Commons Sitting of 21 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 211, 223, and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Un opposed Bills have leave to sit and proceed with the Bill (if Unopposed) forthwith."
This Bill affects the supply of munitions, and I have a special request from the Minister of Munitions that, if possible, it may be completed before the House adjourns.
Question put, and agreed to.

BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Forty-eighth Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACT, 1875.
Copy presented of Regulations with regard to the Pharmaceutical Licence Examination [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of St. Andrews for 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of St. Andrews for the year 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 18th August, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 18th August, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
Copies presented of Seven Orders in Council, dated 18th August, 1916, respecting Winter Assize Counties, Nos. 1 to 7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERSEY CHANNELS ACT, 1897.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 18th August, 1916, made under the Acts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1875–6 to 1915–16, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 16th August, 1916, granting a Re-tired Allowance to Mr. Thomas Ince, Postmaster, Blyth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    SALARIED CONSULAR OFFICIALS (ENEMY COUNTRIES).
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many salaried Consular officials were employed in enemy countries before the outbreak of War; whether he can give any detailed information as to how many are now receiving their salaries; and whether the duties they are now discharging are in every respect specially calculated to promote British trade interests after the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The number of salaried Consular officers who were employed in enemy countries before the War is as follows:

    In Austria-Hungary

    …

    …

    5

    In Germany

    …

    …

    9

    In Turkey

    …

    …

    23

    In Bulgaria

    …

    …

    3

    Total

    …

    …

    40

    With the exception of three, who have retired, one whose services have been lent to the military authorities, and one who is a prisoner of war, all the above-mentioned Consular officers are employed in various capacities and continue to receive their salaries or the salaries of other posts to which they have been appointed. With regard to the last part of the question, though it is certainly part of the duties of these officials to promote British trade interests after the War, I do not know that it would be true to say that in every case their duties were in every respect specially calculated with that object. The most important matter at the moment is that duties should be calculated to promote success in carrying on the War, and this must be the paramount consideration at present.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that many postcards have been received from British prisoners, captured at Kut and now in the hands of the Turks in Angora, requesting that money, food, and clothing be sent to them; and whether he can give any indication of the best and safest means of sending these comforts from this country with a reasonable possibility of the prisoners receiving them?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): A considerable number of postcards and letters from prisoners of war from the Kut Force, interned at Angora and other places in Asia Minor, requesting especially that money and clothing may be sent to them, have been communicated to us. The United States Embassy at Constantinople are sending clothing, money, and comforts to the prisoners as soon as their arrival at a camp is known. To supplement the supplies available at Constantinople, we have asked the Porte to allow a neutral vessel with all kinds of supplies required to put into a port on the coast of Asia Minor, the unloading of the ship and distribution of the supplies to be in the hands of neutrals. We have not yet had a reply to our communication, and are pressing for one. With regard to the last part of the question, parcels under 11 lb. in weight should be sent C/o Ottoman Red Crescent Society, Constantinople, and General Post Office, London. Parcels over that weight can be sent through the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, or the American Express Company. It is important that the rank and regiment of the prisoner and the place of internment should be clearly stated. When the place of internment is doubtful, parcels may be sent through the General Post Office or American Express Company (according to their weight), and the United States Embassy at Constantinople. It is inadvisable to send parcels to prisoners of war of whom no news has been received.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether parcels sent to British prisoners in Germany still reach those to whom they are addressed, or whether parcels sent to each camp are opened and their contents distributed among all the occupants; whether the supply of parcels is

    2241
    now regulated in England so as to ensure as far as possible an even distribution among the various camps; and whether he is satisfied that the contents of parcels do in fact reach British prisoners?
    Mr. HOPE: We have lately received several communications from the German Government stating, in reply to inquiries, the number of parcels delivered to individual British prisoners during a given period. We> have no information that parcels are not handed over to the addressees. The whole question of the dispatch of parcels to British prisoners of war is being considered by a Committee at the War Office. It has been found that parcels are unevenly distributed, and arrangements are being made which it is hoped will result in the regulation of the distribution. Our information is that the contents of parcels reach the prisoners as a rule. When complaints reach us as to the non-receipt of parcels at a particular camp the United States Ambassador at Berlin is requested to investigate the matter.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: May we hope for an even distribution of parcels so that one man with a greater number of friends shall not receive a larger number while another not so fortunate will get none?
    Mr. HOPE: I understand that is exactly what is now being inquired into by the War Office Committee.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether it has yet been possible to make arrangements with Germany to accept the offer recently made by Denmark to give hospitality during the War to British and German wounded prisoners; and, if so, whether he can state when it is hoped that the first batch of British prisoners will arrive in Denmark, to what place they will be sent, and in what numbers?
    Mr. HOPE: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon on the 10th August in regard to this matter, which is still under consideration.

    BELGIAN RELIEF COMMISSION.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Lord Crewe, on 7th June, 1915, inti-
    2242
    mated that if the Germans used the machinery of the Relief Commission to coerce the Belgian workmen to take employment, directly or indirectly, with the service or for the benefit of the occupying army they must feed the population themselves, that all arrangements between the Government and the Neutral Commission must cease, and that the Foreign Office, in a Memorandum issued in July last, drew the attention of the Neutral Commission to the practical working of forced labour in Belgium and to the fact that many Belgians were working for their enemy, the Government intend to take any action in the direction Lord Crewe indicated?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think if the hon. Member will read the Memorandum issued in July last he will see that no statement was made in it that "many Belgians were working for their enemy," and I believe such a statement would be an insult to the patriotism and the determined resistance of the Belgian people. But the answer to the hon. Member's question is that His Majesty's Government do intend to take action in the direction indicated by Lord Crewe as soon as they learn that the Germans are attempting to make their illegal but hitherto futile efforts at coercion more effective by interfering with the freedom of action of the Neutral Commission. Article 4 of the German Decree of 15th May provides that "if communes, associations or other bodies favour refusal to work" by granting relief, their heads shall he held responsible and liable to a fine of 10,000 Marks and two years'imprisonment. If any attempt is made to apply this provision to the Neutral Commission His Majesty's Government will certainly take the action indicated.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether on the outbreak of War officers of the Indian Army permitted to reside at home until they become eligible for pension were informed that the India Office had no employment available for them, but that the officers were at liberty should other employment offer to accept it; whether those officers who accepted other employment have been penalised by having deductions made from their Indian pay, in some cases months after they had accepted other employment, and the deductions

    2243
    then recovered in arrears, and this despite the fact that in the order granting them permission to accept other employment no intimation was given that any portion of their Indian pay would be deducted; and, if so, whether he will now have orders issued that these deductions irregularly levied shall be refunded to the officers concerned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): At the outbreak of war unemployed officers of the Indian Army not required for Indian employment were informed that they might offer their services for other employment. At that time the terms of employment under the War Office had not been settled. The eventual decision was as stated in the answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question, No. 64, of 4th July last. The rules apply to all officers of the unemployed list irrespective of the date on which they have been re-employed by the War Office. I will look into any cases in which recovery as an arrear of sums paid in excess of the sanctioned terms is being enforced.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any Regulation regarding officers of the Indian Army authorising this deduction from their pay?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice. I cannot profess to carry all the Regulations in my mind, but I believe what has been done is to place them in the same position as officers of the British Service.
    Colonel YATE: As there is no such Regulation, will my right hon. Friend have this question reconsidered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just asked whether there is such a Regulation.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether officers invalided from Mesopotamia have been detained for considerable periods at Bombay before being sent home owing to sanction having to be obtained from Simla to the decision of the medical board invaliding them home; and, if so, whether greater discretionary powers will be given to the local authorities at Bombay and the excessive centralisation at Simla thus avoided?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been the general practice to obtain the permission
    2244
    of the Commander-in-Chief in India before sending the officers home, but it has always been open to the local authorities to act in anticipation on their own responsibility when circumstances demanded it. The permission when sought was given by telegram. Discretionary powers are now being definitely given to local authorities to act without reference in all urgent cases.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the refund granted early in 1915 to officers of the Indian Army of the cuttings from their pay on account of rations in the field for themselves, servants, and horses, has not yet been adjusted in certain cases owing to the complicated instructions issued by the Indian Hay Department from headquarters; and, if so, whether orders can be issued for this refund to be now completed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A simplified procedure for making the refunds has now been arranged by the Government of India, and the matter is under completion.

    GERMAN SHIPS SEIZED BY PORTUGAL.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made with regard to the management and running of the German ships seized by Portugal, now taken over by the British Government?
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships hitherto interned at Lisbon and other Portuguese ports are being placed at the disposal of this country, and upon what terms; and whether those vessels will be controlled and run by the State or by private owners?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The exact number of ex-German vessels to be placed at the disposal of this country by the Portuguese Government is not yet determined. They will be chartered to us at 14s. 3d. per ton gross per month, we paying all expenses. They will be managed by a leading firm of shipowners on behalf of the Government, and any profit or loss will be for Government account.
    Mr. HOUSTON: What does my hon. Friend mean by paying all expenses? Surely the 14s. 3d. covers the cost of provisioning and insurance?
    Mr. BENN: Will my hon. Friend tell us the name of the firm managing these steamers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Furness, Withy and Company, and they are acting as Government agents without profit.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Without any remuneration?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has any agreement with the Portuguese Government that none of the money paid to them for the hire of German ships shall be paid to Germany or German subjects; and can he give any reason why we should pay Portugal at the rate of £8 per gross ton per year for ships hired from Portugal which do not belong to that country?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that none of the money paid for the hire of these German ships will find its way to Germany. As soon as the ships are condemned by the Portuguese Prize Court they become the property of Portugal.

    COAL PRICES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any application has been received from the Scottish coalowners for an increase in the standard amount allowed by the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915; whether, before dealing with such application, he will take steps to check the evasions of the Act of which complaint has been made to the Board of Trade; and whether, before coming to a decision, he will consult representatives of the consumers and, in particular, of the municipalities whose assistance the Board of Trade has solicited in regard to the distribution of coal to small consumers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No application has been received for an increase of the standard amount as respects collieriss in Scotland.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will matters affecting Scotland be dealt with by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: All matters pertinent to any undertaking will be dealt with.

    RAILWAYMEN'S WAGES.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of his Department has been called to the wages dispute in the railway world; and whether he proposes in any ease to investigate the facts with the object on the one hand of contributing to an amicable understanding between the railwaymen and the railway companies, and on the other of placing the public in case of need in possession of an impartial resumé of the issue in dispute?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand that a request has been made to the railway companies for the reconsideration of the war bonus granted in October last. I do not think I can say more at present than that the Board of Trade will take such steps as seem to them to be required by the circumstances.

    HOP IMPORTS.
    Major ASTORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any foreign hops which had not been picked prior to 8th June, 1916, will be admitted into the United Kingdom?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As such hops would doubtless not have been paid for before 8th June, they would not be admitted.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has official information to the effect that hops are being illegally imported into this country; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take to stop this practice?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will furnish me with full particulars of such alleged illegal importations, I will make inquiries.

    ENEMY UNDERTAKINGS WOUND UP.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade how many manufacturing concerns belonging to enemies in the United Kingdom have been prohibited or wound up since the War began?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Orders have been made under Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, in respect of 312 businesses of which approximately fifty carried on some manufacture in the United Kingdom.

    TROOPS AT ADEN.
    Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked how the vegetables for the troops stationed at Aden are sent there?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are sent from Bombay; but the Government of India informed me some weeks ago that they were arranging to restart the old commissariat garden at Sheikh Othman.
    Colonel HERBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if they are sent by cold storage or upon decks?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say that cold storage is not available. They have had to be sent as cargo in the ordinary way.
    Colonel HERBERTasked whether ice is provided for the troops all the year round at Aden?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. I am having the matter considered. It has never been the practice in peace time to issue the ration alluded to, but I am having the matter inquired into.
    Colonel HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that owing to the very great severity of the weather ice ought to be issued as a ration the whole year through?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have told my hon. and gallant Friend that that has never been done in peace time, but my attention having been drawn to the matter I am having it considered. I think my hon. and gallant Friend might for the moment be content with that answer.

    SULPHATE OF AMMONIA.
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers are experiencing difficulty in obtaining supplies of sulphate of ammonia on the terms recently announced by the Board as having
    2248
    been offered by sulphate of ammonia makers; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The Board have heard of a few cases of difficulty, and will be very glad to investigate any that are brought to their notice, if particulars of the quantity of sulphate of ammonia required, and the name of the producer or dealer to whom application was made, and the date when it was made, are sent to the Secretary of the Fertilisers Committee, at 3, St. James's Square, London, S.W. The Board have no reason to think that the arrangement accepted by the sulphate of ammonia makers, under which farmers will be able to obtain sulphate of ammonia at reasonable prices, is not being observed, but they would be bound to consider what action could properly be taken if it were found that makers were not allowing a fair proportion of their make to be used for agricultural purposes on the terms recommended.

    KEW GARDENS (LABOURERS' WAGES).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the labourers employed at Kew Gardens made an application for 1s. per day in addition to their usual wage when engaged on haymaking; whether the Board acceded to the request; and, if not, whether he will state whether anything extra was granted to these men and, if so, how much?
    Mr. ACLAND: The labourers made such an application, but the Board were unable to accede to it. A bonus of 5s. and the usual allowance of beer or ginger-beer were given to the men engaged on the job.

    HARVESTING (SOLDIER LABOUR).
    Captain BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if out of 27,000 selected soldiers placed at the disposal of the farming community for harvesting operations application has been made by farmers for 3,000 only; whether he is aware that in some counties, where the county war agricultural committee is inactive, many farmers

    2249
    are still unaware of the availability find the method of obtaining soldier labour, and that in others the cumbrous machinery for obtaining such labour acts as a deterrent; whether arrangements can be made whereby farmers can at short notice obtain the help of soldiers, and especially of their own former employés, during the corn harvest now in progress by applying direct to commanding officers without the intervention of the Board, the county war agricultural committees, or the Labour Exchanges; and whether public notification on the subject can be made during the current week in the public Press?
    Mr. ACLAND: Under the new arrangement which was advertised in the Press on the. 5th inst., applications were received by mid-day on the 9th inst. for 3,244 soldiers required to start work in the corn harvest for the period 14th to 26th inst. The number of men applied for for general purposes under the previous arrangement which still continues is largely in excess of that number and is increasing from day to day. It is possible that some farmers are still unaware that soldier labour is available, but as 33,089 soldiers were applied for through the Labour Exchanges during the period 3rd June to 28th July, which included many personal applications which could not possibly be granted, and 14,227 were supplied by the military authorities (a number which must have very considerably increased since then), it seems to me that the machinery has not been found to be too cumbrous, and that it has been working fairly well. The terms on which soldiers can be released were agreed with the War Office after careful consideration of all the circumstances and it is not proposed to vary them, and while a farmer may apply for his son or one of his former men by name, there is no certainty that the man can therefore be allowed away, and it is much wiser to make a general application. Frequent notifications on the subject have been made through the Press and this will continue as occasion may require. The general position is that if farmers are still short of labour they should apply by the means which are in general quite well known to them. To scrap the machinery now, as the hon. and gallant Member suggests, would produce chaos.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a scale of wages fixed for these particular soldiers working in the harvest field, or are they paid ordinary soldier's pay?
    Mr. ACLAND: They are paid a rate equal to and in the opinion of the farmers exceeding that usually paid for similar labour in harvest time.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are these soldiers free to refuse their service if called upon to do it?
    Mr. ACLAND: As they get paid a very great deal higher than the ordinary rates, they are very anxious to do it, and particularly when they get transferred to their own homes for the purpose, and we do not get any refusals.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they allowed to refuse?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will make inquiries, but I do not think such a case could possibly occur.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND SINN FEIN MOVEMENT.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Commission set up to inquire into the cases of those Government officials suspected of being connected with the Sinn Fein movement has yet completed its work; and, if so, with what result; and will those found innocent of the charges preferred against them be allowed full salary during their period of suspension?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The inquiry is concluded and the Report of the Commission has been sent to the heads of the Departments concerned. The point raised in the last part of the question is for them to decide.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the Report be laid before the House of Commons?
    Mr. BRACE: That is a matter under consideration at the present time.

    INTERNED PEISONEBS.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary if he will publish a full list of those prisoners still interned because of their connection with the Irish rebellion so as to afford an apportunity to their friends, both in this country and in Ireland, of supplying them with comforts in the shape of newspapers and books, as at this moment in Ireland many parents do not

    2251
    know the whereabouts of their sons, whether they are to be released or not, or what becomes of them?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend is having a list prepared, and it will be ready shortly.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will it be published?
    Mr. BRACE: I will mention that to my right hon. Friend.

    DUBLIN METBOPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary if he would say how many members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were on duty in the streets of Dublin, and particularly O'Connell Street, on Easter Monday and how many of them were killed or wounded; at what hour were the police taken off duty; whether he has read the Report issued by Sir John Maxwell; whether he stated that the Dublin Metropolitan Police had to be taken off the streets or they would have been cruelly murdered if they fell into the hands of the rebels; is he aware that numbers of the police force were taken prisoners by the rebels and kept unmolested at the Four Courts and at Jacobs' biscuit factory; and whether, in all the information that he has at his command, he agrees with the statement in General Maxwell's Report as to the murder of any policeman falling into the hands of the rebels?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): There were 177 members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police on duty in the streets of Dublin on Easter Monday from nine a.m. They were all withdrawn before three p.m. There were in addition eight constables on duty in Sackville Street from nine a.m., and one superintendent, one station sergeant, and twenty constables from twelve noon; the latter party remained in Sackville Street about one hour, and the other eight were withdrawn before three p.m. Two constables wee killed and four wounded on Easter Monday. Members of the force were arrested and detained by the rebels at Jacobs' factory and at the Four Courts. The police in uniform, who were all unarmed, were withdrawn from the streets by order of the Chief Commissioner after he had ascertained that two constables had been killed by the rebels and several wounded. I have read the Report issued by Sir John Maxwell, and I think there
    2252
    can be no doubt that when the Chief Commissioner became aware that his men were being fired upon, and that two had been shot dead and four wounded he was right in his decision to take these unarmed men in uniform off the streets.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the rebellion broke out at twelve o'clock on Easter Monday? At twelve o'clock on Easter Monday, according to the answer just given 177 Dublin Metropolitan Police were in O'Connell Street, and remained there until three o'clock in the afternoon.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member is mistaken. The 177 members were on duty in the city at large. The other numbers, I have stated, were in Sackville Street.
    Mr. LUNDON: Of the 177 a great number were in Sackville Street, which was in possession of the rebels from twelve o'clock noon, yet in Sir John Maxwell's Report he suggests that the police had to be withdrawn, or they would have been cruelly murdered. How is it that those in Sackville Street were not murdered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.
    Mr. HAZLETONrose—
    Mr. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. King to ask the next question.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Am I not entitled to ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer of the Chief Secretary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, if it really is a supplementary question.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I hope so.
    Mr. SPEAKER:I hope it is not like the other one.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which deals with Sir John Maxwell's Report, as to whether there is any foundation for the charge in that Report that the policemen would have been cruelly murdered by the rebels if they had not been taken off the streets?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member has asked me a question in regard to a matter of opinion, as to which Sir John Maxwell has expressed his opinion, and as to which, so far as I know, it is not the business of a Minister to declare an opinion except upon an occasion when it can be debated.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, or the Government which he represents, ask Sir John Maxwell to withdraw that charge, for which there is not a shadow of foundation?
    Mr. LUNDON: Sir John Maxwell is as big a murderer as there is in Ireland.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to say of a gentleman who is actively in command of troops for his Majesty's Government that he is "as big a murderer as there is in Ireland"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a most disgraceful phrase to use. It did not reach my ears. I hope the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw it.
    Mr. LUNDON: Sir John Maxwell, in his Report, states that the rebels would have cruelly murdered the Dublin Metropolitan Police if they had not been withdrawn from the streets. The rebels were in possession from twelve o'clock until three o'clock, and no men were murdered. Sir John Maxwell, during his term in Ireland, has been as guilty of murder as—[HON. MEMBEES; "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has availed himself of the privilege of asking a question to make a statement of a gross kind against a public servant. The hon. Member is entitled, in the course of Debate, to make statements, so long as they are of a Parliamentary character, but he is not entitled at Question Time to make statements of that sort.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that five young men from the Kinsale district, county Cork, namely, Patrick Donohoe, Con Donohoe, Dan Donohoe, John Hales, and Edward Barrett, were placed under arrest after the rising in Dublin; whether there was no charge put forward against them other than being members of a branch of the Sinn Fein body; whether he is aware that the Donohoe boys are three brothers, the sons of a widow, and are her only help in working an extensive farm of land, and that this help will be indispensable at the forthcoming harvest; and whether, under all
    2254
    the circumstances and to ease the feeling in the district, where there was no trouble in April last, he will consent to set the prisoners at liberty?
    Mr. BRACE: These five men had full opportunities of making representations on their own behalf to the Advisory Committee, who have recommended that they should be retained in detention. The ground for their internment is that they are of hostile associations and members of an organisation called the Irish Volunteers or of an organisation called the Citizen Army, which have promoted armed insurrection against His Majesty, and are reasonably suspected of having favoured, promoted, or assisted in armed insurrection against His Majesty. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot reopen any of these cases at the present time.

    COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the exact reference to the Commission to sit in Dublin to inquire into the murders of Messrs. Sheehy Skeffington, M'Intyre, and Dickson; who the Commissioners are; whether the inquiry will be public; whether the newspapers will be allowed to publish freely the evidence given; whether the Commission will be able to allow the expenses of solicitors, counsel, and witnesses on behalf of the families of the three murdered men, especially in view of the fact that they are none of them persons of means; and when the Commission will open its sittings?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The terms of reference and the names of the Commissioners have already been announced; the Commission will open its sittings on Wednesday next in the Four Courts, Dublin. The mode of conducting the inquiry is for the Commissioners to determine, but I have no doubt that they will desire their sittings to be public, unless the national interest requires any portion of the hearing to be private. The expenses of witnesses summoned by the Commission will be paid on the prescribed scale and arrangements are being made for the presentation of their testimony by the civil authorities. Any other matters referred to in this question are under consideration.
    Mr. KING: With regard to the exact terms of reference, is the Prime Minister aware that it has been impossible for

    2255
    the solicitors representing the deceased persons' relatives to get the exact terms, and, in consequence, that they are in a difficulty to know how to prepare their cases, because they do not know, for instance, whether the question of property seized after the murders will be allowed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously, I cannot give an answer, but I am quite sure that the Commissioners will take everything into account in seeing that justice is done.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will no limitation whatever be put upon free publicity in the Press?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that already.

    RUSSIAN NATIONALITY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the announcement recently made by the Russian Consulates that no person will be recognised as a Russian subject unless provided with documentary evidence; that thousands of persons have come to this country, themselves or their parents from Russia, without passports or any documents, and unable to prove their Russian or other nationality; and whether he intends to deport to Russia any Jews who may be here regarded and registered as Russians but who are not recognised as Russian by the Russian Government?
    Mr. BRACE: I am not aware of the announcement to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am aware generally of the facts stated in the second part of the question, and that Russian Consulates usually refuse to give certificates of Russian nationality to persons who are without documentary evidence of their identity; but it does not follow that such persons will not be recognised as Russian subjects in their own country.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has been made aware of the notices issued by the Chief Constable of
    2256
    Salford to Russian Jews who, being without passports, are refused certificates of their nationality by the Russian Consulate; how it is intended to regard these men who have no nationality; whether he will seek legislative powers to make them British citizens on condition that they join the British Army, do war work, or undertake approved work of national importance; and (2) whether he is aware that? there are in this country many Jewish persons who originally fled from that part of Russia now occupied by the German Armies, possess no passports, are liable when returned to Russia to be sent to their original towns of residence, are not legally able to reside elsewhere, and are therefore subject to penalties and imprisonment in Russia so long as they cannot return to towns now occupied by the Germans; whether, before deporting any of these persons to Russia, he will consult the Russian Government and obtain an assurance that they will be allowed freely to settle elsewhere in Russia, or whether he will either seek legislative powers to make these persons British subjects or deal otherwise with this problem?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has inquired with regard to the action of the Salford Police, and he finds nothing in what they said or did to give any ground for the suggestion that the persons concerned are of no nationality. As regards the rest of Question 37 and the whole of Question 38, I would ask him to await the statement which my right hon. Friend hopes to make to-morrow.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked whether there has been any objection on the part of the conscientious objectors detailed for road making in Clare, Suffolk, on the grounds that they were being employed on work of an entirely military character, and that, so far from the Government's pledge that they should be under civil control being carried out, military orderlies are in attendance and the men are to all intents and purposes soldiers?
    Mr. BRACE: The men employed at Clare, being misled by a newspaper extract, wrote a letter protesting against being employed on a military road. This statement is entirely inaccurate. The road is one of the existing county main roads of Suffolk. It is in no sense a military

    2257
    road, and is not used and is not intended to be used for military traffic of any kind. The men themselves supply all the orderlies necessary, and there are no troops of any kind within many miles of the place. The engineer and foremen of the Road Board, who control the work, are all civilians.

    AGE LIMIT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the Government are considering the amendment of the Military Service Act in the direction of increasing the age of liability to miltary service to forty-five?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No such amendment is at present under consideration.

    GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that postal and other Government servants who claim exemption from military service on grounds of conscientious objection conditionally on performing work of rational importance shall be excused from performing that work of national importance and allowed to remain on in their postal or other Government duties; and, if not, will he issue instructions that this is not to be permitted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on behalf of the Postmaster-General on the 15th of this month. I understand that the Committee follows a similar policy in regard to all Government servants.
    Colonel YATE: Is it right that men who refuse to raise a hand to defend their fellow countrymen in a great national danger should be allowed to sit quietly in the haven of Government offices?

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
    Mr. HAY MORGANasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Bernard Paterson Short, of Reading, who offered himself for the Army in November, 1915, and was rejected as medically unfit, and who nevertheless has been called up for immediate military service without further medical examination in violation of the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, whether he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if he will order the recruiting officer at Blackburn to stop the persecution of H. Hodgson, of Rishton, who was discharged from the Army on 12th August, 1909, as physically unfit, but was arrested on 18th June as an absentee, was kept in the cells all night, was three times brought before the magistrates, and finally discharged as an exception from the Act, under paragraph 5, Schedule I., but has since been summoned to come forward for medical reexamination aad threatened with rearrest if he does not comply?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if he is aware that Major Lucas, the recruiting officer at Cardiff, wrote to Evelyn C. Collins, of Gileston, Glamorgan, the wife of Thomas Collins, 720 Company, Mechanical Transport, Army Service Corps, telling her that if she did not quit a cottage, the property of T. W. Lewis, stipendiary magistrate of Cardiff, she could get no assistance from the military; whether the woman, her two children, and furniture were placed by the police in the road under an ejectment order made by the Cow-bridge magistrates; if so, will he say under what powers Major Lucas acted; and what action is proposed to be taken in the matter?
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether he will inquire into the case of Private R. Hammond, No. 31619, 3rd Company, 5th Battalion, King's Royal Rifles, who, after being rejected on medical grounds for the Dispatch Corps, tried to enlist in the Cavalry and was again rejected on medical grounds, the doctor stating that his heart was in a serious condition, and subsequently was passed at Whitehall for the King's Royal Rifles; whether he has already had a serious breakdown in consequence; and whether any action will be taken to prevent more serious results?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am having inquiries made in all these cases, and will communicate the results to my hon. Friends in due course.

    RECRUITS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked how many men have been obtained for the Army up to the end of July under the Military Service Acts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I am afraid I cannot give this information.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is that because the material is not available or because of the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is because I think it is most undesirable.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Why should it be undesirable when estimates of the yield under the Military Service Acts were laid before Parliament, and on those estimates the House of Commons agreed to pass the measures?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that the recruiting figures have never been given. All I can say is that I should be very glad if somebody in Germany would give us the same information about the German recruits.

    MEDICAL STUDENTS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked what the present policy of the War Office is as to the calling up of medical students for military service; and if students are now permitted to continue their course of training for the medical profession?
    Mr. FORSTER: Under the present arrangements medical students in their fourth and fifth years, including those third year students who passed a professional examination at the end of March, 1916, are not called to the Colours, provided they are enrolled in an Officers' Training Corps. Where such students are not attested an exemption is required from the tribunals, but the military representatives support applications by such students. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, full time students in universities and university colleges and teaching establishments recognised by the Board of Education who are not passed as fit for general service are not at present called to the Colours, and arrangements are proposed by which second and third year medical students in this class who are at present serving shall be allowed to return to their professional studies.

    INSUBORDINATE SOLDIERS
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked whether Mr. Scott Duckers, who has served his term of imprisonment imposed
    2260
    by court-martial, has since been sent back to the Army, and is now stationed at Sheerness; and whether it is the intention of the Government to keep up this system of persecution by forcing men to go through the same process time after time?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that Private Scott Duckers at first refused to go before the Central Tribunal, but on the 7th August he agreed to go, and duly appeared before it on the 8th August. I am informed that his attitude towards the tribunal was that he would have nothing to do with the tribunal itself or the scheme in general. In view of these circumstances Private Duckers will be dealt with under the Army Act. I must take exception to the expression "persecution," used by the hon. Member. If such an expression were acceptable in this instance it would be equally applicable to any other insubordinate soldier who is being similarly dealt with according to the law.

    COAL MINERS.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked whether men engaged in a starred occupation, namely, coal-mining, and medically rejected for military service, are being required to submit themselves for re-examination; and, if so, whether it is intended to pass such men into the Army or to retain them in the work of getting coal?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is intended for the present to retain these men in the work of getting coal.

    APPEALS PENDING.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of appeals against military service still pending before the tribunals; and whether he will consider the possibility of expediting their hearing?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): My right hon Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Information cannot be given as to the number of cases still pending before tribunals, but inquiries recently made have indicated that generally there are not serious arrears and steps are being taken to expedite the work where necessary.

    ASYLUM ACCOMMODATION.
    Sir W. BYLESasked approximately the amount of overcrowding now existing in asylums; by how many beds asylum accommodation has been reduced since the War began; is any further reduction now proceeding or in contemplation; and what is the present proportion of doctors to patients in the county asylums which remain available for the care and treatment of their original inmates?
    Mr. BRACE: The amount of overcrowding referred to varies in the different asylums, but, expressed as an average, it may be stated to be 17 per cent., that is, there are 117 patients in wards which are normally intended for 100 patients. The number of beds by which the total accommodation of county and borough asylums in England and Wales has been reduced by the use of certain asylums as war hospitals is 15,750. No further reduction of accommodation is now proceeding or in contemplation. The present proportion of doctors to patients in the county and borough asylums in use as such is one to 390.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister if he has yet nominated any Irishman to represent Ireland on the Committee set up to deal with trade and commerce after the War; and, if so, who that representative is to be?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is under consideration.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (POSITION OF CONTRACTORS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the judgment in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick Kerr, and Company, in which the decision of the Court was that a contract is not determined by action taken by the Ministry of Munitions which renders it impossible to continue its execution; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to define the position of contractors under conditions brought about by the Defence of the Realm Act and other exceptional legislation necessitated by the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question is under consideration. A deputation representing certain contractors has been received by my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, and further information is now being obtained with a view to an early decision on the matter.

    INDUSTRIAL DIFFERENCES.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the provision in the Munitions of War Act that cases of industrial differences should not be carried to the length of a lock-out or strike, but should be referred to arbitration; whether he is aware that in several cases the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Ministry of Munitions have refused to agree to the demands of sections of workmen for claims to be submitted to arbitration; and whether he can take any steps to secure that the policy for the avoidance of disputes enforced upon private employers of labour shall also be carried out by the various Government Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Crown not being expressly named in the Munitions of War Act, 1915, is not as a matter of law bound by its provisions. There is a special machinery for settling such questions in the dockyards to which it seems desirable to resort in the first instance. There are other cases in which it is practically impossible to arbitrate in regard to isolated classes without reference to the interest of others. It is quite recognised that subject to exceptional cases the spirit of this provision of the Act should be observed by Government Departments.

    LABOUR DISPUTES.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is giving further consideration to the suggestions put forward before the War for the adoption of machinery intended to minimise the risk of acute labour disputes; and, in that case, can he inform the House what is being done?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter, and are giving

    2263
    it their earnest consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a definite statement thereon.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the body which is to make a comprehensive review of the existing provision of education in Scotland and to make proposals for developing it with a view to experience gained n the War, not as a special Scottish national problem but as part of a general review of the educational provision of Great Britain; whether any Committee or Commission is to be appointed for this purpose; and whether any independent authorities are to be consulted or whether it will consist simply of a series of memoranda by the Departments concerned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Secretary for Scotland on the 16th instant. The methods of conducting the inquiry proposed will naturally be left to the discretion of the persons appointed to conduct it.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the educational system of Scotland, both in its methods and in its scope, in its historical development, and in the attitude of the people towards it, has always been quite distinct from that of England, and that the problems of Scottish education are specially national problems; whether he is aware that the proposal to review the existing educational provision in Scotland as a branch of a comprehensive review of the educational provision for Great Britain will fail to inspire confidence in Scotland; whether he will take steps to secure that a comprehensive inquiry into the existing educational provision in Scotland from primary schools to the universities, with special reference to experience gained during the War, shall be conducted exclusively by persons versed in the Scottish educational system; and whether the Government will appoint a Commission for that purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware of the differences in the educational systems
    2264
    of England and Scotland to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am also aware that there are many educational problems common to the two countries which I think it desirable should be investigated jointly for the common benefit in the first; place, without prejudice to any subsequent separate inquiry which may be rendered necessary by the special circumstances of either country.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will my right hon. Friend consider that this is a matter in which the fullest publicity is desirable, and is in the interest of the inquiry, and will he say, first, who are the people who are making the inquiry; second, what is the scope of the inquiry; and third, what is the method by which they are making the inquiry? Is the method to be simply a series of memoranda from the different Departments or are outside persons desired to make suggestions?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that such inquiries are often most efficacious if they are not conducted according to prescribed rule, but according to the discretion of those to whom they are entrusted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I said a moment ago, I think that the procedure is to be determined by the persons appointed. I hope that we shall get a thoroughly independent body of persons to do so.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Scottish Members be consulted before the inquiry is constituted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not before, but I hope that we shall have their cooperation during the course of the inquiry.
    Mr. BILLING: Who is going to appoint the members of this inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to give the names of the members of those Committees that have already been appointed to consider and report upon some of the matters connected with the present education inquiry; and whether he can state the terms of reference to each of those Committees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference and the names of the members to the Committee appointed some time ago

    2265
    on the education and instruction of children and young persons after the War have already been announced. An announcement as to Committees on the Teaching of Science and of Modern Languages will be made very soon.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make an announcement in reference to a Committee on the subject of physical education?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether, during the Recess, he will be able to publish the terms of reference to the proposed Reviewing Committee suggested by Lord Crewe; whether, in settling the terms of reference to that Committee, he will consider the desirability of making the term sufficiently comprehensive to cover the several important subjects which have been already indicated as requiring investigation, with a view to the improvement of our present educational system and to the better adaptation of the different branches to the new social and industrial conditions that will prevail after the War; and whether he will publish the names of the members of that Committee as soon as the Committee shall have been appointed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I hope to be able to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. The considerations mentioned in the second part of the question will not be neglected. I will consider the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir P. MAGNUS:
    53. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House whether the resignation of the present Minister of Education has been accepted; and, if so, whether he can announce who has been appointed as his successor?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I have already received a satisfactory answer to this question.

    FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION (CONFERENCE).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make a
    2266
    statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the calling of a representative conference, or the appointment of a Select Committee, to consider the whole question of the franchise and also the question of Redistribution?
    Sir JOHN SIMONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the suggestion made by the President of the Local Government Board for the setting up of a representative conference on electoral reform and of his statement that be believed that such a conference would have valuable results, he is able to announce that steps will be promptly taken to summon such a conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is a very valuable one, and I hope to be able to give effect to it, and that an indication of the procedure to be adopted may shortly be made.
    Sir J. SIMON: Will the Prime Minister consider the putting at the disposal of such conference any legislative drafts that there may be for the extension of the franchise on wide lines, which would prove suitable for such conference to consider?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; as far as possible, certainly.
    Mr. W. THORNE: A Government united one?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if, in consequence of certain concessions to old age pensioners, the Government will consider the means of immediately assisting those who are sick, feeble, and helpless, to whom the concessions bring no help, either by Grant from the Treasury to local pension committees or an enabling order giving to local authorities the power to give to local pension committees such sums as will enable the pension committee to grant, after careful consideration, to the sick, feeble, and helpless old age pensioner a sum not exceeding 7s. 6d. per week?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are satisfied, after careful inquiry into this matter, that there are cases of hardship which call for relief and for

    2267
    which provision must be made. The suggestion of my hon. Friend amongst others is receiving attention.
    Mr. WARDLE: May I ask whether any public announcement will be made before the House adjourns?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already made an announcement.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the instructions, referred to in White Paper Cd. 8320, to pension officers not to raise questions in the case of existing pensioners in respect of any temporary increase of means due to pensioners' re-employment on account of shortage of labour during the War, are intended to apply to cases where the old age pensioner is the wife or other dependant of the person in receipt of increased wages due to the War; and, if there is any ambiguity in regard to the interpretation of the instructions, whether he will issue further instructions to deal with the point?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The instructions do not apply to the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    PEACE.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir W. BYLES:
    61. To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the statements of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Germany, Herr Zimmermann; whether the German Government has often declared its readiness to enter into peace negotiations; whether the Entente, under pressure from England, has never shown such readiness; whether he has further noticed the desire for peace expressed at a meeting of Socialists in Leipzic, and many similar popular manifestations in Germany; and if he will say, in view of the adjournment of Parliament, to what extent His Majesty's Government is willing to respond to this expressed desire of the enemy?
    Sir W. BYLES: In asking this question, I would point out that the statements contained in the second and third parts of the question are the statements of Herr Zimmermann. They are not mine.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The German Government has as yet shown no disposition to agree to peace except upon terms that would be intolerable or humiliating to some of the Allies. The suggestion that the Entente has been influenced by any pressure from Great Britain is quite untrue.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are we to understand from that answer that terms of any kind have been suggested?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Only what we have seen announced.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Nothing official?
    The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to indicate an answer in the negative.

    IRISH BUTTER (FRAUDULENT SALE).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many prosecutions have been instituted in Great Britain since the 1st of April, 1915, up to date against traders and others for the fraudulent sale of Irish butter?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): During the period referred to, four prosecutions affecting the Irish butter industry were instituted in Great Britain at the instance of the Department. Convictions were obtained in each case, penalties amounting to a total of upwards of £20 being imposed. The Department are not in a position to supply particulars regarding prosecutions of this nature, in which they were not directly concerned.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what was the total quantity of butter exported from Denmark and Ireland, respectively, during the years 1914, 1915, and up to 1st July, 1916, and the average price per cwt. paid for the same?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The total Quantity of butter exported from Denmark during the year 1914 (the latest year for which statistics are available) amounted to 1,875,755 cwts., valued at £11,860,842, or an average price of 126s. 6d. per cwt. The total quantities of butter exported from Ireland during the years 1914 and 1915 were as follows: 855,068 cwts., valued at £4,641,673 (or an average price of 108s. 6d.

    2269
    per cwt.) in 1914; and 838,089 cwts., valued at £5,751,386 (or an average price of 137s. 3d. per cwt.), in 1915. Figures of the export of butter from Ireland during any part of the year 1916 are not yet available.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOOLWICH ABSENAL.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Munitions if it is the practice at Woolwich Arsenal for workpeople arriving half an hour late, through causes beyond their own control, to be suspended for the day, in some cases for two days; and, if so, whether the authorities will consider the desirability of deducting from the wages the equivalent value of the time actually lost, thereby bringing the establishment into line with the practice prevailing outside?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I have made inquiries, and understand that the penalty of suspension is imposed only in cases of habitual late attendance. In the case of employés who arrive late and begin work, the practice described in the last part of the question is followed.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the men working in Woolwich Arsenal called up for military service are entitled to leave work when in receipt of the two weeks' notice from the military authorities; if he is aware that those in authority at the Arsenal claim that men must remain at their work until the expiration of their notice; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: A man who has been notified by the Arsenal authorities that he is about to be released for military service is allowed to leave his work before the date of his joining the Colours in order that he may transact any necessary private business. A notice to this effect has been posted throughout the Arsenal, and no further action appears necessary.

    WAR BADGES.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the management of any firm can withdraw the badge of munition worker without first getting permission from the Ministry of Munitions in accordance with the regulations issued
    2270
    under the Munitions Act; and, if any badge is withdrawn without such sanction, what action the worker can take against the employer?
    Dr. ADDISON: An employer is required to withdraw a War Service Badge, without reference to the Ministry, when the workman leaves his employment or ceases to be employed on war work. In no case, however, may he withdraw a badge certificate without the Ministry's authority, and any workman whose certificate is withdrawn without that authority should report the matter immediately to the Ministry of Munitions. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a workman's exemption from military service depends not upon his badge, but upon his badge certificate.

    FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the India Bubber and Gutta Percha Telegraph Company's works at Silvertown, East, is a controlled factory; if he is aware that the carpenters working in the shop are not being paid the district rate of wages; that the pieceworkers in the same shop, whatever they earn, are not paid more than the hour rates, and that any balance of money which accumulates under this system is kept in hand as a fund to make up for deficiencies in earnings on future hour-rate jobs which are given out at so low a price that the men are unable to earn the proper rate; that, in consequence of this method of payment, there are three or four men who are entitled to draw at least £15; that this is a violation of Section 6 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: The matters referred to in this question have just been brought to my notice and I am making inquiries. I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend in due course.

    TINPLATE WORKERS.
    Captain BATHURSTasked the Minister of Munitions how it is proposed to provide fresh employment or the means of maintenance for the large number of tinplate workers in South Wales, Monmouthshire, and Gloucestershire who will be thrown out of employment by his decision to limit the output of all British tinplate works to tinplates required for Government purposes only.
    Dr. ADDISON: In view of the large and unsatisfied demand for labour in connection with the production of munitions it is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty in providing employment for such numbers of the tinplate workers in South Wales, Monmouthshire, and Gloucestershire as may be thrown out of employment by the limit imposed upon the output of British tinplate works. Any men who may become unemployed as a result of this limitation should at once report themselves to the nearest Labour Exchange, where, by arrangement with the Ministry of Munitions, full particulars of vacancies in munitions works are available.
    Captain BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this limitation of output is likely to continue for the rest of the War?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know about the rest of the War, but it will continue for some considerable time.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the manufacturers of tin biscuit boxes and articles of that kind be able to get any material?
    Dr. ADDISON: It will only limit a certain percentage of the production of tin-plate.
    Captain BATHURST: That is not the impression amongst manufacturers. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage that is?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would rather not give any further details at present.
    Captain BATHURST: I will put down another question.

    WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Minister of Munitions whether arrangements can be made for munition workers who are taking holiday at the period appointed, and who desire to visit relatives some distance away, to be supplied with railway tickets for themselves and wives at the usual munition workers' rate on producing their cards?
    Dr. ADDISON: The matter will receive consideration, but I understand that there are great difficulties in the grant of any facilities which are likely to increase the existing pressure on the railways.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it can increase the traffic on the railways, as the munition workers will only be travelling when the holidays
    2272
    are granted by the Ministry, and will special terms be offered therefore to the munition workers?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is not within the province of the Ministry to do so.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any arrangements and., if so, what have been made with the Belgian Government for the maintenance of the wives and children of the Belgian refugees now in this country who are shortly to be called up for service in the Belgian Army; and, if so, whether such arrangements can be communicated without delay to the various committees in this country who have hitherto undertaken the voluntary responsibility for the maintenance of the refugees?
    Mr. LONG: At the moment I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on Tuesday last to the same question.

    ROYAL NAVY (BECRUITING).
    Mr. HAY MORGANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any man of military age and fitness is liable to be treated as a deserter from the Army under the Military Service Act if he volunteers for and is accepted by the senior Service; and will he say by what means the recruitment for the Navy is now being maintained?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, provided, of course, the man has not been actually embodied in an Army unit. As regards the second part of the question, under the Military Service Act men are allowed to express their preference for Naval service, and the Admiralty have the first call on such men in case their services are needed.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will the men be retained in their present employment until they are called up?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend apparently refers to our system of deferred entry. We have such a system. I do not understand by whom men on that list have been discharged.
    Mr. CROOKS: Is it on the authority of the Admiralty they are being discharged? I have had two such cases.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I do not follow. If my right hon. Friend will give me the details I will go into it.

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL.

    DUKE OF SUTHEBLAND'S GIFT.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the estate of 12,000 acres gifted by the Duke of Sutherland of which the annual value of the land and shootings is £475 according to the Valuation Roll for 1914–15, whether he can state from the Valuation Roll how much of the annual value is attributable to the land, so that an estimate may be arrived at of the approximate value of the land on which it is proposed to settle soldiers and sailors?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): In reply I may be allowed to refer my hon. Friend to my answer of the 17th August on this subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask for what reason the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me the figures, which must be easily obtainable, without any cost to the Department, from the valuation roll. Is it for the purpose of concealment of the fact that this land is worthless when we arrive at the true rating on it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite recognise, as I have indicated, that it might be possible to do what my hon. Friend asks if there was any general desire of the kind. Certainly it is not for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to answer a question except some general desire is expressed?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I give notice that, owing to the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to give me a reply, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say
    2274
    what would be the estimated loss to the Imperial Exchequer if at the present rates of interest for money the policy of the Wyndham Land Act of 1903 were carried to completion by the sale to tenants of land in Ireland of the freehold of the farms they occupy in all the cases contemplated by that Act but not as yet dealt with thereunder?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): This is a hypothetical question, and from inquiries which I have made I fear that the estimate asked for could not be framed without an excessive expenditure of time and labour.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax at the rate of 5s. in the £ is being levied on the dividends of certain South African companies on which there has already been charged taxation imposed by the Union of South Africa for war purposes, and therefore of the nature, of Income Tax, to the extent of 5s. in the £; and, if so, whether such levy is in accordance with the provision of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1916, whereby Income Tax is in such eases limited to 3s. 6d?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information as to the particular dividends to which my hon. Friend refers, but the procedure suggested in his question would be in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1916. If the hon. Member will refer to Section 43 of the Act he will find that the relief in respect of Colonial Income Tax is to be given by way of repayment. I may add that the Board of Inland Revenue are already considering the possibility of arranging for the allowance of the relief by deduction from the payment of British Income Tax, thus obviating claims for repayment in cases which may lend themselves to the adoption of such a course.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he received from the Prime Minister of Australia a Memorandum on the subject of a deputation which waited upon him on the 22nd June regarding double. Income Tax, together with the written opinion of the Australian Prime Minister on the points brought before him by the deputation; and if he will lay a copy of such Memorandum and of the

    2275
    observations of the Australian Prime Minister thereon upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. McKENNA: The changes suggested by the deputation referred to and forwarded by the Prime Minister of Australia related to Amendments to the Finance Bill which were moved by my hon. Friend. Both these Amendments were negatived, and I have nothing to add to the statements in debate made by the. Financial Secretary and myself
    Mr. BRYCE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the opinion of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth was on the point embodied in this Memorandum which he sent?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not accurately remember at the moment, but I know that the Prime Minister was in general agreement with the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. BRYCE: Is there any objection to laying the Memorandum of the Prime Minister on the Table?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must look at it first.

    ARBITRATION APPOINTMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Joseph Mooney, of Cabra, county Dublin, appointed an arbitrator by the Local Government Board for Ireland to appraise the value of applotments taken for labourers' cottages, is a newspaper director and tramway director by profession, without any knowledge or experience of the value of Irish land; whether Mr. Mooney is also a conscientious objector to taking on employment of this nature; and whether he raised any objection to the service at the time of his appointment?
    Mr. DUKE: Mr. Joseph Mooney has, I believe, been for some few years past a director of the "Irish Independent" Company, and also of the Dublin United Tramways Company. Mr. Mooney is not without any knowledge or experience of the value of Irish land. On the contrary, I am informed that he is a farmer of large practical experience. He raised no ob-
    2276
    jection to his selection as arbitrator, and the Local Government Board are fully satisfied as to his ability and impartiality.

    COUNTY FERMANAGH MAGISTRACY.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. John M'Hugh, chairman of the Fermanagh County Council, has been removed from the commission of the peace although he is ex-offico entitled to hold the commission, and that, owing to the regard in which Mr. M'Hugh is held as a public representative, there is indignation at the treatment meted out to him in this matter; will he say what reason is assigned for his removal from the magistracy; and whether he will be immediately restored to the position?
    Mr. DUKE: Mr. John M'Hugh was appointed a justice of the peace in the year 1911, and was also a magistrate by virtue of his office as chairman of the Fermanagh County Council. In November, 1915, he wrote a letter in which he suggested that he might use for the promotion of his own interests his position as chairman of a pension committee. Upon his admission that he had written this letter, the Lord Chancellor removed him from the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor has no intention of restoring Mr. M'Hugh to the commission of the peace.

    HUT ERECTION (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers are being employed by contractors building hutments at Crownhill, Dunstan, and Saltash, who are receiving Army pay only for such work; that Messrs. Cockerell, of Richmond Wharf, Plymouth, has discharged from thirty to forty skilled men and labourers, whose places have been taken by soldiers; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Under the new Regulations now in force, the pay of soldiers lent in working parties is based on the local rate of wage for the class of work performed. It is a condition of the loan of working parties that civilian labour is not available. I am having inquiry made.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is this work voluntary? Are the men ordered and compelled to do it or are they free to refuse? Is it forced labour?
    Mr. FORSTER: Oh, no; they are under military discipline.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: They are compelled to go to this work?
    Mr. FORSTER: They have, of course, to obey orders.

    ULSTER DIVISION.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether drafts of officers from the 10th Dublins and other Irish regiments have been sent to France to fill the places of those officers of the Ulster Division who were killed and put out of action in the battle which took place some weeks ago?
    Mr. FORSTER: The selection of the officers to replace the losses referred to in the Ulster Division has not yet been settled.

    WOOL PURCHASES.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the wool clip, whether he is aware that the practice before the War was that wool buyers visited farms, inspected the clip, and bought and paid in cash, and that the practice under the Government scheme has been altered by providing that the clip shall first be examined at the farms, 75 per cent, of the Government price paid within six days, the wool then sent to Bradford, and the remaining 25 per cent, paid after further examination; if he can state what is the object of this new procedure; and, seeing that the Government buyers are mostly those who formerly bought for themselves, whether he will consider the advisability of letting them buy out-and-out, as before, and thus save the cost of duplicate examination and the expenses of administration?
    Mr. FORSTER: The practice with regard to purchasing wool before the War differed from district to district. The Government scheme follows existing customs as closely as the altered circumstances will allow. A great deal of the wool will be cased and stored locally, and final payment will then be made. The object of deferring final payment until the
    2278
    wool has been properly classed in a warehouse is to ensure that, on the one hand, the farmers obtain the proper cash value-of their wool, and, on the other hand, that the Government secures full value for its money.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have our wool bought? My wool has been in my granary since 2nd June, and I heard nothing more of it. Will it have to remain to the 2nd June next year?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope not. I can assure my right hon. Friend that large purchases are being made both in this country and in Ireland. It is naturally taking time to get the scheme into full working order. I hope that the wool of my right hon. Friend, as well as that of all other farmers, will be purchased before very long.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Will interest be paid to the right hon. Baronet on the value of his wool during the period he is waiting?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, my right hon. Friend, like all other farmers, will be paid as from the 1st August.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION (RELIEF OF TROOPS).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps can be taken to relieve the men belonging to the Mesopotamian force by new drafts, as the climatic and other conditions, as well as the insufficiency of supplies, render a prolonged stay in that region dangerous to life?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Such measures as are practicable have been and are being taken with a view to relieving units which have suffered most from climate and other causes in Mesopotamia.

    1ST AND 4TH MOUNTED DIVISIONS.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the 1st and 4th Mounted Divisions have been, or are being, converted into the 1st and 2nd Cyclist Divisions; if so, to what uses the horses hitherto belonging to these divisions will be put; and whether he will see that the cycles required as a result of the change will be purchased on the most economical terms?
    Mr. FORSTER: The organisation of these divisions is now under consideration, and in any change that may be decided upon due regard will be had to economy.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the hon. Gentleman say that this change has been decided upon? Can we have an assurance that these purchases will not be on the same terms as in the past?
    Mr. FORSTER: I said that the organisation is still under consideration.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS ON FRENCH FARMS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether British soldiers are sent to work on farms in France; and, if so, what additional pay, if any, they receive?
    Mr. FORSTER: We have no information on this subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made? I think the suggestion that this should be done was made recently by an hon. and gallant Member on the other side of the House.
    Mr. FORSTER: I will look into it. I am reluctant to trouble the Commander in France with any unnecessary inquiries at the present moment; but I will not lose sight of the matter.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions soldiers have been sent in working parties' to work for private employers otherwise than in agriculture?
    Mr. FORSTER: Subject to the rules laid down by the War Office, the arrangements for military working parties are made by the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief in the various Commands. The information asked for could not be obtained without very considerable trouble.

    NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked what patients suffering from nervous loss of balance or other form of mental disorder are grouped by the military authorities as incurables?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend has no doubt seen my answer of 8th August to the hon. and gallant Member for New-
    2280
    castle-under-Lyme. It is difficult to be more precise, but I think that I can say that each case is very carefully considered by the medical authorities.

    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (HOME BATTALIONS).
    Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Secretary of State for War how many non-commissioned officers who had signed for foreign service have, upon being sent to Home-service battalions, been reduced, without their consent, to the ranks, with consequent reduction of allowances to their wives and families; whether many cases of such reduction; have occurred to sergeants who have hold their rank as long as two years, and who have performed the duties of the same with unblemished record; and whether the regulations will now be, so modified as to continue their rank to such non-commissioned officers upon their transfer from foreign-service battalions to home battalions?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I have no detailed information on this matter. If by transfer from one unit to another the number of non-commissioned officers becomes in excess of establishment, the junior acting non-commissioned officers would normally revert.

    NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (INCOME TAX).
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the additional Income ax of 2s. in the £ is chargeable in respect of dividends or interest on securities for the deposit of which the Treasury has asked under their recent Scheme B.
    Mr. McKENNA: The additional charge of 2s. in the £ Income Tax is, as the law now stands, payable only in respect of securities which the Treasury offer to-purchase. The Treasury only desire to accept on deposit the Canadian and neutral Government securities included in Scheme B, and consequently these securities are not subject to the tax. It is urgently necessary in the national interest that a large number of these securities-should be placed at the disposal of the

    2281
    Treasury without delay, and I have such a confident hope that this appeal will meet such an immediate response from the holders of these securities as to make it unnecessary to ask Parliament to impose the additional Income Tax in respect of them.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman claim the right in case of need to sell these securities?
    Mr. McKENNA: Under certain circumstances; but if they are sold, the present value plus 5 per cent, will be paid to the holders. I look upon the sale of securities as a very doubtful possibility.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is to say, the price paid for the securities will be the market price?
    Mr. McKENNA: Plus 5 per cent.

  CONFERENCE WITH ITALIAN GOVERNMENT.

    STATEMENT BY MR. RUNCIMAN.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could make any statement on his recent mission to Italy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman)rose amid general cheers, on his return after illness. In reply to the question, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    For some time past questions affecting supplies in Italy have been the subject of communications between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, and the Italian Government invited me to visit Italy in order to discuss and deal with these questions.
    On the authority of the Prime Minister and the War Committee I accepted the invitation, and a Conference was held at Pallanza from the 9th to the 14th August, at which His Majesty's Government was represented by the British Ambassador at Rome and myself, and the Italian Government by the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Maritime and Railway Transports.
    Consideration was given to the question of the supply and price of coal for Italy, a matter which has for long been a serious preoccupation to the Italian Government. I am hopeful that, as the result of the dis-
    2282
    cussions, Italy will be assured of her essential supplies of coal. With the assistance of the organisation which is being set up by the Italian Government, and with the co-operation of the British coal and shipping interests, the arrangements made at the Conference will have a beneficial effect upon the cost of the carriage of coal to Italy, and will prevent the recurrence of the high prices from which Italy suffered so severely last winter and spring.
    The question of the restriction of enemy trading was also discussed, and the representatives of the Italian Government were able to inform me of the issue of two Decrees during the sittings of the Conference, one of which prohibits all Italian subjects from trading with subjects of enemy States, and of countries allied to enemy States, while the other places under Government control and renders liable to sequestration or liquidation commercial undertakings in Italy belonging to, or controlled by, subjects of enemy States or their allies.
    The problems of supply of other important products essential for the conduct of the War, and for the Italian mercantile marine, have also been taken into serious consideration.
    The House will realise that it would not be expedient to make public those measures for the more efficient and effective prosecution of the War which were dealt with, and I hope that the House will rest content with the brevity of the notice to which the two Governments thought it necessary to restrict their announcement of the results of the Conference.
    No formal Convention was signed at the Conference, and no document was drawn up except a record of the proceedings.
    I should like to take this opportunity of reaffirming my warm appreciation of the cordial welcome which was given to me, as the representative of this country, by the Prime Minister of Italy and of his colleagues, and of the feeling of affectionate friendship to England which was shown by the enthusiastic and unmistakable character of public demonstrations. I felt justified in assuring the representatives of the Italian Government that this feeling was warmly reciprocated by the Government and people of Great Britain.
    Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of that reply, did the right hon. Gentleman discover, when he was in Italy, why the Italian Government did not declare war upon Germany?

    ADJOURNMENT MOTION (LENGTH OF DEBATE).
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of discussing before the Recess several urgent matters, including the price of food, the allowances and pensions to soldiers and sailors and their dependents, and the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, he will give more than one day for the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not aware of any general desire, either in the House or in the country, for such a prolongation of the Debate.
    Mr. HOGGE: It may be all night, then?

    National Health Insurance (Committee's Recommendations).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the experience of approved societies in Scotland has differed so materially from that of societies in England and Wales that amending legislation on the basis of the recommendations in the Ryan Committee's Report would in effect place charges upon Scottish societies for the benefit of those in England and Wales; and whether any estimate or official information of skilled evidence is available as to the extent to which this might take place?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): The Departmental Committee recommend a strictly limited reinsurance of risk in which it is contemplated that the whole insured community should participate. If the hon. Member will read the Report I think he will see that the Committee in their recommendations have been most careful to safeguard the position of the national funds established under the existing law. I am advised that in the operation of the scheme the balance may at any particular valuation incline to a small extent in one direction or another, but having regard to the accepted principles of insurance I do not think it can be said that this involves unfairness to any particular group of societies.

    Co-operative Creameries, Ireland.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can see his way to render assistance to Irish co-operative creameries desirous of going in for the manufacture of cheese; and, in view of the future which is before this industry, will the Irish farmers be assisted in every way to compete with wealthy creamery owners in the hope of enabling them to make the best hand possible of their milk supplies?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Department afford technical assistance and advice to any individuals or societies that desire to undertake cheesemaking. A number of cheese factories, some of which belong to co-operative creameries, have already received much help, and are visited periodically by the Department's Instructor in cheesemaking. The Department are also prepared to advise farmers generally as to the best methods of utilising milk supplies.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Sir Francis Douglas Blake, baronet, for the County of Northumberland (Berwick-upon-Tweed Division).
    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BUXTON SCHEME CONFIRMATION) BILL [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

    SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Bill,
Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Bill, without Amendment;
Telegraph (Construction) Bill, with an Amendment;
Amendments to—
Small Holding Colonies Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

CHARITY BILLS PRESENTED.
Holligrave Charity Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application of the Charity of Margaret Holligrave under the management of the Clothworkers' Company," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
Stony Stratford Charities Bill,—" to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities in the parishes of Stony Stratford East and Stony Stratford West, constituting and known as the town of Stony Stratford, in the county of Buckingham," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
Baptist Chapels Charities Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
Burnham-on-Crouch Chapel Charity Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Protestant Congregational Dissenters' Chapel in the parish of Burnham-on-Crouch, in the county of Essex," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
Bradford (Infirmary Street) Baptist Chapel Charity Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the Charity consisting of the clear proceeds of sale of the Bethel Baptist Chapel and School in Infirmary Street, in the city of Bradford," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
Bradninch Chapel Charities Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commis-
2286
sioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Particular Baptist Chapel and Trust Property in the parish of Bradninch, in the county of Devon," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
Bethlehem Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Bethlehem Chapel in the civil parish of Tryddyn, in the county of Flint," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
Pisgah Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Bill,— "to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of the Pisgah Chapel and Property in the civil parish of Tryddyn, in the county of Flint," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
Moriah Chapel (Broughton) Charity Bill,—" to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity consisting of Moriah Chapel, in the civil parish of Broughton, in the county of Denbigh," presented by Mr. Brace; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
Bethany Chapel Charity Bill,—" to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Chartiy consisting of the Bethany Particular Baptist Chapel at West Cross, Mumbles, in the parish of Oystermouth, in the county of Glamorgan," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
Congregational Chapels Bill,—"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
Plymouth Workhouse Charities Bill,— "to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity called or known as the Workhouse Charities, in the county borough of Plymouth, in the county of Devon," presented by Mr. BRACE; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE EEALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 27 th July.]
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE OF THE EEALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Acquire Land Permanently.)
    (1) It shall be lawful to acquire by agreement or compulsorily on behalf of His Majesty—

    (a) any land in the possession of an occupying Department or any interest in such land;

    (b) any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land;

    (c) with the consent of the Commission, any land on, over, or under which any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made partly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land.

    (2) Where any land or any interest in land is or has been so acquired any adjoining or neighbouring land (whether belonging to the same owner or not), or any right of access, or other easement or right which appears to the Commission to be required for the proper enjoyment of the land or interest so acquired, or any interest therein, may, with the consent of the Commission, also be acquired.

    (3) The power to acquire land, or an interest therein, under this Section shall include power to acquire the land or interest either with or without all or any of the mines or minerals lying thereunder as the purchasing Department may determine, and if the surface is acquired apart from the mines and minerals either without any right of support or with such right of support as the Department may require.

    (4) The power of acquisition conferred by this Section shall be exercisable—

    (a) in the case of land in the possession of an occupying Department or of land and rights required for
    2318
    the proper enjoyment thereof, by the occupying Department at any time whilst the Department is in possession;

    (b) in the case of other land or rights, by any Government Department at any time during the present War or within twelve months after the termination thereof.

    (5) For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be incorporated with this Act.

    (6) Where any buildings, works, or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly at the expense of the State, on, over, or under any land, no person shall without the consent of a Government Department remove, destroy, alter, or dispose of the buildings, works, or improvements whilst the right of acquiring the land conferred by this Section remains in force.

    (7) This Section shall not authorise the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land subject to any right of common, or of any public park or any public recreation ground.

    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (7).
    The intention is to take this out of the Bill, and later on to introduce a new Clause which gives greater protection to commons and open spaces.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: The other Amendments to the Clause, except that of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who is not in his place, are disposed of by the acceptance of the Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: This Clause of the Bill is, in my opinion, the most objectionable Clause in it. My reason for saying so is this: The memorandum which the Government has set out to show the object of the Bill states, and rightly states, that the main object is, where the Government has placed buildings on other people's land during the War, that when they cease to be tenants of that property, those

    2319
    buildings should not become the property of the owners of the land. That seems a perfectly right and proper object to have in view. This Clause, however, goes much further than that. It is only necessary, to carry out what the Bill purports to desire, to have two Clauses to say that the buildings shall not pass to the landowner, but shall remain with the Government, and, secondly, to give the Government power to carry away the buildings or to purchase the land on the usual terms. This Clause gives power to the Government, provided they have been in possession of land at all, even though they have not erected any buildings on it, to purchase the land at the end of the time. In that event they are to purchase it, not under the terms which the Government always purchase land from an individual, namely, on the terms set out in the Lands Clauses Acts, in which, among other things, there is one great advantage, namely, that the parties select their own tribunal and arbitrator—the Government do not put the transaction upon those terms, but upon the terms set out in this Bill which, to summarise, certainly are to the disadvantage of the owner of the land. I submit that this is a hardship, and a hardship which it is not necessary for any Government who desire to purchase to inflict upon the owner of land. Let me give an instance of what this Clause does in the way of injustice. Take two persons, adjacent landowners. The one has given up a field for the occupation of the local Yeomanry, and has done it as a patriotic act. At the end of the War the Government have the right to say to that man, "We propose to buy this land from you, though you may be exceedingly anxious not to sell." This power is given by this Clause, though the Government have no buildings upon the land. In addition to that, they have the power to purchase the land on terms I gave a moment or two ago. The next occupier has not allowed the Government upon his field or property at all, and the Government, of course, do not touch him, unless they choose to exercise the power which exists at present, namely, to take the land over for the purposes of national defence.
    4.0 P.M.
    Those are, shortly, the main objections that I have to this Clause. Other Clauses of the Bill have already given the Government powers to hold land for a long time.
    2320
    This Clause, which it is really not necessary for the Government to have, will do great injustice to those very people to whom the Government ought to be grateful, because they have, to a greater or less extent, helped the Government in this matter. I therefore beg to oppose this Clause.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like an explanation on this Clause. I had an Amendment down, in conjunction with several of my hon. Friends, to Sub-section (7), and you, Mr. Whitley, have just ruled that all Amendments are now out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may save the right hon. Gentleman trouble. It has been decided to leave out Sub-section (7) and to take the whole subject on the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman will see on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General.
    Mr. BARNES: Then may I take your assurance that this question will be able to be raised later on?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think there is no question about that.
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) really makes two points. The first is that there ought to be no power to purchase; and, secondly, that if there is a power to purchase it ought to be on different terms. With regard to the first point, take the case where a large sum has been spent on land in putting up munition factories or something of that kind. If you confine the power of the Government Department to a mere occupation of the land for two or a few years more, it might well be—in fact it would be in most cases—that during that time the value of the buildings would not be exhausted, and the Government would not get back anything like the value of their buildings. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the Government should only make the buildings their property, but that would mean that the buildings would have to be pulled down and taken away. The value of buildings on a site, and the value of buildings scrapped and taken away, are two very different things. Secondly, these are buildings erected for the most part for the defence of the country, and where they are really needed they ought to be the property of the Government, or, at any rate, the Government ought to have the power to say that

    2321
    they should become their property, so that I do not think you could effect the whole purpose of this Bill without giving power to purchase. With regard to the question of terms, that does not arise on this Clause. My hon. and learned Friend objects to some of the Clauses, but we can deal with those when we come, to them. I propose to accept some Amendments to the Schedule, which, I think, will remove some of his objections with regard to the power to purchase. The Report stage of this Bill will be taken after the Recess, and I hope before that time comes I shall have the opportunity of meeting my hon. and learned Friend and others, and telling them exactly what we propose to do on Report, and that, when he sees what we are doing, if he does not become a supporter of the Bill, at any rate some of his objections will be removed.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I understand, Mr. Whitley, that you passed over the Amendments because, as the learned Solicitor-General has just said, the points raised by Sub-section (7) will be raised by the new Clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman later on. I take it hon. Members are not strictly out of order in having put down Amendments, but that it is more convenient that the question should be dealt with on the new Clause. No doubt it is convenient, but, at the same time, the Committee will recognise that, in giving up what might be a right to ask that our Amendments be considered on this Clause in order to suit the convenience of the learned Solicitor-General, means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets his Bill through Committee, and the new proposals come on as a new Clause, on which there are a large number of Amendments affecting very important local authorities, municipal authorities, port authorities, and dock authorities in the country, and we have got no real assurance from the learned Solicitor-General that he is going to accept Amendments which many members of this Committee have down on behalf of those authorities. While I should be only too glad, of course, to fall in with whatever is most convenient, it is a very serious matter for us to give up our rights in the early part of the Bill unless we have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that he is going to meet some of the Amendments we have down to his new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I had better clear that question up. The Committee accepted the proposal of the learned Solicitor-General to leave out Sub-section (7) of this Clause, as he stated, in view of the wider Clause he has set down on the Order Paper. Hon. Members interested in points will not lose their opportunity of raising them, but it would be out of order, now that Sub-section (7) has gone out of this Clause, to raise those points here.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.): On a point of Order. I had an Amendment down to add another Subsection to this Clause, and I conceive that would be in order. I did not rise to move it because I thought it would be more convenient to discuss it on the learned Solicitor-General's new Clause.
    Sir G. CAVE: It will save discussion if I say that on Clause 7 I am going to accept Amendments proposed which will, I hope, entirely satisfy both my hon. and learned Friend opposite and my hon. Friend behind me.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I am somewhat in the same position as the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I would like to ask, on a point of Order, whether my Amendment to add a new Sub-section would be out of order when the new Clause is reached, because I am very anxious to move it, as it raises an important question of principle?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that Amendment was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). I have that marked on my Paper as having already been dealt with by the Committee. We had, if I remember, two hours' discussion on an Amendment on that subject earlier in the Bill.
    Mr. WHITE: On that point, I do suggest that in the previous Clause it was merely a question of rent. Here it is a question of purchase, and the application of a somewhat different principle. Indeed, I know there are a good many Members of this House who were not with mo when I moved my Amendment, but who had indicated their intention of being present when I moved in regard to the question of purchase. It may be a similar case, but I do submit that the

    2323
    case of purchase in this Clause 3 is fundamentally distinguishable from Clause 1, which only deals with rent for a limited period.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must have some regard to the amount of time occupied and the amount covered in discussion. My recollection is that a very long time was spent over that principle, which the hon. Member said he wished to introduce into this Bill, and which the Committee, after discussion, rejected. However, if he will bring it up in the form of a new Clause, I will refresh my memory and look at the records, and see whether I am right in that position. I will not rule finally on the matter for this purpose.
    Mr. WHITE: Would it be in order to move it on the learned Solicitor-General's new Clause?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have already reached the point, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and it would not be in order for the hon. Member to move excessive Amendments of the same kind on a new Clause. If the hon. Member brings up a new Clause, I will see whether or not that has already been decided.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his very courteous reply, but he really missed the point. I never suggested that where the Government had put buildings on land they should not have the power first, to own the buildings; secondly, to remove them if they thought rightly; and, thirdly, to buy the land under ordinary terms; but this Clause goes much further, and gives the Government power to buy land when it has put no buildings on it at all. That, I say, is unnecessary. The second point on this Clause I summarised by saying that the terms are less favourable to the landowner than they would be if the ordinary Lands Clauses Act applied. Therefore, two things happen. You are giving unnecessary power to purchase land on which buildings have not been erected at all, in which case there is no sort of reason why the Government should have the right to take it, and also it takes the land upon terms more harsh to the landlord than they generally would be. I do not imagine it would be necessary to have power for the Government to purchase land on which it has erected buildings which are necessary for the defence of the realm. I imagine they
    2324
    would have power already to do that under the Defence of the Realm Act. But, if they have not, I should not object in the least to any such power being given to them, which could be given by a very short Clause. That does not meet my objection to this Clause, in which, I do say, the Government have gone much further than necessary, and are really putting a great injustice upon people in this particular case, which is not the ordinary class of landlord, but the class of landlord who has gone out of his way patriotically to let the Government come on his land, which, I submit, the Government ought to have no right to purchase under this Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of Order raised a few minutes ago. There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), who asked me to move it, but I did not do so because I thought I could move it on the new Clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps, Mr. Whitley, you would not mind noting that the hon. Member for Blackpool stands for me for all purposes during the Committee stage of this Bill. I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this Clause goes very much further than is necessary. I do not think anyone would object to the Government purchasing land and erecting buildings on it, and, where necessary in the national interests, that the land and buildings should be so acquired. But as my hon. and learned Friend points out, this goes considerably further, and gives the Government power to purchase land on which they have erected nothing. I have not had time to refresh my memory as to what occurred on the former Committee stage, and I am not quite certain whether some of the words to which I object on this Clause were or were not left out, but I do think Sub-section (2) as it stands goes very far. I am not quite sure there was not some Amendment of that kind, but that is going very much further than is necessary under the circumstances. The Solicitor-General was good enough to ask some of us interested in this and other Clauses to meet him this afternoon, and we have had a discussion in which, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman met us very fairly. Under these circumstances, unless there is some objection, I should be in favour of letting this Clause pass, it being understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will meet us before

    2325
    the Report stage and discuss the matter in the same spirit as he manifested in the discussion this afternoon.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Government want power to acquire land on which there are no buildings? I should have thought that the occupation of the land during the War, and a certain time afterwards, would be quite sufficient for the Munitions Department or any Government Department. If there is any other reason for acquiring land, I think it ought to be given to the Committee.
    Sir GEORGE CAVE: There are such cases.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(User of Land Acquired.)
    Any land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under this Act may be used by any Government Department, or, with the consent of such Department, by any person deriving title under such Department, in the manner in which it was used during the War, or in any other manner approved by such Department, notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user or to recover damages in respect of the depreciation of the land in which he is so interested by reason of such user; but if, apart from this provision, he would have been entitled to recover such damages he shall, if application for the purpose is made within twelve months after the date of the acquisition of the land under this Act or after the commencement of the user causing the depreciation, whichever may be the later, be entitled to such compensation as the Commission may think just:
    Provided that—

    (a) the Commission in determining the compensation payable to any person interested in any land so depreciated in value shall have regard to the extent to which the value of the land or any adjoining or neighbouring land in which the same person is also interested may have been appreciated by any buildings, works, or improvements con-
    2326
    structed, erected, or made on any land for purposes connected with the present War wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or with the consent of the occupying Department at the expense of any other person; and

    (b) no compensation shall be payable if the land is used by a Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, or if used by a person deriving title under a Government Department for a purpose certified by the Department to be in the interests of national defence; and

    (c) where the compensation would be payable by a Government Department, the Department may require the claimant to sell the land or his interest therein at such price as would have been proper if the value of the land had not been so depreciated, such price in default of agreement to be determined by the Commission; and

    (d) nothing in this Section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right to recover damages in respect of any injury to property caused by accident due to such user as aforesaid.

    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to leave out the whole of the first paragraph of the Clause is equivalent to leaving out the whole of the Clause, and it is not in order.
    Mr. BOYTON: I have not had any assurance from the Solicitor-General, but I understood that he was going to withdraw this Clause.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not proposed to withdraw the Clause, but to move certain Amendments to it.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move to insert at the beginning of the Clause the words "If the Commission so sanction." Many of us do not feel that the Department should have this privilege, and the first decision should lie with the Commission.
    Sir G. CAVE: Under this proposal if the War Office purchased a munitions factory for the very object of making

    2327
    munitions, they cannot do so unless they go to the Commission. That would be the effect of this Amendment, and I do not think my hon. Friend would insist upon that. I think the main objection to this Clause has been that it gives the power of user not only to the Government Department, but to persons to whom they may sell land, in that way setting up a class of persons who would have certain special privileges. Objection has been taken to that, and not unreasonably, and I am going to propose to omit the words to which objection has been taken, so that the Clause will only apply to a Government Department. I hope that will meet the objections which have been raised upon this Clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move to leave out the word "Government" ["may be used by any Government Department"], and to insert instead thereof the word "occupying."
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand the object of this Amendment is to secure that the power to use the land should only be given to the purchasing Department and not some other Department of the Government. I agree with that, but we do not need the Amendment, because the word "occupying" has no meaning in this Clause. As my hon. Friend will see, I am going to move to limit the purposes of user to purposes for which the property is used during the War under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts. No Department except those dealing with those Acts could use the land, and I think that will meet my hon. Friend's point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "by any person deriving title under such Department, in the manner in which it was used during the War, or in any other manner approved by such Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "for the purpose for which it was used during the War or for any other purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903." I think that entirely meets the case of any person deriving title under the Department.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Solicitor-General kindly explain what the powers are which are being sought under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903? It would take a long time for me to look up all those Acts. This is legislation by reference in a very great degree, and I should like to know exactly to what the Committee is committing itself. It may be that we are only committing ourselves to a proper course, but I think we ought to be told exactly what the powers are under these provisions.
    Sir G. CAVE: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's request, I may say that, under the Defence Acts, land may be used for defence purposes only, and under the Military Lands Acts land may be used for military purposes, including rifle or artillery practice, buildings, the enlargement of barracks, the erection of huts and batteries, premises for the storing of arms, military drill, and any other purposes connected with military matters. To put it quite generally, these powers are for defence or military purposes.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the Committee should understand what we are doing. This is a very important Section. At the present time if you start an Artillery range over certain people's land you have to pay compensation to the people affected, because there is a certain amount of risk behind the butts. That is the practice in times of peace. If under this Bill a rifle range is set up, and certain people are effected in the neighbourhood, they could not exercise such rights, and they have no right to compensation. If that is so, what is the object of this Clause? What is the meaning of the words "notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant, or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user or to recover damages," and so on? I should like to know if any member of the Committee can tell me the meaning of this Clause. What is the object of it? Is it to prevent persons who get compensation at the present time get-ting compensation in the future? I should like to know what the Committee think we are passing this Clause for. I have

    2329
    tried myself to understand it, and I fail to see what the object is. Is it to allow the Government to do something under the Clause without paying the compensation which has had to be paid before? I would point out that no compensation is to be paid if the land is used by a Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used if the land had been acquired under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts. I am sorry if I annoy the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, if that is not so, I do not see the point of the Sub-section. It distinctly says that no compensation shall be payable in that case.
    Sir G. CAVE: The effect of the Clause is to allow the Government to use the land after they have bought it for defence purposes. If, without this Clause, they could have acquired it without paying compensation, then they are to pay nothing.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "or to recover damages in respect of the depreciation of the land in which he is so interested by reason of such user."
    The effect of this Amendment is to leave the right to damages. The omission of the words leaves an additional remedy to the owner of the land.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "recover such damages," and to insert instead thereof the words "restrain such user."
    Mr. WHITE: I should like to know what will be the effect of these Amendments? Assuming that the Government purchase land and acquire it permanently under this Section, are they to have the same right of user as the vendor himself had? The original owner had the ordinary rights to do as he liked with the land, and unless he committed a nuisance his neighbours had no right to interfere. Is the Government user to be of a more limited character? Assuming that they use the land in such a way that whilst it does not constitute a nuisance, still it does depreciate the value of the neighbouring land, will the owners of the neighbouring
    2330
    land have a right of action against the Government which they would not have had if the land had been used similarly by the owner from whom the Government purchased?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Government Department can only use the land for Government purposes. If in doing that they should be guilty of a nuisance, or of some act for which an individual would have to pay damages, or might be restrained, then the Government must pay compensation.
    Mr. WHITE: Are these damages limited then to cases where there is something in the nature of a nuisance?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, or such as otherwise would render a private owner liable to be restrained.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that if a Government Department uses land or buildings, or both, for any purpose under these particular Acts, and thereby causes a nuisance, the Government cannot be sued or restrained, but, if they cause a nuisance apart from that particular user to which they are entitled, then an action will lie.
    Sir G. CAVEindicated dissent.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I understand if the Government, as purchasers, do anything which in the case of a private individual would have been held to be to the detriment of the neighbours, or anything which is in contravention of the conditions under which they acquire the land, they will be liable in precisely the same way, and the effect of this Amendment is to do away with any privileged position in which the Government would have been placed. They acquire the rights which the vendor himself had, and no more than his rights, and if they commit a nuisance they are liable in the same way, with the one exception that if they buy for a specific purpose—if, for instance, they buy land with a shell factory upon it—and they continue to use it as it has been used, they are not to be open to an action, but they may not create a fresh nuisance for which a private owner would be liable without themselves being liable to pay compensation.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Bill goes further than my hon. Friend suggests. If the Government desire to go on making shells, even although they are a nuisance, they cannot be restrained by injunction, but they will

    2331
    have to pay compensation for the damage they cause The only privilege the Government gets under this Clause is that they are not subject to an injunction. They cannot have the place shut up, but they have to pay compensation.
    Question, "That the words 'recover such damages' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words "restrain such user" there inserted.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "within twelve months," and to insert instead thereof the words "at any time."
    There is no particular reason why the application should be made within twelve months of the acquisition of the land. If damage results from user which would have been illegal but for this Act, there is no reason why they should not apply for damages at any time. It seems to me that twelve months is too short a time in which to discover whether the user is a nuisance to any particular adjoining land or not. There is no reason why there should be any restriction at all.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that twelve months is rather too short; but, on the other hand, if you put in "at any time" that is too long. I would, therefore, suggest that we should put in "two years" instead of "twelve months." That is the time which is laid down in certain railway Acts, and I suggest that would be time enough in which to find out whether there is a nuisance or not. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not persist in his Amendment. If he will withdraw it, I will move to insert "two years."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "twelve months", and to insert instead thereof the words "two years".
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think my right hon. and learned Friend was right in saying that there ought to be a limit, and the only question is how long that limit ought to be. I think two years is too short. The period of limitation which is common among the ordinary people of this land is six years. I think that would be much nearer the mark, and I would suggest that the Government should say five years. It might be that the land was in occupation of a
    2332
    tenant who only had it for a very short time and did not in the least care whether the land were depreciated or not. The owner might be away and not know within such a short time that the land had been depreciated. The tenant might be interested in a Government factory and might not acquaint him with what was going on. He might, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) suggests, be manager of the factory living in a neigbouring house which the owner had let, so that he might go away and recuperate his finances, which had been seriously depleted by the exactions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The landlord might know nothing whatever about it, and come back one day and find that a nuisance had been created. The Government are really for once so reasonable that I think in all probability they will agree to extend the period to five years.
    Sir G. CAVE: If my right hon. Friend wants a bargain, will he say three years?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Three years is better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Very well, I suppose I must accept that suggestion.
    Mr. WHITE: I am rather sorry that the Government have made this concession. I think three years is too long, and that one year is reasonable. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has spoken of a precedent. The precedent which occurs to one is the limit of time under the Public Authorities Protection Act In that Act the limit of time that is given for bringing actions of various classes is six months. I quite agree that six months would have been too short a period within which to bring an action against the Government here, but I think a year was reasonable. I think that the two years suggested could reasonably have been accepted, and I do hope that the learned Solicitor-General will not at least extend the period beyond three years.
    Question, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the Solicitor-General wish to alter his Amendment to three years?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Question, "That the words 'three years' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, after the words "provided that" ["as the Commissioners may think just: Provided that—"], to insert,

    "(a) nothing in this Section shall authorise the contravention of any general or local Act of Parliament, or of any by-law, regulation, or order made thereunder;

    "(b) any street, building, or work which has been formed, erected, or constructed on any such land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of any general or local Acts relating to streets or buildings and with any by-laws or regulations made thereunder shall, unless the authority by whom such provisions, by-laws, or regulations are enforced consent to the continuance thereof, either be so altered as to comply with such provisions, by-laws, or regulations, or be discontinued or removed within such reasonable time after such land or building has ceased to be occupied by a Government Department as such authority may order, and the owner shall have power to enter upon and carry out any works without the consent of any other person, and if he fails to comply with such order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which such non-compliance continues, and such authority as aforesaid may remove any such building or work and recover the expense incurred in such removal from the owner in a summary manner as a civil debt."

    This Amendment which stands in my name and in that of other hon. Members is very similar to that which precedes it on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook), but I think it is the one which is desired by the local authorities. I find it a little difficult to understand where exactly we are now that this Clause has to some extent been altered; but I think this Amendment is still required. The first part proposes that nothing in this Section shall authorise the contravention of any general or local Act of Parliament or of any by-law, regulation, or order made thereunder; and the second part provides in effect that the building laws which exist in different parts of the country shall be enforced for any land acquired by the Government under
    2334
    this Act at a reasonable time after it has ceased to be occupied by the Government Department.
    The Government have taken possession of estates and have erected buildings during the War in complete disregard of the building laws. I have in my mind an example in London where they took possession of an estate in respect of which plans had been submitted by the owner to the Building Acts authority, which had approved them. The Government took possession, reduced the width of the streets, and generally laid out the land on lines which would not satisfy the Building Acts conditions if continued indefinitely. Nobody complains of that; but some limit ought to be placed to that state of things, and the terms of the Bill do seem to open the door to the creation of slums. They might be used, when the Government have taken possession of this property and have disposed of it, to bring about a state of things which might serve the purpose of the Government, but which would not promote the health of the community. It is only reasonable that the Government should desire to recoup themselves for, expenditure, but they ought not to do that at the expense of the health of the community. I suggest that this Amendment is a reasonable one, because it gives power to the Building Acts authority to consent to an infringement of the building laws if they think it is reasonable that that should be done. It does, at any rate, make obligatory once more the building laws which have been set up for a series of years, and which do secure the health of the community. I think this is a point of considerable importance, and I hope the Solicitor-General may be able to meet it.
    Mr. G. THORNE: Will the Solicitor-General say whether the Government accept the principle contained in this Amendment, and whether they are prepared to meet it in some way in this Bill?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment is not unreasonable, and I am prepared to accept it in principle. One condition I should like to make is that in the event of the local authority insisting on the immediate taking down of the building there ought to be some appeal granted to a person who might be injured by that requirement. The effect of paragraph (b) is that any building erected on land, and which contravenes, the local by-laws, shall, unless the authorities by whom the by-laws are enforced consent to its continuance, be

    2335
    altered or pulled down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not object to giving an appeal to the Local Government Board in cases of this kind, and that could be done if we were to insert after the word "enforced" ["Regulations are enforced"] the words "or in the event of their refusal, the Local Government Board." With the insertion of those words, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I think that suggestion is really a most excellent one, and one that is in the interest of housing and an improvement of the Clause the hon. Gentleman has submitted. It falls to my lot to have a good deal to do with local authorities in the matter of housing. One does not care to speak disrespectfully of august bodies, but one finds that they have not always taken a very enlightened view, and if it happened that any of these works erected, or particular housing schemes that have been put up, were found not to be strictly in accordance with some rather old-fashioned local by-laws, a deadlock might arise, and difficulty might be experienced in doing justice. The Local Government Board, with its knowledge of town planning, and its excellent staff of technical advisers, would be just the body to deal with a situation of that kind, and from the point of view of the authorities would save anything detrimental being done to good housing, whereas the proprietors of these particular estates, and the Government Departments, would be protected from having housing schemes destroyed by a technical objection of the local authorities. If the Solicitor-General incorporated that in this Amendment I think the cases of the authorities and of the State Departments will both be met.
    Sir G. CAVE: I should like to point out that, having regard to the change made in Clause 4, confining it to Government occupation, the Amendment is not quite in the proper form here. May I, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman's permission not to accept it now, on the understanding that I will put it in on Report, at the proper place, probably Clause 5?
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I must point out that I said I found it difficult to understand where we were. I agree to the Solicitor-General's suggestion.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I confess that, at first, I had not grasped what the Amend-
    2336
    ment meant. As I understand it, what it means is that if a private individual takes over certain huts that have been put up by the Government, the Government not having been obliged to erect the buildings under the local by-laws, the local authorities come in and say, "You have bought these, but you must put them up again, under our by-laws, according to our conditions." I am not at all sure that I agree with that. The by-laws are very oppressive in some cases. There was a certain Mr. Justice Grant, who had a big action against a local authority, and I am not at all sure that it is advisable that we should give these extended powers to the local authorities. It is always necessary, I find, to look with suspicion on an Amendment moved by a member, or an ex-member, of the London County Council, and this was such a very long and involved Amendment to the layman that, for a moment, I do not understand it. I think, therefore, that it had better be moved on the Report stage, when we can consider what action should be taken.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: The right hon. Baronet who has just spoken said we ought not to give these extended powers to local authorities. I venture to remind the Committee that this is not giving powers, but taking away powers, unless we are careful. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to prevent legislation of this kind taking away powers given to local authorities after very long and careful discussion in this House. It is not right to say that this is giving powers, and I think the Solicitor-General, when he considers it on Report, should bear that in mind, and not what the right hon. Baronet said.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not mean for a moment that the local authorities were going to have fresh powers given to them in the ordinary way. But this is not in the ordinary way. It may be that I have not fully understood it, but it might happen that a Government Department might have erected certain huts, and said to the owner of the land, "If you choose to take back these huts at a certain price, which we will fix, you can take back the land and the huts," and the owner might agree, being under the impression that he had secured good value. Then the local authority says that its by-laws, which I agree are already in existence, are to apply to these particular huts. I am rather inclined to think that that might be all right, but it is rather a strong order, I think, because

    2337
    it practically condemns the buildings which the Government have put up, and renders them useless in the hands of a private individual unless he alters them to suit the conditions of the local authority. I think that ought to be carefully considered.
    Sir T. WALTERS: There is the appeal to the Local Government Board, and they decide whether these huts are suitable for human habitation. The huts might well have been suitable for temporary use during the War, but not suitable for permanent habitation. On the other hand, it would not be right that they should be condemned, if they were fit for human habitation, because of the local by-laws. With this appeal to the Local Government Board, with their staff of technical advisers, I think justice will be done.
    Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (a), as it contains something which might be objected to.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "compensation" ["no compensation should be payable"], to insert the words "other than compensation in respect to a breach of a restrictive covenant."
    I think there ought to be compensation where a restrictive covenant is broken.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "or if used by a person deriving title under a Government Department for a purpose certified by the Department to be in the interests of national defence." This is consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c). This is one of the Amendments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), which he has asked me to move. I understand that the effect of the Subsection is that where compensation would be payable by a Government Department, if the Department think that the compensation is high, instead of paying compensation, they may purchase the land of the holder at the price which would have been
    2338
    the proper value of the land if the depreciation had not occurred. Ostensibly, I think, that seems fairly reasonable, but on considering it, when I saw that my hon. and gallant friend had an Amendment down, I think perhaps it might lead to hardship. Suppose that a Government Department had to pay a certain amount of compensation, and they thought they could do better by buying the land at the value at which it was before it was depreciated, and then selling it. I am sure the temptation in such a case would be great, and that the Government Department would exercise their right. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, in many cases these people have put their land at the disposal of the State for patriotic reasons, and if they like to get their own land back again I really think that because the State may think compensation is a little too high, or that they could do better by purchasing the land at its previous value, they ought not to be allowed to do so. It may be that some safeguard will be required against very excessive compensation, but I suggest to the Government that they should accept this Amendment subject to consideration upon the Report stage as to whether or not some safeguarding words might not be necessary.
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot accept this Amendment and I think we ought to retain these words. This paragraph does not refer to a man who has put his land at the disposal of the Government, but rather to the owner of adjoining land who says that his property is injured by the works put up by the Government. In a case of that kind it may be that the owner of quite a small property makes a claim for compensation which is very large indeed, perhaps as much as the whole value of the land. In a case like that the Government ought to have some remedy. The effect of the paragraph is that the Government may say, "You are asking too much, we will buy you out, not, of course, at the depreciated value of the land, which you say is caused by the Government works, but at the value of the land before our works were put on it." That is not unfair, especially having regard to the suggestion that the price will be settled by the Commission, and I hope the Committee will stand by it.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Government by this innocent looking paragraph are getting practically compulsory pur-

    2339
    chase without any of the usual safeguards by which compulsory purchase is surrounded. There is a good deal in it that will require looking into at a later stage.
    Sir T. WALTERS: This is a most interesting and useful provision. It brings to my memory some delightful episodes in my past career where I have seen claims made for damage done to land by something that has happened on adjoining works which has made me wonder what could be the real value of the land if the damage done to it amounted to such a large sum. The provision is a most interesting check upon the imagination of people who put forward claims for compensation. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has pointed out, you must not lose sight of the damage done by severance, even though the claim might be made for a comparatively small area of land. If the Government exercise the powers conferred by this Bill and purchase the land, that purchase might, by the severance of that particular property from another section of the same ownership, cause injury to the owner. While I quite agree with this particular power, there ought to be a safeguard against injury caused by severance, apart from mere injury to a particular piece of land.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Would not the question of excessive compensation to which the Solicitor-General referred be settled by a Court? If the owner of the land could not show that the damage done was £1,000, and he asked for £10,000, the Court would decide what the proper amount should be. Although I think some safeguard may be necessary, the paragraph goes too far, and the point made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) is a good one, that under the guise of a Clause which has a very innocent character, the Government are getting compulsory purchasing powers.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison)expressed dissent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think it goes very near it. Would the Government give an undertaking to somewhat modify the Clause on Report stage?
    Sir G. CAVE: We will consider what has been said, and see if anything can be done.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "may require the claimant to sell," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall, if required by the claimant, purchase."
    I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) to move this Amendment; on his behalf. It would be a great advantage to the adjoining owner, no doubt, if this paragraph were included in the Bill. Suppose the Government came alongside a landowner and, by the erection of works, create a nuisance which renders the adjoining land useless to the owner for the purposes to which it was previously put. The Clause as it stands gives the landowner power to ask for damages against the Government in certain cases, but it gives the Government power to buy the land if they do not like the amount asked. The Amendment says that if the owner of the land finds that injury has been done to him, he may require the Government to purchase the land from him.
    Sir T. WALTERSmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member takes the view that that would be rather serious. Apparently he has very little confidence in the tribunals set up to try land cases, although I believe that he has acted as arbitrator in such cases himself.
    Sir T. WALTERS: Very frequently.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I should have the greatest confidence in him if he were the arbitrator, and should not have the slightest doubt that if a claim were laid before him for an improper amount, he would not grant it. There would be very little harm in inserting this Amendment. If a man puts forward a claim, he will simply get what was the value of the land to him. If the Government make the land useless to him for the purposes for which he required it, it is only right that they should, if necessary, take the land away from him. It is not the owner's fault if the Government come alongside his property and cause him a nuisance, therefore the proper person

    2341
    to have the right to say whether the land shall be taken over is the owner of the land and not the Government.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment would have two results. In the first place, it would destroy the safeguard which the Committee have just agreed shall be put into the Bill in some form or another. Secondly, it would produce this extraordinary result: That the man who wanted to sell his land would only have to make a claim, good or bad, for compensation and immediately the Government would have to buy his land. There is no condition that it shall be a good claim. The claimant for compensation would have a right to claim that the Government should buy him out at a price to be fixed. That is a very novel proposal and is really going too far. The Government could not possibly accept it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree that the Solicitor-General was entitled to make the point that the Amendment is drafted in the wrong form. I am not responsible for that. I only received the letter asking me to move it a short time ago. Still, the spirit of the matter remains, and it could be carried out perfectly well by improved drafting. However, I do not wish to press the point, because I agree that the Amendment is not in the form in which I should like to put it. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON rose to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the word "the" ["claimant to sell the land"], and to insert instead thereof the word "his."
    The object of this Amendment is to deal with the point of severance which has been raised by other hon. Members. It means that if the Government elect to purchase a man's land they must take the whole and not the little bit which he can prove to have been injured by the particular nuisance.
    Sir T. WALTERS: That might mean buying a very large estate.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not going to press the Amendment, because the Solicitor-General has told us he is going to consider the whole question of severance between now and the Report stage. I do not propose to move the Amendment, and therefore withdraw it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will move his manuscript Amendment?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "accident due to."
    I do not know whether the Solicitor-General thinks these words are necessary. I do not know what the word "accident" means. It has a highly technical meaning in certain cases connected with workmen's compensation and so forth. It does not seem to add anything at all to the sense of the paragraph. It is a very dangerous matter, and the words might be construed as meaning far more than is intended.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that these words should not be omitted. Under the Clause as amended we have not deprived the owner of any right to damages. This particular part was put in in order to secure that the person should have a right to damages in a case where an explosion at a factory had more or less destroyed neighbouring property. It would give the people a right to compensation, because of the explosion being an accident, which they would not otherwise have. The Commission presided over by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland made this suggestion, and it was put in in order to cover cases of this kind. There is no particular point in omitting these particular words.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have no objection to the words of the paragraph except to the words "accident due to." In the case the right hon. Gentleman put of an explosion the Government might say it was not an accident, but was due to gross negligence.
    Dr. ADDISON: That is the very point. Those people would not have any case unless we put the words in.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Oh, yes, they would!
    Dr. ADDISON: No, the words were expressly put in to include them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert new paragraph, "(e) nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, or the

    2343
    Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, or of any local Act dealing with the like matters, or affect the powers conferred by any Act, whether public, general, or local, on any local authority, board of conservancy, or other public authority, with respect to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, or the abatement of nuisances caused by the emission of smoke or other noxious fumes."
    Mr. HARDY: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not add words something on the lines of the Amendment on the Paper. This seems only to deal with public authorities, and it seems to me hard that riparian owners should not also receive some relief. I can speak from my own knowledge of cases where very great damage has been done to the riparian owner, the whole of his water supply being entirely contaminated and made unfit to use by reason of the drainage from camps. This is a matter not only of public but of private importance. I think there ought to be some words added, in connection with a real nuisance like that of pollution, to protect the rights of riparian owners as well as public authorities.
    Sir G. CAVE: We could not have words of that kind. The object of the paragraph is to protect the public. The words my right hon. Friend refers to would operate for the benefit only of private owners, and if we were to put them in the effect would be that the private owner if he was injured could obtain an injunction and shut up the camp or factory. The whole policy of the Bill is that the private owner shall be compensated for injury, but shall not have a right to an injunction. If these words went in he would have a right to an injunction, and very grave injury might be done to the public. He retains his right of compensation in full, but we do not think these words ought to go in, because they would put a veto on the use of land.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words "nor shall anything in this Section authorise any interference with or infringement of the rights of any riparian owner or prejudice or affect any such rights."
    2344
    I do not think the Solicitor-General has quite covered the question. It seems to me that the abstraction of water is not covered at all by anything which he has now put in. The pollution of rivers and nuisance caused by smoke are down, but what happens if water is abstracted, either temporarily by means of a dam or permanently by being taken out of the stream altogether?
    Sir G. GAVE: The owner gets compensation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is a very important Amendment. As I understand it, not only for the War but for long after the War, whenever the Government purchases any land, they would have the right to prevent the riparian owner having that water to which he had the right, and he might find himself in six or seven years time deprived of the water to which he had a right. I do not know why an individual should be treated worse than a corporation, but you must not consider that a riparian owner is an individual. In many cases he is not. I know cases of small riparian owners, perhaps owning both sides for three or four miles of a river or brook, which supplies many farms and one or two villages with water. If that was to be dammed somewhere higher up the stream, or if it was to be polluted, the village and the farms would be deprived of that to which they certainly have a right, and if a corporation or a municipality or a local authority is to be allowed the privilege of an injunction to preserve its water the rights of a riparian owner, who may be acting for a considerable number of other people, ought also to be preserved. I hope that if we are not met on this question we shall divide.
    Sir T. WALTERS: We talk about public authorities and riparian owners. Very often it is difficult to realise where the functions of one commence and the duties of the other terminate. The riparian owner is concerned, of course, in the protection of his water rights, but he may be concerned both directly and indirectly. If water is abstracted from the stream, or there is pollution of a water-course over which no particular local authority has any jurisdiction or claims any interest, it may be a serious disadvantage to half a dozen villages or to a large agricultural estate. It is all very well, when you are dealing with a stream running through a city, where you have local authorities who are vigilant and alert in the protection of

    2345
    the interests of the people, but where these streams are in country districts, where, perhaps, one large estate owner is looked upon as the general custodian of public interests, he has no locus standi under the Bill. Therefore, the people affected will look to him for protection and find that he has no powers. I am concerned to ascertain whether there are powers in the Bill which make it perfectly clear that the Government may not pollute these water-courses; whether they are under the control of local authorities; or whether they have no particular guardian except the riparian owner, may not divert the water, or permanently abstract from it a considerable source of supply, and so seriously injure people lower down the stream. You may divert a stream for some trade purpose, and cut off the entire water supply of a whole district previously dependent upon it. I am not, for the moment, in the least concerned about the interests of the private owner. What I am concerned about is that the water-courses which have protection are not only those under the immediate control of local authorities or conservancy boards, but that all those public water-courses which are ordinarily regarded as being merely under the protection of the riparian owner are protected from pollution or diversion. Compensation, of course, meets the case of an estate owner. If his pocket is affected you can pay him, but if you injure an estate owner in his riparian rights and pay him for it, that is no satisfaction to the unfortunate people who are dependent on the water supply which is diverted or polluted. My remarks may seem quite foolish from a legal standpoint, but I want a clear under standing, because I know of a considerable number of cases in Yorkshire, adjoining great works which have been erected during the War, and I want to know what is going to happen to the people who live on the banks of these streams and watercourses. It will not satisfy them if the riparian owner is compensated and their interests are not safeguarded.
    Mr. STUART - WORTLEY: The Solicitor-General's answer to the contention of this Amendment is really an assertion that unless there is a conservancy board or local authority interested there is no public or general interest in the purity or the volume of the streams of water. If we lived in the gloomy 'fifties or the self-satisfied 'sixties we might be willing to listen to such an awful doctrine as that, but I cannot conceive any in-
    2346
    stance which serves as a better example to us even in the matter of what appear to be the most purely private rights in the perpetual surveying of large and public interests which the old laissez-faire doctrine always left completely out of sight than this instance of streams of water which everyone wishes should not be polluted, and, above all, should not be abstracted from or depleted. Most people now, and certainly many more in the future, will consider one of the highest public interests the preservation of rivers in their unpolluted state so far as possible. For the sake of the defence of the realm during the War we may be willing to submit to pollution, diversion and depletion. The question of an injunction for the infringement of a private right is a mere matter of machinery which can be got rid of, but it is the assertion of an old-time exploded doctrine which brings me to my feet.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think there has been some misunderstanding in putting down the Amendment. It was put down under advice to cover the case of pollution of streams, and it would not prejudice the persons described by my hon. Friend.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I do not believe the Act of 1876 gives protection to all these cases. I believe before a local authority can take action for pollution they must have some right of jurisdiction over the stream. The stream might be polluted a long way up in some rural district, and there might not be powers under the Act. I am very dubious as to whether there are any general powers that give sufficient protection, and I think by defining what you do here you prejudice our position, because by defining you limit.
    Dr. ADDISON: Our purpose is similar to that of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will undertake to look into the point. In respect to the drawing of water from the owner, I am advised that that is a nuisance and he would be entitled to claim compensation under the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Would he get his water?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is another point. I suppose the compensation would be in such a form that he would be able to provide himself with water out of what he would get as compensation. Our desire is that we should not have a great undertaking brought to a standstill by an injunction, and this particular Amendment

    2347
    is brought to cover the case to a large extent. However, the Solicitor-General will look at the points raised. So far as the effect upon individual owners is concerned, I believe the Clause as now amended covers all the rights that they would otherwise have.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Where there are munition works which it is in the public interest should be continued, we want to be sure that the interests of the public and of the private owners should be conserved in every way short of an injunction which would stop the work. I think the words of the Solicitor-General's Amendment go perhaps a little further in their effect than my hon Friend (Mr. Brunner) thinks they do. I have not the Act of 1876 at my finger-ends or in my mind, but my impression is that so far as county councils go, their powers extend to every brook in the county, so far as concerns the question of the pollution of streams. I think that is so, and if it is, that ought to be added; but if it is not, it is perfectly clear that sonic other words should be added so that not even the smallest stream whose pollution can affect the public health can be left polluted without that pollution being in some way stopped by the Government, who are the cause of the pollution. In regard to abstraction of water, that is a somewhat different thing. You may have water abstracted and the compensation which the riparian owner can get under the Bill may be sufficient for him, but abstraction of the water may have, indirectly, a considerable effect upon the health of a village a little lower down the stream, and yet that effect may not—and I do not think is—so direct as to be covered by these words in the Amendment. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter very carefully and give a pledge to the Committee that on the Report stage they will see that such words are inserted, that except the right of injunction all present rights should continue, and that whore there is danger to health, either by active pollution of the stream or by the abstraction of water, that that shall not be allowed, but that by some means or other it shall be stopped, where it results from the presence of a munition works. I think the words of the Solicitor-General's Amendment carry further than some of my hon. Friends think, but I am not certain that they cover the case of the abstraction of water, and I do hope he will give the pledge to deal with that.
    2348
    In the case of a private owner, I should have thought that the fact that he cannot get an injunction would be taken into consideration by any Court in the fixing of compensation. In regard to the question of public health, that is of very great importance in a particular locality in the neighbourhood of a munition factory. I hope that in regard to these matters we shall have perfect and peremptory security if the words in the Bill do rot fully deal with them.
    Sir G. CAVE: We have all the same object in view. We will endeavour to give full protection to the public. We desire to do that.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman as regards pollution, but that does not meet the point of those who have asked me to call attention, to the position in which they are placed. I refer to the millers. They are complaining of the abstraction of water. The Solicitor-General is quite open. He says, that supposing the Government require it they shall have right to take water from the mill owners down the stream. That is-what I wish to oppose. It may be necessary during the War that the Government-should take away the water, but I maintain that by enabling them to take away the water in such a way as to prevent mill owners carrying on their business down the stream we are giving too big a power to the Government under this Bill. It is no answer to say to these mill owners, "You may get compensation under the Bill." They are not asking for compensation in this particular case, so much as the power to say that their business should not be stopped altogether by the water being abstracted from the river. It is not quite clear that they would get compensation under this Bill, because the words of the Section are "adjoining or neighbouring owners." Whether those words would apply to a mill owner some distance down the stream would be matter for argument. When he is making his claim he is not making a legal claim for damages, but he has a right to go to the Commissioners and to get such damage as the Commission think just, and he has got to do it within three years of the time that the injury takes place. Does that mean that he can only get damages up to the date, say, on which he makes application within the three years in respect of the water he has failed to get, or is he to get his damages once and for all—that is, for

    2349
    the loss of his business altogether? If that is so, it will be a very serious matter of compensation for the Government if they give compensation. It seems to me that it would be a monstrous thing to give such power to the Government that a whole business can be absolutely destroyed down the stream, even though compensation is given, and it is not very clear that compensation would be given to these particular owners down the stream.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I would like to state the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. A controlled firm has taken nineteen acres of land upon which they have put up accommodation for a large number of workers, but the sanitary arrangements are not what they would be if they were intended to be of a permanent nature. What the Metropolitan Water Board want to know is what their position would be under this Bill after the War. The insufficient sanitary arrangements ought not to continue, and no compensation would satisfy the Metropolitan Water Board, because there may be pollution. This particular land is near the intake of water which supplies London, and it is of the utmost importance that immediately the War is over the whole of these arrangements should, with the greatest possible speed, be brought into proper order and under proper regulations. No provision for compensating the Metropolitan Water Board meets this case. What they want is that the pollution should cease. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could tell us what the position of the Metropolitan Water Board would be under his Amendment, or whether he will consider it between now and the Report stage. We are not differing at all in principle; it is only a question of what provision is made in this Bill for a case of that kind.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think public authorities will be protected by my Amendment. If not, I will look into it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) raised the question as to whether it is clear that compensation will be given in certain cases. Compensation is not sufficient. What you want is to prevent the water being abstracted or polluted. For instance, the Metropolitan Water Board do not want compensation; they want to have the water in a pure state so that you can give it in a pure state to their consumers. Therefore, I do not think that compensation is of very much use. Of course, it is better than nothing.
    2350
    Take the case which I mentioned, where the water was taken from a farm and certain cattle grazing in the field along the banks of the river. It is a very valuable thing to have water in a field. If that water is taken away it may not be possible within that field or within three or four fields to find a well which could be sunk with the money given as compensation. This is a very important matter, and I fail to see why a private owner in the sense which I have indicated should not have the same power in a matter of this sort as any local authority. I am not at all sure that the meaning of the Amendment as regards riparian owner would include the Thames Conservancy. I do not suppose it would. It must be borne in mind that the riparian owner is not actually an individual acting in his own interests, but that often he is acting in the interests of the locality. My right hon. Friend has very kindly said that he will consider whether or not something cannot be done on the Report stage. But we have got a great many things which are going to be considered on the Report stage, and I am very much afraid that he may forget them. What I would suggest is that the Government should allow this Amendment to be added to their Amendment on the understanding that if they think right they may alter it or negative it on the Report stage. By putting in this Amendment it means that when the Bill comes forward again we shall know exactly where we were. We shall not meet again until the middle of October. It may be that the Bill will not be taken until November, or it may even be taken the day before Christmas, although I hope not. The Government seem to be fond of taking Bills just before the Adjournment. If they take this Bill then we shall have an empty House, and these things will be forgotten. Therefore I hope the Government will consent to putting in these words as an addition to their Amendment, on the understanding that they can take them out on the Report stage or modify them if they think proper.
    Mr. BOYTON: This Amendment seems to me of so far-reaching a character, and we are in Committee on so important a Bill, that it does not seem right when these points are brought forward the right hon. Gentleman should say he will deal with them on the Report stage. We have every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but is he not stretching matters a

    2351
    little too far? This Bill as drawn is being riddled through and through, and we have now got to a bono of contention like this. It is often said that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor, and here some individuals may be setting up new munition works, or some other kind of huge factory higher up the stream, and diverting the water from the small riparian owners and mill owners lower down the stream. I hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner), who moved this Amendment, will not be too complaisant. We ought to see whether there is any life in this Committee or not.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Original Amendment again proposed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In deference to the wishes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman we did not insist on challenging a Division on the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as we understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give the matter further consideration.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I desire to draw attention to a question which I hope my right hon. Friend may explain, as it affects the whole Bill. Speaking of interests that may be acquired, the Bill refers to interests acquired under this Act. I would like it clearly understood as to whether this Act applies to cases where the land is taken by the free invitation or with the assent of the owner. A great deal of land has been given freely by the owners in different parts of the country, and is at present in Government occupation for purposes under the Defence of the Realm Act, and these owners should have the same rights and powers with respect to compensation as are provided for under this Act for those whose land has been taken compulsorily by the authorities. All I would ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter carefully before the Bill conies rap on the Report stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Sell Land Acquired under Act.)
    (1) Where any land or any interest therein has by virtue of this Act been acquired by any Government Department,
    2352
    the Department may at any time thereafter sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest.
    (2) Where any such land is, disposed of, then on the execution and delivery to the purchaser by the Government Department concerned of the necessary or proper assurance of the land disposed of, the purchaser shall notwithstanding any defect in the title of such Government Department thereto stand possessed thereof for such estate or interest as may be expressed or intended to be assured to him, freed and absolutely discharged (save as in the assurance may be expressed) from all prior estates, interests, rights, and claims therein or thereto:,
    Provided that if at any time after such disposition any such prior estate interest right or claim as aforesaid is established by the person entitled thereto, there shall be paid to such person compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Land Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act, with respect to interests in lands which by mistake have been omitted to be purchased.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, ac the end of Sub-Section (1), to insert the words "as superfluous land within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845."
    The effect of this Amendment is to make perfectly clear that the right of preemption is given to the owner from whom this land was originally taken. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared either to accept this, or to accept a Clause in which this is set out definitely and which stands in the name of several of my hon. Friends. I move this now to give my right hon. and learned Friend an opportunity of telling the Committee at the earliest possible stage what his decision is.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am prepared in substance to accept the view of my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not know that this Amendment is quite in the best form, because it only gives the right of preemption by reference to another Statute, subject to certain conditions. I think that it would be far better to put the right of pre-emption in the Clause itself. That being so, I shall propose to accept the Amendment on the next page when we come to it, which gives to the original owner or an adjoining owner the right of pre-emption.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In view of that I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-Section (2), to leave out the words "as modified by this Act."
    The procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts is modified in this particular case of the acquisition of land, and modifications are introduced for the first time into the Lands Clauses Acts of a more severe character than would have been adopted by this House at other times when we were engaged in an extreme party fight. I feel a difficulty in moving this Amendment, because I understand from an earlier statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is going to alter to some extent the Schedule, and perhaps this may alter to a large extent my objection which is raised by this Amendment. Therefore I formally move it with the view of getting an assurance from him on the point.
    Sir G. CAVE: There are very few modifications which will apply to this particular case, and I would prefer to keep the words in, because there is a provision later on to deal with these small interests. As we agreed to modify the Acts for some purposes in an earlier Clause, the words should remain here.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The question of procedure is not really what my hon. Friend refers to. What is wanted is to have the question of a tribunal settled. The Lands Clauses Acts give a tribunal of an arbitrator appointed by the parties. Unless you get these words in, the tribunal is somebody who is nominated by the Commission.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider this matter to see if I can do anything.
    Mr. HARDY: That is really the point, that there should be some power in reference to the tribunal before which we go. The Schedule does give unduly large powers to the Commission. In view of the promise of the right lion, and learned Gentleman I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add
    "(3) Before any Government Department sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of
    2354
    any land or interest therein they shall first offer to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the same to the person then entitled to the lands (if any) from which the same were originally severed; or if such person refuse to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire the same, or cannot after diligent inquiry be found, then the like offer shall be made to the person or to the several persons whose lands shall immediately adjoin the lands so proposed to be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of.
    (4) If any such persons be desirous of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring such lands, then within six weeks after such offer they shall signify their desire in that behalf to the Government Department concerned, or if they decline such offer, or if for six weeks they neglect to signify their desire to purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire such lands, the right of pre-emption of every such person so declining or neglecting in respect of the lands included in such offer shall cease.
    (5) If any person entitled to such pre-emption be desirous of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any such lands and such person and the Government Department concerned do not agree as to the price thereof, or other consideration therefor, then such price or other consideration shall be determined by the Commission."
    The object of this Amendment is really to carry out the right of pre-emption. There is no doubt that where lands are acquired this power of sale as it stands in the Bill as it is will operate very mischievously to the former owners.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I cannot quite see how the public are protected here. Take it that in the exercise of these powers the land is offered by the officials having to deal with it at a price considerably lower than it might have fetched in the open market, will that great advantage accrue by right of pre-emption to the previous owner, and are we to have machinery in such a case for preventing the public from entering into the increase which might belong to the land? I am extremely anxious that persons previously owning the land, or even adjoining owners, should be the first persons to whom land should pass in the event of a sale. But I do not want machinery to be set up, so that if a very much better price can be got, or if it is imagined it might be got outside of the owner, the

    2355
    public would not get the advantage which I think they should get of that extra price.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 5, Sub-section (1), which says "the Department may at any time thereafter sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest." The hon. Gentleman will see that provision is made in that Sub-section.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Supposing the Government, first of all, go to the original owner, and say, "We have no further interest in this land; will you take it off our hands?" The original owner might reply, "I will give you so much for it." The Government Department might say, "Very well; that saves us all further trouble," and let it go. There may, however, be a dozen persons within reach who might be very glad to give some price appreciably higher, but the ease would not go to the Commission, and the bargain might be concluded without anybody knowing about it, except the Government officials and the persons who made the bargain.
    Sir G. CAVE: A Government Department, so far as I am aware, would certainly be unwilling to let land go if they could get a better price from somebody else. They would go to the best purchasers in the market, and having got the highest price offered, they would say to the original owner, "Unless you can buy at that price, we have got a purchaser at that price." I think the Government Department would be very careful indeed to get a fair price.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. D. WHITE: The Amendment which I have next upon the Paper is one put down at the desire of the Corporation of Glasgow.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment is not relevant to this Clause, and on Clause 4 we have already adopted something of the kind.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Highways.)
    (1) Where, in the exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty or any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm for purposes connected with the present War, any
    2356
    railway or tramway has been laid along, across, over or under any public highway, it shall be lawful after the termination of the War for the railway or tramway to continue to be used and maintained subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may by order prescribe, and any local authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway may apply to the Board to make such an order.

    (2) Where in exercise of any such right or powers as aforesaid any public highway has been closed, it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and the Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in the place of the highway so closed, and any person interested in any land adjoining any highway so closed who suffers loss or damage in consequence of the closing thereof shall be entitled to such compensation as, in default of agreement, the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage.

    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "has" ["tramway has been laid"], and to insert instead thereof the words "or any cable, line or pipes have."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation of the Amendment?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Amendment is to make perfectly clear that the Clause applies to any cable, line or pipes which may have been laid under our highways for telephones, and so on. They are not specifically mentioned in the Clause as drafted, and at an earlier stage of the discussion they were referred to specifically, and these words are to carry out what was suggested.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["it shall be lawful"], to insert the word "not."
    This Amendment is in connection with another Amendment on the Paper, to leave out the words "maintained subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may by order prescribe, and any local authority responsible for maintenance of the highway may apply to the

    2357
    Board to make such an order," and to insert instead thereof the words "except with the consent of the Commission after hearing the local and road authorities, and the Commission shall have power to prescribe an alternative route for such railway or tramway, and, having regard to any agreement affecting the laying of any such railway or tramway, to impose such conditions as may be thought fit." The Government also have an Amendment on the Paper, and I think the beet plan is to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state now exactly what the Government intend to do on this Clause, before proceeding to any argument on my part.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think it will be better to take my Amendment to the Sub-section instead of that of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a better one than his in some respects, that is, that it will bring in not only the road authority but also railway companies or tramway companies, or other persons who may be responsible for the maintenance of the highways. There are cases where not the local authority, but some individual or some other authority, such as a railway company, may be liable to maintain the highway. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend's Amendment is better than mine in this respect, that it brings in not only the road authorities, but the local authorities, which, of course, are different bodies. I should be quite willing to put in the words "local authorities" if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants.
    Mr. HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say whether he is going to give the Commission powers about alternative routes. It is almost necessary to have some kind of statement as to whether the Commission should have power to decide alternative routes. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to limit the user.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing to some extent with the same matter. My Amendment goes further, in giving greater power to the local authorities, and if we could come to terms upon the point I should be glad. I think we want some limit of time, probably two years, or something of that kind. Here it is left entirely to the Board of Trade. If it is left to the Board of Trade for a period not to exceed two years or six
    2358
    months after the termination of the War, that might meet the case. We do not want anything except that the local authorities, who are only too glad to do-anything while the War is going on, shall be able to resume possession of their rights.
    Sir G. CAVE: I know it was suggested, at one stage, that there should be some limit of time, but I think, after a discussion, that was given up. There are great difficulties in putting any limit of time. On the other hand, as to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. L. Hardy) has said, I think that the words of the Bill empower the Board of Trade to impose conditions upon the Government Department, and to require, as a condition, that alternative routes shall be provided. That is the intention of the Bill, and I think that is the effect of it. If it is not, I promise my right hon. Friend that I will bring up words on Report, and I will carefully consider the matter before that stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment of my right hon. Friend substitutes the Commission for the Board of Trade, and that seems to me to be the better authority. After all, it is an independent authority in no way allied to the Government; whereas the Board of Trade is a Government Department, and what will happen? One Government Department will appeal to the other Government Department. The Munitions Department may wish to do a certain thing which would be most inconvenient to the locality, and the Munitions Department would go to the Board of Trade, which is another Government Department, to have their case decided. I have no doubt that the Board of Trade would act fairly in the matter, but I do not think it is right that one Government Department should appeal to another Government Department. Therefore, I think that, after all, the Commission should be the tribunal, and it is one that the Government themselves have set up in this Bill. It is a competent tribunal, because it is not merely a Railway and Canal Commission, but has a competent knowledge of all these matters. It seems to me that the proper course would be to substitute the Commission for the Board of Trade. If the Solicitor-General undertook to do that I think we might agree to the Amendment, if it be so altered.
    Mr. L. HARDY: The idea which I submitted on behalf of the county council is this: They feel that it is desirable to get an independent tribunal in connection with this matter. Of course, the Railway and Canal Commission is by far the most suitable body to deal with the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman says he will consider the matter carefully before the Report stage, I cannot very well resist him, as he has been very good about meeting us, and I should like him to consider this question.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will do that, but I hope my right hon. Friend will see that the Board of Trade has not only to deal with the question of highways, but it has to deal with the question of the safety of the public and matters of that kind, and I am a little unwilling, without consideration, to take away the authority from them and give it to the Commission. The Board of Trade are accustomed to deal with these matters from day to day, and I think that they ought to have a voice in the matter. Having said that, I shall be very glad indeed to consider the question before the Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "tramway" ["railway or tramway to continue"], insert the words "or any cable, line, or pipes have."— [Dr. Addison.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade may by order"], to insert the words, "after giving the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway or of any other railway or tramway laid thereon an opportunity of being heard."
    I have inserted in the Amendment on the Paper the words "local authority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words, "local authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway," and insert instead thereof the words "any such authority or person."
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move at the end, to add new Sub-section:
    (2) In the event of the use of any such railway or tramway being discontinued, the Government Department by whom it
    2360
    was laid down or used shall take up and remove the rails and restore the road or street on which they are laid to the satisfaction of the local authority responsible for the maintenance of such road or street.
    I have been asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Glasgow Corporation. In Glasgow the Government laid rails in public streets and barricaded them at each end, and the public have been deprived of their use. The Corporation take no exception to that during the War period, but they object to the continuance of the barricades after the termination of the War, unless with the consent of the local authority, whose duty it is to secure the user of the public streets. The reason why the corporation are putting this forward is this: they agreed to the Government laying rails in the public streets, but made it a condition with the Director of Munitions in Scotland that on the use of the rails being discontinued they were to be removed and the street restored to the satisfaction of the Master of Works. A doubt has arisen because the Corporation are advised that the Bill would have the effect of overriding that agreement, and therefore that it is necessary and desirable to put this provision into the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not see why this Amendment should not be accepted.
    Sir R. ADKINS: There is also a question as to the use of level crossings, and that that use should only last for two years after the War except with the consent of the local authority. I understood that the Government was prepared to do that, and I put no Amendment down on the point. The use of the level crossings is now under certain circumstances a very great nuisance, but of course everyone is perfectly ready to agree to it during the War, but if it is going to be kept up beyond two years, and perhaps for four or five or six, it is likely to seriously interfere with the safety, improvement, and maintenance of the roads. If the Government propose to use the level crossing over two years they ought to provide a tunnel or bridge except where the use is continued with the consent of the local authority. That might be given where the traffic is small and where there would be no real danger. I accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that an

    2361
    Amendment would be inserted dealing with this point and otherwise it would have been very fully discussed.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, we propose to put an Amendment in that after two years no level crossing shall be used—
    Sir R. ADKINS: Except by the consent of the local authority.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes. We shall insert it on Report.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am very much obliged.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I move on behalf of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley). The Sub-section provides that any public highway that has been closed may be kept closed after the War not beyond twelve months except with the consent of the Commission, which may require the provision of another highway as a condition of their consent. That seems to be going rather far, because it gives power with the consent of the Commission to close highways indefinitely. There has always been very strong objection to the closing of highways, and I do not think it is absolutely necessary to give the Government such drastic power as is here proposed. It can only be in one or two instances that the highway is required to be closed. I quite understand that during the War we must not do anything that will in any kind of way hamper the Government in their desire to provide munitions, and it may be necessary to close a highway leading to a certain factory during the carrying on of the War. If after the War it is found necessary to carry on the factory, surely they can make another approach to it or can deviate tile highway so as not to incommode the inhabitants. It might cost a little money to do so, but it is not right after the War to keep highways closed. There is a further Amendment dealing with the question of right of way.
    Dr. ADDISON: The reason why words to this effect are necessary in the Bill is that in some places we have actually erected factories where there was once a road. The Sub-section provides that in those cases the Government have to provide another road—another means of access.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Have they done that?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes. There are a few cases where the buildings or parts of factories are actually standing where the roadway was originally, and to restore that roadway you would have to pull the factory down.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not know the Government had gone so far as to take the highway or high road to build a factory right across it. I do not quite see the object of doing so, and it seems most extraordinary.
    Dr. ADDISON: Oh, not at all! Some of these factories are very extensive and cover very large tracts of ground. It happened in two or three cases that the highway did actually run across portion of the ground which it was necessary to take.
    Sir F. BANBURY: However big the factory, there must be a very large extent of ground on either side of the highway which they could have used. Presumably, they did not know there was a highway.
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, we did.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I do not quite understand. The highway is not more than forty or fifty feet, and going one side of that would not cause much difference. I am prepared to make a compromise with the Government, as they know lamina most yielding mood. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the provision that the "Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway" for an extension beyond twelve months is altered to "shall require." I do not like to leave these things to doubt, and it is really a serious matter blocking up the highways.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I hope the Solicitor-General will not accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, who really seems to be as astute in his yielding as in his unyielding mood. The works erected may have altered the whole character of the neighbourhood, and it may be better to have the road in quite a different direction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in substitution for one closed, which would enable people to get from point A to point B. That is what I want.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: That is a question of interpretation of words.
    Sir G.CAVE: We cannot take "shall" for "may." There are some highways which are unnecessary. I know many cases where a highway has been closed as unnecessary. In such a case it would be quite absurd to require the Commission to substitute another highway. It may be that the shortest way has been closed under the Defence of the Realm Act, but there may be another way, a little longer, in existence now, which is quite sufficient for the purpose. In a case like that it would be absurd to require the substitution. Therefore, I think the words in the Clause are quite sufficient.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "highway" ["public highway has been closed"], to insert the words "or right of way."
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment is not necessary. "Highway" covers public rights of way.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, after the word "may" ["may be kept closed"], to insert the words "with the consent of the local and road authority for the district in which such railway or tramway is laid."
    I put this Amendment down at the desire of the Corporation of Glasgow. The reason for it is that they agreed with the Government to lay out a light railway in one of the public streets, and they made it a condition that, when the railway was no longer required, the rails should be removed and the street restored to its previous condition, to the satisfaction of the Master of Works. That condition was accepted by the Director of Munitions in Scotland, and it was embodied in an agreement. The corporation have been advised that it might be readily contended that this Bill would override that agreement. They want their agreement to be preserved, and it is to preserve that agreement that I move this Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he wants. I believe it relates to an agreement with the Munitions Department. We have no desire that this Bill should override any of our agreements. They will, of course, be honourably abided by.
    Mr. WHITE: The assurance of the hon. Gentleman will, I believe, satisfy the Corporation of Glasgow, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), in the same Sub-Section, to leave out the words "by virtue of this Section" ["but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration"].
    I apologise to the Solicitor-General. I have already told him I do not know what the point of my hon. Friend's Amendment is, and, now I have looked at it, I really do not think there is very much in it. However, I will move it formally to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity for stating the reasons why these words "by virtue of this Section" are in the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: I recognise the loyalty of my right hon. Friend in moving this Amendment. The Clause contains the words that where a highway has been closed "it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained." The reason for the words that are in question is that there may be some other reason why a highway should be kept closed. For instance, the Quarter Sessions may have made an order to close a highway. Unless you have these words, this Act would overrule an order of the Quarter Session, and that is not desirable.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In the same Sub-section, after the word "obtained" ["consent of the Commission is obtained"], insert the words "and the Commission before giving such consent shall give to the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway an opportunity of being heard."— [Sir G. Care.]
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, at the end, to leave out the words "the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage," and, in place thereof, to insert the words "may be determined under Section S of this Act."
    It seems to be contemplated that there will be certain arrangements made for

    2365
    public bodies, and that there may be other persons in the vicinity of the highway which is being closed who will suffer damage because of the closing of the highway, and, therefore, will have a claim to compensation. I move my previous Amendment, because it seemed to me that matters of that kind may quite properly be referred to the Commission. When it comes to assessment of loss or damage, clearly these matters ought to come under the general principle of this Bill before the Court which will decide the compensation and damage under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, and, if necessary, an arbiter under that Act will be appointed to determine the case. The Railway and Canal Commission are a body set up for dealing with railway business. They have nothing whatever to do with the acquisition of land by railways. They deal with cases arising out of the working of railways and canals, and matters of that kind, and it is quite new to invest them with powers for assessing compensation in regard to the acquisition of property. I do not urge upon the consideration of the Government the exact words I have put down. Very probably the Government will be able to devise better words, and possibly a better means of carrying out what I want, but I think the principle of what I am now urging is right and just and in conformity with the general tendency of the Act, and therefore I beg to move.
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand the object of my hon. and gallant Friend is to take this matter from the jurisdiction of the Commission and to leave the question of compensation to a jury or other tribunal under the Lands Clauses Acts. I do not think the Amendment would have that effect if carried out, because all it does is to leave out reference to the Commission. Moreover, I do not think it is desirable to do what he proposes, because under this Clause you have to go to the Commission to get their consent before the operation of extending the temporary closing of a highway, and they must consider the whole question. Is it not right that they should there and then fix the amount of compensation for the person injured? Otherwise, you have the same question considered by two tribunals, one after another; first by the Commission before giving their consent, and secondly by the arbiter or jury under the Land Clauses Act, therefore you have two inquiries instead of one. I think it would be better
    2366
    to put the whole matter in the hands of the Commission, including this minor question, and I hope that, after the explanation I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not feel bound to press the Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: I quite recognise the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. This point is only part of the issue, and I agree that the Commission would have to decide a large part of the case. I think I should explain that I have certain Amendments to Clause 8 which will bring the matter up in connection with the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to press; this matter now; but I wish to safeguard myself by saying that if, when Clause 8 is dealt with, some further Amendment on the lines I suggest are found necessary, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I have gone behind any question if I put down Amendments on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not intend to vote against the Clause because, although I do not like it, I understand that the Government have given undertakings which, if they are carried out, will considerably modify my objections to the Clause. My particular objection was the appeal to the Board of Trade, of which I spoke a short time ago, because, although it is quite true that the Board of Trade deal with the Railway and Canal Commission they, of course, do not deal with regulations. What the Commission or the Board of Trade will have to decide is whether or not it is in the public interest that a highway should be used for a railway or level crossing, or whether these should not be allowed. The Commissioners are equally able with the Board of Trade to deal with this matter. It is a very strong order, that after the War highways should be used for the purposes of light railways. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us as to whether or not there is a case of a light railway running down a highway? In the majority of cases I think they run over a level crossing, and so on. I presume there must be very few cases where the railway runs along.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think there is a case or two of a light railway running down a highway.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In cases where they build a factory and cross a road can they use the road to run a tramway line down? However that may be, I understand that the Government are going seriously to consider the special points raised, and that there is to be a limitation proposed as to the period for which tramways may be carried across level crossings. Under these circumstances I am afraid we shall have a very great deal to do on Report.
    Mr. HARDY: I would just like to add a word or two to what my right hon. Friend has said in reference to the Board of Trade. It does seem to me that the arguments strengthen the case in favour of the Commission being the authority rather than the Board of Trade. Take the words that the Minister of Munitions has added. It is clear that the Commission is very much more able to judge on these questions than the Board of Trade, for they do not at all lie in the purview of the Board of Trade. So far as they are concerned the Commission would certainly be as good an authority as the Board of Trade. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman urged that the Commissioners should be given further power in respect to the various matters mentioned. Altogether, in view of the fact that the Commission is also the Railway and Canal Commission, it does appear to me to be better to have one authority; not to bring the Board of Trade into this particular matter, but to leave the Commission to deal with it.
    Mr. HORNE: Referring to the case mentioned of a factory having been built across a highway, can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the two dead-ends of the highway outside the factory limits will revert? Will the owners of the land adjoining claim the soil or will the local authority remain in possession?
    Dr. ADDISON: The alternative highway will connect the severed highway. As regards the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member as to the Board of Trade, it is desirable to transfer the power of the Board of Trade to a Commission which shall be set up for the other purposes of this Bill.
    Mr. DENNISS: In respect to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Horne), the ordinary law in relation to highways is that where both ends of the highway are stopped up the land over which the highway runs reverts to the joint owner, or to one of them.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Provision as to Water, Light, Heat, and Tower.)
    Where any company or authority authorised to supply water, light, heat, or power has, on the requisition or at the request of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, supplied water, light, heat, or power to any factory, building, camp, or other premises, and such supply is not authorised by law, whether by reason of the premises not being within the area of supply of the company or authority or otherwise, or is in contravention of any agreement made by the company or authority, the company or authority after the termination of the War shall, if and so long as required by any Government Department to do so, continue the supply, and, if the premises are not within the area of supply of the company or authority, the company or authority shall have the like power with respect to the supply of water, light, heat, or power to the premises as if the premises were within its area of supply, and as if any roads or bridges along, across, over, on, or under which any pipes or lines or other works have been laid for the purpose of supplying the premises were roads which the company or authority were authorised to break up for the purpose of their undertaking.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, after the word "premises" ["any factory, building, camp, or other premises"], to insert the words "situate upon lands of which a Government Department continue in possession under Section 1 of this Act."
    The powers suggested may be justified in times of war and by an emergency, but they should be continued by a Government Department only if the power sought is absolutely essential and they are permanently installed.
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has further down on the Order Paper an Amendment which I think better meets the case that the hon. Member has in his mind than his own words. It gives the power up to twelve months after the War. If my hon. Friend will accept the later form it will be well, because his Amendment will solely

    2369
    apply to the one case where we are in possession, and not where we may have to acquire possession.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The effect of the Amendment put down by the Solicitor-General is that the matter can only arise for a year after the termination of the War, and it will be necessary for the consent of the Railway Commission to be obtained to enable any company or authority to supply the water, light, heat, or power outside their various limits. It does not go far enough. At least it ought to provide that no company or authority should continue to supply outside their limits if that authority has statutory powers to supply and should be unready and unwilling to supply. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend should be accepted, so that, as far as possible, a supply should be prevented except by the authority which has power to give it.
    Dr. ADDISON: There are cases where large factories have been created. Take the one at Lancaster. It happens to be supplied with power and light, I think, by the Lancaster authority, while, on the other hand, a portion of the factory is situated in the Morecambe district. Obviously it will be absurd, at the end of the War, if, by a stroke of the pen, power and light ceased to be supplied on the other side of the border. There must be some time allowed to adjust matters. Hence the suggestion of twelve months that appears in my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. I would like to point out that in the Amendment there is nothing said about being unable or unwilling to supply. In some of these cases we have to take a large urban district some distance out in the country, where, it may be, there is six miles between the source of supply and where the power is needed. In cases such as this there is no considerable authority near that has an adequate supply.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are now, I think, discussing the substitute Amendments dealing with this matter. The present Amendment only deals with an area, and I think it will be better to dispose of it first.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand it, the object of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to limit the powers of the Government to take water, light, heat, or power to those premises which are
    2370
    situated upon land which the Government Department continue in possession of under Section 1 of this Act. As I read it, unless this is put in, any Government Department can requisition any company or authority to supply them with water, light, heat, or power, whether or not that Government Department is within the area of the supply of that company or authority, provided that the Government Department say that it is for purposes connected with the present War. That goes very much further, I must say, than the words of the Amendment, and it also goes very much further, I think, than what is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who, in his arguments against my hon. Friend's Amendment, has dealt, through the whole of his speech, with the munitions work and various factories which have been established, and with which this Bill is supposed to deal. But this Clause, as I read it, goes quite outside the ordinary scope of the Bill, and would allow any Government Department who choose to say that they wanted water, light, heat, or power for purposes connected with the War—
    Dr. ADDISON: There can only be one Department by virtue of the powers of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If that is so, why not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, as I understand it, that Amendment simply defines what the Government Department has to be?
    Dr. ADDISON: A particular factory may have been acquired, and, therefore, it would be dealt with under another Section. This other will not cover the case.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I really do think this Amendment is necessary. Government Departments are not perfect. I do not wish to cast any discredit upon them, but they do sometimes presume upon their powers, and I think this ought to be defined. Might I ask my hon. Friend if he will leave out the words "Section one of." That would define the area in which the Government have power to compel local authorities or other people to supply these things outside their district.
    Mr. BOYTON: I have not any real objection. I understand the subject will be dealt with rather more fully on another Amendment. I personally have no objection to withdrawing the words "Section one of."
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps then the Amendment might be put in that form?
    The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the right hon. Member moves to amend the proposed Amendment?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "Section one of."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Words "Section one of" left out.
    Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
    Sir G. CAVE: Of course the difficulty is this: There might be a case where the Government had acquired land but had put someone else in possession for the purpose of carrying on war work, and it might be the supply of water was absolutely essential to that factory in order that the work might be carried on. This Amendment would shut out that case entirely. I do not wish to be unreasonable, but is it not enough that you are protected by the proviso that I am going to move a little later on that the supply shall not continue for more than twelve months except with the consent of the Commission?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that is so.
    Sir G. CAVE: If it is not enough, we can devise some other protection, but I think this Amendment goes further, and shuts out a factory which might be necessary for the defence of the realm. If I could meet the hon. Member I should be glad to do it, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: What we want is that works should not be disposed of to another authority, and permission given to continue the supply when the supply is coming from an area of another authority. In war you can take water or anything you want from anybody, but this Amendment and other Amendments which we have down are to secure that the Government is not to sell these works with all these rights to somebody else. In limiting it to twelve months you have, of course, some protection, but not very much. We have every confidence in the Commission, but the municipalities are very jealous indeed about their rights, and they do not like to be overridden in this way without some adequate protection.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not know whether the suggested Amendment of the learned Solicitor-General is really a satisfactory way of dealing with this general question. I am not quite sure the Amendment now before us settles it satisfactorily. This Clause does raise very important matters for municipalities, water companies, and undertakings of that kind, and, of course, it is necessary to have the matter cleared up in some way. It is a very tall order indeed that a water company, for instance, may be supplying water unauthorised by law, which everybody admits does not matter during war time; but then this Clause goes on to provide that, although they are not supplying it by law, they may continue to supply the water so long as required by any Government Department to do so. Here is a large works. They go for a water supply to a company which has no power to supply that district. The company which does supply in that district does not object because it is war time, and we are asked to pass a Clause that this illegality may be continued if a Government Department desires it. It can serve no useful public purpose to pass legislation in that way. It cannot help munitions, the War Office, or the public. It seems to me an unnecessary proposal altogether, and it is really up against the Government to propose something more generally useful than the words we have before us. I do not like the Solicitor-General's words, and I do not think the Amendment before us meets the case; but there is a case here to be met, and I hope the Government will see that none of those illegalities are perpetuated by this Bill. The water companies do not want other companies coming in after the War is over supplying water inside their area, and it is the same with gas companies, electric light companies, municipalities, or whatever it may be. I therefore trust the Government will see us out of this without having to press further Amendments upon them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The reply of the learned Solicitor - General has really shown there are two points in this Amendment. One is that if the Government sell or dispose of a factory, which it is very important to carry on to private individuals, it might be, those private individuals could not obtain the water necessary to carry on the factory, and that therefore they would be injured. That is a point which was in my mind, but which I did not raise because I thought it better

    2373
    to raise it on a later Amendment. As the learned Solicitor-General has raised it, I must say it seems to me a very important point. Take the illustration given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A large factory is being supplied with water, heat, light, or power—it all comes to the same thing—by a company or an authority outside the area in which this factory is situated. No one objects to that being done during the War, but take the case of water. It applies to all of them, but water is perhaps a better case to illustrate my point. After the War this is to go on indefinitely. This factory may use a very large amount of water, and all the time this water is to be taken out of somebody else's area. Anyone who has been conversant with water companies or the supply of water by municipalities— because the same thing applies to both— in many cases knows it is very difficult to get a sufficient amount of water to supply their own area, and if they are to be compelled to supply a large quantity outside their area what is to happen to the people inside the area? During the continuance of the War that may be a proper thing, and people must put up with the discomfort which arises from being at war, but after the War I see no reason whatever why this factory which is disposed of to certain people should not obtain the water from its own area, or get it from wells. Why should you go outside your area, and compel, for instance, the Metropolitan Water Board even which sometimes are not sufficiently flush of water to supply large factories outside their area, because it might be one but many areas. The Solicitor-General will remember that we had a private discussion and that point did occur. I think it made some impression upon him. The other point which I raised, and which has not been met at all, ' is that the Government Department has in no way defined, and that was not met by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions. What we want to do is to define it so that any War Department —the Treasury, for instance, which might say it had done something for war purposes—should not be allowed to go outside the area and take certain water, light or power, which would not be given to them in the ordinary course, but which in the ordinary course would go to the inhabitants of that particular area. It is a very important question indeed, and I really think that some Amendment very
    2374
    different from the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has on the Paper must be put down.
    Mr. HORNE: The powers of the Clause are not confined to the supply of water to any factory which may be outside the area of supply, but the Government are taking powers to buy adjacent lands to those factories, and, unless this Amendment is pressed, they will be able afterwards to dispose of those lands, and say they are able to supply them with water and other conveniences under the powers of this Clause. The Clause may be right so far as it refers to the existing factories, but it will not be right to give powers to supply with water and other conveniences to other lands and future factories built after the War is concluded.
    Dr. ADDISON: I appeal to hon. Members not to press this too hard. With reference to the point of the right hon. Baronet, I am advised that it clearly refers to only those three Departments. We have no intention it should refer to other Departments, and if it is not clear we will make it so. In respect to the other points raised, I am quite sure hon. Members do not want to press the case of any particular local authority against the public interest. If they are totally unable to supply the power, then we have no plan to supply it, and it is for these reasons only that recourse was had to a source of supply outside the area in which the factory was situated. It was only because the authorities could not supply the power that we make this proposal. Surely it would not be in the public interest in the case of the factory I mention, part of which is in one district and part in another, to say that the place should be divided into half, one-half to be supplied by one authority, and the other half by the other. That would not be business. It might be that one authority has a most expensive plant. By all means let there be a proper arrangement between the authorities whereby you do not penalise one authority at the expense of another. As this proposal stands, it would mean that the guillotine would fall and at the end of this particular time this eminently business-like and necessary arrangement could not go on. Really that would be absurd, and I am certain no local authority would want to press a claim to that length, because it would be absolutely against the public interest. It seems to me that what we have suggested covers the whole case, and you

    2375
    allow twelve months to turn round. This could not continue unless it received the consent of the Commission. With the strong powers the local authorities have, the Commission would never give its consent to a continuance of what has been described as an illegality unless there was a very good and necessary cause shown. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment, because I am quite sure it is not in the public interest, and in some cases it would bring important national factories to a standstill.
    Colonel F. HALL: It has been admitted that the proposals brought forward are not going to meet all the circumstances, and it has been practically acknowledged that some alteration will have to be made. With all the expert advice that the Government have got behind them, and as they admit it is necessary to make some alteration, surely under the circumstances the Solicitor-General can make some proposition which the Government is prepared to accept to meet this difficulty. I am sure the Committee is not anxious to delay this Bill, but those who have had any connection with local authorities know how jealous they are to see that their rights are protected. If something can be brought forward to protect the rights of the municipalities, judging by the feeling of the Committee, I feel that we should be prepared to accept it.
    Mr. PROTHERO: I think we should be prepared to meet these difficulties in a reasonable way. The condition of things complained of is only to last twelve months, and surely we all wish, with the consent of the Commission, that the period may be prolonged. It can only last twelve months, and that is a time which any reasonable man would look for in order to allow businesses to be wound up. With that proviso it seems to me that the great objection to municipal supplies in one area being appropriated to purposes outside their own area disappears. If the area which is supplying the water or gas, or the electricity, is in any way prejudiced then the Commission will not give their consent. It seems to me that in no other way has anyone suggested anything approaching a settlement in the place of the moderate proposals of the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member who represents the Munitions Department, and therefore I think their proposals ought to be accepted.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: With regard to the Commissioners' consent to the prolongation, the mere power to give or withhold consent might fail to meet the requirements of the case. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will consider that point?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after the word "supply" ["continue the supply"], to insert the words "but not beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and before giving such consent the Commission shall give to the company or authority in whose area of supply the premises are situated, and any other person who appears to them to be interested in the continuance or discontinuance of such supply, an opportunity of being heard."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that no supply of water shall be given or shall continue to be given under this Section by any company or authority if and so long as such supply would interfere with the supply for domestic purposes within the area of supply of such company or authority." I am hopeful that the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no objection to this Amendment in principle, but I wish to move to leave out the words "interfere with" and to insert instead thereof the word "prejudice."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DENNISS: I beg to move to leave out the words "for domestic purposes."
    Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: It is difficult to follow the purport of the words under discussion. I wish to know if the Amendment in its present form would meet the Amendment I have on the Paper. Take, for example, the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. Would the Amendment we have now before us prevent an outside company continuing, after a certain time, supplying

    2377
    within the present Metropolitan Water Board area district? If it would have that effect it would meet the point I am raising.
    Sir G. CAVE: It would not.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words, "Provided that no supply of water shall be given or shall continue to be given under this Section by any company or authority if and so long as such supply would prejudice the supply within the area of supply of such company of authority," there inserted.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as authorising any water company or water authority to supply otherwise than by agreement to or at any place which is outside their limits of supply and within the limits of supply of the Metropolitan Water Board."
    Although the Solicitor-General's Amendment has been carried it only gives the water company the power to be heard. No other water company can supply in the Metropolitan area because those rights are held by the Metropolitan Water Board. Under the Amendment we have just carried, if anybody was required to supply water within the Metropolitan Water Board area the only right that board would have would be to be heard before the Commission. What right have we to take away their powers? The Metropolitan Water Board have statutory power to supply water without going before the Commission and spending public money in this way, and why should we give to others the right which that Board obtained from Parliament, and which the ratepayers of the Metropolitan area paid over £40,000,000 to acquire? We have no right to take away from them this power, and I do not think the Solicitor-General should attempt to take away such rights. In order to secure everything the Government want to carry them over the War and place the Metropolitan Water Board in the same position they are now in under this Bill during the trying time of this War, I move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend is advocating the rights of a board of which he is a distinguished member, but I really do not think that we can give to that particular water board a privilege which we
    2378
    are not prepared to give to other authorities of the same kind. It would not be fair to give an exemption to one board and not give it to other similar bodies throughout the country. The Metropolitan Water Board, like every other similar board or company, will have the right to bring their case before the Commissioners, and I hope with that my hon. Friend will be content.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree, if this Amendment is accepted, that it must include all public companies and municipalities, but there is just one point which has occurred to me. Is there anything under this Clause, as it stands at present, to prevent any factory purchased from the Government asking those who have been supplying them with water if they will continue to do so, charging a little less than the company authorised to supply water in that area?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioners would interfere.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see why the Commissioners should know anything about it, and, if they did, I do not see that it would be their business to interfere. Their business would be to allow these people to have the water provided it did not interfere with the requirements of the inhabitants in the district. I do not know why the Commissioners should interfere because they make a bargain and get the water cheaper. I think this is a dangerous Clause, the meaning of which we have not properly understood, but that is one of the disadvantages of passing a Bill like this in an empty House, when, unfortunately, there are very few lawyers in it.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not think I can press this Amendment. The Solicitor-General has been so willing to help the Committee generally with regard to the Bill that one does not like to press any Amendment which he does not wish to put into the Bill, but I can imagine in the days to come some learned brother of his arguing before the Commissioners what was the intention of Parliament. They will read out this Clause from beginning to end and attach a most important meaning to everything in the Bill. If any of us are alive then and read the case we shall be able to say, "That was not the intention of Parliament at all. The Committee sat and saw the awkwardness of these words, but it did not make provision for this because it would have had to put in all the

    2379
    other companies." We want, however, to help the Government to get the Bill, and I do not therefore press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am not quite sure whether it is too late, but I should like to ask you, as a point of Order, whether I can move to insert another Amendment by way of a proviso? The Amendment which has just been accepted refers only to water, whereas the whole scheme applies to light, heat, and power as well as water. All the arguments which apply to water apply equally to light, heat, or power, and if we could get a proviso including light, heat, and power the matter would be complete. I suppose we have passed the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and it would not be possible after the word "water" to insert the words "light, heat, or power," but would it be possible to have a separate proviso?
    Sir G. CAVE: Put an Amendment down for the Report stage.
    Mr. DENNISS: Very well, I will.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Determination of Questions by Railway and Canal Commission.)
    The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act, as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Act:
    Provided that—

    (a) the Commission may in any case in which they think it expedient to do so call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors;

    (b) the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this Act by any one or two of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall,
    2380
    so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries, and any officer or person directed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer an oath;

    (c) the Commission may act by two of their members;

    (d) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall be subject to the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as modified by this Act as to costs, in cases where those Acts as so modified apply, but shall not be limited in the manner provided by Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals," and to insert instead thereof the words "Lands Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act."
    Clause 8 states that the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act shall apply to the determining of all questions of compensation, and it sets up the procedure under that Act for the consideration of questions which arise out of the acquisition of land. This is entirely a new procedure. Apparently, the Government in drafting this Clause were not able to do away altogether with the Lands Clauses Acts, for they bring them in for one minor purpose relating to costs at the end of the Clause, stating that the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall be subject to the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act. I suggest that this new procedure is entirely unnecessary and inconvenient. It would be far better to proceed under the Lands Clauses Acts, determined by many decisions and modified by subsequent enactments. The procedure under those Acts is well understood and is just and inequitable as between the parties appearing before the tribunal. I protest against the Government unnecessarily setting aside a well-established procedure. Government Departments always want to find the short cut and some way of saving themselves the labour and the necessity of the old procedure. They are always glad to find some excuse for setting up a new procedure which will enable them more readily and easily to obtain the end—no doubt, a quite 1 proper one—which they have in view; but

    2381
    in so going forward they may tread upon the rights of individuals and public authorities.
    Sir G. CAVE: I did not want to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend in the protest that he desired to make, but is this Amendment, in fact, in order? We have already passed Clauses entrusting certain powers to the Railway and Canal Commission. This Clause simply provides in what manner the Commission is to determine questions brought before it. It simply provides the machinery and modifies the usual procedure of the Railway and Canal Commission. The effect of the Amendment is to cut out the Railway and Canal Commission altogether and to substitute the Lands Clauses Acts. I submit that is not in order, and altogether outside the purpose of the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, not being a lawyer, that I am not very familiar with these procedures, but I think it is an argument against the Amendment on its merits rather than a question of order. It does not seem to me impossible for an hon. Member to propose the elimination of the procedure before the Railway and Canal Commission. I was going to ask the hon. and gallant Member how his two Amendments work together. They appear to destroy one another, and I am afraid that I shall have some difficulty in putting the Question to the Committee. Are they consequential?
    Colonel GRETTON: No, Sir. If I fail to obtain the assent of the Committee to this Amendment, the other [To leave out the words "of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the," and insert instead thereof the words "or questions of compensation to be determined"] is an alternative Amendment, which I think would improve the wording of the Bill.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: On the point of Order. If this Amendment is in order and it is carried, we shall have to recast Clause 1 and every intervening Clause. It seems to me that my hon. Friend's Amendment is too late.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so with regard to the first Amendment. It would leave this Clause contradictory to the other Clauses which the Committee have
    2382
    already passed. I think we had better pass on to the hon. Member's second Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: On that point of Order. My object is to insert the Lands Clauses Acts instead of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. Possibly my words may go a little too far, but what I want is that these questions, when they come up for decision, shall be determined under the Lands Clauses Acts and not under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. That is the whole object of my Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Cave) said that we should have to recast Clause I where the Railway and Canal Commission is already named. I do not think so. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to leave out the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. He does not want to interfere with the Commission. Clause 1 does not name the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, but the Railway and Canal Commission. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to say that the Commissioners shall be guided, not by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, but by the Lands Clauses Acts. It may be wrong, but surely it is quite open to us to say to the Commission, "In giving your decision you shall be guided by a certain Act."
    Mr. BRUNNER: On the point of Order. On Clause 5 we have already provided that these decisions shall be under the Land Clauses Acts.
    The CHAIRMAN: Is not the Committee mixing up two things? We are dealing here with the question of procedure, not compensation. That is provided for elsewhere. I think that is the mistake the hon. Member makes. Having referred certain things to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, we must make some provision regarding procedure, as to how the matters are to get there and to be dealt with, and that is what this Clause, as I understand it, does.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Surely it is in order to say that the Commissioners shall be guided by a particular Act of Parliament. The Bill mentions a particular one, and this Amendment refers to another. I maintain that is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must leave this question of merits to be decided by the Committee. It is not, I think, for me to decide the point.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment really would not work at all. The purpose of the Clause is to determine the procedure under which the Commission are to sit. That is to say, they are to sit as a court, to hear people who come before them, to fix their sittings, and all the rest. The hon. Gentleman wants to put in place of that nothing except that "the Lands Clauses Acts as modified by this Act shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act." That leaves out the whole of the provisions relating to procedure, and we have no guide for the Commissioners at all as to procedure if we adopt this Amendment. The whole of the provisions relating to the holding of local inquiries, and of having surveyors and assessors, would go. You would have nothing but the naked provision that their procedure should be under the Lands Clauses Acts. What is the meaning of that? What is there in the Lands Clauses Acts that would be used to determine their procedure? They provide for a jury, and all the rest. What has that to do with the Commission?
    Colonel GRETTON: Or an arbitrator.
    Sir G. CAVE: Or an arbitrator. But what has that to do with the Commission? Once you have referred it to the Commission you cannot fit in the Lands Clauses Acts procedure. You have a Commission there already to settle the question, and this Amendment is really impossible. It puts the Act in a position in which it would not work at all. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants the Lands Clauses Acts to apply to the determination of the amount of compensation. That is a different matter altogether.
    Colonel GRETTON: That is my second Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, that is not this Amendment. This Amendment cuts out the whole procedure, and puts in something which I assure the Committee would not work in any way.
    Colonel GRETTON: I am always open to conviction, and I am impressed by my right hon. and learned Friend's arguments. I therefore ask leave to withdraw this Amendment at this stage, so that we can consider it further when we see the Bill drafted on Report, and when probably it can be raised in a more convenient form.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have an Amendment to leave out the words "of questions by the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the." and to insert instead thereof the words "or questions of compensation to be determined."
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that will not read.
    Colonel GRETTON: No, I am afraid it will not read, and I cannot therefore go on with it at this stage. I must get it redrafted. These Amendments have been put into my hand, and they are not my own.
    Mr. HORNE: I beg to move, after the word "of" ["determination of questions"], to insert the word "all."
    These Amendments I have put down are for the purpose of fixing the executive tribunal before whom any appeals for compensation are heard. It does not take out of the hands of those who have been appointed Commissioners the determination of whether compensation should be allowed. It only fixes the tribunals before whom cases are heard, and for that purpose I wish to provide that the tribunal shall be of the same character as that set up under the London Building Act. That has worked extraordinarily well, the cost has been small, and the awards have been very cheerfully assented to on both sides. All I have done here is to try and determine particularly that qualified persons should have the duty of making these awards.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand my hon. Friend's object. If we put his Amendments together, as we must do, they come to this: that while preliminary questions are left to be determined by the Railway and Canal Commissioners, the question of the proper compensation shall be determined by a new tribunal set up under the Act on the lines of the tribunal under the London Building Act. It is a very attractive proposal, I agree, for some reasons. I do not think it would save expense. You would have two tribunals for one, but it would have the advantage, that you might select your tribunal in accordance with the duties they had to perform. You might put more surveyors on the tribunal than you have on the Railway and Canal Commission. That is true, but there are considerations which make it impossible for us to accept this Amendment to-day. To

    2385
    begin with, the Resolution of the House would not, I think, cover this Amendment, so that we could not under the existing Resolution accept and give effect to this proposal. Secondly, we ought to remember that the Railway Commission has this special virtue, that it is adapted to the three countries making up the United Kingdom. It has for its president a judge of the country in which the question arises, and the two other nominated members, you have, therefore, a special arrangement under which you get in each country of the United Kingdom a judge of that country to preside over the Commission. That is a very great advantage, and that is the reason, I think, why hon. Members for Scotland suggested the Railway and Canal Commission, because they know it is especially adapted to Scotland and Ireland, as well as to England. If you had this tribunal, it would really be very good for London, where they have not very far to go, but we might find it very awkward for them to sit all over the Kingdom to hear these cases. These are reasons why the Railway Commission are to be preferred, but at the same time I do not want to shut the door on this proposal altogether. It may be—I do not know—that before this Bill passes through the next stage a Commission may be set up under some other Act which would be appropriate for this purpose, and more appropriate than the Railway and Canal Commissioners. If that should happen I should be very willing to reconsider my hon. Friend's proposal and to see whether effect cannot be given to it. I do not want to shut the door finally on it, but I am quite certain that for the moment we ought not to accept it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend quite does justice to this Amendment. He does not suggest, surely, that supposing land is taken in Hampshire, the judge of the High Court, and the two other members of the Railway and Canal Commission, are going down to try that case?
    Sir G. CAVE: No.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The system in this Bill is thoroughly bad, and that is why I support my hon. Friend's Amendment, although it is not the one I like best. I should like to see brought in the Lands Clauses Acts as a whole, but this Amendment is better than the Bill as it stands,
    2386
    which is thoroughly bad. What happens is that the Railway and Canal Commission will appoint a surveyor to try the compensation case in Hampshire. The Lands Clauses Acts give power to the landowners to appoint a surveyor and to the Government to appoint another surveyor, and for the appointment of an umpire, who tries the case where it happens. That is the best tribunal, but I would sooner have my hon. Friend's proposal than that set up under this Bill. I am not cavilling at the position of the Commission, except on the question of the quantum of compensation to be granted, and with regard to that as an alternative to this thoroughly vicious system I support this Amendment, though I would prefer that it should go under the whole of the Lands Clauses Acts, and that a surveyor should be appointed in the ordinary way.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (b),to leave out the words "except the provisions relating to appeals."
    8.0 P.M.
    The Solicitor-General has pointed out that the object of this Clause is to enact the procedure which should apply and the code under which the Commission shall sit and determine the questions referred to it. For that purpose, as he explained to one of my hon. Friends, it is necessary to apply the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, which contains a full series of Sections providing for the various steps which are to be taken in the course of the hearing, giving power to the Commission by rules and regulations which will be made as authorised, to have power to determine the questions that come before them, and, indeed, to form one of their regular courts. It will be observed that in this proviso the provision is made in paragraph (b):
    "the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this Act by any one or two of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries."
    The Committee will observe in the operative part of Clause 8 that all the provisions of the Railway and Canal

    2387
    Traffic Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, are to apply, but by virtue of paragraph (b) of the proviso, when the Commission are holding a local inquiry, the provisions relating to appeals are excepted. What are the reasons for that? Let me explain. Under Section 17 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act it is provided that—
    "No appeal shall lie from a Commissioner upon a question of fact or upon any question affecting the locus standi of the complainant."
    I suppose that the draftsmen thought that in this case, where the Commission are holding a local inquiry, that that inquiry would relate only to questions of fact, and would not involve more, and therefore it would be unimportant that there should be a power of appeal, because, inasmuch as there is no power of appeal on a question of fact from the Commissioners, it would be unnecessary to give a power of appeal if the Commissioners were only to form an opinion upon a question of fact in applying Section 17, there would be no virtue in the words giving a power of appeal. But let the Committee observe there is no protection that when the Commission holds a local inquiry all that they shall do is to determine questions of fact. That is not so provided. The power that is given to them is to hold a local inquiry. Presumably, when the Commission have gone to some locality, they will form their opinion not only on questions of fact, but it is quite possible they will involve some questions of law. If so, there ought to be some appeal from their decision or determination which is taken when they are acting in the country, just as power is reserved when they are sitting in their proper court in London.
    Inasmuch as this inquiry is not limited to mere questions of fact, it seems to be important that these words at present in the paragraph should be deleted. All I am asking is to delete the words, "except the provisions relating to appeals," so that if it becomes necessary at any time, if by reason of the fact of the Commission sitting locally they come to a decision upon a question of law, the person who may be aggrieved by that decision shall have precisely the same right of appeal that he would have if they had been sitting in their own court. I can see no reason why you should shut the door
    2388
    upon any appeal, and inasmuch as it is quite possible that the determination of the Commission may involve some question of law, there ought to be a right of appeal. It is not sufficient merely to say that the Commissioners will only deal with facts, because if so the proviso ought to be enlarged and should make that plain, but so long as the proviso remains as wide as it is at present, so long is it necessary to give the same power of appeal as is given under the Act of 1888. That is specifically and in terms safeguarded, in respect of the conclusions arrived at by the Commission, in the body of Clause 8. For these reasons, although it may not affect many people— in fact, it may not affect any at all— these words ought to be deleted in order to safeguard the position of an applicant, even though the possibility is that the remote number of cases in which this Amendment may operate may be few.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment proceeds upon a misapprehension of the meaning of paragraph (b). The matter will arise in this way: The Commission has a point to determine. For the purpose of determining that point they want to be assured of certain facts. For that purpose they send one of their number— it may be one or two, but in most cases it will be one—down to the locus in quo and direct him to inquire and report as to the facts. He comes to no decision upon the main question before the Commission. He simply ascertains the facts and reports them to the Commission. The Commission holds a court and decides the question. From that ultimate decision there is, of course, a right of appeal. We do not take that away. The effect of the Amendment is that there would be an appeal from the local inquiry direct to the Court of Appeal, so that you would have this absurd position: first, the local inquiry coming to certain decisions of fact—it might involve questions of law; I do not think it would, but let us assume that it would—then you get an appeal from that local inquiry to the Court of Appeal. Then the Commissioner makes his report to the Commissioners and they come to a decision, perhaps the other way, not agreeing with their representative, and then there is an appeal from their decision. That is not the intention at all. The result of the local inquiry is simply a report to the general body of Commissioners, who will act or will not act upon it, as they think fit. Upon that

    2389
    explanation my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) will see that it would not be right that an appeal to the Appeal Court should apply to a mere local inquiry, which is an inquiry for the purpose of informing the minds of the Commissioners before they come to their decision.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Paragraph (b) is a very important provision. It is under it that all these compensation cases will be tried, and that the Commissioners will send a surveyor down. Let me take the case to which I referred on the previous Clause, a compensation case in Hampshire. The Commission will send down a surveyor to take evidence as to the value of the land. He will hear witnesses and cross-examine and hold the order of inquiry.
    Sir G. CAVE: He will then report to the Commission.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Yes, he will make his award or report. In the ordinary circumstances it would be an award; in this case it will be a report. He will have counsel and the expert witnesses before him in Hampshire, and he will make a report, say, that the compensation should be £l,000. The Commission will not hear any more counsel after that. They will simply take the report and say, "£1,000 compensation." The object of this Amendment is to provide that, in a case where the arbitrator—I will call him that for the sake of convenience; he is the person sent down to the country— makes a mistake in law, so that the £l,000 compensation is arrived at by a misunderstanding or a misapplication as to law, the aggrieved landowner may have the power to go to the Court of Appeal, nominally of course, to appeal from the decision of the Commission itself, but practically from the decision of the person who has made the report.
    Sir G. CAVE: The aggrieved landowner would have that power. The Commissioners will give their decision on those materials I agree, but that decision could be appealed from. On the appeal the appellant could go into the whole reasons given by the Commission for their decision, including the report upon which they acted.
    Mr. POLLOCK: We are really all agreed upon this, but at the same time
    2390
    some modification of this paragraph (b) is necessary. Let me follow the reasoning of the Solicitor-General. He says the only purpose of the local inquiry is to ascertain the facts. Then let us say so. In that case some words are needed on the following lines: "The Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the facts," or, "upon a question of fact for the purposes of this Act." If we put in those words we can leave in the words "except the provisions relating to appeals." The Solicitor-General says that the Clause means that, but it does not say so. At the present moment all it says is that the Commission is to hold an inquiry. Let me put this case to him: Suppose an inquiry is held and the person holding it rules out a certain body of evidence on the ground that he is not entitled to hear and will not hear evidence upon a particular matter. The conclusion upon that is absolutely final. There is no power to appeal, yet it may be of great importance that the evidence should have been heard. The decision arrived at may be a different one from that which ought to have been arrived at. Upon a matter like that, it is quite clear that you ought to have an appeal. On the other hand, if the Solicitor-General means to confine this to the cases to which he says he does, then we must limit it by precise words. In any event, the Solicitor-General will remember that I am not asking for an appeal on questions of fact. The picture he drew of having an appeal on a question of fact cannot possibly arise. No possibility can arise of an appeal on a question of fact. I am not going to press the Amendment, but on Report we must do either one thing or the other, either take out these words or put in some other words to make the Clause read as the Solicitor-General says it is intended to read.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It struck me that it might be possible at the end of paragraph (b) to have put in words providing that the result of the inquiry must be confirmed by the Commissioners. The Government is evidently desirous of giving an appeal and I think the words may possibly lead to some misconception.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not a question of affirming the result of the inquiry. The Commissioners get the Report and act upon it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I suggest words of this sort, "Provided that any decision of the local inquiry shall have no effect unless confirmed by the Commission."
    Sir G. CAVE: That is not the effect. It is like a report of an inspector of the Local Government Board. He holds an inquiry, gets the facts and reports to the Board. No one knows what he reports, and you have nothing but the decision of the Board.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is a very important matter, because the Sub-section gives power to the Commission to appoint anyone to hold a local inquiry. That may be all right provided there is an appeal if the decision is given wrongly, as it might be, because it is not one of the Commissioners. It is very important that an appeal should be given. Here we have my two hon. and learned Friends and one right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, all three equally learned in the law, but two of them take a totally different view from the Solicitor-General as to the effect of these words. It is a very complicated Bill, and some of us think it is going to deal very hardly with private rights. Surely we ought to make quite clear what the powers are and what they are not. I dislike saying anything about Report because there are so many things which have to be settled on Report that I am afraid if we put everything off we shall not get anything like so good a Bill. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider whether or not some such words as I have suggested should be put in on the Report stage providing that the decision, if there is a decision, of the local tribunal shall go back to the Commissioners, who shall give a final decision?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think there is any difference about law between any of us, but can there be any objection to some such words as my right hon. Friend has suggested at the end of paragraph (b)? It is rather an out of the way paragraph at present. It suggests that one or two members of the Commission may hold an inquiry. Paragraph (c) says that the Commission may act by two of their members. Therefore you have two members of the Commission going, say, to Hampshire, holding an inquiry and hearing people upon oath, and they could then and there settle the matter and not refer it to any other Commissioner at all. That clearly is not what the right hon. Gentleman means should be done.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. DENNISS: This discussion points very clearly to the necessity of having some other tribunal to decide cases of compensation in regard to the taking of land and easements than this Commission. See how awkward it would be, for the reasons which were given just now. Two Commissioners go down on a question of compensation for land and all they do is to report. The two of them report to the third, so that practically all they do would be confirmed by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman would be able to find some means of getting compensation in respect of taking lands and easements out of the Lands Clauses Act and take it away from the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I have practised before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and I never knew them assess compensation for the taking of land compulsorily or even by agreement, and they have really no machinery for doing it. I think the whole proceeding of the Commission most complicated and most unsatisfactory. They are put upon some work of which they have no experience, and about which they know practically nothing and they have to decide questions of valuation which are only fit for a skilled arbitrator who is accustomed to dealing with land, and it would relieve them, I am sure, knowing as I do the constitution of these tribunals, a judge of the High Court, a celebrated engineer and a third—I do not know who the third is—if they were not asked to undertake the burden of assessing compensation for the taking of land and easements all over the country. There is a code set up by the Lands Clauses Acts which is absolutely complete. It has been in existence since 1845, its provisions are well known, the practice is well known, and the tribunal consists of those who are most fitted for it, namely, either a jury presided over by someone who is accustomed to proceeding in eases of compensation and valuation or the Sheriff's Court of the City of London, or, if the parties wish it, by arbitration. On the whole I think we might exclude the jury altogether and simply go on arbitration under the Lands Clauses Acts. I throw that out as a suggestion if my right hon. Friend can find a means of relieving the Railway and Canal Commissioners,

    2393
    who are in no way suited for this class of work, and put in the arbitration Clauses of the Lands Clauses Acts.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to point out the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of this tribunal. I had not quite realised it until the Solicitor-General spoke before. Suppose you wish to arrive at compensation or any other question connected with the taking of land, the Railway and Canal Commission can send down a person to held an inquiry with power to take evidence on oath, and his award shall never be published, but simply sent back to the tribunal and they may or may not act upon it, and they might act upon it without hearing evidence or in any way they think right. Surely that is not a satisfactory way of doing business. That has been an objection to the local reports of the Local Government Board, but the countervailing advantages from the point of view of Departmental administration have overcome them and the matter is allowed to go on; but when it is a question of local reports involving large amounts of money that is the most unsatisfactory form of tribunal for assessing any rights of that kind which could possibly be imagined. It is the only tribunal of that kind which does not publish its decision, and whose decision has no authority, and later, when we come to the Clause dealing with the Lands Clauses Acts, I shall wish to mention the exceedingly unsatisfactory condition of the tribunal as it stands at present.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    CLAUSE 9 (Payment of Compensation and Purchase Money) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.— (Evidence of Certificate by Government Department.)
    For the purposes of this Act a certificate by any Government Department—

    (a) that possession has been taken of any land for purposes connected with the present War; or

    (b) that the Department is in possession of such land or is the Occupying Department within the meaning of this Act; or

    (c) that buildings, works, or improvements have for purposes connected with the present War been erected, constructed, or made on over or under any land wholly or partly at the expense of the State; or

    2394

    (d) that any such buildings, works, or improvements have been erected, constructed, or made with the consent of the Occupying Department at the expense of a person not being a person interested in the land; or

    (e) that a railway or tramway has been laid along, across, over, or under a public highway, or that a public highway has been closed, in the exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty, or any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm for purposes connected with the present War; or

    (f) that water, light, heat, or power has been supplied to any premises on the requisition or at the request of a Government Department for purposes connected with the present War;

    shall be conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert instead thereof as a new paragraph "(c) that any sums therein specified have been expended by the State in erecting, constructing, or making buildings, works, or improvements for purposes connected with the present War on, over, or under any land."
    Sir G. CAVE: I accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to leave out the word "conclusive" ["shall be conclusive evidence "], and to insert instead thereof the words "primâ facie."
    Dr. ADDISON: We accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel GRETTON: This Clause goes a very long way. It opens the door to all manner of certificates. For the purpose of this Act a certificate by any Government Department can be given about any of the matters, dealt with in the Clause. The War Office may issue a certificate for the Admiralty or the Admiralty may issue a certificate for the War Office. There is no limitation whatsoever for any Government Department. The Foreign Office may give a certificate as to any one of

    2395
    these questions. That seems to me to be a very serious defect. The mere fiat of a Government Department that something is a fact, known primâ facie to be a fact, is going a very long way outside of any principle which has been established in deciding the principles of justice and equity in this country. The subject has always had an appeal if he is aggrieved, and he ought not to be deprived of that appeal on the facts as stated by a Government Department. This Clause is a most startling one, although I must admit that it has been somewhat improved by the insertion of the words "primâ facie."
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Interpretation.)
    (1) For the purposes of this Act and of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts incorporated with this Act land includes any building or part of a building, any pier, jetty, or other structure on the shore or bed of the sea or any river, and any easement or right over or in relation to land.

    (2) Where consideration has been given or an advance made by the State for the erection, construction, or making of any building, work, or improvement on over or under any land for purposes connected with the present War, or where any money which would otherwise have been payable to the State has with the consent of a Government Department been applied towards the erection, construction, or making of any such building, work, or improvement, the building, work, or improvement shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to have been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly, as the case may be, at the expense of the State.

    (3) For the purposes of this Act except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "building" includes machinery and plant fixed or attached to the building.

    (4) For the purposes of this Act any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty shall be deemed to be a Government Department.

    (5) The Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) shall also be deemed to be a Government Department, and any premises of which possession has been taken by that Board in pursuance of the powers conferred on them by any Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Amendment (No. 3) Act, 1915, shall be deemed to be
    2396
    premises in the possession of an occupying Department for purposes connected with the present War, and the Board shall in relation to any premises acquired by them under those Regulations have the same powers of sale, leasing, and disposition as are exercisable by them under this Act in relation to land acquired by them under this Act.

    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), at the end, to insert the words
    "The expression 'common' shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green, and any other land subject to any right of common; the expression 'open space' shall mean any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation; and the expression 'allotment' shall mean any allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think, on the whole, the definition is a good one, but I would like to know something more about the expression "open space." The Amendment says that "the expression 'open space' shall mean any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation." Is that meant to be taken in its widest possible sense? I have been asked to put this question in connection with Wimbledon Common, for instance, which is not a common, but a statutory open space. It is not laid out as a public garden, though it is used for the purpose of public recreation and for other purposes as well. I do not know that it necessarily comes under this definition. If I could get an assurance that this Amendment is intended to apply to all lands which are habitually used for public recreation, even though they may be used, like Wimbledon Common, for other purposes, I should be satisfied. Some doubt has been suggested as to how far this Amendment is meant to go.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that earlier in the evening the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) had an Amendment down to add "or any lands of the New Forest."
    Dr. ADDISON: That is included in this. The Amendment is so drawn as to include the New Forest.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Where does the New Forest come in?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not within the definition of commons. The definition "any other land subject to any right of common," I think, will cover the New Forest.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: But a large part of the New Forest is not subject to common right.
    Sir G. CAVE: The New Forest, in so far as it is subject to any right of common will come within the protection of the Clause. I think it is admitted that parts of the New Forest are not common lands at all. In regard to the other question, I have no doubt that land like Wimbledon Common laid out as a statutory open space would be within this definition. Anything which is by law an open space will come within the definition.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not thoroughly satisfied about the New Forest, and I do hope that the matter will be considered further. It does seem rather peculiar that a place like Wimbledon Common should have to come, not under the definition of common, but under this rather loose term "open space," which is taken to mean "any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation." That, of course, would apply to any place which is thrown open to the public and habitually used. Statutory open spaces are not entirely used for public recreation. There are large parts of the New Forest which are not used by the public, and there are bits of Wimbledon Common to which the public have no right of access, and, therefore, are not used habitually for public recreation. I hope that someone will look into this matter before the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think it is important that we should reserve the rights of the New Forest. It is a very ancient place which is open to the public, and which has great traditions, and considering the great areas there are in England, Scotland, and Wales, I think there is really no necessity to spoil the sylvan beauties of the New Forest by putting down a factory, no matter the good purpose for which the factory may be required. I am afraid from what my right hon. Friend has said that the New Forest would not be included. There are undoubtedly parts of the New Forest which have not any common rights. Under those circumstances the New Forest would not be included. Is it quite certain that it is included?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Amendment has been drawn by our draftsman in order that it might include the New Forest, which has been specifically referred to, so far as it is subject to common rights, in various Amendments on the Order Paper. We will consult our advisers again. I feel sure that it is included.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is another question to be deferred!
    Dr. ADDISON: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then is it all right?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will inquire, and if it is not I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I should have thought the New Forest was included, because it is subject to right of common. If Wimbledon Common is to be dealt with, there is no right of common there, because, I think, by Statute safeguarding that place all the common rights were abolished. Therefore, if you are going to deal with Wimbledon Common, you will have to find some other words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Insert as a new Sub-section, (4) For the purposes of this Act references to the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, shall include references to those Acts as applied by the Naval Works Act, 1895.—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
    What is the purpose of this Section? On the face of it it seems to be rather absurd to say that any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government shall be deemed to be a Government Department. This is apparently giving very great powers to all sorts of people who ought not to have them. Personally, I do not want to create any more Government Departments. The number of persons here is undefined, and you might have five or six persons deemed to be a Government Department.
    Colonel GRETTON: It is a question of interpretation. I understand that it is possible for the Government to agree to leave out Sub-section (5). But if Subsection (4) is left in would it not in effect cover the Control Board, which they have otherwise persuaded the Government to leave out specifically in Sub-section (5)?

    2399
    It occurs to me that if that is so the concession which you make in Sub-section (5) is of no effect at all. The Control Board perform their duties under Order in Council and are appointed by His Majesty's Order in Council. They will undoubtedly claim, if they have not claimed already, that they are a body coming within the powers which are granted in Subsection (4). My objection is raised on one particular case, but it applies generally. There is nothing to prevent the Privy Council Committee from advising His Majesty to appoint persons here, there, and everywhere to suit their purpose. If the Government find themselves in a difficulty and want to acquire something the Secretary of State can call the Privy Council together to advise His Majesty to appoint persons. We do not know where we are. When the Bill was introduced we understood that the Admiralty, War Office, and Munitions Departments had acquired lands for the prosecution of the War, which would have to be dealt with. Looking more closely into the matter it will be found that these are extraordinarily loose words, which enable an Order in Council to set up a body of persons to acquire anything which a particular Department has not acquired under this Act. Whatever is intended to be stated should be stated more specifically, and these wide, undefined powers should not be loosely granted.
    Dr. ADDISON: I assure the right hon. Baronet that the particular Sub-section was not intended to refer to the Control Board at all. That is dealt with separately in the next Sub-section. At all events I will undertake that this particular Sub-section, whatever fault may be found with it, shall not be capable of being applied to the Control Board, and if it needs alteration we will make alteration so that it shall conform to the pledge now given.
    Mr. POLLOCK: What does it apply to?
    Dr. ADDISON: The reason for putting in this Sub-section was that there is a considerable number of cases in which possession has been taken of land by the competent naval or military authority, which is not a Government Department as referred to under this Bill. It was to cover such cases that these words were introduced. There is no intention whatever of applying them to any of the Departments outside those to which the Bill
    2400
    relates. Of course it often happens that the competent naval and military authority acts for one of these Departments, it is to cover cases of that kind that this Sub-section was introduced. We have no particular fondness for the precise terms of this Sub-section. All we want is to cover that class of case. If hon. Members think that the words are too wide, then I will undertake to have them examined.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Leave them out.
    Dr. ADDISON: We have kept our pledges everywhere; we will keep them on this. It is not reasonable to shut out this class of case because in the majority of instances, in the early days of the War, possession was taken of land by the competent naval and military authority, and not by the Department. It would not be reasonable to exclude that class of case from the Bill, and we want to have them specifically included by those; words. If these words go beyond that they can be reconsidered, but as far as we are advised at present they will not apply to Departments outside those who have previously been dealing with the land.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me impatient with him, but I suggest that the reason why these words are left in is a much simpler one, namely, that those who are responsible forgot to put down an Amendment to take them out. Obviously they ought to be taken out. Sub-section (4), if I understand rightly, applies to land or interest which has been acquired, and can only be used under certain Acts for the defence of the realm, and the Solicitor-General has an Amendment on the Paper, that, for the purposes of this Act, it shall include reference to the Naval Works Act, and it never was intended to refer to the Central Control Board under the words of Sub-section (4). What on earth is the good of it? There is no other Department excepting the War Office or the Admiralty who have the right to exercise these powers under the Defence of the Realm Act.
    Dr. ADDISON: These powers may be exercised by competent naval and military authorities.
    Mr. POLLOCK: These powers are vested in some Departments which will cease to exist long before this Act will cease. All that you want is that some of

    2401
    the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act may be carried forward, and you do not need to create this body of persons into a Department or a Government Department. What you should do is to carry forward certain powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and this Sub-section certainly ought to be left out. It is not needed; by the terms in which it is drawn it does not convey a correct impression, and it ought not to be there. These words will not be wanted on Report, and if they are to come out, the sooner they come out the better. If the Government want to put in some other words, then they can bring up proper words, but these words cannot be wanted, and they had better go.
    Dr. ADDISON: We will give this matter careful attention, and see that the words of this Sub-section do not go beyond what is intended. I am advised that there are numerous cases where land has been taken by competent naval and military authorities, in the exercise of powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and if this Subsection were struck out they would be excluded from the scope of the Bill. We must have words put in to include them, for under the Act they have taken land for the purposes of the Departments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not in the least object to those cases, but I do say that this particular Sub-section goes very much further than that. It creates a new principle. It says that certain people shall be deemed to be a department. It is quite unnecessary to do what the right hon. Gentleman says, and, therefore, I submit that the least the Government can do is to leave this Sub-section out at present. Earlier in the evening I ventured to suggest that we were leaving a great deal too much to be settled on Report, and that we ought to have dealt with some of these things in the Committee stage. It is quite true that it is difficult sometimes, on the spur of the moment, to draw up an Amendment which really meets the case; still, I feel bound to say that the Government really ought to deal with the Amendments which they say they are going to deal with in Committee and not on Report. In this particular case there can be no object in retaining these words. The Government themselves say that they only require them for a certain purpose. It is quite clear that they do not meet that purpose, or if they do they go far beyond it, and therefore it would really be very much simpler if the Government would leave out
    2402
    those words and bring up other words, on Report, which will meet the particular case. I think if that were done we should be willing not to oppose the words brought up, if the Government say they are required, but I really do think that we on this side have really done all we can to meet the Government, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman will admit. We have made a request which will in no way injure, but which will conduce to the better conduct of business, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to allow these words to stand out, on the understanding that he will have the right to bring up words to meet the point raised, and we shall not oppose those words.
    Dr. ADDISON: I will do it now. I beg to move, to leave out the words "for the purpose of this Act any person or body of persons acting on behalf of His Majesty," and to insert instead thereof the words "a competent naval or military authority, acting under the Acts relating to the defence of the realm."
    The Sub-section would then read, "For the purpose of this Act any competent naval or military authority, acting under the Acts relating to the defence of the realm shall be deemed to be a Government Department."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to withdraw my Amendment to leave out the Sub-section, and, of course, we will look at the words which the right hon. Gentleman has moved on Report. At present we think they are all right.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words "a competent naval or military authority acting under the Acts relating to the Defence of the Realm" there inserted.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-Section (5).
    I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this, but if it be otherwise I can assure him there is the strongest opposition to this Sub-section. Certainly this particular body, the Central Control Board, should not be made into a Government Department.
    Question proposed, "That the words of the Sub-section down to the word 'shall,' stand part of the Sub-section."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Government will acept the Amendment moved

    2403
    by my right hon. Friend. I submit that Sub-section (5) is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill has nothing whatever to do with the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and a great number of people in the country at the present moment are strongly against the arbitrary proceedings of the Central Control Board. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but they are apparently a body subject to no control, without any consent of any kind, who have never been set up by Parliament, except in the most indirect and remote way under the Defence of the Realm Act; and I submit that if the majority of this House had known that under the Defence of the Realm Act they were giving power to set up a body of this sort, uncontrolled by anyone, going round the country and dealing at their sweet will and pleasure with the property of other people, they never would have given that power under the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore I myself think that this Sub-section ought to certainly be dropped, and I wonder how it ever got into the Bill. If any further powers are to be given to the Central Control Board there should be a special Bill brought forward for that purpose, on which the House would have the opportunity of discussing the proceedings of the Board and of deciding whether or not to give the increased powers. I feel very strongly on this point, and from what has passed I am glad to think that the Government will omit the Sub-section. If they had not done so the Bill would not have had the speedy passage which it has had this afternoon.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I think if the right hon. Baronet will read the Report of the Board and will take the trouble to inquire as to what it has done, he will find that the work of the Board is appreciated by a very large number of people, and not the least by those who were supposed to suffer most by it—namely, the workers of the districts in which it has operated. Do I understand that the Government consent to withdraw this Clause?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then what is to become of the property which the Board has already acquired, and if this Sub-section is dropped, how will it be dealt with?
    Dr. ADDISON: Very strong opposition was manifested to this portion of the Bill, mainly on the ground that it was not related to the problem to be dealt with. I think there was a good deal of justice in that contention, and in deference to the strong opposition to this proposal and as it was so contentious, the Government decided to agree to withdraw the Subsection. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor), of course the Central Control Board has certain powers under the Acts under which that body operates. I am not in a position to say what will happen to the property in that case. There is no question that there is some truth in the contention that this Subsection is outside the general scope of the Bill, and on that ground we accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to amend this Clause, and I fully appreciate the way he has endeavoured to meet us. I really do not know what is the meaning of the phrase "Government Department." It is used in many Clauses. The Bill starts using it in Clause 1, and it is again found in the Clause we are now considering, but so far as I know it is a new phrase and not defined. The Interpretation Act defined the Treasury, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, the Commissioner of Works, and so on, in appropriate and proper language. When you are giving power it is right to know who is to exercise the power. Since you have omitted Sub-section (4), which used this phrase, I suggest it would be better to throw aside this indefinite term and make use of some other phrase reasonably well known throughout the Bill. I believe that the draftsman used the phrase "Government Department" because he was relying on Sub-section (4), and hoped he had met the difficulty by a sort of definition. I hope that on Report in all the passages where we have got the words "Government Department" we may have Amendments so that we may get some sort of defined and proper phrase which will not give rise to any sort of difficulties which always arise when you use a phrase which is not accurate to express what you mean.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland the following modifications shall be made:
    (a) For Section five there shall be substituted the following Section:
    5.—(1) Where any land or any interest therein has by virtue of this Act been acquired by a Government Department, the Department may at any time thereafter sell, feu, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest.
    (2) Where any such land is disposed of, then on the execution and delivery to the disponee by the Government Department concerned of the necessary or proper conveyance or disposition of the land disposed of and the recording of the same in the appropriate register of sasines, such conveyance or disposition shall, notwithstanding any defect in the title of such Government Department be effectual to vest such land in the disponee thereof for such estate or interest as may be expressed or intended to be conveyed to him freed and discharged (save as in the conveyance or disposition may be expressed) from all prior estates, interests, rights, and claims therein or thereto other than any existing right of superiority therein:
    Provided that if at any time after the recording of such conveyance or disposition any such prior estate, right or claim as aforesaid is established by the person entitled thereto, there shall be paid to such person compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act, with respect to interests in lands which by mistake have been omitted to be purchased:
    (b) "Easement" means "servitude"; "covenant" includes "restriction"; and "restrain" includes "interdict."
    Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (a), and insert instead thereof paragraph (a), Sub-section (2), of Section 5 shall not apply.—[Mr. Munro.]
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "covenant includes restric-
    2406
    tion," and to insert instead thereof the words "mortgagee includes heritable creditor."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I object to Amendments being passed when no one has any idea of what is being proposed. I do not want to oppose the Amendment, but I think we should have it explained.
    Mr. MUNRO: The only reason why these Amendments are not on the Paper is that they are consequential on Amendments which the Solicitor-General has moved and which have been accepted by the Committee. I can assure the Committee that they are of the most formal character. The words "covenant includes restriction" are, on further consideration, thought to be too limited, and therefore it is proposed to omit them. As to the other Amendment, while I refrain from explaining what "heritable creditor" means, I may say that it covers what is familiar to English lawyers as "mortgagee."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Why should Section 5 (2) be modified in its application to Scotland if it is still to apply to England?
    Mr. MUNRO: Sub-section (2) enables a Government Department, on disposing of land acquired under the provisions of this measure, to give an absolutely good title to the purchaser, in spite of the fact that the title of the Government Department may not be good or that a third party has a better title. I have been in consultation with conveyancing lawyers on the other side of the border, and they assure me that in Scotland there is no need to put a Government Department in a better position in regard to this matter than a private individual—in other words, that a third party's rights should not be prejudiced. They assure me that without any considerable expense or trouble it can be ascertained on our side of the border whether the title of a Government Department is good or bad. Therefore, because our laws with regard to conveyancing and registration of title are different from, and, as we think, better and more complete than the English laws, I suggest to the Committee that in Scotland there is no reason for putting a Government Department in any better position in this respect than a private individual.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Savings.)
    (1) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any common, open space, or allotment, or the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any public or private park.

    (2) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of the possession after the termination of the War or the acquisition of—

    (a) land belonging to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916; or

    (b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking; or

    (c) land held by or on behalf of any governing body constituted for charitable purposes which at the commencement of the War was occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body;

    without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, or, in the case of a university or a college at a university, without the consent of the governing body of the university or college, and if any question arises as to what Department is the appropriate Government Department, the question shall be determined by the Treasury.

    (3) Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land after the termination of the War for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period without the consent of the person with whom the agreement was made or the persons deriving title under him.

    (4) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land with respect to which an agreement has been made for the restoration thereof to the person previously in occupation thereof (other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy) or, in the case of land subject to an agreement for sale to a Government Department, shall authorise the
    2408
    acquisition of the land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

    (5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission where the purposes for which it is to be acquired are purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903.

    (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "governing body constituted for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have a right of holding or any power of Government of or management over any property appropriated for charitable purposes, and includes any corporation sole, and the governing body of any university, college, school, or other institution for the promotion of literature, science, or art.—[Sir G. Cave.]

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir G. CAVE(indistinctly heard): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate at once which of the Amendments I am prepared to accept. I propose to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Ash ford (Mr. Hardy), in Sub-section (1), substituting another form of words for the words "private park." I shall also accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), adding at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "or of any interest in such parks or grounds," which I think is a better form of his Amendment, at the beginning of the Clause. Then, in Sub-section (2), I propose to accept the Amendment leaving out the words "or the acquisition," and also the Amendment, adding at the end of Sub-section (2) the words,
    "and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."

    2409
    As far as acquisition is concerned, we propose, with some reluctance, under the influence of the opinion of many Members of the House, to agree to the provision that we shall not purchase compulsorily without the consent of the local authority. What I say about the local authority applies also in that respect to dock and harbour authorities and bodies of that kind. We have, therefore, put ourselves to some extent in the hands of the local authorities. That will not affect our powers under the Defence Acts. We propose to accept also the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hexham, leaving out in Sub-section (2) (b) the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking." I shall also accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in Sub-section (3), leaving out the words "after the determination of the War." I think, with these alterations, the Clause will meet the views of the Committee.
    Clause read a second time.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "any" ["acquisition of any common"], to insert the words "interest in any."
    I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the spirit of my Amendment. The reason why I put the words in the first line as well as at the end is that I thought if they were not there it might be held that they could not come later.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "public or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "any" ["acquisition of any common, open space"], to insert the words "land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, or is the site of any ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest."
    I am very much obliged to the Government for their acceptance of this Amendment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the Amendment put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) is a great improvement. I
    2410
    know the class of case which my hon. Friend has in mind. It is the lands which are adjacent to a house, and which are not rated as park land, but which really form a portion of the amenities of the house. It is a very common thing in the South of England if a field, or similar land, or a farm, is adjacent to a house that it really forms part of the amenity of the dwelling-house but is not rated as a park, and in the popular sense is not accounted part of the park surrounding the house. By omitting the words which are suggested by my hon. Friend the matter is left somewhat wide, and I shall again draw attention to the matter on the Report stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will then bring up something which will meet the case of the particular class of field which, in the places referred to, forms a considerable acreage in the South of England. The case might be met by the addition of some such words as "or otherwise required by the amenities of such mansion house," referring, of course, to the mansion house which goes before. The present Amendment does not absolutely meet the case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end, to add the words "or any interest in such land."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PERKINS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), at the end, to add the words "or of any land which, for the purposes connected with the present War, has been placed at the disposal of the occupying Department, or of the Government of India, or of the Government of any of the Overseas Dominions, or of the British Red Cross Society, or the St. John's Ambulance Association, voluntarily and without profit."
    Probably the first part of this Amendment is covered, but I do not think that there has been any attempt to cover the second and third cases to which I refer, and they are common in England. The case is this: A Department of State, say, the Government of India, were lent a piece of land upon which they put a hospital. They occupied that hospital with Indian troops for a considerable time. Then they vacated possession. I do not know by what chain of events it happened, but the same hospital is now in occupation by the Government of New Zealand, and in due course it may be

    2411
    occupied by another Government Department. I am very anxious that the people who so generously placed this area of ground at the disposal of these two successive Government Departments should not hereafter suffer for their patriotism by being compelled to sell this land to the Government. The third case is a common case of people who patriotically placed a private house at the disposal of the Government and the Ked Cross Society, say, or the St. John's Ambulance Association, use it for a hospital. I am anxious that these people should not be punished hereafter for that patriotic act.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. There are many cases where in the occupation and possession direct loss has been paid for if sustained but no profit has been made. I am afraid the Amendment covers a very large number of cases which it is not intended to cover. Perhaps we may see afterwards if the case can be met in some other way.
    Mr. PERKINS: It is a matter of general knowledge that throughout the country hundreds of houses have been placed at the disposal of the St. John's Ambulance Association for hospital purposes, and it seems hardly necessary that I should personally give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a list of them.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not mean that.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or the acquisition."—[Mr. G. Thorne.]
    In Sub-section (2) paragraph (6), leave out the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking."—[Mr. Pennefather.]
    Mr. BOYTONproposed to move, in Subsection (2) paragraph (b), after the word "undertaking," to insert the words "or had been acquired for future extension or development of that undertaking."
    I have in my mind some nine or ten acres belonging to a public utility company, which land has been taken over by the Government, the company having originally acquired the land for the purpose of developing their undertaking.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think there is some misapprehension. The hon. Member must remember that we have struck out the
    2412
    words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking," so that the words of the Amendment would not make sense.
    Mr. BOYTON: The company have not actually used the land.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that the words "which at the commencement of the War was used for the purposes of such undertaking," have been struck out. I do not think his words would read.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, or, in the case of a university or a college at a university, without the consent of the governing body of the university or college, and if any question arises as to what Department is the appropriate Government Department, the question shall be determined by the Treasury."
    I dare say the Solicitor-General can explain, but my trouble about these words is that they seem to leave the whole thing in a very unsatisfactory position after we have disposed of this Bill as to what land shall be occupied. We recognise the advantage of certain land being occupied by the Government hereafter, but when it comes to a question of leaving it entirely to an appropriate Government Department, I do not see that is a satisfactory way of dealing with matters of this magnitude, and I think it would be far better to leave those words out of the Bill, unless the Solicitor-General can explain what their real meaning is. It is very difficult for Members of this House, who have, perhaps, had long experience in various spheres of public life outside as well as inside the House, to know what it means, and I certainly do not know why we should legislate in the manner here proposed. What we want is that the Government should leave the proper responsible authorities in the country in the position they were before the War. This seems to set up any appropriate authority which may have to decide very great matters of public importance. I think, therefore, it would be better to leave these words out altogether.
    Sir G. CAVE: I wish the hon. Member had raised this point a few minutes ago when I accepted an Amendment on the basis that these words would stop in. If they stop in, and an Amendment we are

    2413
    coming to is adopted, the effect will be that during two years the Government Department will have the right to occupy the land of a local authority or statutory body subject to two conditions. One is that they get the consent of the proper Government Department, and the other is that they pay rent for the use of the land. We put in "the appropriate Department" for the reason that the Local Government Board, which has the interests of the local authorities very much at heart, objects to our using the land even for the two years without their consent. They say we may use the workhouses of the local body or other property of the local authorities during those two years, but they think it ought to be with their sanction. After the two years the occupation will continue both with the consent of the appropriate authority and the Railway and Canal Commission, but at no time will the land be purchased except with the consent of the local authority. We have given way to my hon. Friend and those who are with him on the main question—that is, acquisition. We are not now proposing to buy by compulsion against the wishes of the local authority, but we do think that up to two years it will be enough to obtain the permission of the appropriate authority.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me where are the words to the effect that the land cannot be obtained without the sanction of the local authority?
    Sir G. CAVE: If he looks at the Amendment later on in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), which we propose to take because it is wider than the others, he will see that that point is met. The Amendment is: "and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."
    Sir E. CORNWALL: That meets my point.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that they propose to pay rent for the land. There is no Amendment to that effect.
    Sir G. CAVE: Oh, yes; on Clause 1 we put in words to provide for rent in every case where land is retained under this Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed new Clause, to insert the words "and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any land which belongs to or which, before it was used by a Government Department, was occupied by any authority, company, corporation, or body referred to in this Section except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to leave out the words "after the termination of War."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HARDY: I beg to move to leave out the words "(other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy)."
    I do not really know what is meant by these words, and they may cause very considerable hardship. When the Government entered upon land for the purpose of making camps it was all done very hastily and upon agreements which were only to run six months, and when they came before the Secretary for Ireland's Committee it was shown that they were in the form of tenancy agreements, and they declined to give anything beyond a six months' tenancy, or an agreement until the termination of the War or such time afterwards as national requirements necessitated. That agreement practically excludes all the people who came in under those conditions from any benefit under this Clause altogether. Landlords made agreements with the War Office which they imagined were perfectly binding, and now they are to be excluded from benefits given under other agreements by a letting of a more permanent character. I should like to hear what is the explanation.
    Sir G. CAVE: The meaning of the words is that we are taking power to continue possession and in some cases to acquire land of which the authorities are in possession. In some cases they have gone in by agreement with the owners and sometimes with people not agreeing. In other

    2415
    cases the owners have said, "I will let you in but you must become my tenant; I want to put certain terms upon you and you may remain in as my tenant." In either case we desire to have power to continue possession for a time. There is in the lease or the tenancy agreement a common stipulation that at the end of the term the land shall be delivered up to the lessor. If you are going to comply with that it shuts out your power to retain possession for two years, and that is not the intention. Everybody ought to be on the same footing, including those who have simply let you in and those who have let you in on certain conditions. The effect of these words is to put both in the same position, and they refer to common form of agreement to give up possession.
    Mr. HARDY: I wish to enter my caveat against the way this point has been put. It was not the landlord who forced the agreement upon the War Office, but it was the War Office who forced the agreement upon the landlord, which is an entirely different matter. The War Office came with a printed agreement, and said, "We will take this land for six months." A most inconvenient period, because the tenant may leave at an unfortunate time when the land is in an objectionable condition. They would not vary that at all. In my own case it was nine months before I could get them to sign the agreement that they would only have my land for six months. They forced those agreements upon the people from whom they took the land, and now this Clause is going to exclude them from the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out of the proposed new Clause Sub-section (5). As far as I can read it the effect is that the consent of the Commission is required for purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842–1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892–1903. If my recollection serves me right, earlier in the Debate we put in a Clause which said that the Department should only acquire land for the purposes of those particular Acts. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state what those Acts meant—
    Sir G. CAVE: We provided that land might be acquired for the purposes of those Acts or for the purposes of the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain why those words are necessary.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Government Department would be very glad to leave out this Sub-section, which requires the consent of the Commission, with an exception that where we come under the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Acts we can buy without the consent of anybody. It would not be right in those cases to require the consent of the Commission.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: So far as it goes, I am strongly in favour of it, but even under the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Acts they have no power to buy under such favourable terms as under this Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words "without the consent of the Commission."
    I am afraid that there is no hope of the Solicitor-General excepting this Amendment. Of course, it would prevent the Department acquiring any hind compulsorily. That would be a very good Amendment from our point of view. I am afraid that I cannot expect the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept it, but I will move it in order to hear why he cannot do so.
    Sir G. CAVE: I could not accept this Amendment, because it would neutralise much that we have done in the Committee stage, and would really make this Act no improvement on the Defence Acts.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That, I think, disposes of a number of new Clauses which follow on the Paper.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: With regard to my new Clause (For Protection of Port and Dock Authorities), I would like to say—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That Clause is covered by the Clause which has just been added to the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause standing in my name (For Protection of Railway Companies) was put on the Paper with a certain object, and I understand that negotiations are proceeding at the present moment. Under those circumstances, I shall not now move the Clause, but I may possibly move it on Report.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Claims for Compensation.)
    In any case where a claim is made for (Compensation in respect of any matter arising under this Act, the Fame shall if the claimant so requests be determined by a single arbitrator who in default of agreement between the parties shall be appointed by the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and the arbitrator so appointed shall have the same powers for the determination of questions of compensation as are conferred by this Act on the Commission, and shall so far as practicable in assessing compensation act on his own knowledge and experience.—[Mr. P. Harris.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.): I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    This Clause provides that claims for compensation may be determined, if the claimant so requests, by a single arbitrator, and the arbitrator, in assessing compensation, may act, as far as practicable, on his own knowledge and experience. The object of the Clause is to enable claims for compensation to be settled in a more expeditious and inexpensive manner than if they had to go before the Railway and Canal Commission. A similar Clause appears in the Military Lands Acts, in the Housing and Town Planning Act, and in the Small Holdings Act. It is obvious, if all claims, including even comparatively small claims, have to go before a legal tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commission, and if expert witnesses have to be called, that it is going to be a very expensive and cumbersome matter, and as there are distinct precedents for this proposal, and as it will be much more inexpensive, I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
    Sir G. CAVE: There may be cases in which the Occupying Department or the Purchasing Department would agree to arbitration, but I should not like in every case to give the claimant, as he is called here, the option. It seems to me to be rather a one-sided proposal, and I really could not bind the Government Department in every case by that option, I therefore hope that the Clause will not be pressed. There is a little difficulty in having arbitration in these Government cases.
    Mr. BOYTON: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept it if the words were made to read "may by mutual consent"?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly, if that is necessary, but I do not think it needs an Act of Parliament to say that a thing may be done by mutual agreement.
    Mr. BOYTON: But I understand the Bill to say that the Railway and Canal Commission are to be the only authority.
    Sir G. CAVE: If you like to put down a Clause for the Report stage, I will consider it.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Grant or Demise Land to Department for Perpetual Bent.)
    (1) Any person having power (whether subject to any consent or conditions or not) to sell land authorised to be acquired by any Government Department may, subject to the like consent and conditions, grant or demise the land in perpetuity or for any term of years to the Government Department at such fee farm or other rent, secured by such condition of re-entry or otherwise as may be agreed upon, and with or without a right of renewal, or grant to the Government Department an option to acquire the land.
    Provided that, where the power to sell arises under the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the powers conferred by this Section shall be exercised only with the consent of the trustees of the settlement for the purposes of those Acts, or with the sanction of the Court.
    (2) This Section shall extend and apply to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall.—[Mr. D. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In moving this Clause I have founded myself on a similar Clause which the Government have in the Small Holding Colonies Bill. Several other precedents can be found in earlier Acts. The object of the Clause, which is a purely permissive one, is to give any person who has the power of selling the power of granting the land on perpetual lease. It is designed to

    2419
    operate where that plan would be more convenient. We know, of course, that there are technical objections in the way of perpetual leases unless they are specially authorised, and the alternate plan of disposing of the freehold and burdening it with a rent charge is a rather complicated and inconvenient process. This Clause simply applies to land taken under this Act the same principle—in fact, the words are the same—as the Clause in the Small Holding Colonies Bill, except that in place of the reference to the Board of Agriculture is the reference to the appropriate Government Department.
    Sir G. CAVE: The second Sub-section I cannot accept. With regard to the first Sub-section, of course the case of the Small Holdings (Colonies) Bill was very different to this. There are no compulsory powers there, and therefore there are special reasons why this power should be accepted. I will say at once that I would rather have a little time to think it over, and if the hon. Gentleman will leave it until the Report stage I will consider it.
    Mr. WHITE: I ask leave to withdraw.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Clause (Saving for the New Forest), that matter has been dealt with.
    Mr. PERKINS: Not to my satisfaction.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member was not here. It was dealt with on the first new Clause standing in the name of the Government.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It was discussed, not on that Clause, but on some other, and there was considerable divergence of opinion between the legal authorities as to whether or not the New Forest was covered. This is a matter which does deal with something which really has not been settled.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: On a point of Order. I think it was on a definition of Section 11 that I introduced the discussion as to whether the New Forest came into the terms of the Bill. If it did it would then restrict certain rights of purchase, but this Amendment goes very much further, because it proposes to exclude the New Forest from the Bill altogether. Not only could the Government not buy any part, but they could not remain for two years, or whatever the period is under Sections 1 or 2.
    The CHAIRMAN: I understand that an Amendment was moved.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: No; no Amendment was moved.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It was a discussion as to whether or not certain words in the Bill did or did not include the New Forest.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then the appropriate place for this would have been as an Amendment to the first new Clause of the Government, namely, the one "Savings." If the hon. Member will put it down in that form for a subsequent stage that will be the correct place for it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think my hon. Friend did suggest moving it there, but it was said that the matter was discussed and covered. What he is moving now refers to Clause 1 as well as to the other part, because the saving clause in the new Clause only refers to acquisition. This new Clause includes Clause 1 as well, and that is the intention.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then that has been twice discussed.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Buildings Erected by Government.)
    No building erected by Government during the present War upon land not the property of the Government shall become the property of the owner of the land, but shall remain the property of the Government at the end of their occupation of such land.—[Mr. Rawlinson.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I have the advantage, at any rate, that this Amendment is not covered by any Clause, and my object in putting it down was this: It really shows, I think, to what the Government is entitled under the whole Bill. They have the power at the present time to do anything they like, and to keep land as long as possible, but unless they choose to accept this offer, which I make very freely, I do not propose to press the Amendment upon them. If the Solicitor-General will request me to move it I will do so, but unless it is necessary I do not propose to move it. I see the right hon. Gentleman wishes that I should move it.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: This is the first occasion on which any Member of the House has

    2421
    offered to give us anything we have not asked for. As a matter of fact we do not want this Clause. We have already all that we want. We have power to retain the land for a period, and during that time to remove the buildings. That being so, the substance of this Amendment is already in the Bill. I think it would rather defeat the hon. Gentleman's object, because the effect would be that the buildings would be Government property, and even after we had given up possession of the land at the end of the two years, or other period, the buildings would remain ours, and we might have the right—I do not know how long afterwards—to go on the land to the buildings.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think that, in a very generous mood, my hon. and learned Friend has drawn a Clause which goes a little further than he intended; but I should like to point out to the Government that if they had drawn a Clause of this sort, and introduced one Clause of this sort, they might have had their Bill weeks—I might even say months—ago. This is really all that is necessary, in rather different words, and I only wish my hon. and learned Friend had been the draftsman consulted by the Government, because we should probably not have spent this evening here, but in a more enjoyable way.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg leave to withdraw.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the next Clause has been settled; and the same thing applies to the next two Clauses on the Paper, and the next one, also dealing with the saving for commons, open spaces, and allotments.
    Mr. BRUNNER: No, that point has not yet been covered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for Commons, Open Spaces, and Allotments.)
    (1) This Act shall not authorise the acquisition of any common land, open space, or allotment.

    (2) The Commission shall not entertain in relation to any common land, open space, or allotment any application under Section one, Sub-section (1), for a further period beyond three years after the termination of the present War.

    2422

    (3) The occupying department within three years after the termination of the present War shall remove all buildings and works whether of a permanent or temporary character which have been erected or constructed for purposes connected with the present War on, over, or under any common land, open space, recreation ground, or allotment, and the occupying department shall within the same period cause the land to be restored to the condition in which it was before the building or work was erected or constructed.

    (4) For the purposes of this Act the expression "common" shall include any land subject to be enclosed under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and any town or village green; the expression "open space" means any land laid out as a public garden or used for the purposes of public recreation; and the expression "allotment" means any allotment set out for any public purpose under an Inclosure Act or award.—[Mr. Brunner.]

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I wish to deal with the second and third Sub-clauses. The first and fourth have already been dealt with, and perhaps I had better move it in that form. It comes to this: that this new Clause requests the Government to take all buildings off commons and open spaces within three years after the War. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask for. We should all like to see our commons again in the possession of the people when the War is over, and I think three years is quite a long time to give the Government to do the work.
    Sir G. CAVE: Sub-section (1) has already been covered. Sub-section (4) has already been covered. Sub-section (3) is covered by an Amendment accepted on Clause 1, and therefore there only remains out of the whole of this Clause Sub-section (2), which would prevent an application for an extension of the term of occupation. I think we have given way a good deal on the question of commons. We have agreed not to buy them on any terms whatever, but I think we ought to have the right to occupy them during two years, and, if need be, if a strong case be shown to the Commission, during a longer period. I think that is right and proper, and that this should not be pressed.
    Mr. BRUNNER: I beg leave to withdraw.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next two Clauses in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) deal with matters already covered, and also the next new Clause.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I do not know under what part of the Bill so far the point covered by the new Clause I have put down for the protection of water with regard to pollution, fouling, and contamination, has been met. It may be that as we have been going through the Bill the various Amendments we have accepted from time to time may have met that point, but it is very difficult for the Committee to realise whether these main points have been met. I recognise, however, the spirit in which the Solicitor-General has dealt with the questions that have been raised by the local authorities—the Metropolitan Water Board and other authorities—in the country, and I have no doubt that if there are any points that have been missed during our progress in Committee, the Solicitor-General will be prepared to listen to anything said to him by any authorities on the Report stage, if by any chance we have not examined any points which I am quite sure, and I have every desire to recognise, the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to meet. In the circumstances I will not propose, therefore, to move my new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: The two new Clauses, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland (Colonel Grettton), are already covered, and the one in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. D. White)—["certain particulars to be ascertained and recorded "]
    Mr. WHITE Mr. WHITE rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Has that been dealt with?
    Mr. WHITE: I do not think that ha3 been dealt with.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain Particulars to be Ascertained and Recorded.)
    Where land is acquired, whether temporarily or permanently, under this Act the Treasury shall ascertain and record the annual value thereof as adopted for rating purposes at the time when the Govern-
    2424
    ment Department first took possession of the land, and of the rent or price paid for the land by the Government Department. —[Mr. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of this Clause, which follows the lines of a similar Clause that was accepted and inserted in the Small Holdings (Colonies) Bill, is that certain particulars as to prices and valuation shall be ascertained and recorded. It does not go beyond that simple proposition. I recognise, from what was said in the course of the Debate on the other Bill, that one cannot expect the Government to accept phraseology which brings in a reference to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and also I recognise the difficulty about the reference to the annual return, as there is no provision for an annual return in that particular case. I therefore propose to move the Clause in the amended form, not as it appears on the Paper. It does not propose to regulate the prices or the valuations in any way. It provides simply that the data should be ascertained and recorded.
    Dr. ADDISON: I hope that the hon. Member will not press this Clause upon us. I am sorry to say we cannot possibly accept it as it appears on the Paper. We have tried to meet the hon. Member on several other matters. This will introduce another Government Department. There is already adequate machinery for making proper records of all the various transactions engaged in by the different Departments in the course of their operations in connection with this Bill. This Clause simply sets up another set of recording machinery, and however de-desirable it may be in itself, I do not see that it presents any special advantage. Therefore I hope my hon. Friend will not ask us to accept it at this stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Clause, because, apart from the merits of the scheme, I do not see what good it does. All that it apparently does is to compel certain officials to take steps to ascertain certain things. When they have ascertained them, nothing is to be done. The facts which are ascertained are neither to be acted upon nor used for any purpose at all. They are merely to be ascertained, and then, suppose, they are to be

    2425
    tabled somewhere. What use all that will be I cannot possibly conceive. It is a pity that the particular fads of the hon. Member in this direction should be introduced at this moment, because the question whether or not annual value should be deemed to be the basis of purchase does not arise, and the hon. Member does not propose that it should be used as the basis of purchase. In these circumstances I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Government.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) is not able to meet the small request made by my hon. Friend (Mr. White). The intention of this proposal is obvious. It is a desire to get some record of what value has been placed by the rating authorities upon any piece of land purchased under this Bill. I am surprised at the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is such a stickler for economy, opposing this suggestion, which would enable us to keep some check upon the prices which are being paid by these Departments. Again and again in the past the question of the prices given by the State for the purchase of land has been raised by this very means. We have been able to point out the value upon which the land has been assessed for rates, and have been able to ask the Government, "Why have you paid such a price so far in excess of that upon which this land has been assessed by the rating authorities?" By the ascertainment of these facts and setting them out in a way in which we have access to them, we do place some check on the price paid for land by State Departments. I therefore suggest that the Clause might well be accepted by the Government. It would cause the Department no trouble. The facts are there, and this provides only that they should be recorded.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Addison) has not appreciated the difference between the Amendment on the Paper and the Amendment as it was moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. D. White). It may be due to the fact that the alteration has only been handed to him recently. I would suggest that the Government might at any rate meet my hon. Friend on this proposal, as they did on his previous proposal. Perhaps they have not had time to fully consider the Amendment in its revised form, but we might have some promise that it will be considered
    2426
    between now and the Report stage. I would suggest that my hon. Friend would, be satisfied with that promise at this stage.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: That disposes of the next three new Clauses on the Paper. That standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero) and the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) dealing with the Right of Reference by Persons Interested, has, I believe, been dealt with, if I am not mistaken, in the Amendments to Clause 1.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not think it, has been dealt with.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Bight of Reference by Persons Interested.)
    Any person interested in land or buildings in the occupation of a Government Department under the provisions of this Act shall be entitled, in default of agreement, to submit for the decision and award of the Commission any question arising out of the occupation of the land or buildings by the Government Department.—[Colonel Gretton.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of this Clause is to ensure that persons who are indirectly interested, either in land or buildings, shall have an opportunity of being heard, of stating their case, and of making their claim, if they have a substantial one. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill to enable, for instance, a mortgagee of land or buildings to appear before the Commission to state his case and to have an award made where compensation is payable. That course would be obviously convenient and save cost. It would enable the Commission, when adjudicating upon these cases, to have the whole of the facts before them and to arrive at a more just decision than they would be able to do upon a partial statement of the facts by one party. I understand this arises more frequently in the case of buildings, machinery and plant than in the case of land. In many cases money has been advanced on plant which ought to be recovered. I am very anxious that persons who have interests in buildings also should have an opportunity of being heard before they are-

    2427
    finally taken over by the Government and the case is closed. It is obviously in the interest of justice and in the interest of the Government itself. Possibly the Government may not consider that this form of words is best adapted for the purpose. My object is that any persons who conceive themselves to be interested in the plant or buildings to be transferred to the Government should have a right to appear before the Commission either personally or by counsel, so that the case may be heard and may not be ignored in the proceedings before the Commissioners.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have read the Clause carefully and I think it is too wide. It will enable anyone with any interest in the land to bring up before the Commission any question arising out of the occupation of the land. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to secure that no Order shall be made without the parties interested being heard. That, quite clearly, could not be done. I cannot see how they could make an order against a mortgagee or affecting land in which a mortgagee had an interest without hearing what he had to say. The ground my hon. and gallant Friend desires to cover is really covered already, and I am afraid the introduction of this new Clause would only cause confusion.
    Colonel GRETTON: I quite agree that it is intended to be covered, but there are no words in the Bill which indicate any such intention. The whole course of legislation shows that some indication is given in the Act itself of what Parliament intends. I drew the Clause widely in the anticipation that if the Government objected they would suggest limitations. My right hon. Friend admits the principle. The question is how far the limitations should be there. I think there should be some indication in the Act that persons indirectly interested should have an opportunity of being heard. The Commissioners are men of experience. The Government think so or they would not appoint them for this purpose. I would suggest that some indication should be given that persons other than owners, lessors, and so on, who are specifically mentioned earlier in the Bill, should have the right, if they have a real, substantial interest, to appear before the Commissioners and state their case. These gentlemen are appointed to act judicially, and the important matter in all these cases is that justice should be done, and where justice requires that time and attention
    2428
    should be given, then we ought to see that time and trouble are not spared. I venture to press for a little further consideration of this principle. I admit the words are very wide, and I frankly acknowledge that I drew them wide so that if the Government thought them too wide they could suggest a limitation.
    New Clause negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause (Supply of Electric Energy)—which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. Healy)—is outside the scope of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

  MODIFICATION OF THE LANDS CLAUSES ACTS.
  1. The Department acquiring the land or interest therein shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act.

  2. The provisions as to the sale of superfluous land and as to access to the special Act shall not apply.

  3. All questions of disputed compensation shall be settled by the Commission.

  4. No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.

  5. Where a portion only of any factory or other building is required the owners and other persons interested in such building may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, be required to sell and convey the portions only of the building so required, if the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise.

  6. In determining the amount of compensation, the value, of the land shall be taken to be the value which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the present war, without regard to any enhancement or depreciation in the value which may be attributable directly or indirectly to any buildings, works, or improvements, erected, constructed, or made on, over or under the land, or any adjoining or neighbouring land for purposes connected with the present War wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or,

  2429
  with the consent of the occupying department, at the expense of any person not feeing a person interested in the land:
  Provided that—

  (a) where any such building, work, or improvement was erected, constructed, or made in pursuance of an agreement with any person interested in the land, the consideration given by such person shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;

  (b) where by virtue of an agreement with any Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled as between himself and that Department to the benefit of any such building, work, or improvement, the value attributable to such building, work, or improvement shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;

  (c) where, since the commencement of the present War, any person interested in the land has himself erected, constructed, or made any building, work, or improvement, or has contributed to the expense thereof, or has committed any act depreciating the value of the land, the value attributable to his expenditure or the depreciation in value attributable to such act shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest.

  7. In determining the amount of compensation payable to any person interested in the land, the Commission shall have regard to the extent to which any adjoining or neighbouring land or hereditaments in which the same person is also interested may be benefited by the buildings, works, and improvements so constructed, erected, or made as aforesaid, on over or under the land taken or on over or under any adjoining or neighbouring land.

  8. In determining the amount of compensation the Commission shall also take into account the amount (if any) of any compensation paid or other payment received in respect of the previous occupation of the land so far as such compensation or payment was payable in respect of matters other than the mesne profits of the land.

  9. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, the Commission may
  2430
  apply a2430ny of the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-live of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit.

  10. Where by reason of the erection, construction, or making of any such buildings, works, or improvements as aforesaid or the maintenance thereof, or by reason of the user of the land, any interest in the land has become or might become forfeited or liable to forfeiture, the compensation shall be determined as if no such forfeiture or liability to forfeiture had arisen or might arise.

  11. The Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness on either side except in such cases as the Commission otherwise direct.

  12. The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the cost of any witness whom they consider to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which they consider to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if they think the circumstances such as to justify them in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.

  13. There may be contained in the award of the Commission a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the Department by whom the land or interest therein is to be acquired so to do, has failed to deliver to such department a statement in writing of the amount claimed, giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable such department to make a proper offer, and, where such a finding is contained in the award, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to cost of arbitrations shall apply as if such department had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found to be due by the award:
  Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contained a notice of the effect of this provision.

  14. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) For the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to profits.

  2431

  (b) For the reference to Sections seventy-seven to eighty five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted a reference to Sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845.

  (c) "The Court of Session" and "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "the Lord Chancellor" and "rules" respectively.

  (d)"Hereditaments" means "heritages" and "arbitrator" means "arbiter."

  15. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Ireland with the substitution of a reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the reference to the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. HARDY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 2, which refers to the sale of superfluous land and to the access to the special Act. With respect to the sale of superfluous land, I am not a little puzzled by the Solicitor-General's Amendment, which goes rather beyond my knowledge of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845.
  Sir G. CAVEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HARDY: You do not propose to move it?
  Sir G. CAVE: No.
  Mr. HARDY: Do I understand that you are not going to move any of the Amendments?
  Sir G. CAVE: None of them.
  Mr. HARDY: But you leave paragraph 2 as it stands. In regard to superfluous land, I think there never could be a case where the Act dealing with superfluous land should come into operation as in this case, because the land has been taken for very special purposes and at a very special time, and if it is to go back to anybody it ought to follow the lines adopted in other cases for a great number of years. It should not be excluded as one of the modifications of the Lands Clauses Acts which have been brought in. So far as the access to the special Act is concerned I confess that I do not feel very clear. I believe the intention is to get the procedure under this Act and the procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts running concurrently. I should like an explanation from the Solicitor-General why these two particular
  2432
  provisions which have applied generally and have been considered fitting to apply in connection with the acquisition of land should be excluded from this particular case. I am acting on behalf of the County Councils Association.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Government do not desire to move their Amendments.
  Sir G. CAVE: That is so. In regard to the Special Act, there is no Special Act in this case.
  Mr. HARDY: How does that agree with paragraph 1, which says that this Act shall be deemed to be the Special Act?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is no other special Act. With regard to the other point the provisions as to the sale of superfluous land give the right of pre-emption to the former or adjoining owner. That is the only effect of it. By the Bill as now amended there is an express right of preemption to the former or adjoining owner. The right hon. Gentleman himself got it put in. Having it there once you do not want it there again. It would be absurd to have side by side two different sets of words giving rights of pre-emption.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am not quite clear as to this. I should like to consider the effect of the first two Clauses under which this Act is to be deemed to be the special Act and then the provisions under which the special Act is to be deemed not to apply. Leaving it, and accepting what the Solicitor-General says, the provisions which are now left out and are not to apply are the provisions which are referred to in the Amendment which the Solicitor-General intended to move. That Amendment refers to Sections 127, 128, and 129 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. The catchwords of these Clauses are —if lands are not wanted to be sold, or in default to vest in the owners of the adjoining land. If they are not really wanted when taken by the undertakers they are to vest in the owners of the adjoining lands. The next, 128, is—lands to be offered to the owner of the lands from which they were originally taken, or to the adjoining owner. Section 129 is the right of pre-emption to be claimed within six weeks. It is quite true that we have already a special arrangement for preemption which deals with matters contained in 128 and 129, but you have not dealt with the point in Section 127. I do

  2433
  not think that there are many such cases likely to arise. At any rate, we have the fact that the learned Solicitor-General thought that it was worth while putting in a proviso to deal with them. I do not know who altered his mind and made him come to the conclusion that he would not ask for the powers in 127, as it was unnecessary to have them. I should have rather thought that it was necessary to safeguard that Section. At any rate, we have the authority of the draftsmen in support of those who still think that something ought to be done in reference to Section 127, and that it should not be thrown away, in case that it should be needed in specific cases.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As I am not competent to argue the Amendment which I trust will be moved, I will not pursue it, but it does seem to me rather a peculiar thing that, the Amendment having been put down, the learned Solicitor-General should withdraw it.
  Mr. HARDY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
  This goes a very long way. It states that all questions of simple compensation shall be settled by the Commissioners. Anyone who makes any claim whatsoever for compensation under any Act whatever has always a legal right. In this case there is no appeal, and no legal right in the claimants who may appear before the 'Commission. I do not think it is realised how far this paragraph goes, and I think it goes far beyond what the Government intends. The paragraph should be left out and further considered, so that it may be limited to what is obviously intended, and what alone can rightly be meant in this connection.
  Sir G. CAVE: The reference in the Schedule is interpreted in the Bill, Clause 3, Sub-section (5):
  "For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act shall be incorporated with this Act."
  Clearly this comes within the Clause, and the questions are to be settled, not by a jury but by the Commission. If the
  2434
  hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that the Commission is to be the body to provide the compensation, then this paragraph must apply.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It is a most vital proposition, that the Commission should be the tribunal to try questions of compensation. I have not heard anybody in this House suggest that the Commission is a suitable body to try questions of compensation. They are in no way fitted to try such cases. We know that the Commission, in effect, when claims are made, appoint an arbitrator, and they act on his report. Under the Lands Clauses system the owner and the purchaser each appoint an arbitrator, and if they do not agree an umpire is appointed to try the case. I strongly support the Amendment, for I feel sure that such a tribunal ought never to be allowed to settle compensation.
  Sir T. WALTERS: This is really going to the root of the Bill, and certainly ought not to be disposed of in an Amendment to one paragraph of the Schedule. We have a perfectly clear course given to us in the Bill, namely, that the Commissioners are the tribunal to deal with these claims for compensation, and, of course, they will have a simple procedure and make their award. That can be done without arbitrators on each side, and an umpire if they disagree, with all the agreeable and attractive things which attach to such a procedure. The effect of the procedure in the Bill is to simplify the whole business, to eliminate unnecessary cost, and to have an impartial tribunal that will not be concerned in any of these things, but will simply endeavour to arrive at what is fair and equitable compensation. As far as, my own experience of these matters goes, I view with positive horror the cumbersome costly machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts, though I can see some grounds on which you may criticise this procedure. On the whole, looking at it broadly, it seems to me it is a simple, equitable and inexpensive method of procedure, and I should not support any Amendment that would reopen the whole question and involve us in that hopeless quagmire of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I believe the Commissioners are a competent body in this matter and that they will be properly assisted by competent surveyors. I have given some considerable thought to this matter, and comparing the principle which this Bill, I

  2435
  understand, lays down with the ordinary machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, I believe this is simpler and certainly more inexpensive and the better method on which to proceed.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am surprised to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir T. Walters). I do not think he can have been present when we were discussing the question of the tribunal. He probably did not hear the Solicitor-General say to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) that he was prepared to consider what the composition of the Commission should be and before the Report stage to consider whether any alteration should be made in the Commission, and that he had not closed the door at all as to whether or not he would adhere to the Railway and Canals Commission or whether or not there should be a special tribunal. Indeed, he indicated it might be that a special tribunal, either existing or possibly set up before the Report stage, might be found to be a more serviceable tribunal for the purposes of this Bill than the one for which the hon. Member for Sheffield expressed so much love and affection, having regard to the past and with a lingering sort of recollection of the remuneration received. At first I thought he was referring to my hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), but I found that they were only anecdotal references to his own past career. The importance of this Amendment is that if the matter is left open, and one which the Solicitor-General will consider when he is considering the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Guildford, it seems to be part of the same scheme, and I think it must be left in that way, and I do not see how we can ask for more. How can he determine the matter more definitely if he adheres to this particular Clause, in view of what he said to the hon. Member for Guildford? If we are to take this as a sort of trial ground as to whether or not the composition of the tribunal is to be finally fixed without any reconsideration, and if all questions of disputed compensation are to be settled by the Commission as we at present know it, it is a very debatable question indeed, and the Amendment is a very important one, and it might be that we should be unable to settle it until some further undertaking
  2436
  was given by the Government. Certainly it could not be left where it was left by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. If it were, it would be taken that this Committee finally adhered to the views which he expressed, without any possibility of modification on Report.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In the course of the discussion the hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield has made some very notable speeches, with nearly all of which I agreed. Therefore, I listened with, great interest to the speech which he made a few minutes ago. I am sorry to say that in this case he has not convinced me that he is right. As far as I understand, all that would happen if these words were left out would be that the Railway and Canal Commissioners would have to be guided by the procedure in the Lands Clauses Act with regard to the compensation. The hon. Member says that that is a very cumbersome, difficult, and costly procedure. One would suppose that under the Amendment the Railway Commissioners themselves would settle the matter. That is not so at all. They would themselves, as I understand, appoint a surveyor. That surveyor would not act without fee.
  Sir T. WALTERS: Perhaps I may explain. If you follow the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act the Commissioners would have to appoint one arbitrator, and the owner of the land would appoint another. These two arbitrators would meet, and, of course, they would not agree. They would appoint an umpire, who would sit and hear the evidence. Each side would call professional witnesses, surveyors, who would want to be paid. The arbitrators would want to be paid. The umpire would want to be paid. If you add all those items together they come to a considerable sum. The procedure under this Bill is quite different. The Commissioners appoint a single arbitrator, whose business it is to inspect the land, examine all the facts, hear the evidence submitted to him, and advise the Commissioners, and upon his advice the Commissioners make their award. You reduce to a minimum both the procedure and the number of people who have to be paid. Thus the method of the Bill is more expeditious, less costly, and, I think, better.
  Sir G. CAVE: May I make an appeal to the Committee? I think everyone will agree that it would be better if, before we

  2437
  separate for the Recess, we could have the Bill reprinted and circulated. To do that we must get this Bill through Committee to-night, and we can do that only by general consent. We can deal with these other matters on Report.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think we have made very good progress—
  Sir G. CAVE: I agree.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And there are several things outstanding which are very important. I really do not think it matters very much whether the Bill is reprinted and circulated now or whether it waits until the 10th October. I certainly am not going to read the Bill between now and the 10th October. I have other things to do. I have read Bills for the last twenty-four years when the House was sitting, and for the last two years when it has been sitting almost continuously, therefore I do not want to spend my vacation reading this Bill. I should prefer to do it when we get back again. We really have endeavoured to get on, but we have come to some very important points, and I think we must have two or three Amendments. We can do this thing much better in Committee than on the Report stage. Not being very capable in putting my points, I like the Committee stage, for I can speak more than once, whereas, on the Report stage, I cannot speak more than once. What the hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Walters) opposite has said has not changed my view, for, after all, the man can say that he is perfectly willing to submit the case to one arbitrator. He can, too, claim his right under the Lands Clauses Act himself to appoint the arbitrator. I presume he will have to ' pay the expenses if he does that. Therefore, under these circumstances, I really; do not see why the Sub-section should not come out. The procedure then would be that of the Lands Clauses Act. I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I would like to try and save time by saying that it would be a great convenience to people outside the House if the Bill were printed. The right hon. Baronet says that he does not want to read the Bill during the Recess, but a very great number of people outside the House would like to see the Bill in print, and give us the benefit of their views.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is nothing really in that. What are we going to do
  2438
  after 10th October till Christmas? We will have little to do. We may as well amuse ourselves—
  Sir E. CORNWALL: We are not legislating for ourselves, but for the people outside.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They can amuse themselves with it after 10th October. One of the reasons this Bill was brought forward to-day was because there was no work to do.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph 4.
  This is a very important Amendment. I believe I am right in saying that under the Lands Clauses Acts no words occur which provide that compensation for compulsory purchase shall be given, but that it is left open to the arbitrator, or whoever settles what the compensation shall be, to decide whether or not certain compensation shall be given in view of the special circumstances of the case, and I believe that as a rule 10 per cent., or some percentage, has generally been given in order to cover the cost of reinvestments.
  Sir G. CAVE: Not reinvestment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot see why in this particular case these words should be put in. Why should it not be left to the arbitrator to decide whether or not in his opinion a certain rather larger compensation should be given because of the compulsory purchase, and whether or not they should be entitled to give that compensation. Surely many of the cases here concerned are cases in which people have come forward purely from patriotic motives and placed their land at the disposition of the Government. Cases were given in the papers the other day where the Government have occupied very valuable premises and refused to pay any rent at all for them. They have occupied premises worth about £300,000 or £400,000 absolutely for nothing. Under those circumstances, while I am always in favour of necessary economy, which has not been practised by the Government, I do think these words should not be put in.
  Sir G. CAVE: The practice has grown up under the Lands Clauses Acts of ascertaining the loss which the owner has had to bear and then adding to that 10 per cent, for what is called compulsory

  2439
  purchase. It is not allowed for reinvestment, but it is simply a kind of solatium to the owner for having to sell land he does not want to sell. I think in recent years that has not generally been claimed by owners of land, and, in fact, in recent Statutes there has been a provision excluding an additional sum for compulsory purchase. I have a list here. It includes the Small Holdings Act.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The last Small Holdings Act?
  Sir G. CAVE: Yes; the Housing and Town Planning Act, the Development Act, and others. I think it is customary to insert words of this kind, and I think as a rule owners have not objected. I hope, therefore, in this case the precedent will be followed with the general consent of the Committee.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree it is a very small point, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted cases in which it has been done away with. On the occasion of the Housing and Town Planning Bill I made some strong remarks about the exclusion of the Lands Clauses Acts. Whatever may be necessary in Bills of that kind, surely in a Bill such as this, where the person whose land you are taking is admittedly a person who has allowed the Government to come in under circumstances very patriotic indeed, I do think it is exceedingly ungenerous that a paragraph of this kind should be inserted. I always understood 10 per cent, was put in for compulsory removal. Whatever the basis, hon. Members can trust surveyors to exercise a just attitude in regard to the matter.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not. see any reason why because under certain Acts—which, as far as I remember, were not approved by the Solicitor-General at the time they were passed—certain things Were done that now that bad practice should be continued. This is a very exceptional Bill taking very exceptional powers. It is not an ordinary case where one particular property is to be acquired. This Bill deals with all sorts of property all over the Kingdom acquired for very exceptional reasons and where, in nine cases out of ten, the owners do not want to sell. I think it is a little ungracious to insist upon these particular words when the Government must be well aware that the owners have come forward most patriotically and placed their lands at the
  2440
  disposal of the State. I should like to have divided the Committee on this Amendment, but in view of the late hour I will not press it to a Division.
  Amendment negatived.
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (5).
  This is a very important Amendment, because it deals with the question of severance. I think that that portion of the Lands Clauses Acts which deals with severance should not be included in this Bill. The Committee will remember that the Lands Clauses Acts require that where it is proved that a portion of land is required which causes a severance and damage by so doing, the owner may require the purchasing authority to take the whole of the land, and that seems to be perfectly fair. Supposing you have a house and garden and the authorities require to purchase only the garden and leave the house. That may cause considerable damage to the property, and the only fair way is to buy the whole property, and then the buyer can sell the portion which lie does not require. I think one or two cases have occurred where that has been done, but in this particular Bill, and under these circumstances it is very unfair to introduce this particular paragraph. I do not know that my Amendment would be any great increase in the cost. There might be some, but at any rate justice will not be met if compensation only was to be paid to the owner for the damage. The words are: "If the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise. "Therefore it is only in cases where the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed without damage, and then under those circumstances compensation shall be paid. It is very often impossible to arrive at the actual amount of compensation which is just. If you take a portion of a man's property it is only a question of opinion as to what the damage is—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).

  COURT OF SESSION (EXTRACTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading.
  HON. MEMBERS: Object.
  Mr. MUNRO: I hope that the House will give me the Second Reading of this Bill to-night. I can explain it in a very few words. The purpose of the Bill is to shorten the form of warrant to charge on Extracts of Court of Session Decrees, and thus to save time, labour and money. In that way it may be said to be a Bill connected with the War and for the purpose of economising. It was recommended by a Departmental Committee a number of years ago. It has been examined by the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde) and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs(Sir G. Younger), and I think I can claim that they both support it. I know of no one who opposes it, and, in asmuch—
  Colonel GRETTON: How many Clauses are there?
  Mr. MUNRO: Three, including the definition Clause. It is very short and simple. And, inasmuch as the Bill is designed to save time, labour and money, is supported in these influential quarters, and is opposed by no one. I hope that the House will give me this stage to-night.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley): If objection is persisted in the Bill cannot be taken after eleven o'clock.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that this Bill can be connected with the War, and then after a little time he went on to say that many years ago a Committee recommended it. That seems to be such a strange argument and so inconsistent that it has completely conquered me. Even a Scotsman can hardly connect the Report of a Committee many years ago with the War.
  Mr. MUNRO: It was not many years ago; the Committee reported quite recently.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move that the Lords Amendments to the Bill be now considered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May we know what are the Amendments?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must say that they were submitted to Mr. Speaker, and he informed me that they were of such a character that they might properly be taken in this manner.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments accordingly considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(User of Land and Buildings for Telegraphic Lines.)
  If the owner, lessee, or occupier of any land or building refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of a telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along or across the land or building within two months after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that owner, lessee, or occupier, and Sections three, four, and five of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply accordingly as if it were a difference arising under that Act: Provided that the tribunal to which the difference is referred under these Sections shall not give its consent to the placing of the line unless satisfied that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest: Provided also that, subject as aforesaid, all the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1863, shall apply in the case of the exercise of any powers authorised to be exercised under this Section, and such owner, lessee, or occupier, shall have and enjoy all the benefits of such provisions.
  Lords Amendment: After the word "interest" ["to the public interest"], insert the words "and in deciding whether to give its consent or to impose any terms, conditions, or stipulations, including the carrying of any portion of the line underground, the tribunal shall, among other considerations have regard to the effect, if any, on the amenities or value of the land of the placing of the line in the manner proposed."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Bea.]
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE—1914–15.
  Committee to consider the Surpluses and Deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for 1914–15, ad the application of Surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year. To-morrow.— [Mr. Rea.]
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented on the 16th February last, be referred to the Committee. [Mr. Rea.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND'S GIFT.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEE, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter which arose at Question Time to-day and which, I think, is of some importance apart from the subject raised in the question itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland took, I think, a rather unprecedented course in refusing to grant me information on the ground that he must first of all be assured that it was the desire of the House that this should be done. I do not know how I am to secure to him the knowledge that any question I ask is put with the desire of the House and that the House desires the information. I do not know whether I am to go round and get a list signed by hon. Members, so that I may be ensured of the information which I have always thought was to any hon. Member if it could be obtained without putting the Department to unnecessary trouble or expense. This matter arose out of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Scottish Estimates when he informed the House that the Duke of Sutherland had made a most munificent offer to the State of a large area of land consisting of some 12,000 acres for the purpose of settling sailors and soldiers.
  He went on to say that the State would embark upon expenditure, in connection
  2444
  with the placing of these men upon the land in connection with this farm, amounting to something like £20,000. It was obviously a matter of public interest to know what was the value of this gift in connection with, which this large sum of money was to be expended, and it was also far greater to the public interest to know on what class of land it was the intention of the Government to place the soldiers and sailors who had been risking their lives in its service. Therefore to arrive at some knowledge of the value of this, property, I put down a question to the right hon. Gentleman to ask him what was the annual value for rating purposes of the estate, what was the rating assessed in the valuation roll. He replied that the annual value of the land and shootings was £475, which would give a capital value of the whole estate of about £10,000, value of the land and also the value together with the value of the shooting rights. Then I asked the right hon. Gentleman this question:
  "May I ask the right hon. Gentleman's, if this assessment gives a correct estimate of the value of the land, is not the land on that basis worthless, or is it because it is under-assessed?"—[OFFICIAL REPOIST, 15th August, 1916, col. 1630.]
  I wanted to know whether in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion this was a true assessment, and whether, therefore, the land was practically valueless, or whether he thought the land was under-assessed, and consequently had a greater value than appeared in the Valuation Roll. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I really am at a loss to understand what operates in the mind of the hon. Member which makes him desire to detract from an honourable, a generous and a munificent gift, trying to make out that we, the recipients, are not the real persons who ire advantaged by it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th August, 1916, col. 1630.]
  I think that was quite an improper reply to make to a question asked, and which I am proving is a very legitimate one to put in the public interest. I desired to arrive at the value of the land alone, apart from the shooting rights, therefore I put another question to the light hon. Gentleman, asking what was 1he value of the land alone, apart fro n the shooting. He replied:
  "I have promised to give full information as to the Borgie estate which has been offered to the Crown by the Duke of Sutherland for the settlement of sailors and soldiers on the land. I do not know whether there is any general interest in having a close investigation into the minutiœ of valuation. If there be any general desire to enter into such details, it is possible that this separation of values could be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th August, 19l6, col. 2063.]

  2445
  Again, I asked a question to-day of the Secretary for Scotland as follows:
  "With reference to the estate of 12,000 acres gifted by the Duke of Sutherland of which the annual value of the land and shootings is £475 according to the Valuation Roll for 1914–15, whether ho can state from the Valuation Roll how much of the annual value is attributable to the land, so that an estimate may be arrived at of the approximate value of the land on which it is proposed to settle soldiers and sailors."
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman tells me he first of all must be assured that there is a general desire that these facts should be ascertained. I am asking him again, and raising this question to put the demand that those facts shall be ascertained and shall be given as a matter of public interest. The reason why this should be done is fairly obvious. If this land is valueless land, if it is poor land upon which men cannot make a living, then a great fraud and deception is intended to be perpetrated upon the soldiers and sailors they propose to put upon this soil. There is nothing more cruel than to put men upon land from which they cannot make a living. Upon the other hand, if this land is capable of maintaining men, then it follows that virtually the whole of the land in the North of Scotland now being devoted to the grazing of red deer and to deer forests is also capable of maintaining men.
  This land, I should say,-judging from this valuation—remember that it is 12,000 acres—has an annual value of £475, including the shootings. Probably, if you take out the value of the shootings, you will arrive at an annual value of, say, £200 per annum—that is to say, it is worth, on that basis, about £5,000, or 10s. per acre of capital value. At the most it is worth £l per acre. Probably we should find, if we got the facts, that it is worth about 5s. per acre, or even less. I believe it is because it would be found that this munificent gift is valueless that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to tell me the facts that could be easily ascertained. The public interest in this matter arises from the fact that if this land as shown by the valuation is only worth a few shillings an acre of capital value and is still capable of providing sustenance for the soldiers and sailors, it follows that millions of acres in the Highlands of Scotland that are to-day given over to red deer and to grouse are also capable of being put to a similar use, from which it follows, in the national interest, that if this estate is of any value whatever we should set out to make a new clearance of the Highlands—clear all the
  2446
  red deer, the game, and the irresponsible men who are now in possession of the same—
  Commander WEDGWOOD: And the dukes!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: And clear off the dukes, too.
  Sir T. WALTERS: What funny logic!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I would retort what a funny mind the hon. Member has if he cannot understand the logic of it. If the right hon. Gentleman is able, with that gift of the Duke of Sutherland, to put men satisfactorily on the land, which the valuation roll shows is worth only a few shillings an acre, the rest of the Dukes' property, of over 1,000,000 acres, is also capable of maintaining men. The 3,000,000 acres devoted to deer forests in the Highlands of Scotland are also capable of maintaining men. If, on the other hand, this land is not capable, of maintaining men, why does the right hon. Gentleman call it a munificent gift, and propose to put our soldiers and sailors upon it? But for the moment I only ask that we shall get the land value ascribed to this property in the valuation roll, and then we shall be able to measure the generosity of this gift and the capacity of the land to support men upon it.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): The hon. Gentleman asked me to go into very considerable detail as to the value of the Duke of Sutherland's gift. I replied that I was quite willing to go into it if I thought it would satisfy any general desire, but inasmuch as I thought it was only to pander to the hon. Gentleman's wishes, clearly expressed to me in a previous series of questions, I did not think it worth while doing it.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: It is your business to pander to my desire for information.
  Mr. TENNANT: If everyone except the hon. Member had asked me that question I think I should probably have given him a different answer. But as he has made no secret of his desire to show, or endeavour to show, that the gift of the Duke of Sutherland, which I think is a generous and patriotic gift, is not worth anything at all but is to be depreciated entirely because he is a duke, which is absolutely demonstrated by everything the hon. Member has said—
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Where did I say it?
  Mr. TENNANT: In this House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Where and when?
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member talks about a great fraud being perpetrated upon the soldiers and sailors whom it is proposed to place on the land. The facts are that the Duke of Sutherland is the owner of a very large quantity of land, most of it poor land. But the great proportion of the land in that part of the world is not rich, and therefore if we are to carry out anything like a large programme of placing soldiers and sailors upon the land we must be content to try and make such poor land profitable and teach persons to cultivate land which is not rich to a profit, which I think can be done by careful operations both in husbandry and forestry, and I believe by that means we can achieve success in the long run. This is, of course, an experiment. We must have an experimental trial. The Duke of Sutherland comes to me and says, "I am willing to give 12,500 acres in this part of the country. I make it over as a free gift. I give you the buildings," which—he did not tell me this, but I have ascertained the figures—it must, I think, have cost more than £2,000 to build—for nothing. It is worth £12,000. The figures which the hon. Members asked for are: for the farm and shooting £475, of which the shooting is worth £308 and the farm £167 annual value as it stands to-day.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The right hon. Gentleman had the figures when he refused to give me an answer.
  Mr. TENNANT: No; I had not. I have since ascertained the figures. I really do not care. I am sure no one cares about that. What we care about is that the owner of the soil has come forward in time of crisis in order to try and do his part in getting his own fellow countrymen settled upon the land. It is a generous thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman's action in this is an ungracious action and is not worthy of a Member of this House. I am surprised that he should have taken the action he has.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE Mr. OUTHWAITE rose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must protest against this constant interruption. The hon. Member was very free with his adjectives, and he must take the reply. He must allow the House to listen to the answer as well as to his speech.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: That is no argument.
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no desire to have any argument with the hon. Gentleman, but if he insists on argument he must concede some argument on my side. He talks about a valueless gift. I still maintain that we are very much indebted to the Duke of Sutherland for giving us this opportunity of making an experiment which, I think, will be very valuable. I would like the House to remember that, besides the shooting lodge, there are offices and an extensive farmsteading and five small dwellings. Some of those buildings can be adapted for the settlement of soldiers and sailors and they will also serve to accommodate the forestry staff required in connection with the planting scheme. In that way considerable outlay in new buildings will be saved. Supposing we wanted to buy 12,500 acres in that part of Scotland we should have to go to a great deal of trouble, with which the-House is familiar, in the endeavour to get the land. It nearly always involves going to the Land Court, which takes a considerable time, and if the landowner objects to the valuation put upon his land by the Land Court we could then go to arbitration, which -takes an interminable time and is very costly in legal proceedings. We have now a chance of afforestering between 5,000 and 6,000 acres suitable for the purpose. It affords a good opportunity of demonstrating afforestation in the Northern Counties, and the land is handed over to the State without payment. I do not understand why any hon. Member should make it his business to detract from a gift which is really a spontaneous offer made in perfectly good faith by a nobleman who happens to be a duke— poor man, it is not his fault!—and who happens to be the owner of only poor land. So far as I know, it is only poor land of which he is the owner. At any rate, he has done this out of purely disinterested motives, and I for one am not going to allow a gift of that kind to be placed in the light of a gift of land of which he is glad to be rid. I do not know what is operating in the hon. Member's mind. Why should the Duke of Sutherland have been actuated by other than honourable motives? I cannot understand any man adopting the attitude of the hon. Member, and I do not think that it is a course, conducive to the encouragement of other

  2449
  landowners to come forward and do the same thing, or that it is a course at all proper for an hon. Member to take.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I did not come into the House intending to say anything on this subject. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any desire to attack him, and I think the House will acquit me of any desire to say anything derogatory of the Duke of Sutherland's magnificent gift. So far as I can see from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the gift of the Duke of Sutherland is worth at least £3,000, and probably it will cost us £6,000. That is a gift which is ducal from every point of view, and should be appreciated by every Member of this House. What I do protest against—and I protest in the interests of every private Member—is that the answer to a question by a Member of this House should have been refused, subject to the general consent of the House. I am quite aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley represents views which are not popular in this House. He is probably as opposed to my view of the War as any Member of this House. He probably does not even represent at the present time his constituents. Still, he is a Member of this House, and as long as our Constitution allows him to remain a Member of this House, he is entitled to receive from the Government the answer which every Member of this House is entitled to receive. We are not accustomed to being treated as schoolboys.
  Mr. KING: Oh, yes, we are!
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Every Member of this House stands equal before the law, and whether he is in favour of the War or whether he is a pacifist or a conscientious objector, he is entitled to receive a civil answer from any member of the Government. The question which he asked to-day, whatever he may have said about the Duke of Sutherland's gift, was a question that he might have asked perfectly honourably and perfectly honestly. I wanted to know what the value of the land was as agricultural land previous to the gift. I wanted to know so as to be able to judge what rent should be charged to the tenants on that land. We now know from the answer, which could have been given
  2450
  this afternoon, that it is worth about. £160 a year. Therefore, we ought to see to it that the tenants on the land are not charged a refit in excess of £160 a year, plus the interest on the capital which will have to be sunk in putting up buildings, etc. I maintain that the question is a perfectly honest one and is a question which was put in the interests of the public and should have received an answer from any member of the Government.
  Mr. KING: I may say a word or two, because I often ask questions and often receive answers which are unsatisfactory. I hope that I have always endeavoured to be as courteous as possible, and though I have no doubt that every Member who tries to do his duty in this House irritates Ministers on that bench, I never do it intentionally, and I am always sorry for them, perhaps even more than for-myself. But I wish to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) for his very proper protest. If we remain Members of this House we have a right to equal and fair and traditional treatment. Whatever the questions we ask, if the answers to those questions can be given consistently with the public interest, they should be given. The hon. Member for Hanley asked a question which might not have pleased the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, but which was a perfectly proper question, and an answer to which could have been given without any detriment to the public interest. Therefore, I myself feel that a very proper protest has been made, because it has been nothing less than the evasion of the rights of hon. Members of this House to refuse to give answers to perfectly legitimate questions, simply relying upon the general sense of the feeling of this House as to the answer being unpopular or possibly the Member being unpopular. I hope that we shall have less in future of this style of answer from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we do, possibly I, for one, and others also, will trouble the House less in the future than in the past.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.