be I unfairly used by employers against their I employés in order to make deductions from their wages which the employés did not I themselves feel reasonable and voluntarily; able to make. I am sure that question has been considered in Birmingham. I did not know if this was a Bill which applied only to the Municipality of Birmingham whether it would be introduced as a public or a private Bill. As introduced, it applies only to England and Scotland. That is the way legislation of this kind is so frequently handled by Government de- partments and brought before this House. We had an illustration of this kind of thing only this morning in connection with the War Charities Bill. Here we have another illustration, and to my mind a much less defensible one, for whatever arguments there might have been in connection with the other Bill, this is a voluntary Bill. Any municipality over a certain population that chooses to do so can put this Act into operation, and start these municipal savings banks; but although you are quite willing to tax Ireland to the full extent by means of war taxes, if there are any advantages in this Bill, you are not willing to extend them to Ireland for these war savings. I do not say that Ireland wants this Bill. I know perfectly well that there are only a couple of municipalities in Ireland to which this Bill could apply, because of the population limitation you have imposed; but even for those few municipalities, if this Bill is a good one likely to have a beneficial effect, and is going to help the Government, you might by making a slight alteration give these few municipalities the option of saying whether they will come into this Bill or not for the time of the War, and I shall raise that question again in Committee.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Rea.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.