Commons Sitting of 4 December 1916

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. MACLEAN, the Deputy-Chairman, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gamble Institute, Gourock, Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

TRADE OF NEW ZEALAND.
Copy presented of Supplementary Report on the Trade of New Zealand for the year 1915, by Mr. R. W. Dalton, His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Dominion of New Zealand [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
Copy presented of Account of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
Estimate presented of the additional number of Men required in the year ending 31st March, 1917, in consequents of the War [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 142.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 910 (British Guiana, Report for 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-second detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLY.

      HOME PRODUCTION (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).
      Captain C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (1) if, in view of the failure of autumn wheat-sowing over a large area of England and Wales and of the prospects of substantially reduced supplies from overseas during the next twelve months, the Board has, in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, embarked upon a really big scheme for ensuring the sowing of a largely extended area of cereal crops and potatoes at home during the coming spring; if so, will he state, for the greater confidence of the public, what is the scheme; and (2) whether the Board has been in communication with the Admiralty and the Board of Trade with a view to the purchase by the Government, and consignment to this country from the American continent during the next six weeks, of several thousand motor or steam ploughs and tractors to be lent or hired out to British farmers to enable them to sow a largely extended area of cereal crops and potatoes in the early months of next year, and BO discount the certain prospective shortage of English wheat in 1917–18?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I will reply to these questions by stating what has been and is being done, since the short harvests abroad, the de-

      615
      velopment of submarine activity, and the bad weather of the last two months have made it clear that a very special effort must be made to maintain home food production.

      1. It was arranged that farm workers should not be taken into the Army until 1st January in the case of ordinary labour, and 1st April in the case of men employed on milk production.

      2. The organisation for assisting agriculture through War Agricultural and Women's County and District Committees has been reviewed and strengthened, and the different bodies have been brought into closer cooperation.

      3. All urban authorities are being given powers of taking unoccupied land compulsorily, whether within or without their areas, for allotment cultivation, and are being urged to use these powers energetically at once.

      4. The War Office is being assisted in working out schemes for contracting with farmers for the cultivation of certain crops next year, seed and manures being supplied if necessary.

      5. Arrangements are being made for the employment of German prisoners to supplement the labour left on farms, the previous conditions as to areas and numbers having been withdrawn. This is being pressed forward very actively, and it is hoped, through local agencies, to bring pressure upon any farmers who may not be willing to employ this or other available types of labour, so that the maximum amount of labour may be employed upon the existing arable area.

      6. It is believed that more prisoner labour may be made available than is required on farms, and, if so, this will be employed on bringing under cultivation such areas of land as are likely to yield a crop next year.

      7. We hope to make arrangements with the Ministry of Munitions for increasing the output of implements and machinery. As to obtaining motor ploughs and tractors from America, British firms now have more on order than can be supplied, though arrangements have been made for their-shipment, or than they have labour to assemble after they have been de-
      616
      livered, but inquiries are being made whether the output of tractors suitable for British conditions can be quickly stimulated, and they will be procured if possible.

      8. The labour question with regard to the position of the essential skilled men now on farms after 1st January is still being considered with the War Office, and the President of the Board is of opinion that it will not be safe to take more men, except in cases where there are still men above the agreed scale, or on substituting capable men with agricutural experience. He believes that it will be necessary to supplement this source of labour by giving home-service men extended furlough for seeding operations if production is to be maintained. He is, however, willing and anxious to arrange that if labour now likely to be taken in January is left, this shall only be done where the farmer will guarantee to cultivate certain areas of the most essential food supplies.

      Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these matters he has just read out to the House have been agreed upon since the President of the Board of Trade made his statement with reference to food in the House some weeks ago; and, if so, why they were; not communicated to the House?
      Mr. ACLAND: A good many of them have been worked out since that date.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the estimated lessened wheat area sown this year compared with last?
      Mr. ACLAND: I think I said in answer to questions last week we should not be able to give an estimate until a few days later. Our crop reporters are reporting now as to the areas sown last month. and I will give the information as soon as I get it.
      Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of farmer will accept the custody of, say, five German prisoners unguarded, and will the Department endeavour to arrange for a better distribution of German prisoners for agricultural purposes?
      Mr. ACLAND: I hope a great many patriotic farmers will endeavour to do their best, because the question of food production is extremely important.
      Sir F. FLANNERY: Take five prisoners!
      Captain C. BATHURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman got War Office sanction for the retention of labour on the farms after 1st January that he has indefinitely adumbrated in his answer?
      Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I read my answer too quickly. I said "the labour question with regard to the position of the essential skilled men now on farms after January 1st is still being considered with the War Office." I wish I could make a statement on the subject.
      Sir C. KINLOGH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give any information with regard to artificial aids to farmers, foreshadowed in the right hon. Gentleman's speech the other day?
      Mr. ACLAND: I have said all I can say. I do not quite know to what the hon. Gentleman's question refers.
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the Board of Agriculture making any attempt to determine minimum wheat areas?
      Mr. ACLAND: If my hon. Friend refers to a project in which I think he is engaged, having for its object the pooling of farms and the labour available, we do not think that would increase the wheat area at all.
      Mr. PETO: Are we to understand that his Department and the War Office are still at variance on the question of the retention of agricultural labour after 1st January; and can he give any indication as to when those conferences are likely to arrive at a decision so that farmers can get on with their work?
      Mr. ACLAND: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a census is being taken, and it is not unreasonable to wait until the preliminary results of that census are known.
      Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now 4th December?
      Mr. LUNDON: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication with the Irish Department of Agriculture with a view of offering the same facilities to Ireland as those contained in the answer just read to the House?
      Mr. ACLAND: We are in communication with the Irish Office in the matter.
      Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister if the Government will give an early day for the discussion of the
      618
      Motion with reference to food production standing in the name of the Member for Dublin University and other Members? ["That immediate steps should be taken by His Majesty's Government to effect a large increase in the production of food in the United Kingdom and the other countries of the Empire"?]
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am aware of the interest taken on this subject and of its great importance. I am hoping that some important decisions may be announced upon it at an early date, and if there is still a desire to discuss it I will try to arrange accordingly.

      WHEAT CULTIVATION.
      Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact that the Germans are getting the Turks to increase greatly the area of land in the Turkish Empire which is planted with wheat; and if he can arrange that the same shall be done in Egypt and the Soudan?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): As regards the first part of the question, I have no definite information but it is probably the case that every effort is being made to stimulate the production of wheat throughout the Turkish Empire. His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Egyptian and Soudanese Governments as regards the possibilty of increasing the supplies of wheat available for export from those countries, and the question will be examined with the utmost care and expedition.

      FOOD CONTROLLER (SALARY AND STAFF).
      Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade -whether he can state the salary of the Food Controller, the number of his staff, and the estimated annual cost of his office; and whether estimates for the office of food controller will be laid before this House?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am not at present in a position to answer this question.

      DEER PARKS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any estimate has been made of the deer kept in deer parks which might be available for cattle or sheep; and

      619
      whether any action is contemplated to utilise grass lands now fed off by deer in a more advantageous manner?
      Mr. ACLAND: No estimate of the kind has been made, nor is there any official information on the subject. In June, 1915, Lord Selborne wrote specially to the Lords-Lieutenant of the counties of England and Wales asking them to use their influence with landowners to induce them to offer the grazing of their parks to farmers, and in January, 1916, the Board brought the recommendation of Lord Milner's Committee that parks and moorlands should be grazed to their maximum capacity by stock and sheep, to the special notice of the County War Agricultural Committees. They believe that the majority of the owners of parks in the country have complied with these requests and would be glad to hear of any instances that there may be to the contrary.

      POTATOES (LONDON PARKS).
      Captain BARNETTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the necessity of increasing the supplies of Home-grown food, he will consider the advisability of ploughing the grass lands in Hyde Park and Regent's Park forthwith with a view to planting potatoes there next spring?
      Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask is there not already a large amount of farm grass land and estate grass land still available for the cultivation of potatoes?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I do not think the proposal is economically sound, and I do not see my way to the labour necessary for the planting, cultivation, and protection of the crops.
      Mr. G. FABER: Why not economically sound?
      Captain BARNETT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think his Office ought to set a good example in this matter?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; but it is not always a good example to dig up bad land.

      AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
      Captain BATHURSTasked the Minister of Munitions if steps are being taken to permit the agricultural implement manufacturers in England and Wales, now
      620
      engaged wholly or mainly in producing material for the Ministry, to make good the shortage of agricultural machinery and implements, with a view to the greater production of home-grown food in 1917?
      The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Primrose): This question is now under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement in regard to it shortly.

      SUBMARINE MENACE.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in relation to the question of the production of home grown food, he is now prepared to make any statement as to the effect of the submarine menace?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division last Monday.

      OATS AND POTATOES.
      Captain BATHURSTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is in close contact and co-operation with his Department with a view to the immediate adoption of a joint scheme for largely extending the normal area of land under oats and potatoes in Ireland as well as in England and Wales next year in order to discount as far as possible the certain prospective shortage of English as well as sea-borne wheat in 1917?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Irish Department of Agriculture are in communication with the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Special arrangements as to oats have already been resolved upon.

    HAGUE COURT OF ARBITRATION (HELLENIC DELEGATE).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that M. Politis, Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Greek Provisional Government at Salonika, was formerly appointed Hellenic Delegate to the Court of Arbitration at The Hague Conference;

    621
    that such Delegates are not removable by Royal Proclamation; that King Constan-tine has issued a decree relieving M. Politis of this office, and has embodied in this decree the statement that M. Politis has resigned his position at The Hague; and whether His Majesty's Government still recognises M. Politis as holding the office of Hellenic Delegate to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague?
    Lord R. CECIL: M. Politis was appointed a member of the International Court of Arbitration on 18th July, 1914. Under the International Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes such appointments are for a term of six years, and no provision is made for their being vacated prior to the expiry of that period otherwise than by the retirement or death of the member concerned. Consequently, M. Politis' position as a member of the Court would not appear to be affected by the decree referred to, of which, however, His Majesty's Government have no official knowledge.

    GREECE.

      GRAVE SITUATION.
      Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information in regard to the present position in Greece?
      Lord R. CECIL: I regret to state that the situation in Greece is one of extreme gravity.
      In spite of the formal and repeated assurances of the Greek King and Government that no disturbances would be permitted, a most treacherous and unprovoked attack was made upon the Allied detachments landed by the French Admiral on Friday last, and many casualties have resulted, though full accounts have not yet been received.
      His Majesty's Government consider that the responsibility of King Constantine and his Government are deeply involved in this matter, and they are considering, in conjunction with their Allies, immediate measures to secure a radical solution of the situation which has now arisen.
      A detailed account of the origins of the trouble appears in the "Times" this morning, sent from Paris, and such information as we have received confirms this account.
      Mr. LYNCH: Can the Noble Lord give the House an assurance that, no matter what may happen, the dynasty will be preserved?
      The HON. MEMBER(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the active intervention of Admiral Fournet at Athens, he is in a position to give the latest information he has received as to the state of affairs at the capital of Greece, and whether it is possible to enlarge the area of the de facto Government so as to include Athens?
      Lord R. CECIL: I received no notice from the hon. Gentleman. It must have miscarried in some way. I have answered the greater part of his question in answer to another.
      Mr. LYNCH: I sent the question on Saturday.
      Lord R. CECIL: I regret it very much. It never reached me.

    NETHERLANDS OVERSEAS TRUST.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the terms and obligations entered into by Dutch merchants with the Netherlands Overseas Trust on condition of obtaining import licences?
    Lord R. CECIL: There are different forms of contract and guarantee required by the Netherlands Overseas Trust of Dutch importers before permission to import is given. These vary according to the nature and value of the goods to be imported and the circumstances of the import. Generally speaking, it may be said that the following obligations have to be undertaken by the importer: To deposit either securities with the Trustor a money guarantee with a bank; to ship the goods by a steamship company which has subscribed to the Netherlands Overseas Trust conditions; that the goods and products manufactured therefrom are destined exclusively for use in Holland or for such re-export as is authorised by the Trust; that the importer or buyer has a direct interest in the goods, and is not a forwarding agent, nor an agent of a belligerent Government; and, generally, that all conditions imposed by the Trust as regards delivery and disposal of the goods, are observed.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the importing firm has entered into an obligation not to export those goods into Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes. As I stated in my reply,
    "The goods and products manufactured therefrom are destined exclusively for use in Holland or for such re-export as is authorised by the Trust."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I take it they gave that pledge?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no doubt that they did, but I have not got it in mind off-hand.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask what means are taken for the execution of the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The execution of the matter is left in the hands of the Trust, but we have every reason to believe, after repeated inquiry into the matter, that the Trust carries out its obligations to the full.

    ORE TRADING COMPANY (ENEMY SHARE HOLDING).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade if it was by his consent and authority that Mr. Frank Baer, of the firm of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, a German-born subject of military age who had been refused exemption from military service by the tribunal, was allowed to proceed to America; if so, if he will state the reason why he sanctioned a German-born subject undertaking this mission in preference to an English subject; whether he is aware that the firms of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, the American Metal Company, and the Metallgesellschaft, of Frankfurt were closely associated, and that whilst in New York Mr. Frank Baer is transacting other business than the purchase of the shares of the Metallgesellschaft in the Ore Trading Company; and whether he has taken every precaution that Mr. Frank Baer shall not have dealings in America prejudicial to British interests?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As I stated, it is not the case that the Board of Trade gave any authority for Mr. F. Baer to go to America. I am aware that Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, the American Metal Company, and the Metallgesellschaft were closely associated before the War, but I have no
    624
    information as to any business transacted by Mr. Baer other than endeavouring to negotiate a purchase of shares of the Ora Trading Company, Limited.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that purchase has been effected or not?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know. The point is referred to in the next question.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade if the enemy share holding in the Ore Trading Company, the purchase of which Mr. Frank Baer, a German-born subject of military age, was allowed to proceed to America to negotiate, is the holding of the Metallgesell-schaft, of Frankfurt; whether the Metall-gesellschaft, of Frankfurt, is interested in the American Metal Company; whether the firms of the American Metal Company and Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, are largely directed by German-born subjects; and whether, if the holding of the Metallgesellschaft in the Ore Trading Company is acquired by the American Metal Company and Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, the German influence and the German association in this company can be regarded as having been eliminated?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The share holding rathe Ore Trading Company, for the acquisition of which the Board of Trade authorised negotiations was that of the Metallgesellschaft and of the Compagnie des Minerals. The Metallgesellschaft is interested in the American Metal Company and some of the directors of that company and of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, are of German birth. I have no information as to the result of any negotiations which may have taken place, and without full information I am not prepared to give any opinion as to their effect in eliminating or reducing the German influence in the Ore Trading Company.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman state how Mr. Frank Baer was permitted to leave this country—by whose permission?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: He is a British subject.

    INTERNED MERCHANT SEAMEN DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have

    625
    been taken to increase the maximum allowance of £l a week to the dependants of interned merchant seamen?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The question of increasing the allowance to be paid in the case of captured officers and seamen is now being considered, in consultation with the Treasury.

    MOTOR CAR IMPORTS.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if the import of motor cars and parts of motor cars and their accessories from the United States has now entirely ceased; and, if so, what is the position of the factory at Manchester where the parts of a certain make of American cars were being assembled up to a recent date, and has it been taken over by the Government?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As my hon. Friend will see from the trade accounts the import of motor cars and parts thereof has not entirely ceased. Licences are still being given for the importation of cars and parts thereof required for the War Department or for commercial use, and also in special cases for parts which are required for the immediate replacement of the worn parts of cars now running in this country. It is not the practice to issue licences for parts required for assembling cars for pleasure purposes in this country.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if material to actually make cars comes over?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes; for War Office and commercial cars, but not for pleasure cars.

    EGYPTIAN COTTON.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the imports into America of Egyptian cotton for the year ending 31st July, 1916; and can he say whether these imports were considerably more than those of former years?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: According to Returns published by the United States Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce the quantity of Egyptian cotton imported into the United States during the year ended 31st July, 1916, amounted to 195,500 bales of 750 lb. weight. The quantity imported in the previous twelve
    626
    months was 174,400 bales; the average of the preceding four years was 116,800 bales. I ought to add that these figures include a certain amount of Egyptian cotton which is subsequently re-exported to-Canada.
    Major HUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman account for the increase in 1916, and has he any information as to cotton being held in America for the Germans after the War?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have made inquiries on both those points, and I am officially informed that the largely increased use of this pure Egyptian cotton is for the construction of motor tyres mainly. As to the second part of the supplementary question, our information at present is that it is not being stored. A Conference is being held this afternoon to consider this question very closely.

    ASSURANCE POLICIES.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he received the statement showing how a superintendent of an assurance company instructed his agents to get people to take out new policies and let the old ones get into arrears and so become of little or no value; and, in view of the fact that the nineteen industrial assurances companies took £10,000,000 for profits and expenses out of the pockets of our working people in 1913, whilst only paying £7,500,000 in premiums and £9,000,000 for profits and expenses out of their pockets, including those of our soldiers and sailors in 1914, whilst only paying £8,000,000 in premiums, he will consider the advisability of taking action with regard to industrial assurances, in order to prevent these amounts being taken from the people without any benefit to them?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have seen a copy of a communication from an assurance superintendent which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been good enough to send me. No suggestion was made in that communication that the agents should allow the premiums on existing policies to get into arrear, bnt it was suggested to the agents that if they were unable to collect premiums which had fallen into arrear they should endeavour to have new policies taken out. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer given to his question on the 27th November.
    Major HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the particulars I sent to him amount to the effect that a new policy has to be taken out and the old policy allowed to lapse and to be worth either nothing or very little, and are we to understand that the Government are willing to allow these rich insurance companies to rob the workpeople to this extent without any action being taken?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The old policies are under the control of the Courts Emergency Powers Act, and they cannot lapse. The claims will be payable on them as well as on the new policy. No doubt there is very large expenditure by the insurance companies, but that is necessary owing to the large number of agents employed.
    Major HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these old policies are being allowed to lapse, and that the people lose their money, and are the Government going to allow rich insurance companies to make all this money out of our working people?

    SOUTH WALES GOAL MINES (STATE CONTROL).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give further information concerning the commandeering of the South Wales coalfields; how will compensation, if any, to the mine owners be determined; and whether the policy is to be extended to all or any other of the British coalfields?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not at present in a position to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham on Thursday last.
    Mr. ROCH: Will any part of the 15 per cent. given to the miners fall to the State?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot answer that question now.
    Mr. ROCH: Has it not been decided?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not in a position to state.

    RAILWAY TRANSPORT.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to transport delays and difficulties, railway trucks are much longer in transit and in being freed for another
    628
    load, and that a consequent shortage of railway trucks has arisen; and whether the Board of Trade will provide more labour by which this shortage and other difficulties will be remedied?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Labour is by no means the only difficulty which arises in connection with railway transport. I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole question of railway transport receives the constant attention of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PRATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing difficulty of railway transport in Scotland, he proposes taking steps to secure the pooling and centralised control of the whole of the railway rolling stock in Scotland, including wagons privately owned?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The wagons of the principal Scottish railway companies are already used in common. The question of pooling private wagons in Scotland is being considered.

    ENEMY BUSINESSES.
    Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether there are purely British firms able and ready to produce sufficient quantities of goods of the same nature and quality as the goods manufactured by the German firm trading as the Armourduct Manufacturing Company; and, if this be so, why is this alien enemy firm continued in existence; (2) whether he will give an assurance to this House that the offer of Mr. Small, or Schmahl, the former manager and nominee of the German owners, or any revised offer made by him for the purchase of the assets of the Armourduct Manufacturing Company shall not be accepted until every effort has been made to dispose of the property to a British- born subject; what is the difficulty in offering the works and business as a going concern by public, auction with proper conditions as to the completion of the Government work now in hand; (3) in what respect the business carried on by the German-owned firm, under the name of the Armourduct Manufacturing Company, differed or differs from other German businesses which have now been wound up or sold by auction, or are in process of being so dealt with, but which were also engaged upon Government work; whether the Isleworth Rubber Company was such a firm so engaged in

    629
    the case of which the business has been wound up and the assets sold by public auction; and will he explain why a different course has been taken with regard to the Armourduct Manufacturing Company?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The supervisor of the Armourduct Manufacturing Company, Limited, is at present in communication with several British firms with the view of obtaining offers for the business and pending the result of the negotiations I am unable to say what consideration will be given to the offer made by Mr. Small. The difficulty in offering the business for sale by auction is that it is necessary that the purchaser should continue the business satisfactorily. The difference between the Armourduct Manufacturing Company and the Isleworth Rubber Company is that the Armorduct Company is manufacturing articles which are required by the War Office and Ministry of Munitions of War in the national interest and the supply of which might have been diminished by closing the company's business, and the Isle-worth Company was not manufacturing at all.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that this business shall be sold to a British-born subject?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will bear that in mind. It is under the usual regulations that it shall be sold to a British subject and remain under British control.
    Mr. BILLING: What will happen to the profits that this firm is now making out of the British Government?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Any part of the profits that would go to the enemy are vested in the Public Trustee, and any part of the profits that would go to British subjects are taken by them.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman state what happens to the profits when the Public Trustee gets hold of them?

    LINEN INDUSTRY (ULSTER).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why the General Industrial Commissioner, representing the Board of Trade in Belfast in connection with the linen workers' demand for an increase of wages, has not yet communicated with any of the workers' representatives, confining his communications to the representatives of the em-
    630
    ployers; and whether ho will give directions that the Commissioner should consult the representatives of the workers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Chief Industrial Commissioner has received communications from the workpeople's representatives relative to their application for an advance of wages, and in accordance with the usual practice has approached the employers with a view to obtaining the views of both parties to the difference. The Chief Industrial Commissioner is in London, not Belfast, and will communicate further with the workpeople's representatives after the further information indicated above has been obtained and considered.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say who are the workpeople's representatives?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot. I know, however, that the Chief Industrial Commissioner will be very glad if my hon. Friend will speak to him on the subject. He will be glad to say exactly how the position stands.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the secretary of the FlaxRoughers, Yarn Spinners, and Other Workers' Friendly Society, Belfast, a communication to the effect that the spinners had asked for and had been refused an increase of 3s. a week, and requesting the Board of Trade to have the matter submitted to arbitration as a large number of the employers were working on Government contracts; what action, if any, he has taken in the matter; and whether the representatives of the workers are to receive any further satisfaction from the Board of Trade than a mere formal acknowledgment of the communication?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Department have received from the Flax Roughers and Yarn Spinners' Trade Union and from the Flax-Dressers and Linen Workers' Trade Union requests for arbitration upon applications for advances of wages made to the Flax Spinners' Association, Limited, and refused by the latter. The Chief Industrial Commissioner is in communication with the employers' association on the matter.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the statement that the Report on the Linen Trade in Belfast supplied to the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette"

    631
    is based upon information supplied by the employers only has caused indignation amongst the linen workers in that city; whether he will now state the name of the person who acts as local correspondent for the "Gazette" in Belfast, the salary he is paid, and the employers whom he consults; and whether he will arrange for a separate Report in future from a source in sympathy with the workers?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Member will again read the reply given to him on 23rd November he will see that although most of the information concerning the linen trade is obtained from monthly returns furnished by employers, particulars are also obtained by local correspondents from trade union officials. The Report published in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette" is an impartial summary based on the statements received from employers, trade union officials, and local correspondents.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say who are the trade union officials?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No; offhand I cannot.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is in the question.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry. I did not notice it.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a letter published on 17th October last by the secretary of the Flax Spinners' Association, Limited, Belfast, in which he said that there was now an abundance of flax available which, if of lower quality than Irish flax, is about half the price, and that no mill need stop for want of flax; whether the Spinners' Association, in answer to a demand for an increase of 3s. a week made by the spinners, replied on the 4th instant that they could not grant the increase owing to the seriously depressed condition of the trade, making no mention whatever of shortage of raw material; and whether he will make further inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My attention has been called to a letter appearing in the Press, written by the secretary of the Flax Spinners' Association, Limited, Belfast, of which my hon. Friend quotes a short extract. I am also aware that the Flax Spinners' Association have recently intimated their inability to accede to certain applications for increased wages in view
    632
    of the seriously depressed condition of the trade. As indicated in an answer to a previous question, the Chief Industrial Commissioner is in communication with the employers' association on the wages application.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When will this Industrial Commissioner be able to tell us something practical?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already asked my hon. Friend to speak to the Industrial Commissioner about the matter; he will be very glad to explain exactly how the situation stands.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the Industrial Commissioner making his inquiries in London or Belfast?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Industrial Commissioner is in London, as I have said in answer to a previous question. He has received communications from the workpeople, and has referred them to the employers for their remarks. As soon as he gets those remarks he will be in a position to say something.
    Mr. DEVLIN: As promptitude of action is the order of the day, would the hon. Gentleman advise the Industrial Commissioner to go over to the seat of war to get the information direct?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid that is not the only front to which attention has to be given by the Industrial Commissioner.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be better to suspend these supplementary questions till the new Government takes office?
    An HON. MEMBER: When will that be?
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is at present a strike of the roughers employed at Messrs. Adair, of Cookstown, county Tyrone, for an increase of wages; whether he is aware that Messrs. Adair are paying these workers 6s. per week below the standard rate set by the Spinners' Association; whether Messrs. Adair have been or are working on Government contracts; whether they at first refused to recognise or answer the workers' trade union; whether any communication has been received by the Board of Trade from the workers' representatives; what action has been taken in regard to it; and whether he will direct the Board of Trade representative at present in Belfast to proceed to Cooks-

    633
    town to investigate matters in connection with the strike at Messrs. Adair's with a view to a settlement?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My attention had not been called to this dispute prior to my hon. Friend's question, but inquiry is now being made in regard to it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the Fair Wages Resolution apply to Ireland; if so, how is it that this firm is allowed to be employed on Government work at 6s. below the proper rates?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My answer is that we are making inquiries; we have just heard of this case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that all Fair Wages Resolutions have to be suspended?
    Colonel CRAIG: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether in dealing with this question of the linen industry great care will be taken, owing to the fact that during the War it is in a very precarious condition, and that many of the owners are faced with the problem either of closing down their mills or running them on half time, which gives the impression that wages are low?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I put down a question in reference to the low wages paid the workers were on half time, and that the employers took the workers back again into employment in order to avoid paying the extra wages? Can the hon. Gentleman also say whether it is inconsistent with industrial progress in the linen trade that a decent living wage should be paid?
    Colonel CRAIG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these mills are actually kept running at a loss?
    Mr. DEVLIN: With reference to them industrial situation in the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    An HON. MEMBER: Wait till the new 'Government is in.

    MERTON AND COMPANY.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any Government Department is now making purchases, or has during the War made purchases, from Merton and Company, directly or indirectly through brokers or through subsidiary firms?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 14th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the ramifications of the firm of Merton and Company, which have enabled them to obtain control over the metal trade of the United Kingdom and of our Dominions, he can say why steps have not been taken to close up this firm, as in the case of other firms of small importance?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Steps have not been taken to wind up the business of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, because that company is not within the provisions of Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916.
    Major HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless this firm is wound up now, as it is entirely under the Germans, they will rule our methods again after the War exactly as before? There is no answer to that.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain how the private transfer of a certain number of shares of Merton and Company to the friends of the present directors and shareholders has in any way purged this firm of German connections and influence, seeing that for all practical purposes they are unchanged in their constitution and continue to carry on business as before?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The constitution of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, has been substantially changed by the transfer of the shares held by enemies to British subjects.
    Major HUNT: Is it not practically under German control? Does not the hon. Gentleman know it quite well?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir; I cannot say that.
    Mr. G. FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of shares is held by British subjects?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Nearly the whole now.

    INDIAN OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for India whether general officers who have been appointed to the command

    635
    of divisions of the Indian Army on active service since the outbreak of the War receive Rs. 3,000 a month, while generals appointed to the command of such divisions prior to the War or of divisions stationed in India under peace conditions receive Rs. 3,500 per month; if so, whether he will state the reason for this difference; and whether he will reconsider, or request the proper authorities to reconsider, the whole question of the pay of Indian officers and in particular the points above referred to?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Previous to the War the pay under Indian Regulations of a divisional commander on field service, not being a divisional commander on the permanent establishment, was Rs. 2,500 a month. This has since been raised to Rs. 3,000. The higher rate of pay which a general officer holding a substantive divisional command in India receives has been fixed on other considerations. I see no sufficient reason for inviting the Government of India to reconsider the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are the Government of India considering the general question of the pay of Indian officers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Both the Government of India and myself always have had to consider a great number of questions relating to these matters, but I do not think there is any outstanding question now.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      FRONGOCH CAMP.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the following books, sent several months ago to uptried Irish prisoners at Frongoch, and not then delivered, have since been delivered: a History of Ireland to J. O'Hanlon; an Irish grammar and three Irish text-books to Thomas M'Crave; AEsop's Fables in Irish and various other Irish books to Mortimer O'Connell; two Irish books, balance of parcel, to Martin Gleeson; Notes of an Irish Exile to W. J. Brennan; and the New Testament in Irish taken from Brian O'Higgins on 10th July; if he can now account for the fact that some of those undelivered books have since been offered for sale in London; and why loss and delay are not avoided by censoring Irish literature at Frongoch, as he promised last July to do?
      The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I fear I cannot give details about a number of individual books, but I have made inquiry, and am informed that some of the books mentioned by the hon. Member do not appear to have reached the camp at all, and that others, which the camp authorities think might possibly have been lost at the camp, have been replaced to the satisfaction of the recipients. With regard to the allegation that some undelivered books were offered for sale in London, I have made inquiry, as I promised the hon. Member on 26th October, but I am unable to find any trace of the book to which he then referred. As regards the last part of the question, a list of permitted Irish books was supplied some months ago to the Commandant at Frongoch, and books on that list are delivered to the prisoners without being sent to London. Other books in Irish have to be sent to London, as they cannot be censored at the camp.

      DUBLIN (RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME).
      Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Prime Minister if the instructions sent by Sir William Goulding's Committee to the-assessors to simply mark any claims from the ruined area in Dublin in excess of insurance, and return them without further inquiry was intended to convey that the amount insured for would be forwarded as a payment on account or as a final settlement; whether, in view of the necessity of a clear understanding before dealing with the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill to-night, he will now state if the Government will pay as compensation replacement value or the value of the structures at date of destruction; and whether rent, and, if so, how many years will be added to the ex gratia grant?
      Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Committee have instructed their assessors to make only a preliminary report in certain cases where a decision as to the basis of payment has not yet been come to, so as to avoid delaying the general body of cases. Where a full assessment has been made, it represents the value of the property at the date of destruction. Replacement value will not be paid. Rent, when insured, has been allowed for within, the limit of the insurance up to one year.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      FRONGOCH CAMP.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Home Office is responsible for the policy of attempting to seize Irish political prisoners interned in Great Britain for complicity in the recent insurrection in Ireland and compel them under the Military Service Act to join the British Army; and (2) whether it was with his authority that the attempt was made in Frongoch Camp to force the Irish prisoners to aid the military authorities to identify their comrades for the purpose of arresting them under the Military Service Act; and whether the refusal of the prisoners to aid in identifying their comrades was the breach of discipline which has led to all the trouble in the camp?
      Mr. SAMUEL: A small number of the prisoners detained at Frongoch had been resident in England and came within the provisions of the Military Service Act. The fact that they had taken part in the Irish insurrection in no way relieved them from those obligations, and when the military authority called them for service it had necessarily to be decided that they should be released from internment for that purpose. As I stated in the House of Commons on 16th November in answer to a question put to me by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, a number of the men at Frongoch refused to answer their names when the roll was called and otherwise combined to conceal the identity of certain persons who were charged with the evasion of military service, and consequently it was found necessary to take disciplinary measures.
      Mr. DILLON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the hut commandants in the camp were informed by the commandant that the roll call was for the purpose of identifying these men, and were they not thereby informed that they were acting as informers and assisting in getting their comrades arrested?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I believe that the commandant did inform the men the reason before taking the roll call.
      Mr. DILLON: He must be very ignorant of Irishmen if he thought that they would give the information.
      Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 300 men are in the
      638
      South Camp at present being punished for this offence, and can he say when they are to be released from that unhealthy camp?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure whether they have been returned to North Camp or not, but I do not admit that South Camp is unhealthy.
      Mr. DILLON: Owing to the extremely unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

      DR. FITZGIBBON, ASKEATON, LIMERICK.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say under what Statute or Regulation the Local Government Board can on the ground of his being of military age veto the appointment of a doctor for a dispensary district in Ireland after his election by the guardians of the union of that district at a meeting properly convened for that purpose; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board refuse to-sanction the appointment of Dr. Michael Fitzgibbon for the Askeaton, county Limerick, dispensary district, because he is of military age; and whether, as the guardians of the Rathkeale Union will not comply with their decision, he will have his appointment sanctioned and thus be the means of preventing friction in this matter?
      Mr. DUKE: I understand that the Local Government Board (Ireland) have refused sanction to the appointment in question. If the guardians of the Rathkeale Union do not comply with the decision of the board, litigation will, no doubt, ensue. I think I ought not to prejudice a decision of the questions which are likely to arise by any statement at this time.

      DOMESTIC HARDSHIP.
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime-Minister whether his promise regarding widows' only sons still holds good; whether his attention has been called to the case of T. S. McGuire, of Hampstead, a conscientious objector to military service, who has been allowed exemption from time to time on account of domestic hardship, he having an aged and invalid widowed mother solely dependent upon him; whether he is aware that, owing to it later transpiring that he was a conscientious objector, such exemption has been withdrawn and he is now liable to be called to the Colours; and whether, in view of these circumstances, steps will be taken to prevent action by tribunals?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I will send my hon. Friend a copy of a letter I recently addressed to a correspondent on this subject. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that this exemption was not withdrawn because McGuire was a conscientious objector but because the tribunal were of opinion that the reason for which it was granted, namely, domestic hardship, was no longer valid. This matter is entirely within the discretion of tribunals.

      STOKERS AND FIREMEN.
      Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a number of men of military age throughout the country who enlisted early in the War as stokers or firemen for the Navy and have never been called up to do any naval or military duty; whether he is aware that this causes a sense of injustice in the minds of men of older age who have been called to the Colours; and whether he will inquire whether there is any prospect of these men being required for service with the Navy, and in any case see that they are called upon to fulfil some service of use to the country?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Enrolments of men for deferred service for the Royal Navy under the Navy Group Scheme did not begin until the end of 1915. Of the stokers who have been enrolled in this way, a large proportion has already been called up, and the remainder will all be called up in the course of the next few weeks.

      AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
      Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men engaged in agriculture and who have received certificates exempting them from service till the 1st January next are now being served with notices to report themselves at the military centres on the 3rd January and subsequent dates; and whether the service of such notice renders an application for further exemption invalid if not made within seven days of the receipt of the notice to report?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is not quite clear to what men the hon. Member is referring. As far as the War Office know, notice papers are being issued to report on the 3rd January, or thereabouts,
      640
      only to men who were not called up in accordance with the agreement that they should be left on the land until the end of the year to enable the autumn work to be completed, although the men would normally have been due to report on some date between the 1st October and 31st December. No certificates of exemption have been issued by the War Office in connection with this arrangement.
      Captain BATHURST: Is it not the fact that a large number of these men who have been on the farms are being given notice to join the Colours, without any effective substitutes being found to replace them?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War if instructions have been given by the War Office to the military representatives throughout the agricultural districts to call up for a re-hearing all young men under the age of 25; to appeal to the county tribunals in every case where the exemptions are confirmed by the local tribunals; and to appeal to London in every case where the county tribunal confirms the decision of the local tribunal?
      Mr. FORSTER: The only special instructions issued to military representatives in agricultural districts were that in dealing with all cases of application for exemption or in calling up existing exemptions for re-hearing, special attention was to be paid to the scale of labour agreed upon between the Board of Agriculture and the War Office and care taken that the labour on farms was not reduced below a working minimum.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War what meaning, if any, the military representatives are instructed to give to R. 105, List of Certified Occupations, p. 22, Application of Age Limits, and to Appendix B, Scale of Staff regarded as necessary in Agriculture?
      Mr. FORSTER: Military representatives are to regard the passages referred to as intended for their general guidance in dealing with applications before tribunals to which the Certified Occupations list applies.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War what strategic importance, if any, is attached by the Head quarters staff to the question of the production of home-grown food; and whether

      641
      he will explain how the food supply can be maintained if the ranks of agricultural labour are still further depleted?
      Captain BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War if he will personally state in the clearest terms, for the greater confidence of farmers, that no further skilled labour of any description will be taken from the farms for the Army during the continuance of the War unless substitutes of admittedly equal skill and competence are provided in their place, and also that steps will be taken to make good the existing shortage of indispensable labour on farms so that the output of home-grown food in 1917 may not be seriously reduced?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is hardly necessary for me to say that the greatest importance is attached to the question of home-grown food. An agricultural Census has recently been taken for the purpose of ascertaining the position of agriculture in regard to the supply of men for the Army; until the figures have been scrutinised, it is not possible to make any statement.
      Captain BATHURST: Is my hon. Friend prepared to confirm the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade a fortnight ago, of which this is a repetition?
      Mr. PRINGLE: As a personal statement is asked for from the Secretary of State for War, why cannot the Secretary of State for War be here to make a personal statement?
      Mr. FORSTER: I presume he is attending to other matters.

      REJECTIONS AND DISCHARGES.
      Mr. P. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War why John Kane, of Navan, county Meath, who joined the 7th Leinsters on 19th October, 1914, was transferred to the 8th Royal Irish Fusiliers, Tipperary, and discharged from the Fusiliers on 6th January, 1915, regimental number 15989, D Company, 8th Royal Irish Fusiliers, has not received the discharge he applied for in the first instance to the regimental paymaster, Island Bridge, and in the second to the officer in charge of Infantry records, Island Bridge?
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Emmanuel Maurice Goodman, of 9, Brewer Street, Woolwich, who, after being examined by the Stratford Medical
      642
      Board and passed in Class B2, was requested by the Appeal Tribunal of the county of London to present himself for medical re-examination and was totally rejected for military service by the medical board at the Central London recruiting depot; whether he is aware that the War Office instructed Lieutenant Franklin, its military representative, to treat the second medical certificate as invalid and ordered Goodman to be arrested as an absentee; whether he will state the grounds on which such action was taken; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the case of Private H. Ansell, No. 6976, C Company, Camp 5, 2/4th Battalion, County of London Royal Fusiliers; whether he is aware that this lad, nineteen years of age, and passed as fit in October last, has suffered from consumption from his childhood, that he remained in Dagenham Sanatorium from June, 1914, to January, 1915, and that since leaving the sanatorium he has been laid up from time to time; and whether, in view of these facts, he will cause a further medical examination to be made in this case?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made, and in each case a reply will be sent to the hon. Member.

      SUBSTITUTION SCHEME.
      Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made at the Enfield Tribunal by Mr. W. Cornish, the military representative for the district; whether he is aware that the state-men was made that, as a result of a conference held between the military representatives and the managers of the Labour Exchanges, tribunals were to be asked to instruct applicants passed for labour units or sedentary work at home or abroad to register themselves at the nearest Labour Exchange within fourteen days for the purpose of taking up industrial employment under the substitution scheme; that in the event of a man refusing to register he would be called up for service; and whether, in view of the statements as to the method by which the substitution scheme is to be worked, he is now in a position to make an authoritative pronouncement on the whole matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have seen the account in the Press. The men referred to, if they failed to obtain work of national importance within the specified period, would be

      643
      liable to be called to the Colours. This is no doubt what the military representative intended to convey.

      SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
      Mr. NIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he has received representations seeking a further variation of the hops Closing Order in the direction of extended hours; what is the nature of his movement in relation to the class of trader and what its numerical value; has he replied, and, if so, to what effect; and does he propose to qualify in any, and, if so, in what, respect the policy outlined by him when the subject was last discussed in this House?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have received a certain number of representations in favour of extended hours. These have come almost entirely from the confectionery trade. As I have already intimated, I am not prepared to comply with the request, and I do not contemplate any alteration in the hours at present fixed In accordance, however, with the undertaking to allow an extension of hours at Christmas, I have made an amending Order suspending entirely the Early Closing Order from Thursday, the 14th December to Saturday, the 23rd December, both days inclusive.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received communications from small shopkeepers in Devon-port and Plymouth asking for a reconsideration of this question, and is he not aware, as stated, that a great number of small shopkeepers are feeling the stress and the strain due to this Act of Parliament, and are they not to be protected?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have received a number of representations from various places, both on one side and the other, many of them are from shopkeeping associations, protesting indignantly against any suggestion that the Closing Order should be modified.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive from myself a communication from a widow?
      Mr. NIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it is alleged that the effect of the recent Order for the earlier closing of shops on Saturday evenings has already resulted in an extension of Sunday trading, and that many shop keepers who never previously opened on
      644
      Sunday are now to be found in all parts of the Metropolis and its suburbs carrying on their trading during the greater part of that day; and will he take steps to restrict, and finally to terminate, this Sunday labour in the interests not only of the shopkeeper, but also of the public generally?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Nottingham on Thursday last.
      Mr. YEOasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, in view of the fact that in many districts chemists, since the recently Early Closing Order, refuse to open after 8 p.m. for the dispensing of medicines for panel patients, he will take steps to extend the closing hour of chemists' shops to 9 p.m. on the other week-days besides Saturday, particularly having regard to the fact that many insured persons are now working at a long distance from home and until late in the evening and are thus unable to have the medicines dispensed overnight, and they leave home before the chemist opens in the morning?
      Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I have received representations as to this matter, and I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

      BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Treasurer of the Household whether his attention has been called to letters from Irish prisoners of war at Ruhleben reporting the formation there of classes for the study of Irish history and the Irish language and expressing a desire for books suitable for these purposes; whether, in view of the official action by which parcels of books of this class are prevented from reaching Irish untried prisoners at Fron-goch, he will undertake that similar parcels sent to Irish prisoners at Ruhleben shall have the same facilities for prompt delivery as other parcels; and, if any special conditions have to be complied with for this purpose, will he say what they are?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): There is no discrimination between books in the English and Irish languages intended to be sent to the prisoners at Ruhleben.
      Mr. GINNELL: The hon. Gentleman has not said why such parcels as are described in the question are not dealt with as promptly as other parcels.
      Mr. HOPE: Whether the books are in the English or the Irish language, they will be delivered with equal promptitude.

      INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT IN GERMANY.
      Mr. PETOasked the Treasurer of the Household whether any steps have been taken to get the American Ambassador to have the conditions of British prisoners of war engaged in factories, workshops, and other industrial establishments in Germany inquired into; whether he has any recent information with regard to their condition and treatment; and whether he will have any information possessed by the Government printed in a White Paper?
      Mr. HOPE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is that reports have been received which showed that the conditions in different places vary greatly. The answer to the third part of the question is that the reports cannot be published without leave of the American Government, and in this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Croydon on the 21st ultimo.
      Mr. PETO: Do any of the reports, as received, show that the prisoners engaged in this kind of work are receiving fair or reasonable treatment, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the consent of the American Embassy to the publication of such reports as have been received?
      Mr. HOPE: Yes, some of the reports show that the condition in certain camps is fairly good. We are in communication with the American authorities, and we hope to get some of the reports published.

      INCOME TAX.
      Sir STUART COATSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the 661,000 claim forms applying for repayment of Income Tax which have been dealt with by the Department for Inland Revenue from 1st January to date, whether he will now give the number and amount of claims with which the Department has not dealt up to the present?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The figure 681,000 was the total figure of claim forms for the period covered by the Report on which my figures were based, and, as I stated in this House on the 28th ultimo, only 15,250 were unsettled at the time when the Report in question was compiled.
      Sir S. COATS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he gave give an entirely misleading idea as to the whole situation, and will he give an assurance that all cases in which Income Tax has been overpaid will be settled promptly?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They will be settled as promptly as possible.

    MUNITIONS.

      GLASGOW DEPORTATIONS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that David Kirkwood, one of the Glasgow deportees, has been elected as a delegate to attend the annual conference of the Labour party, receiving more votes than the combined vote of the other fourteen candidates; and whether, in these circumstances, any obstacles will be placed in the way of his attending this conference either by the Ministry of Munitions or by the military authorities?
      Mr. PRIMROSE: I am aware that David Kirkwood has been elected as a delegate to attend the annual conference of the Labour party. I propose to answer the point raised in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question on Thursday, when I reply generally on the subject of the deportees in reply to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. YEOasked the Prime Minister whether he will order all Government notices to be so worded that they can be readily understood by the people; whether the most important Order of the Liquor Control Board is more than 3 feet long by 2 feet wide, and exceeds 3,000 words, although the Order could be expressed in less than 100 words and in such words as would make clear and not obscure the demands of the Board; and whether steps

      647
      will be taken to compel Government Departments to word their Orders intelligibly, so as to put an end to law-abiding people being subjected to punishment for not obeying Orders which at present tax the skill and patience of even experienced lawyers?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I think Government Departments already have in view the object mentioned by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question. With regard to the second, I am informed that remarkably few cases of disputed interpretation have been taken to the High Court, and that in no case has the Central Control Board found it necessary to amend its Order owing to the interpretation put on it by the Court. The dimensions of the Order when printed in poster form are due not merely to its length, but to the size of the type and spacing used, both of which make for the clarity desired by my hon. Friend. I need hardly add that any concrete suggestion he may put forward to this end will be carefully considered.
      Mr. YEO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the Eighth Commandment as his text for the next issue of orders to the public?

    CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the solemn affirmation of the widow of the late W. P. Singho, of Algoda, Ceylon, according to which six European gentlemen, with a number of Punjabi soldiers, came to their house early on 10th June, 1915, and, without accusation, warrant, or trial, dragged her husband out of his bed, tied his hands behind his back with the sheet, led him to the river' s bank and shot him there, with two others, with their rifles preventing his wife from following, but afterwards bidding her to bury the body near where it lay, and that if she attempted to bring it home she herself would be shot; if this case has been specially investigated, by what tribunal, and with what result; on what grounds it has been treated differently from the numerous similar cases already brought under his notice; how many of those cases are to be specially investigated; and why has this procedure been adopted instead of the English commission of inquiry respectfully petitioned for but refused?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I have seen a reproduction of this statement. The case is under investigation by the Governor of Ceylon. The procedure adopted in this case will be adopted in any similar case which, in the Governor's opinion, calls for investigation. I see no reason to modify my opinion that the appointment of a Commission from this country to inquire generally into the Ceylon riots is neither necessary nor desirable.

    CAMEROONS TERRITORY.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Deputy-Governor at Lagos has issued a Proclamation making repeated reference to the Cameroons territory having been occupied by the forces of the King of England; and whether he will cause this error to be corrected and avoided for the future?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The attention of the Government of Nigeria will be called to the wording of the Proclamation of 14th October, to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers.

    NIGERIA (SALE OF ENEMY PROPERTIES).
    Mr. HANSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the holdings which Messrs. Jurgens, margarine manufacturers, of Amsterdam, are now known to hold in German concerns in several districts of Germany, stated by that firm in a prospectus recently issued in Amsterdam to be valued at £230,000; and whether, in view of this disclosure of enemy interest, any recent purchases by that firm of enemy property in Nigeria, recently sold in London, will now be cancelled?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that Messrs. Jurgens did not purchase any of the Nigerian properties at the recent sale.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a revised estimate of the proceeds of the Excess Profits Tax for the current financial year; whether the indications are that the estimate of yield of this taxation will be

    649
    largely exceeded; and, if so, can he say which trades or industries have received increased profits to account for the increase in revenue?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): If my Budget Estimate is exceeded, the excess would not be due to an underestimate of the profits of businesses liable to duty, but to an underestimate of the rate at which the duty payable could be collected. This rate has been much accelerated by the system of deposits in advance of assessment, which was introduced after the Budget Estimate was announced.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing an audit of the accounts and of the profits of the coal owners in South Wales?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must ask for notice of that.

    BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, by the Stamp Act of 1870, as modified by the Finance Act, 1899, bills of exchange for over £100 drawn or expressed to be payable or actually paid or endorsed or in any manner negotiated in the United Kingdom exceeding £100 must be stamped at the rate of 1s. per £100, whereas in the case of bills of exchange for over £100 drawn and expressed to be payable out of the United Kingdom, where actually paid or endorsed or negotiated in the United Kingdom, the Stamp Duty payable is only 6d. per £100; whether he will state what reason, if any, exists for maintaining this preferential treatment for foreign bills: and whether he will, in the next Finance Bill, impose stamp duties on foreign hills of the kind indicated above equal to or exceeding the duties on British bills?
    Mr. McKENNA: The differentiation in the rate of duty between the two classes of bills specified was introduced in 1899, in consequence of representations that the higher rate of duty had the effect of restricting dealings in the United Kingdom in bills drawn and expressed to be payable abroad. In view, however, of the change of conditions which has taken place since the differentiation was introduced, I will give careful consideration to the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the point that we are not so desirous now as we were some years ago to forward German interests by discounting German bills?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, certainly.

    TREASURY BILLS (NEW YORK ISSUE).
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government have authorised Messrs. Morgan and Company to place a new issue of Treasury Bills on the New York Money Market; and whether he can furnish the House with any information regarding the reported action of the Federal Reserve Board of America with reference to the above issue?
    Mr. McKENNA: It has been decided not to proceed with the contemplated experiment of issuing Treasury Bills in New York. I have nothing to add to what has appeared in the Press with regard to the Federal Reserve Board's action.
    Mr. MASON: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware of the injury to British credit that is caused by authorising the issue of these bills and then withdrawing them?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not at all. They were withdrawn, as the hon. Member knows, on account of the attitude of the Federal Reserve Board.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the duration of the bills that Messrs. Morgan were authorised to issue? Were they for one, two, three, or six months?
    Mr. McKENNA: As they are not going to be issaed I do not think that would serve any purpose whatever.
    Mr. MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory in regard to the two Debates which have taken place in this House, where it has protested against further increasing the floating debt?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to state the duration of the bills?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject, I will consider whether it is in the public interest to answer.

    WAGES OF FEMALE WORKERS (BELFAST).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland' whether he has yet made direct inquiry of the trade unions in Belfast with reference to the present condition of the female workers in that city consequent upon low wages, increased food prices, and unemployment; whether he has inquired, amongst others, of the secretary of the Women's Textile Workers' Union; and if he will now state the result of his inquiries?
    Mr. DUKE: Various officials of trades unions in Belfast, including Miss Galway, the secretary of the Women's Textile Workers' Union, were amongst the persons consulted before my reply of Tuesday last. From Miss Galway's statement it appears that where women workers rely exclusively on their own resources there is some distress owing to the high prices of food. Most of the female workers, however, have men in their families or are in receipt of separation allowances. The general position of affairs in Belfast is, I am informed, better than normal.

    NATIONAL SHOOL TEACHERS' PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the total number of male pensioned teachers in Ireland is 1,072, and the total amount of the pensions paid to them £50,231, or an average of £46 each per annum, which has a present value of £20 per annum; whether the total number of female teachers on pension is 1,550, and the total amount of pensions paid to them £56,656 per annum, being an average of £36 each per annum, the present value of which is about £15; whether the average pension paid to both male and female teachers is about £40, which works out at a present value of from £16 to £17 per annum; and, if so, whether, in view of these facts, he will further consider the question of increasing the amount of the pension grant to these teachers?
    Mr. DUKE: The books of the Teachers' Pension Fund at the end of November, 1916, showed 1,088 men receiving £50,628 in pensions and 1,616 women receiving £60,559. The average being £46 for men and £37 for women, and £41 for both sexes. These pensioners include a. large number of teachers who retired with short
    652
    service and whose pensions are consequently small. Since the beginning of the War the average pension for men has been increased by 15 per cent., that for women 23 per cent., and that for both sexes 20 per cent. I can hold out no hope of a further increase.

    NATIVE LABOUR.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the PrimeMinister under what Statute, if any, labour in this country is now being diluted with men of black and yellow races who work under conditions repugnant to white labourers; and, in view of the effects of this change and the impossibility of reconciling it without Statute with the continued independence, of white labour, whether the introduction of coloured labour will be suspended until Parliament has been given an opportunity of considering a Bill on the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on this subject on Tuesday, 21st November. The hon. Member is in error in supposing that coloured labour is now being introduced into this country, but should it be decided to adopt this course no special statutory powers would be required.

    RUSSIAN POLAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, before joining in the Franco-British Note with reference to the formation of a new kingdom of Russian Poland, the two Governments had agreed to make the restoration of the integrity and independence of entire Poland a condition of peace and to the separate representation of Poland at the International Peace Conference to follow the War; whether Russia concurs; whether a joint declaration of the three Powers to that effect will be made; and whether the same policy will apply to all small nations now subject to any of the Allies whose help in the War has been obtained on the promise that it would apply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the published statements on this subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. DILLONasked the Prime-Minister whether he can now7 make a

653
general statement as to the business which it is proposed to take before the House rises; whether it is intended to prorogue or adjourn before Christmas; and when the House may expect to be set free for the Christmas Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement at present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    RECONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT.

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      Mr. DILLON: On Thursday last a pledge was given from the Front Bench that the name of the Food Dictator would be made public during last week-end. May we now be told who it is?
      4.0 P.M.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No such person as a Food Dictator exists, or ever has existed. I do not like the word "Dictator."
      If my hon. Friend will allow me to say it, this is a convenient opportunity of stating that His Majesty the King, upon the advice which I have given him this morning, has approved of the reconstruction of the Government, and I feel that all questions of personnel had better be deferred until that process is—if it is— completed. In the circumstances, I think the best course for the House to take will be, at the conclusion of to-day's business —which I believe is of a non-controversial character, and which it is desirable to get through if we can—we should adjourn till Thursday, and I beg to move, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Thursday next (7th December)."
      Mr. DILLON: I only rise for the purpose of, in a very few words, making an appeal to the Prime Minister on this question of the Adjournment. Why is Thursday the day on which the House is to meet again? To all Members of the House these are very grave times, and Members naturally would desire to be here when the House reassembles, in order to be present when any announcement is made on the reconstruction of the Government. It would be impossible to imagine a more cruelly inconvenient course than to call upon us to assemble on Thursday, particularly those of us who live across the water, giving us barely time to return home and come back. It is all very well for Gentlemen who live in London to say "Stop here," but we have been here now for six weeks, and during that time business was only transacted on three days of the seven, and on
      684
      those three days we generally appeared to be marking time, while on most of those days we did not do more than two or three hours' work. I quite admit if it were certain that on Thursday next a definite announcement would be made on the reconstruction of the Government, the urgency of the present situation would sweep away all considerations of private convenience, but from somewhat painful experience on similar occasions in the past my conclusion is that no definite announcement will be made on Thursday, and we shall be meeting here to be told that a further postponement must take place. I venture to suggest it will be far better frankly to face the position, and to make the Adjournment at least till Monday or Tuesday next. It is simply from that point of view that I have risen to make that appeal.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I share the view of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to the inconvenience of the course which the Government has suggested. I think it is important we should know whether, when the House meets on Thursday, an announcement will be made as to what the Government of the country is. If the Prime Minister is likely to be unable to make such an announcement on Thursday, it seems it is unwise for the House to meet until we can face a Government. The second point is this: When the House is called upon to meet the new Government, the House of Commons should be given by the Government an opportunity of discussing the situation in the light of the reconstruction of the Government. On the last occasion when reconstruction took place, by the skill of the Prime Minister the House was refused an opportunity of considering what had been done behind their back, and at that time a transaction took place which, I believe, has been up to the present the greatest disaster to this country in the War. The times now are far more critical than then. The condition in which the country stands to-day is far more critical than the condition in May, 1915, when the mouths of Members of this House were closed. I think it should be the duty of the House of Commons, no matter how many men are taken in from the bench opposite, to see that here in the light of day Members are informed what the national situation is, and that they should have an opportunity in this Parliament, the great inquest of the nation, of stating their views.
      Mr. ASHLEY: ft may be in the recollection of the House that to-morrow had been allocated for a discussion on the Air Service. Of course, I cannot naturally ask for any pledge or definite undertaking on the part of the Government, but I would ask them to remember, if the reconstruction proceeds, as it is expected to proceed, we should have an early day, and that that very important question should not be put aside.
      Mr. GINNELL: I am aware of the futility of my interfering between this House and the work which the Prime Minister lays before it of affording amusement to the entire world and jubilation to the Germans. But I want to submit to the right hon. Gentleman one suggestion which perhaps he may adopt. I would ask whether he has considered the advisability of applying to this country the rule he is now applying to Ireland, namely, to try the experiment of leaving it without any Government whatever until the English people are unanimous, which is the test he applies to Ireland?
      Mr. BILLING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I put a hypothetical question? If the Government is still going on Thursday, what business will be taken on that day?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I want first of all to make it perfectly plain to the House and the country that, whatever reconstruction of the Government takes place, it will involve no departure in any shape or form from the policy we have announced and pursued since the beginning of the War; and if anybody entertains the idea that there is any question of a change of policy, I can assure him he is entirely mistaken. As regards the question as to what particular day we should adjourn, I leave that to the sense of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thursday!" Other HON. MEMBERS: "Monday !"] I think, on the whole, Thursday will be better. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Then which is it to be?
      Mr. DEVLIN: If the right hon. Gentleman were in a position to inform the House that he will be able to give definite information on Thursday that might settle the question, but unless he is in that position what is the good of keeping us hanging round London?
      Sir H. DALZIEL: I was going to suggest to the Prime Minister, in the event of his not being able to make the promised
      686
      statement on Thursday, the House might have a formal meeting, and it might be announced, through the Press the day before, that it would only be formal. I think with the hon. Member for East Mayo it is almost impossible, judging by precedent, that a full statement can be made on Thursday, and therefore, if that is so, I suggest it would really be safer to adjourn till Monday. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, during the interval, arrangements will be made for Ministers to carry on their work as usual. Having regard to the fact, as I understand, all their resignations are in the hands of the Prime Minister, it would be an advantage to hon. Members to know whether they can communicate with them at their offices on the usual footing.
      The PRIME MINISTER: There is no difficulty about that, Ministers are still continuing to perform their duties. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the first business to come before the House, whether it meets on Thursday or Monday, will be the Vote of Credit, and therefore there will be an ample opportunity of discussing any topic any Member can raise. I think, as far* as I can gather views from the somewhat confused and chaotic consonance of voices, that, on the whole, Monday appears to be preferred. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Well, then Thursday. If we find a meeting on Thursday will not be really effective notice shall be given.
      Mr. DILLON: Which day is it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Thursday.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Thursday next.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS BILL.
As amended, considered.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Minister of Pensions.)
  In order to unify the administration of such pensions, grants, and allowances as are hereinafter mentioned, there shall be a Minister of Pensions, who shall be entitled to receive advice and assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister.
  The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. A. Henderson): I have an Amendment on the Paper—to leave out the words "who shall"["who shall be entitled"], and to insert instead thereof the words "appointed by His Majesty, and the Minister shall, during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter."
  I want to offer a few words of explanation in regard to this and other Amendments on the Paper. They are put down to give effect to what has been stated in the House, and to meet the objects in view. The first Amendment limits the period of the advice to be given by the three Under-Secretaries of Departments to the period of the War and six months afterwards. The other Amendments are purely verbal, and I therefore move the first Amendment on the Paper.
  Major H. TERRELL: On a point of Order, Sir. I have an Amendment, of which I have given notice, and which comes before that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I called for the hon. Member, but he did not respond.
  Major TERRELL: On a point of Order. May I ask if, the moment a statement is made in the House, and so many Members get up to go out of the House, while other Members were not aware of the business that was being proceeded with, it is competent for the business to go on so as to shut out a Member who has given due notice of an Amendment, and who was in his place to move his Amendment, but could not hear, because of the noise that was going on at the time, what business it was that was being done?
  Mr. PETO: On the point of Order. All the hon. Members in the neighbourhood in which I sit were under the impression that the House was going to a Division on the Motion for the Adjournment, and it was quite impossible for anybody to know whether business was being proceeded with or whether it was not.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I took up the hon. Member's Amendment, and I looked to see if he was in his place and did not see him, but, as the hon. Gentleman says he was sitting behind, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General will give way.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I was prepared to second the Amendment of my hon. and
  688
  gallant Friend, but I never heard a word of the Question which was proposed, and I am quite sure hon. Members did not understand what was being done.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that be the case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give way to the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
  Mr. MOONEY: On the point of Order, Sir. Are we to understand by your ruling that when a Minister moves his Amendment, you can go back upon that in order that another hon. Gentleman may move his Amendment? I may point out that on the Question that the House adjourn we on these benches would have preferred to go to a Division, and we challenged a Division, but in spite of that you proceeded with the business. We obeyed your ruling, and now you call upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment, after the Minister has already moved his Amendment, which is on the Paper.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be well to have the Prime Minister in to get this decided?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I waited for the hon. Member to sec if he would move his Amendment.
  Mr. MOONEY: If an hon. Member is not in his place when called, can you go back to allow him to move an Amendment, after another Amendment has already been moved?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Question is before the House at the present moment and it is a perfectly simple matter to deal with it.
  Mr. MOONEY: The hon. Member wants to move his Amendment, though the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is now before the House.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman having given way, I call upon the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
  Major TERRELL: I beg to move after the word "a" ["a Minister of Pensions"], to leave out the words "Minister of Pensions, who shall be entitled to receive advice and assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the

  689
  Minister, "and to insert instead thereof the words" Board of Pensions which shall consist of a Minister who shall be President of the Board, and five other members to be appointed as follows: One by the Army Council, one by the Admiralty, one by the Statutory Committee, one representative of Labour by His Majesty, and one woman by His Majesty. No member of the Board, other than the President, shall be a Member of either House of Parliament."
  There are two objects in this Amendment. The first and paramount object is to eliminate, as far as we possibly can, all political influence in the control of pensions. In the course of these Debates, I think, almost every hon. Member who has spoken has insisted that he desired above all things that the pensions authority should be so organised that it should inure to the advantage of the pensioners. Will anybody in this House or out of this House suggest that it is not essential, in the interests of the pensioners, that all political influence should be eliminated from the pensions authorities? I should like to ask the House to consider for a moment how these pensions will be granted. When a pension authority has been established the applicants for pensions will, in the first place, apply immediately for a disablement pension. I am taking the case, in the first instance, of a disabled man. He will apply for the pension. It is desirable, and in that everybody agrees, that he should receive something at once, that there should be none of the scandals which have existed of men who have been disabled being driven to charity because they were unable to obtain pensions immediately. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have, in the course of these Debates, insisted upon the absolute necessity of men being able to receive their pension at the earliest possible date. If a man, whatever pensions authority is established, is disabled, he applies for his pension, and he ought at once to get that pension, though not necessarily the final pension. I do not know what you may call the pension which he gets; you may call it a scale pension, a minimum pension, or a flat-rate pension—I do not care what it is—but he has to get a pension of some kind, which is to be fixed by reference to the nature of his disability, and he should get it at once. That will cover in all probability the majority of cases, for in the majority of cases the pensioner will ask for no more,
  690
  that is, assuming that the scale of pensions is framed on the general basis which this House has insisted upon.
  But there will be a large number of cases where the flat pension is not sufficient, having regard to the particular circumstances of the pensioner. You will have that pensioner applying for an additional pension, or an additional grant of some kind or other, to meet the particular circumstances of a particular case, but before you can determine — whatever the pensions authority is—what that additional grant is to be, you must of necessity have a local inquiry. You will have local committees—you have three hundred already—and you will have many more. These local committees will have to make inquiry into the circumstances of the man who applies—into his pre-war income, and into his earning capacity, and that of all his dependants. The local committee will have to go into a variety of matters before they can determine what to report to the pensions authority, and then they will be determined what additional pension that man is to have. In the first place, if we are to have justice in the administration of pensions, these local committees must be absolutely divorced from politics. Supposing the committee is not divorced from politics, I would ask the House to consider what must inevitably happen. What has happened in various matters in the past, and what must happen in the future? If the local committee is not entirely divorced from political influences, then when an applicant asks for an additional pension, the main consideration will be whether he has got the support, and whether he himself is a supporter, of the political party which is in the majority on the local committee. You may, of course, say, and I have no doubt hon. Members will say, that the local committees must be trusted not to have anything to do with politics. We know perfectly well that the moment you have a local committee, unless it is controlled by a superior authority, which is itself divorced from politics, it will degenerate into a political committee. I do not care what party is in power at the time; I am not dealing with any particular party, but the moment you get these local committees, if they are controlled by political influences, they will degenerate into political bodies, and the man who applies for his pension, if he has not gained some political support from the majority of the committee, will have a very poor chance of justice.

  691
  I want to avoid that entirely; I want to dissociate, first of all, the local committees from politics and from all political influences whatever. If and so long as you have at the head a Minister who is essentially a politician and nothing else, so long will politics influence the local committees. The next point is this. The local committees have, under the Bill as it stands, to be controlled by the Minister of Pensions, who, exconcessis, is a politician and nothing else. He is Minister of Pensions because he is a politician, and for no other reason whatever; he is to be in supreme control. You are putting in supreme control of the whole organisation a man whose whole interest is party politics and nothing else, and though you may say men will rise superior to party considerations, I do not believe it. It has not been so in the past, and I know it will not be so in the future, and if you are going to consider solely or mainly the interests of the men who are applying for pensions—if that is your real desire—then you will struggle to eliminate altogether political influences from the Ministry of Pensions. Then there is another very important consideration, and it is this. Under the Bill as it stands we are to have a Minister of Pensions who is admittedly not to be a whole-time Minister. He is to divide his attention between the pensions authority and other offices which he may hold. Then, as I pointed out before, the control of the grant of pensions is a very difficult and very laborious work. One man, if he devotes his whole time to it, cannot really supervise and control it. I do not care how well he organises the machinery. You will have one of two things arise—either the real control of the pensions will vest in the local committees and the authority in London will be merely a registering authority, or you will have the work of determining the pensions devolve upon officials in the Pensions Department. One or the other. The Pensions Minister himself, even if he devoted the whole of his time to it, could not by any possibility investigate all the hundred and one questions which will arise in the granting of these pensions. You want a variety of persons. You want a person who will have to do with the Army. You will have another person who will have to take into consideration questions affecting the Navy. You will have the persons who are now dealt with by the Statutory Committee, namely, the supplemental pensions.
  692
  You will want to have at least one person to represent labour, and you will also want one person on the authority who shall be a woman. You will have a great deal of women's work to deal with—work which I do not think myself can be properly done by a man. You will have hundreds and thousands of cases coming up for consideration where a soldier or a sailor has been killed but has left a widow and children. A pension is granted to the widow— a supplementary pension is also granted for the support of herself and children— and you may find that the woman is not properly maintaining those children. That is a question which will have to be inquired into, and a question which is particularly suitable for the energies of a woman. I have very strongly put to the House the reasons why I do submit, and I submit it with all the sincerity I can, you should not entrust the whole control of this important Department to one man, and, above all, to one politician. I ask the House not to allow itself to be influenced merely by the idea that for the moment it desires one Minister of Pensions to organise the Department. I ask it to look further ahead and to remember we are setting up an authority which will operate for at least fifty years to come in the controlling and granting of these pensions— an important authority, and a large authority, with great powers of dealing with vast sums of money. I ask the House seriously to take into consideration the great advantage which will inure for all time to the pensioners if we divorce politics from pensions, and the great advantage which will be obtained by the pensioners if we have a body to deal with this question where you can have one member of the Board supreme and responsible for every Department to the pensions authority. If you have that you will have a far better pensions authority, and you will also have a Minister in this House answerable to this House for the work of the pensions authority, and a Minister who will be the head of that authority and able to make his views felt on that authority, and, so far as is legitimate, to control that authority. On the other hand, I am sure that in years to come, if we insist upon a single politician as the head of this authority, we shall be inflicting serious injustice upon those men whom it is the sincere desire of this House to help in every possible way.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: My hon. and learned Friend has asked me to second

  693
  the Amendment, and I do so because I think it is a pity the Bill should go right through the Report stage without this House again having an opportunity of considering this question. I do not say that the Amendment is the best way out of the difficulty, but I do feel strongly, and I have always felt throughout the Debates, that it would be little short of a disaster if we did not so regulate the administration and allocation of these pensions as to avoid the dangers to which my hon. Friend has alluded. We ought to try in every possible way we can to avoid such risks in regard to pensions. What precedent have we got in the realm of administration for what is now proposed? We have the Board of Inland Revenue. Nobody would suggest for a single moment that any political influence is ever brought to bear upon the Board of Inland Revenue. It has far heavier and far more difficult tasks to perform than will fall upon the Ministry of Pensions. It has to determine abstruse and difficult questions and to administer complex and difficult Acts of Parliament. Yet it is independent in elucidating those questions, and altogether the whole administration goes with perfect smoothness and without this horrible difficulty of political influence cropping up. Why should not the same principle be applied to pensions? I do not know why we should run this risk with regard to pensions, and because this Amendment goes to some extent in the direction of obviating that risk I desire to second it and to express the hope that the House will again consider this question before finally setting up this single authority.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite is undoubtedly a very important one, and it is one that ought to be considered, I think, by a larger House than we have the privilege of seeing here to-day, because, as my hon. Friend the Baronet who seconded the Amendment rightly said, I think that the whole House ought to consider it in its fullest aspects and details. I rise particularly to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister. It is obvious that this Bill is not in the same position as it would have been if we had not had the announcement to-day from the Prime Minister. I know we are all anxious the Bill should pass into law with the least possible delay, but I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he ought to consider
  694
  whether the Debate might not be adjourned at the present moment—not only this Bill, but all the other Bills which are down for consideration this afternoon. The position is this: We do not know who is going to be Pensions Minister. We were not very sure about that before the present crisis arose. The Pensions Minister was quite frank with the House. The situation is now much more complicated than it was before, because it may possibly be that my right hon. Friend may have more important duties to perform than those connected with pensions and somebody else may be called in to take the post of Pensions Minister. My point is this, that if there is to be a new man in charge of the carrying out of the Bill which we are now passing it is not quite fair to him that we should finally close the door by passing this Bill practically into law before ho has had an opportunity of being consulted in regard to it. Let me point out to the House that the cause of the pensioners can in no way suffer. No pensioner will lose a single sixpence if we adjourn this Bill for a week, and I say it is altogether unfair for us to proceed at the present moment with an important Bill of this kind when we have practically no Government in charge. I think the opinion of the House will be that in view of all the circumstances we ought not to proceed further with the Bill. The question of salary comes on immediately after, and we do not know what reconstruction may bring forth. We ought not at this moment to tie the hands of the Government without knowing exactly what the Bill is going to provide for, and, therefore, I feel justified in asking the Government not to proceed further to-day with a measure of this importance. I, therefore, ask leave to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. D. MASON: I have great pleasure in seconding that Motion. I think if we are going on to the Order lower down on the Paper, the War Obligations Bill, the case is even much stronger for the Motion of my right hon. Friend. The Prime Minister himself when he stated that we ought to conclude the business on the Agenda for to-day, said that it was non-controversial. He must have forgotten for the moment that the business included this other Order, to which there are a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper. It is not by any means non-controversial. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the report of the Second

  695
  Reading Debate, he will find that there was scarcely a speech that was not in opposition to that particular measure. The right hon. Member for Dublin University—
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot discuss another Bill on this Motion. We are dealing with the Ministry of Pensions Bill.
  Mr. MASON: I appreciate the point, Sir. I was only trying to add to the argument of my right hon. Friend that there was a conclusive ease for adjourning the Debate. I agree with my right hon. Friend in the succinct manner in which he described the position. We do not know who is to be the Pensions Minister. The position has been entirely altered by this new Bill being brought before the House, and by the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in fact, of every other Minister, being in the hands of the Prime Minister at the present moment. As there is considerable controversy in regard to the Bill, until we know what is to be the policy of the new Government with regard to pensions, we cannot be asked to continue to debate this Bill on the Report stage. It is not a question of politics on one side or the other. It is a question of the business of the House, and to continue this Debate in the existing circumstances does not seem to me to be in accordance either with business or common sense.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am rather reluctant to take any part in this Debate on the Motion to adjourn, but I have throughout taken such an interest in this matter that I venture to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, at any rate, hesitate before he accepts this Motion. We have discussed the Bill on a good many occasions. We had a long First Reading, a substantial Second Reading, and a long discussion in Committee, and this Bill represents, more perhaps than any other Bill has done for a long time, the considered sense of the House of Commons, and not the view of the Government. I think the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been in charge of this Bill have met the House in such a way as might very well be an example to the Government, and, in fact, a warning to all Governments. This Bill I do really think represents the considered views of the House of Commons as a whole, and I do not care for the moment what reconstruction of the Government takes place.
  696
  We do not propose to reconstruct the House of Commons—for the moment, at any rate. I am astonished that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) wants delay. I thought delay was the great vice of the present Government.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: There is nothing lost by delay here.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I am not talking of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, or anything else at the moment. I am on this Bill only. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that as there has been so much substantial discussion of this Bill, now is the occasion to go on with it. No doubt that was the view of the Prime Minister, because he intended this Debate to go on to-day. The question whether it be the right hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill, or anybody else who is to be in charge of it, does not weigh with me at all. I do not think that matters. What we are considering now is not the men that may be in charge, but the Bill before the House. I do not intend to discuss the particular Amendment now before the House. I do not suppose it would be in order to go into the merits of it, but it has been before the House more than once already. It is almost more a Second Reading point than a Report stage point. The right hon. Gentleman has told us on more than one occasion that there is a vast amount of work to be done on this question of pensions, and if we take leave of the Bill now we really do not know when we may see it again On Thursday we will be discussing matters of high policy, and then there is also the question of Christmas coming in. We might not have the Bill through until after Christmas. Therefore I do appeal to the House of Commons with all sincerity and conviction, and I say that they would be doing well to finish this Bill and send it elsewhere, so as to dispose once for all of this very important question.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken appears to me to have put so cogently before the House the arguments in favour of our resisting this proposal that there is very little left forme to say. When we decided to take this business to-day, we had very clearly in our minds the possibility to which he has properly referred. We had every reason to expect that we could dispose of this Bill in a very short time. He has reminded the House of the efforts we made

  697
  to meet the wishes of the House, and, if I might be permitted to say so, two of the speeches we have listened to this afternoon would have been very appropriate if we had listened to them this day week, when everyone was appealing to the Minister in charge of the Bill to take it back and make it possible to take out of the Bill all reference to a board, and insert in it nothing but a Minister. We acted on the suggestion made to us, and brought back a Bill which we conceived contained everything we have been asked to put into it. Now here we are. We come down to-day in spite of the exceptional circumstances which exist, and we had every reason to expect that this Bill would have been disposed of in a short time, whatever attitude was adopted towards the other Orders on the Paper.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will you adjourn the other Orders?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have nothing to do with the other items on the Paper. If we are compelled to accept an adjournment of this Debate, it will be because the House has expressed a desire for that adjournment. We do not want it. We want this Bill through. After all, what does it matter who the individual is in charge? It would be an immense advantage to him, if some new appointment is made, to find his Bill there, and if he could get straight to work in organising the machinery. As I have pointed out more than once, there is a great amount of work to be done. Last week we heard something about delay. We are now invited practically to be responsible for delay, and, if we have to accept that invitation, the responsibility will not rest with the Government.
  Mr. PRINGLE: What is the Government?
  Mr. HENDERSON: My hon. and learned Friend has just come into the House and he should not interrupt. We are en deavouring to get out of a difficulty, and I thought he was sufficiently interested in this pensions question to give us some assistance. I feel I am mistaken. I appeal to those who are interested in it, and I ask that we should be allowed to put this Bill through its remaining stages, so that even if this House may not be sitting, the House of Lords may get on with it, and I hope myself or some other Minister may be in a position to bring forward the scales which I alluded to before.
  Mr. BARLOW: I do hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. I say so for this reason, that the question now under discussion is an extremely important one, and it is very unfortunate that it is not being discussed in a fuller House. With regard to what took place last Monday, we should guard ourselves a little against the views taken about that discussion. It has been assumed that there were negotiations across the floor between the Member for East Edinburgh and the Pensions Minister, and that a sort of high treaty was concluded. A great many of us who voted for unification voted for it on terms, the terms being that while we wanted unification, we wanted the administration to be in the hands of certain definite people. I had an Amendment down myself in that respect, but it was ruled out of order, and for that reason the principle was not discussed then. Now comes an opportunity for dealing with it, and it is proposed to deal with it in a very small House. I do not think it is fair to deal with this important principle in a small House, and I press on the Government to accept the Motion for adjournment.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I strongly resist this Motion for adjournment, and for the most practical of all reasons. I know myself the effect of this state of suspense in the Statutory Committee, and I would strongly urge the Minister in charge of the Bill not to allow this state of things to continue. We are meeting day after day, and we have to leave many questions undecided which are calling for urgent settlement. The sooner you can get this Bill through the better; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy will withdraw his Motion, and that the Bill which has now waited long will be carried and the work allowed to go on. The suspense and delay are seriously injuring that work.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will give us an opportunity of fulfilling the work for which so many of us came here to-day. It has been suggested that the House is not very full, but Members are here at Westminster, and are prepared to take their part in carrying this Bill through, especially as the Government have so thoroughly met the expressed wishes of the House. I think we should urge the right hon. Gentleman to resist the proposal for Adjournment and give us

  699
  an opportunity of putting the Bill finally through this House, even through the Third Reading.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LOUGH: I feel that the appeal put before us by the Member for Kirkcaldy is almost an irresistible one. The House is not in a fit state to go on with business. The Amendment raises very large issues. The hon. Member who moved it and the hon. Baronet who seconded it wish it to receive fair and careful consideration. I do not want to take up a position hostile to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of it has behaved so well that I would be glad if this Bill were exempted from the effect of the Motion now before the House, but I do think that the House should really consider whether it is possible for us to go on with other business this afternoon. The short time we have spent in discussion shows the large questions that may be raised at any moment. This House cannot go on without the guidance of the Government, and we are told there is no Government. It is all very well for the Minister in charge of the Bill to say the matter has been well considered. But even then we meet with a difficulty from a new point. Quite a fresh point has been raised. I do think then that unless we get an assurance that this Bill will be the only business that will be taken the Motion ought to be accepted. When an announcement has been made by the Prime Minister that the Government is no longer in existence and the House of Commons is adjourned, in such circumstances it is usual that an Adjournment should immediately take place. We should not, in such circumstances, plunge into business of a more serious character. For these reasons I support the Motion. The only thing I can suggest by way of a compromise is that the Government should say that they will only take this Order. That might then be agreed to.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: So far as the last point made by my right hon. Friend is concerned, I must protest against it. The second or the third Order, I am not sure which it is, is an Irish Bill of great importance, and about which there is very-little, if any, controversy. I would, therefore, protest against the idea of adjourning the Irish Bill whether this Pensions Bill is adjourned or not.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: I hardly think there is sufficient reason for adjourning the De-
  700
  bate. I must say that my sympathies are rather with the Mover of the Amendment. But I recognise this fact, that the House in Committee has practically settled the principle of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend goes back again to the contest which I had hoped we had settled in Committee. Now the reason is given by the right hon. Gentleman that changes may happen, that the Government is going to be reconstructed. But there is going to be no change in the principle of this Bill. We all came down here with the intention of passing this Bill as an agreed Bill. The Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman on the Paper were probably verbal Amendments which were agreed to in Committee to be put down. I sincerely hope this House, will not put off this Bill which practically would be to an indefinite time. We all want to see this pensions question settled, and this is the opportunity to do it. I do hope the House will not consent to the Adjournment of this Debate.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On the general principle I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy that this Debate should be adjourned. I think when you have not a Government in existence that it is almost impossible to carry through business in the House of Commons. But this Bill, and, I think, the Bill to which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) refers, stand in a peculiar position. The present Bill is really the Bill of the House of Commons. It is not the Bill of the Government. We changed this Bill in the Committee stage, and whatever Government is in power we believe it is incumbent upon that Government to accept the finding of the House of Commons reached in the Committee stage—a very deliberate finding, and one to which the Government had to bow. I think in these circumstances this Bill stands in a somewhat peculiar position. We here have made our wishes clear, and practically fixed the terms of the Bill. Consequently, whatever Government is in power, we desire this Bill to pass. I think if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson)—to whom I wish to apologise for my irrelevant interruption for which he so justly blamed me—if the right hon. Gentleman assures us that in the Report stage in this House there will be no substantial change in the Bill—I think we have a right' to ask for that, because, after all, this is a thin House in which to make a change after full consideration in Committee—I

  701
  would suggest to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that he withdraw his Motion. I understand that beyond this Bill and the Irish Bill no other Order will be taken today.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I shall be glad to withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman will make an announcement to that effect.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Besides the two Bills which have been referred to there is a Supplementary Estimate on the Order.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Adjournment?
  Mr. DUKE: I was going to say on behalf of the Irish office that I must mention there is a Supplementary Estimate upon the Order Book which is necessary to be dealt with in order to give effect to the provisions respecting the payment of school teachers' wages in Ireland, and great inconvenience would be caused if it is not taken. Whatever decision may be arrived at on the other question, I must put in a caveat for this Supplementary Estimate. In regard to the Irish Bill, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that it is very important that it should be taken, because otherwise its passage through Parliament may be made impossible during the present Session.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps it might ease the situation if I inform the House what we are prepared to do. We are prepared to take the first three items of the Order Paper—the Pensions Bill, Supply (Committee), and the Dublin Reconstruction Emergency Provisions Bill—and to leave everything else. Under these circumstances I hope the Motion will now be withdrawn.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend means to take all the items in the Supplementary Estimate?
  Mr. HENDERSON: We will take two.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: In that case I ask leave to withdraw.
  Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed
  Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to say a word or two in regard to the Amendment before the House. I think the House will not feel surprised when I tell them I cannot possibly accept that Amendment. I have more than once stated how anxious
  702
  we were to give effect to what we conceive to be the position on the first day on which we entered this Committee on the Bill. I am quite sure, if I gave the slightest countenance to the Amendment now before the House, I would be departing very seriously from what is believed to be an undertaking between the Committee and the Government. I think we have only to look at the Bill as it now stands before the House to see that it is no longer a Bill to set up a Board. It is a Bill to set up a Ministry, and to have a Minister solely responsible for the whole of the work. What were the argumente? The arguments that were adduced were that under the existing Board—there has been a Board working in connection with pensions—there has been delay. You wanted to avoid delay. We endeavoured to meet you by saying you would be able to fix the responsibility for any delay that may arise by having one individual who can be blamed, who can be hung, drawn, and quartered if need be, if the things that have happened in the past happen in the future. The Mover of the Amendment seems to predict quite a number of evils that are to arise if we do not appoint a Board and if who have a Minister who is himself to be solely responsible. I think to some extent, if I may be permitted to say so, the position has been safeguarded from his own point of view, not from my point of view, by the retention of the Statutory Committee. The Statutory Committee is going to do a great amount of work. It has a very large number of powers set out in Clause 3 of the Act of 1915. We are not taking away those powers. It is quite true that they have to be supervised by whoever will be the Minister of Pensions, but they will do the work, and it appears to me that if any other argument were required, the argument that we would be going right back upon everything we did last week, stultifying all the work of the Committee stage, would in itself be sufficient for me to do what I am compelled to do, and that is to decline to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Of course, with a great many of the arguments which were adduced by my hon. and learned Friend who moved, and by the hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment, I am in entire sympathy. If it were possible to eliminate altogether political elements from the administration of these pensions, it would be a thing that we would all desire. It is a

  703
  thing which is in every way good for the pensioner, and the more it can he done the more I would persist in doing it. But that is a very different thing from adopting this Amendment as it now stands. It seems to me, with all respect to the Mover and Seconder, to be quite unworkable unless you change the Bill. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment feared the operation of political consideration in directions which I do not think are in the least likely. He said that because a political Minister presided and had power over this administration therefore it would acquire a political character, and that all the local committees would acquire the same character. Could anything really be more absurd? Does the fact that the President of the Local Government Board or the President of the Board of Education holds at a particular time certain political opinions affect the political character of all the education authorities and all the county councils and all the parish councils through England? Are these local bodies prepared to take their political power from the Minister and to take the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board who happens to have general supervision over them? The thing is quite absurd. The local committees, I can assure every hon. Member, are not likely to take their colour from any Minister. I know that very well from having had dealings with them as one of the Statutory Committee, and I know that they are not likely to take their political complexion from anybody who is set to supervise them. They will assert their own opinions and will assert them independent either of the Central Board or the Central Minister. But when I come to deal actually with this Board itself, I see that there are to be five members, one to represent the Army, one to represent the Navy, one to represent the Statutory Committee, one Labour, I think, and one women. That is very much the complexion of the Statutory Committee itself. We have representatives nominated by the Admiralty, other representatives nominated by the War Office, we have several women, and we have representatives of the Labour party.
  Mr. HOGGE: And you have a lot of politicians, too!
  Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, but fortunately, they neutralise one another because they are not all of one kind. There is a very
  704
  large element which is not political in any way at all on the Statutory Committee. But suppose we wanted this Board. This Board of the hon. and learned Member is apparently to have members who are to have coordinating powers. The hon. Member establishes a Board with a President at the head, but we all know a Board of that sort is in the hands of the President, that the President can overrule the decisions which the others come to. It would be utterly impossible that it should be anything else. The Minister who is President of the Board has to answer for the Department as Minister. If he had actually been out-voted by his colleagues and if he had told them the course "you would like to follow is not the right course," they would reply to him: "We shall out-vote you in your own Board; we, the five other members, shall vote against you, and you will have to go forward and defend our policy before the House of Commons." The thing is impossible. We now quite well, as a matter of fact, that the President of such a Board is always to be the master, that he can, even if his colleagues and the Board are against him, override and overrule them. His authority would remain as undisputed under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman as it is at present. What I cannot make out is how the hon. and learned Member would have this Board work alongside the Statutory Committee. If he had proposed the abolition of the Statutory Committee I could have understood. The presence of certain people like myself on the Statutory Committee does not destroy its general non-political character. How could it receive instructions from another Board constituted almost in the same way as itself. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman or whoever accepts the very important position of President, who acts as a supervisor, as a stimulus, as a director, and will represent all the authorities dealing with this important question not only in the House of Commons, but in the Cabinet. I am sure that the Statutory Committee is prepared to take that position if the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is the Minister, leaves a considerable amount of administrative work to the judgment of the Statutory Committee, subject, of course, to his own control and supervision. I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman means to say that the Statutory Committee is to hold its hand and do nothing and not to have the slightest possible

  705
  initiative in administration, but to wait until it is told whether to move this hand or that hand or one foot or the other. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that that is the position which the President is going to take towards the Statutory Committee. He will, I hope, leave to the Statutory Committee as much discretion as he can and as much administrative initiative as he can. I am certain I can assure him on the part of the Statutory Committee that in return for that we will make an earnest, zealous endeavour to help him in every way. If I thought that the only way of putting out any political interest where to establish a Board such as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes by his Amendment I should vote for that Amendment because I have every sympathy with the idea, but I think it would be a complete subversion of this Bill and of the functions that will be transmitted to the Statutory Committee, and I am, therefore, unable to give it my support.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to be quite clear as to the statement about political influence being mixed up with pensions. What does it mean? It can only mean that political organisations on one or other side of the House will use their electoral powers either to increase the amount of the pension or to give people pensions who do not deserve them. That is all it can mean, and if it were possible it would be a very bad thing, as an hon. Member remarks. That hon. Friend knows the kind of influences that exist in political caucuses. Surely pensions are going to be awarded on scales which will be varied from time to time by Royal Warrant, as this House wishes. Beyond that no man can get a pension, so that there can be no political influence there. The only other thing that remains is, can a man who does not deserve it get a higher pension? He may for a very short time, but the whole scheme of pensions is based on an award of the pension for a short period, after which it is to be subject to revision. The allowance will probably be for a year or six months, so that the chance of a man being discovered inside that time is of course very obvious. Therefore I do not understand why so many hon. Gentlemen lay so much stress on the use of what is known as political influence in pensions. I do not believe it really exists. I believe it is a figment of the imagination.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In that case why should there be a political Minister if it is purely administrative?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is is the most imperative part of the Bill that there should be a political Minister. The way in which soldiers and sailors at the present moment have got into the position in which they are as to pensions is due to the fact that we have been able to discuss the matter here. If soldiers and sailors had to depend upon the restricted platforms we now have and the restricted Press, and had not had the platform of this House, they would not be in the position they are in now. That is why we ought to have a political Minister.
  Colonel YATE: No one is more desirous than I am of getting this Bill passed, but I must protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, that this Bill as presented on the 30th November represents the considered opinion of this House. There are various points that are wanted and about which we have had no proper explanation. We have had the question raised as to whether we are to have a whole-time Minister for Pensions, but nothing has been said about that. Secondly, the Minister in charge agreed verbally that the three Under-Secretaries as advisers were to be limited to the present holders of those offices, but that has not been done.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I have not had the opportunity of doing so yet, but It is on the Order Paper.
  Colonel YATE: The third question was as to the number of the Secretaries to be appointed and no limit has been put to them. The fourth question is as to the keeping of the grant of pensions free from all political influences whatsoever. That is a most important matter. We have an empty House to-day. The Government is being reconstituted. There is no Government, most of the members have lost interest and have gone away while we are passing a Bill that may have great effects for a generation to come. I think this is a matter which is deserving of the greatest consideration. I raised this question more than once about doing anything which might bring in the American system of pensions to our country. It seems to me that this Bill, if we leave it as it stands, will do so. The right hon Gentleman the Paymaster-General laughs but it is the fact that the

  707
  door is left open for the introduction of political influence in granting pensions. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no indication that he is prepared to deal with this question or that he sympathises with our views in this respect. In fact, he laughs at the matter. The other day when I was speaking he said that I took great interest in the Chelsea Commissioners. I did so, for the reason that those Commissioners up to date under the Royal Warrant have been assessing pensions free from all political influence.
  Mr. ANDERSON: And doing it very badly too!
  Colonel YATE: And doing it extremely well, as the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General testified the other day. Those Commissioners have worked from ten o'clock in the morning to seven o'clock at night, and the delay in pensions has not been with them but in the Pensions Pay Office. They always deal with cases within forty-eight hours. I have referred to the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman, and we have also had the testimony of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and I think they are more to be relied on than the hon. Member.
  Mr. ANDERSON: You should ask the soldiers what they think about it.
  Colonel YATE: I hope we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there will be some scheme instituted for the assessment and grant of pensions entirely free from political influence. We do not want to have Members of this House approached by their constituents as to getting increased pensions for this or that person. I hear that in naval constituencies Dockyard Members are constantly told that, for instance, the Liberals are not giving enough employment, and that they are going to vote, therefore, for the Conservatives, and that that sort of thing is introduced. We want to have pensions administered free of political control. It is necessary that some step should be taken in this matter. It is not provided for in the Bill, and I now wait to see what indication the right hon. Gentleman will give us as to what steps he proposes to take.
  Mr. PETO: I have not intervened on this Bill until the present moment, but I want to bear my testimony as to what I think is the deplorable change that has been made in the original Bill—made, I admit, on the impression that the House
  708
  of Commons was responsible, or made certainly in view of the impression that the Government gained that the House of Commons wanted this present form of Bill setting up an individual Minister as practically solely responsible for the whole of this matter. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik), He said he would do anything he could to eliminate political influence, and he then proceeded to criticise the details of the Amendment. His main argument was that the Statutory Committee was really going to do this work, and therefore we need not be afraid of political influence. I think he really ignored Clause 3, which says that the powers and duties of the Statutory Committee under the Naval and War Pensions Act, 1915, shall be exercisable by the Statutory Committee under the control of and with the instructions of the Minister of Pensions. Thus, if there is the slightest doubt as to the way the pensions are to be administered under this Bill, the matter is entirely in the discretion of the Minister of Pensions. In this case the Minister represents only one branch of political opinion. He is very directly in touch with that branch of political opinion. I refer to the Labour party, and their views, and I think a more deplorable decision than the one that has been arrived at, making it not only a political appointment, but an appointment of a very special political character, could not possibly have been arrived at. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity, at least as an afterthought, of considering this question. Some hon. Members who have been closely connected with this pensions question right through seem to have arrived at a sort of death-bed repentance and regret the work which they had some hand in bringing about. Personally, if the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Major H. Terrell) carries this matter to a Division, I shall certainly support him, because I believe we are very far from the end of this matter. I think it is a very unfortunate position. At the present moment we do not know whether the Minister designated in this Bill will be the Minister. We do not know whether, when we meet on Thursday, the Paymaster-General will still occupy that office. I am sure he will believe me when I say that in anything I have said I have not the slightest intention of making any reflection upon him personally. My only desire is to protest against

  709
  the unfortunate decision, as I think, that has been arrived at of giving one Minister of the Government entire control in this matter. That is really what it comes to. You make the appointment, and consequently the administration of pensions, entirely the shuttlecock of party politics, of the 'ins "and the 'outs," and the whole of the people receiving pensions, to look to one party or the other. It will inevitably become a question of that sort. It may be said that nothing can be altered except under the Royal Warrant. We know, however, perfectly well that anybody having the authority of the Minister of Pensions under this Bill can influence every decision, and throw the colour of his influence on it; can control the pressure which will be brought on every telegraph and telephone line constantly into his office by the class who are mainly the recipients of the pensions. Therefore, let us be quite frank. We have made a political job of this question of pensions. We have appointed a Minister who represents one party only, and that party the one mainly concerned with the recipients of these pensions. A worse decision the House could not have arrived at. Hon. Members did a very bad day's work when they altered the Government's scheme, which at least was fairly harmless and innocuous, in favour of the one which is now in the Bill.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I have been trying to follow the exact grounds for the objections that have been raised, and for this discussion—which is quite a new discussion—in regard to political influence. I hold the view that there has always been a little too much political influence brought to bear on many of these questions of pensions; that very often locally we had far too much inquisition from ladies belonging to certain parties in regard to the administration of pensions. But I want to have this question quite squarely faced by the House, and I want to ask what exactly is the objection? Is it that for the first time a member of the Labour party is going to have something to do with questions affecting these people? Is it only on that occasion that objection is going to be raised, that the question of political influence is going to be brought forward? Why have not we had this question of political influence raised long ago, when members of other parties have been directly and indirectly dealing with pensions affecting soldiers? So far as I
  710
  am concerned, I do not care what member of a political party is concerned with this matter if he is a sympathetic man from the standpoint of the soldiers and their dependants. I will, however, tell the House what I do want. I want this question dealt with by a Minister in this House, responsible to this House—one before whom we can bring the grievance's of these people. That is the sole purpose of this Bill. What at this eleventh hour, is now being attempted is to destroy the real meaning of this Bill and to get us right back to the old state of things, with all its chaos and confusion.
  The Chelsea Commissioners were held up as a model for us. I am not going to attack the Chelsea Commissioners. No doubt they act in a very conscientious way. But I do know this: time and again decisions are given which, in my judgment and the judgment of many people, are wrong decisions, and it is a most difficult thing to make anybody responsible. It is a most difficult thing in the case of the Chelsea Commissioners to fix the responsibility for any decision on any particular person. It is all hidden away. I do not know who are the Commissioners. Very few people know who they are. Therefore we want someone here in connection with this Pensions Board to whom we can bring these cases. The objections put forward, I think, are twofold. First of all, it would seem that apparently too much credit is going to come to one particular political party, and secondly, that that particular political party is going to use this pensions question in order to help their own supporters at the expense of other people. I never heard of such a thing. I cannot imagine an objection of that kind entering anybody's head. For my own part, I have personally dealt with thousands of cases affecting soldiers and I never dreamt of inquiring as to what political party the soldier belonged. It never remotely entered my mind if I got a letter from a soldier to say to myself, "Is this man with me or against me politically?" If a wrong thing were being, as I thought, done to a man I would raise the case if he were the strongest possible political opponent. I am quite sure that there is not a Member of this House who would not substantially do the same thing, to whatever political party he belongs. This is a bigger question than that of a political party. It is a question affecting men and women and their interests, and they have a perfect right to be against us if they like

  711
  so far as politics are concerned; but we ought to see that the just rights of those who fought and the just rights of their women are safeguarded, whatever may be their political opinions. Therefore I support the idea, apart from party altogether, of having a Minister of this House before whom we can bring these grievances and troubles. Hon. Members say, "Oh, we are frightened that if this is done there will be so much pressure, and these people will get too large pensions, and too much will be done for them because they can bring this particular pressure to bear." I am not afraid of this. You can make your regulations. You can regularise the conditions and make them what you will. There is no reason why there should be as many abnormal cases as now, where you have at present to bring pressure to bear. Change your system and regularise it. I believe it may be done. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I should like to express the hope that we may now come to a Division. Most of the speeches which have been made have been altogether wide of the Amendment. I do not see anything in the Amendment opposed to the appointment of a Minister of Pensions. The Minister of Pensions must be a member of one Government or another. I do not see that the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend would in any way prevent, so far as I can make out, a political bias affecting the administration of our pensions. The Minister of Pensions would be appointed, and he would be a member of the Government. The proposal of my hon. Friend is that five other members should be appointed—that is to say, they will be appointed by the existing Government. I think we are all agreed that we should look to the administration of the pensions being conducted altogether apart from political considerations. It does not seem to me that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend would in any way bring about the object that he himself has in view, and for these reasons I hope the discussion may now be ended, and that we may proceed to a Division.
  Mr. BARLOW: In raising two or three points I shall only detain the House for two or three moments. These points arise from what has already been said. First of all, I do think that it is an unfortunate thing that we have had this,
  712
  what has been called a Second Reading Debate, over again—that opportunity has been given for it. It is clearly a matter of uncertainty what the policy of the future Pensions Minister is going to be, because we do not know who is going to be the Pensions Minister. I should have thought it would have been very much better to leave the matter over till the appointment was certain. It is a little bit tying the hands of the future Pensions Minister if he does not happen to be the same as the Pensions Minister now sitting opposite to us. I want to make it clear that a good many of Us who voted for unification voted on certain terms. We voted for unification of a Board, or head authority, because we were going to move Amendments subsequently that while the authority should be in the hands of one Minister responsible to this House, the administration, as distinct from policy, we wanted to be in the hands of others. It was on this basis that we voted for unification. Some of us got up several times, though we were unfortunate enough not to catch the Speaker's eye. I myself had an Amendment down on this very point which was, Sir, ruled out of order by yourself, and it is not fair to state, as against us, that the arrangement made as between the Pensions Minister and the Member for East Edinburgh was a treaty between the Ministry and the House of Commons. It was nothing of the kind. There was much feeling as I know from another body which deals with pensions and with which I am connected.
  This Amendment goes further than I wish to go. It has been said quite recently by the Member for East Edinburgh, "Oh, but there cannot be any question of difficulty arising, because there is certain to be one scale of pensions, and one only." There is, however, very often the preliminary question to be decided whether or not a man should have a pension. That in itself is a matter in which a considerable amount of pressure can be exercised on the Pensions Minister. I should have thought that in his own interest any Pensions Minister would desire that while he should be responsible for policy and be able to give instructions of a general character, that when it came to the actual question as to whether A B, a doubtful case, should or should not have a pension, that he would be only too glad to be relieved of the decision. I can perceive in this connection energetic Members of Parliament writing to the Pensions Minister and saying, "I know A B is a doubtful case, but, after

  713
  all, he is a very good constituent of mine; let him have his pension." That is, I am afraid, what will go on if all the administration is left in the hands of the Minister. I should have thought that it would be in the interest of the Pensions Minister, and in the interest of justice and fair treatment all round, that the actual administration should be in the hands of other persons.
  It is, I know, said, "Oh, well, but cases of this kind will not arise." But we remember questions in this House where something very like what I fear has arisen. I should be very sorry to see, and I think we all should deprecate, the pensions getting into that state. It is usual to say that there is no danger of this sort. Have we not the example of the United States before our eyes? With that precedent to guide us, we must all be anxious to secure that a similar state of things does not happen here. I do not want to put the political issue too high. It has been mentioned a good deal in this Debate. The thing I really care about is efficient administration. I believe that for the purposes of pure efficiency of administration that the right policy is to have an administrator, not being the person who is actually doing the administration him-
  self. The Pensions Minister cannot possibly settle a grant himself. He has not the time. The present Pensions Minister is a hard-working man. But there are only twenty-four hours even in his day. He cannot get through the work, and it has got to be done by somebody. I do not want that the question of "aye" or "no" in the matter of a pension, or whether a man shall have a grant or a supplementary grant or how he shall be treated, to be dealt with by third or fourth rate clerks who will attend to it in a bureaucratic way, and not as a question of human sympathy and human understanding. It is in order to secure humane administration, certainty, celerity, and dispatch that I want to see other persons responsible for administration, while the Minister is in absolute control of policy, and one who can give his general instructions to the administrators, but will not himself deal with any one particular case. I beg to support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'Minister of Pensions' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 20.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES.

  [5.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hinds, John

  Anderson, W. C.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hogge, James Myles

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Currie, George W.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barnet, Captain R. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughhy H.

  Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Dillon, John

  Horne, Edgar

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Doris, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Hudson, Walter

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Boland, John Plus

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Keating, Matthew

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Fell, Arthur

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  King, Joseph

  Brace, William

  Field, William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Buxton, Noel

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Forster, Henry William

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Campion, W. R.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Carew. Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B. ghs)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Macmaster, Donald

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston manor)

  Hackett, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Haslam, Lewis

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helms, Sir Nerval Watson

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedwerth

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Reddy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Worrell, Philip

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Murray, Major Hon. Arthur C.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighe)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rocir, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staff's, Leek)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Simon, Rt. Hen. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pratt, J. W.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Tickler, T. G.

  Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Talbot.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  NOES.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bonn, Com. Ian Hamilton

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Boyton, James

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thyrne, Lord Alexander

  Butcher, John George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Cator, John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Guest, Major Hon. C, H. C. (Pembroke)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Major Terrell and Sir George Younger

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "who shall"["Minister of Pensions, who shall be entitled to receive"], and to insert instead thereof the words "appointed by His Majesty, and the Minister shall, during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter."
  I explained earlier that the Amendments to be moved on the part of the Government are either to give effect to promises held out during the Committee stage, or to make a little clearer the purpose of the Bill. The Amendment I now move is to limit practically the advice and assistance to the three secretaries who are with me on the bench, or, at any rate, to the occupants of those offices until six months after the War. That is carrying out the promise I made.
  Mr. WATT: I do not understand that this Amendment carries out altogether the promise, at any rate, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to make, with reference to Scotland. I thought it was clearly understood that, as regards the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, it should be limited to the present holder of that secretaryship. The War Office, of course, has jurisdiction in Scotland, and so has the Admiralty, but the Local Government Board has absolutely no jurisdiction in
  716
  Scotland, and therefore it is difficult to understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board should be appointed to deal with a matter that is interesting to the whole Empire, certainly to the United Kingdom. It is explained that the present holder of the office is an expert on pensions, and on that account he is put into the Bill, but then it should be limited to the present holder of the office, because he is an expert on pensions. That is not the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. He has proposed that the holders of those three offices are to be his advisers, not only during the War, but for six months afterwards. There may be six Parliamentary Secretaries to the Local Government Board during that time. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider, between now and the entrance of the measure to another place, limiting it, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned, to the present holder, then justice could be given to Scotland.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I wanted to make it quite clear that I had endeavoured to carry out the promise I made in Committee, but with regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt), I ought to point out that the Scottish Local Government Board is

  717
  represented on the Statutory Committee. They have the right to make an appointment to the Statutory Committee, and the Statutory Committee is going to carry out this work under the Pensions Minister. I would also like to point out that my right hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board is to assist me not so much as representing the Local Government Board as representing the Statutory Committee. He has been the spokesman in this House for the Statutory Committee, his knowledge of pensions work has been useful to that Committee, and it is very important that he, as representing the Statutory Committee, should give me all the assistance and advice that I require in connection with the work. I think we have met the Committee very fairly by restricting it to the period of the War and six months afterwards. We take six months afterwards because obviously there will be a large number of cases thrown at the Minister, and that will probably be one of the periods when he will have the greatest number of cases to deal with. It would be a mistake to lose the assistance of any of these Gentlemen during that difficult period. I hope, therefore, that there will be no further opposition offered.
  Colonel YATE: I must confess, although thoroughly in favour of the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put into this Clause, I do not see that they carry out the undertaking which he gave the other day. The whole gist of the discussion then was that that he should have the personal services of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board and the other two Under-Secretaries. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, in fact, gave a long address of half-an-hour's duration, showing how long he had been working at this pensions question, how much he knew about it, and, indeed, how the whole Ministry of Pensions would fall to pieces if he did not belong to it. On that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would put it down that the present holders should be honorary assistants to him, as I understood it, for life. Now we are limiting it to six months after the War. The Government is under reconstruction. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board may be out of office to-morrow —indeed, so may all three, and the three
  718
  new men appointed may not be of the slightest use to the Pensions Minister. Therefore, I think, it is most important that we should put in the words that this advice and assistance should be given to the right hon. Gentleman personally by the three persons he has named whether in office or out of it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Duties and Powers of Ministry of Pensions.)
  (1) There shall be transferred to the Minister of Pensions—

  (a) The powers and duties of the Admiralty with respect to pensions and grants to persons who have served as officers or men, and to their widows, children, and other dependants, and to persons who have been employed in the nursing service of any of His Majesty's naval forces, other than service pensions, so far as such pensions and grants are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament;

  (b) the powers and duties of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea with respect to the grant and administration of disability pensions, other than in-pensions;

  (c) the powers and duties of the Army Council and the Secretary of State for the War Department with respect to pensions and grants to persons who have served as officers or soldiers, and to their widows, children, and other dependants, and to persons who have been employed in the nursing service of any of His Majesty's military forces, other than service pensions;

  and His Majesty may by Order in Council make such adaptations in the enactments relating to such powers and duties as aforesaid as may be necessary to make exerciseable by the Minister and his officers the powers and duties of the several authorities above mentioned and their officers, and may fix the time or times as from which the several powers and duties are to be transferred to the Minister.
  (2) The Minister of Pensions shall in each year prepare and lay before Parliament a report of the proceedings of the Ministry.
  Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a,) at the end, to add the words "and not provided exclusively for the purposes of Greenwich Hospital."
  The object of the Sub-clause is to transfer all pensions for disability from the Admiralty to the Pensions Minister; but it is intended to protect the Greenwich Hospital Fund, which is clearly the property of the Admiralty, for the benefit of the Navy. There is a sum of £20,000 which is annually granted by Parliament towards the Greenwich age pension. I said the other night that I was not quite satisfied that the language in the Sub-clause covered this sum. I have had the advantage of conferring with the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and he agrees that the words I propose will meet what is the object of the Sub-clause, and protect that great charity.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter. I explained the other night that Greenwich Hospital is a very ancient foundation, having been established by Royal Charter of William III. and Mary II. in 1694. Many of the benefactions—and they are very varied and interesting—are inalienable to the Navy, and no one would wish to alienate these particular funds. The words at the end of the Clause were added for the purpose of safeguarding the purely inalienable pensions which come from this Greenwich Hospital Fund. It so happens that Greenwich Hospital has applied to certain of its purposes some money— roughly £27,000—from moneys provided by Parliament, and the words "other than service pensions so far as such pensions and grants are provided out of moneys provided by Parliament" are too exclusive, and Greenwich Hospital would lose that money. In the year 1914–15, which is the last year for which the accounts have been made up, the total revenue was £203,415. Greenwich Hospital got £4,000 from the Consolidated Fund. In 1834 the contribution of sixpence per month previously levied upon merchant seamen in support of the hospital was abolished, and the Consolidated Fund gave £20,000 in lieu thereof. When the in pensions were abolished in 1869, the Treasury gave £4,000 to the Admiralty. Later the dif-
  720
  ference of £16,000 was restored. I am afraid that these words at the end of the paragraph without the addition proposed by the hon. Member would not be sufficient to protect the funds of Greenwich Hospital. I do not think anyone would wish to use these large funds for the purpose of diverting them from Greenwich Hospital. For instance, the Board of Education gave to Greenwich Hospital school a Grant of £1,221 for the year 1914-15. That is not a pensions Grant at all, and I do not suppose that the Pensions Minister would ever attempt to lay his hands upon it. Then we have £6,500 amount of rent of hospital buildings used for the purposes of the Royal Naval College. I do not think my right hon. Friend would wish to lay his hands upon that sum. I can, however, give the House this assurance: Whatever we do must be done with knowledge of what the Pensions Minister may do, either directly or through the various agencies by which he works. It will be our duty to keep him and them informed precisely as to what we are doing, so as to avoid overlapping. But in order to conserve the proper rights of this ancient institution these; words should be added.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (6), after the word "pensions"["disability pensions"], insert the words "and grants."—[Mr. Henderson.]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Transfer of Officers.)
  (1) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Pensions such of the persons employed under the Admiralty, the Commissioners of the said hospital, the Army Council, and the Statutory Committee, in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred to the Minister of Pensions by this Act, as, subject to the consent of the Treasury, may be agreed between the several authorities above-mentioned and the Minister of Pensions.
  (2) The Minister of Pensions may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred thereto in pursuance of this Act in such manner as the Minister may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister:
  Provided that such persons shall, while they continue in office, be in no worse

  721
  position as respects their tenure of office, salary, and superannuation allowances than they would have been had this Act not been passed.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "hospital," insert the word"and."—[Mr. Henderson.]
  Mr. BARLOW: On a point of Order. Have we passed Clause 5?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Yes.
  Mr. BARLOW: I have an Amendment on Clause 5.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We have passed Clause 5. I am sorry.
  Mr. BARLOW: I should like to move it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am very sorry, but I think the hon. Member will agree with me that in substance the point was dealt with by a discussion which took place in Committee.
  Mr. BARLOW: I would ask the indulgence of the House in the matter. This is the first opportunity that I have had of moving it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is my mistake, and I cannot do more than apologise to the hon. Member.
  Mr. BARLOW: May I move it by the indulgence of the House?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move to leave out the words "and the Statutory Committee."
  Major NEWMAN: This Amendment appears to me to be a fairly important one. Certain officials, I understand, are to be transferred from the Admiralty, from Chelsea Hospital, and from the Army Council, but the officials of the Statutory Committee are not to be transferred. Surely that raises a rather important point. How is this Committee going to be financed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, we know, has granted £1,000,000 to this Committee for their work, and there was another £5,000,000 earmarked for them. Of course the offer of £1,000,000 holds good, but docs the offer of £5,000,000, and if it does not and no more funds are forthcoming, how is the Committee and its Sub-committee after the £1,000,000 is spent to do its work?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The words proposed to be left out are redundant, inasmuch as the House has now put in a Clause stating that the powers of the Statutory Committee shall be exercised and performed by that Committee under the control of and in accordance with the instructions of the Minister of Pensions. It has given the Pensions Minister complete control over the Statutory Commitee. He can issue instructions to that Committee by which any of his officers may be transferred, and that Clause having been inserted, it is unnecessary to have these words.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Short Title, Interpretation, and Repeal.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916.
  (2) For the purposes of this Act "service pension" means any pension or award in respect of length of service or special service or attached to any medal or other decoration, whether payable to persons who have been officers or men, or their widows, children, or other dependants, and the expression "pension" in relation to officers includes retired pay.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "of"["any pension or award in respect of length"], insert the word "age."
  Leave out the word "includes," and insert the words "other than naval warrant officers, means."—[Mr. Henderson.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. BARLOW: On the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, I want to protest very strongly of the way I have been treated over my Amendment. In Committee this Amendment represented the views of a large number of people connected with pensions in this House. It was adopted by the Committee upstairs. I was ruled out of order in the Committee stage, and I have put it down again for the Report stage. Now, through an error on the part of the Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Maclean)—for which I have received an apology, but which does not put me in a position to deal with the matter in Committee—I am told that my Amendment has

  723
  been overlooked. It is an extremely unfortunate position, and I say quite frankly that I resent it very strongly. My Amendment represents a point of view which was felt keenly by a large number of Members, and I am going to ask for the consideration of the House while I make my point. What. I asked in the Amendment was that five Secretaries should be appointed, so that it might be quite clear that they were under the Minister of Pensions. I have been emphatic about this all the time. My suggestion was that two of them should be paid and three unpaid, and that they should be responsible for administration. The House then would know in whose hands rested the actual administration, and, if any difficulty arose in regard to administration, they could—to use a phrase which has become almost classic—"be hanged" when their Vote came up on the annual Estimate, and we should be able to put our fingers upon the people who were actually dealing with the administration. I may be told that I am going back on the Resolution come to last Monday. I do not agree with that. The Resolution come to last Monday was that we should have unification for policy and control. That is right. I do not depart for one moment from the position I have taken up in regard to that general principle of unification. But you cannot have administration all dealt with and handled by the one unifying Minister. Therefore, as a corollary of unification in the hands of one man, you must see to it that your administration is properly dealt with. There are various methods, but you must accept as fundamental a distinction between general policy and control and the details of actual administration.
  We may differ in our views, but we all in our hearts want the same thing, which is that the good fellows who have fought and bled for us, or their relatives if they fall, shall have the best, the surest and the speediest possible treatment in regard to the question of pensions. As business men we have to apply our minds to this problem. How are you to secure that administration? One way to do it is to secure unification at the top, and if you secure unification at the top it must be in the shape of a Minister responsible to this House. You cannot have any person outside this House dealing with such a vast problem as this. He must be a Minister. Directly you get to that stage
  724
  when you have unified everything in the hands of one Minister for the purpose of general control, there immediately follows the second step, which is that the administration must be in the hands of certain named, definite, responsible people. That is right from the point of view of the Minister himself, because it is his great safeguard. It prevents him being liable to pressure. It is right also from the point of view of this House, because we know then who is actually responsible. If things go wrong we shall not be told, "Such-and-such a Department is responsible. Things are not well organised there. I will have the matter looked into and it will be better next week." We do not want that sort of thing. The adoption of my suggestion would mean that we should know that there was a responsible man in the Department, and if anything went wrong it would be his fault. The course suggested is right really first of all —although it is often put last—in the interests of the men themselves and their dependants. Therefore, though I have not had an opportunity to move my Amendment and I shall be out of order in moving it now, I wish the House to understand that this is a point of view I feel very strongly and which I know others in the House feel very strongly. I am compelled to raise it now because for technical reasons of commission and omission I have not had an opportunity of raising it during the preceding stage of the Debate.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish particularly to draw the attention of the House to a matter which has received very little attention during these Debates, and that is the machinery for the treatment and training of the disabled soldiers. I am sure the House is equally emphatic that the disabled soldier should have not only a monetary pension, but the right to all the benefit which the scientific and medical experience of this War can give him. If the House imagines that the disabled soldier is getting the full benefit of the medical and scientific experience of this War it is imagining a very vain thing. The present system is extremely unsatisfactory. In fact, it is specially designed, in my opinion, to enable the disabled soldier to fall between two stools. The Statutory Committee, nominally and theoretically, is charged with the care and treatment of the disabled soldier, but when the House,

  725
  in its wisdom, devolved that duty upon the Statutory Committee it entirely forgot that the War Office has an entire monopoly of the control of all the doctors and nurses in the country, and having allowed the War Office to acquire that monopoly the House has neglected to put upon the War Office the duty of the complete cure of the disabled soldier. Unfortunately, the War Office takes a very limited view of its duty towards the disabled soldier if the man is likely to be returned to the Army as an effective soldier the War Office will give him the utmost that scientific medical and surgical care can give him, but if there is no chance or very little chance of the man being an effective soldier again he comes off second best. We are told that there are ample checks against the dismissal of these men before they are cured, but a "push" comes and there is pressure, and out these men have to go, and the result is that there are thousands of men in this country discharged from the Army who are only half cured.
  The great activity of trade and the keen demand for labour obscures the gravity of the problem at the present time, but when peace comes and the able-bodied men return to the labour market these disabled men will lose their jobs and you will have an enormous number of men upon your hands and you will not know what on earth to do with them. They will be a charge upon their trade union and upon the friendly societies, and a great charge upon the country. Besides that, there is a vast number of men suffering from nervous diseases. Some of these men are suffering from nervous diseases owing to their wounds, and some are suffering from epilepsy owing to wounds in the head. There are others suffering from shell-shock. All these men are being dismissed from the Army before they are half cured. You are piling up a regular mass of misery, for these men will be a burden to themselves and a great danger to and charge upon the country. The unsatisfactory part of this problem is that at the present time there is apparently very little hope of getting any improvement in their treatment. The Statutory Committee may be blamed. Perhaps they might have adopted a more vigorous policy, but the Statutory Committee has been greatly handicapped by the atttude adopted towards this subject by the Secretary of State for War. Last July he gave the Statutory Committee to understand that it was very probable that
  726
  the War Office would undertake the complete cure of the disabled soldiers. Since then no decision has been made. Six weeks ago the Statutory Committee went as a deputation to the Secretary of State for War and asked him for a decision in this matter, and he promised the decision within a week. That is six weeks ago, and from that time to this we have had no decision. The consequence is that the whole of the work of treating the disabled soldier has been held up and kept in abeyance. It is a most unfortunate thing.
  I am very pleased that the disablement section of the Statutory Committee will be under the control and guidance of a Cabinet Minister who, I hope, will be able to approach the Secretary of State for War on terms of equality, and will, I hope, make him come to a decision in this matter. It is obvious that the best way of treating the disabled soldier is that the War Office should be entirely responsible for that duty. They have the monopoly of the doctors and nurses, and it would be a comparatively easy matter for them to extend and enlarge their sphere of operations and make themselves responsible for the whole of this work. Some people think that the duty of the War Office is to keep the disabled soldier for an indefinite period under discipline; that he should be kept under discipline after he is cured; and that he should be trained for all sorts of different trades. That is not my view. I think most people who have studied this question closely will agree that it is no use trying to keep the disabled soldier under discipline after his health is restored and while they are teaching him a trade. All you can do is to give him technical instruction while he is being cured and not to throw the emphasis upon the trade instruction, but to throw the emphasis upon the health part of the work. I am sorry that the Pensions Minister is going to change his office. I am sure we should have in him a most sympathetic representative of the Disablement Committee, and that the work would proceed with smoothness and vigour. I hope that whoever is to be the future Pensions Minister will lose no time in coming to an agreement with the War Office, and in getting a satisfactory arrangement for the benefit of the disabled soldier.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I rise to deal with a matter which is quite in keeping with the speech of the Noble Lord. Clause 8 of the Bill refers to the various officers who are now dealing with

  727
  pensions in the Government Departments affected by this measure, and who are quite properly to be passed over to the new Minister of Pensions without loss of position or pay. As one who can speak with some knowledge of the officials of the War Office I should like to say that no body of men I ever met have worked harder or more sympathetically to discharge their duties than these servants of the War Office. The strain put upon the War Office in reference to pensions was never properly placed upon that much-abused institution. These officers are merely administrators, and anyone who has had anything to do with them can testify that they have carried out their work with sympathy, with knowledge, and with almost super-human efforts in their desire to discharge the burden placed upon them. I wish to deal with the question of the additional staff that must of necessity and at once be recruited by the Minister of Pensions to carry out the ever-increasing burden of the very important office which the right hon. Gentleman or someone else is about to assume. I regret that it was not possible for me in Committee, although I tried, to bring this matter into the Bill. My submission is—and I put it now in the way of a suggestion to those who may have the right to advise the Minister of Pensions when he asks them for advice—that in future every person taken on as additional staff by the Minister of Pensions should, if he is a man, be a man who has served in the Navy or the Army, or, if a woman, be the widow or child of a man who has served in the Navy or the Army. This is a peculiarly fitting opportunity to show our appreciation of the broken soldier and the womenfolk who are or who have been dependent on him by employing them in a Department of State which deals entirely with soldiers and sailors.
  Further, one knows that there is a regrettably increasing number of these men and women, who deserve every consideration that individuals or the State can mete out to them. Everybody is further agreed that the best kindness we can show to a stricken soldier or to the women or children who mourn for him is to give them some occupation in which they can earn a decent livelihood with self-respect. The best livelihood they can earn is that they would have in the Ministry of Pensions administering this Bill we are about to pass, and doing their best—they can do it with
  728
  experience and sympathy—to ameliorate the position of those who come under the Bill. I submit that they would do it well, for one of the difficulties of administering pensions is that you have a body of men administering pensions which are extremely technical, who know nothing of either of the Services, and who frequently break down through lack of that intimate knowledge. That intimate knowledge would be possessed by the men and women to whom I have referred. The Minister of Pensions and the triumvirate of advisers will have full power here. They can advertise for candidates for the positions that will become open at once to the extent of thousands, and they can prefer those applicants who have served in the Navy or Army or the womenfolk related to them. It is their plain duty to do this. I hope the suggestion will have the support of the House. I feel certain it will have the support of the country. At any rate, it will have the support of the soldiers and sailors themselves, who feel that they are generally neglected by this House in matters immediately pertaining to them. Here is an opportunity to translate into a substantial reality that oratorical tribute so frequently paid by the Front Bench and by other benches to the services of our soldiers and sailors ! Here is a chance to render to those who have sacrificed most a belated but just token of our esteem and regard!
  Mr. GRIFFITH: Before we say farewell to this Bill and send it to another place, I desire to make one or two observations. This is a Bill frankly dealing with machinery only. Although a great deal has been said, and rightly said, in regard to the Minister of Pensions, I desire quite sincerely to pay my tribute to the three other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion on this Bill. From beginning to end they have subordinated their personal position and forgotten it in the magnitude of the task in which they have been engaged. I am sure the House would recognise gladly that they have rendered all possible help to us throughout this discussion. This Bill represents a very great departure, even in war time, from the ordinary way in which we pass Bills of this kind. Whether it be a good Bill or a bad Bill, it is frankly the Bill of the House of Commons as a whole. We have had some controversy, and some disputes remain. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. M. Barlow)

  729
  wanted to appoint members of a Board, and later on he wanted secretaries. It does not matter what you call these people. Of course, you must get their assistance. The hon. Member for Salford is quite mistaken in thinking that you can hang a secretary. I have been a secretary myself, and that has never been one of the difficulties which has confronted me. It is a mischief connected with our system that the Minister in charge takes the responsibility upon himself. You can never get at a secretary; you can never get at a member of a Board; the member of the Cabinet or of the Government who is personally responsible to the House of Commons takes the whole burden and responsibility upon his own shoulders, therefore we do not get much forwarder by having a Board or any number of secretaries. What is important is that we shall have men who are sympathetic in the administration of this Bill. Although machinery is all-important, the spirit in which the machinery is moved is more important. We have had some indication of the lines upon which this new Department is going to work. We know that Royal Warrants are going to be dealt with drastically. We hope and believe that in future there will be no interval between the time a man is discharged from the Army and the time he receives his pension. That is the really great point of importance. I am quite sure that if there are cases in the country where that has occurred, in the immediate future all those cases will disappear. With regard to those who will come under the Bill, I do not know whether I am of a very sanguine disposition—perhaps I am— this political bogey has no terrors for me of any kind. I do not care whether the Minister is a Liberal, Conservative, or a Labour man. I do not for a moment think he will act subject to political considerations. We all get letters on this subject, and we have no idea whether they come from a supporter or an opponent. We simply see that there is a man who wants his case put right, and we put his case as best we can. I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Gentlemen associated with him, for the liberty they have given the House to express its views, and, when they thought those views were right, for accepting them. I only wish that might be a precedent for future discussion.
  Mr. HOHLER: I desire to associate myself with the view expressed by my
  730
  Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Colonel Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I trust that in the administration of the Bill the position of the disabled soldier and sailor will not be lost sight of. To-day the War Office are discharging these soldiers far too early. They will be dispersed to parts of the country, having lost a leg or an arm, and suffering various degrees of injury as a result, and when they once get to their homes I am afraid you will never get them back to undertake training which is far more suitable for them. I am informed that at Brighton, purely by voluntary effort, some three hundred men who have lost their legs or their arms are being trained by private benevolence. They are being taught typewriting, carpentering, and like trades. If you once dismiss men from the Army you lose all control over them, and they are dispersed throughout the country. How are you going to get them back again? I hope those responsible for the administration of the Bill, who understand the matter far better than I do, will not lose sight of the question of what is in the best interest of these men, and that they will have immediate regard to the necessary and desirable training the men should undergo.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to support the view expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood), and to express the hope that when the Pensions Minister comes to enlist the services of the numerous men foreshadowed in Clause 5 he will give consideration to those who come back from the War wounded and disabled, so that we shall not have a lot of untrained and inexperienced clerks and officials brought in who will know nothing whatever of the subject with which they will have to deal. On Thursday last the Pensions Minister told us that there would be a Parliamentary secretary and a permanent secretary. He also said that in taking over the Statutory Committee he might have to take over a secretary. I presume he will take over a secretary of the Statutory Committee, a secretary of Chelsea Hospital, and a secretary of Greenwich Hospital. I trust that these skilled and experienced men will be taken over. I was much disappointed today by the curt manner in which the Pensions Minister refused to give us any information as to the manner in which the administration of this Bill is to be carried

  731
  out. We do not in the least know how it will be carried out. I express the hope that the services of the men who have been working on these pensions for years past and who know something about them will be secured and that this large number of secretaries and servants mentioned in Clause 5 will not consist of outsiders who will know nothing of the subject.
  Major NEWMAN: I will join my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) in an appeal to the Pensions Minister to be as careful as he can of the local administration of these pensions. I confess I did not like the speech he made on the Financial Resolution when he said:
  "In regard to the local committees I do intend to use them, and I hope to make an arrangement with the Statutory Committee that will enable me to do so, provided, of course, that I can get them placed on a little more satisfactory basis, with a little more recognition of the urban element than, has been introduced in the local committees in 90 far as they have gone up to the present. If I can get that arrangement made I am quite prepared to use the committees, but I must say that if the committees are not going to do the work to the satisfaction of the Board, so far as I am concerned, I shall at once set about creating new machinery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1916, col. 1687.]
  That was a sinister statement. We have now scrapped the Naval and Military Pensions Act.
  Mr. HOGGE: No!
  Major NEWMAN: What is to take its place is left very indefinite. We may be satisfied with our work; we may have saved our faces to some extent, and we may have saved the faces of the three Gentlemen who have been assisting the Pensions Minister. But is the country as satisfied as we are? I was talking to-day with the chairman of the local committee of my own Division, and he was not at all satisfied. He wanted to know where he and his committee were, what was going to happen to them, and what chance there was of their carrying on the work they had undertaken during the last few months and in connection with which they had worked very hard indeed. For instance, what is to happen to the funds'? This is the fourth time I have asked this question during the progress of the Bill. What is to happen to the million pounds, part of which has been spent and part of which is apparently to be spent by the Committee in Abingdon Street? What is to happen when that is gone? Is the money to be spent by the committee and the local committees as they like or by the Pensions
  732
  Minister as he likes? What about the five millions ear-marked for the Statutory Committee and the local committees? Is that money to be forthcoming? We ought to have all over the country some form of devolution. The Pensions Minister cannot run the whole business from London, any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer can run the whole business of collecting Income Tax from his own office. He is to have some sort of committees or individuals all over the country. He might possibly say, though I hope he will not, that a man who has a pension awarded to him has merely to go to the local post office to get it once a week or once a month, no less and no more, or he may say, "We will set up committees all over the country to look after these wounded soldiers, and care for them in every way that we possibly can." If that is going to be the case, will he use these local committees or not? That has all been left absolutely unsettled. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) tried to raise the question last week, but it was at the dinner hour and he was told that it had been already answered and dealt with on a previous Clause and he did not press it. To my mind it has never been dealt with quite. We may know exactly what is going to be our administrative machinery, and who is going to look after them. For instance, supposing a soldier with a wooden leg damages it, who is going to have to repair it? Is it to be done locally or direct from London? None of us know that at all, nor do we know what money is going to be given to local committees or to the committee in Abingdon Street to carry on their work. I greatly regret that that matter has not been more fully explained to us. I know there will be disappointment in the country at the uncertainty of their position.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: In the absence of the Minister for Pensions, I should like first of all to thank the House of Commons for the great assistance it has rendered to the Government in framing this Bill. No one is more glad than I am that the House has come to the conclusion that we ought to have a complete unification of our pensions system. It is a matter which I have more than once put before the House and the Select Committee more than two years ago, and which I am now very glad to see established. I hope the House will take not a spasmodic but a continuous interest in the pensions question. I am confident that we really are of one mind

  733
  about it, and are determined that there shall be a more generous policy, a more certain policy, and a more complete policy, and when my hon. Friend talks about funds I think we are all equally determined that funds shall be found from some source or another for carrying out the purpose which we have at heart, of rewarding those who have done such magnificent service in laying down their lives for us. We can only reward them By rewarding their widows and dependents, or, in the case of the men who have shattered their lives and mutilated their frames for us, the work of restoring them, as far as we possibly can, to health and placing before them some employment which may soothe the long hours of pain which will probably await them to the end of their lives. All these things I believe the House of Commons in all quarters desires, but they will not get them by merely unifying the system of pensions. You may have the best possible form of unification, but unless you have the Royal Warrants very extensively altered and unless, after they are altered, those who administer them administer them in a generous way, none of these matters which the House of Commons wants accomplished will be accomplished, and we shall fail again. I have all through placed my faith in two things. First, unification —one Pensions Minister—and then, having a powerful Pensions Minister, all the better if he is a member of the Cabinet who will be able to bring his influence to bear on those who control the public purse to secure that a sufficient amount of money shall be placed at the disposal of those who administer these pensions. Towards that I think we have taken a very long step, and we have taken it in complete union and complete accord.
  My Noble Friend (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), who has taken such a very great interest in the disablement question, complained bitterly that the whole system of dealing with the question has been most unsatisfactory. Things may sometimes be very unsatisfactory and yet you may be able to say no blame attaches in any particular quarter. That is a thing which we could say before we got a Pensions Minister. I believe one thing the Statutory Committee wanted was more executive power. Its deliberations very often resulted in admirable policy and plans, but there was no one ready to execute those plans and carry out that policy for it. But there is a good plan and there is a good policy. My hon. and gallant
  734
  Friend puts his finger on one of the difficulties. He says the Army Council have under their control nearly all the best doctors, the best specialists, the best nurses, and generally the best means of treating the soldiers. Therefore it is to them, to a large extent, that we must look for curing the disabled soldier or sailor before the Statutory Committee takes him into its care and does something for him in the matter of training and employment. I hope one of the first things the Pensions Minister will do will be to confer with the Secretary of State for War and see how far the Army Council think they can adopt this policy of keeping the soldier until he is reasonably cured and restored to a proper condition. I am quite confident that the Army Council and the War Office have real difficulties in the way or we should have heard before that they had come to some conclusion as to this very important undertaking. Then, again, if you are going to have a fixed scheme for dealing with the disabled, you must recognise that 90 per cent. of your soldiers are already insured under the insurance scheme, and, therefore, it must begin with the panel doctor, and in it you must have room not only for the panel doctor, but for the specialist. We have agreed upon that months ago in the Statutory Committee, but there has been no executive officer to carry it out. I hope when we have appointed a Minister for Pensions we may have a strong executive officer to hurry along the policy which has been adopted after great deliberation, and which I believe a wise policy, for dealing with these disabled soldiers and sailors.
  One more remark as to the training of the disabled soldier. I have obtained a good deal of information on this point. It is perfectly true that at the present moment he is not willing to be trained. You may go to town after town in England and get into communication with the education committees, and particularly those who have at their command all the machinery for technical instruction, and they will tell you the same thing, that although they issue their invitations broadcast to the disabled soldiers to undergo a system of training by which they may have a new trade or industry at their command when the War is over, one and all say, "No, thank you; we do not care to undergo any system of training because if we attempt to work we can get very good work at very good wages without

  735
  undergoing any training of any sort or kind." That is a great misfortune because, when the War is over, no doubt there will be a glut of labour in some particular direction, and many of these men will be found to be not so good as the men who are competing with them in the labour market because they have not been trained for a new industry, and they may lose their employment by which they have made good money and good wages up to that time. There is always the danger of that. The Statutory Committee has now got the Treasury to agree to making a substantial allowance to any man who is willing to undergo training, and it can not only give him a substantial weekly allowance while he is being trained, but may also maintain his wife and family during that period, so that at all events now there is some inducement for a man to be trained.
  Another point is the employment, as far as possible, of disabled soldiers and sailors and, where women are employed of the dependants of those who have given up their lives for their country, that they should be employed as far as possible in our new administrative machinery. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) was, indeed, optimistic. He said these people could be employed to the extent of thousands. I very much doubt whether there will be more than one or two hundred places open, because we have a staff already of 2,500 in London dealing with these pensions questions and we cannot turn them off. They must be utilised to a very large extent, and for the higher places it is really necessary to have men who have been accustomed to some work of administration of this kind. I am in true sympathy with them, however, and the Statutory Committee has already appointed a colonel who lost his leg to one of the higher appointments at their command. Already I know of one or two other committees who have taken the same course. I will join with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite in recommending to the local committees we shall sooner or later have to set up with paid staffs to give a very strong preference to those who have become disabled, not only for the higher places, but also for the lower. Where they have to employ porters and doorkeepers, and people of that kind, a one-legged or a one-armed man may be a very good man to employ in that capacity.
  736
  I hope we shall do all we possibly can to promote the true welfare of those who have made such splendid sacrifices, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we ought all to remember our oratorical efforts on the platform, when we so often make these splendid heroes the theme of our speeches, and, if we cannot live up to our perorations, we ought to try to live up to the speeches which we have made.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the country will read to-morrow with great satisfaction that no delay has occurred in the passing of this Bill, and, further than that, that the main object with which it was introduced, namely, the unification of all the authorities which dealt with pensions, has been successfully accomplished. But I do not think the House will do its duty if it thinks it has done all that is necessary by passing this Bill. My right hon. Friend indicated that we should have to keep a careful watch upon the working of the Bill in the hands of the new Minister. There is a great deal to be done besides passing the Bill. We have to see that the conditions under which pensions have been granted in the past are altered, and if we want generous and fair treatment for our disabled men and for the dependants of those who have fallen, this House must see that the changes which are made in the existing conditions are full and adequate and meet the necessities of the case. I believe the House is determined that that should be done. I should have liked to see the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Major Terrell) or some similar Amendment carried. Instead of having a single Minister—I do not use the word "Dictator," because the Prime Minister does not like it—we should have had a Board, with a Minister, if you like, at the head of it, and some five or more people entirely outside politics to carry out the Committee's decisions. I think it is very unfortunate that it was really never brought before the House in a concrete form, because the House will remember that when the Bill came on in Committee what was attacked was not an outside Board consisting of non-politicians, but a Board consisting of five Gentlemen holding Parliamentary positions. The House was never squarely asked to decide whether it would have a Board of outside men to administer the Act. It is too late now. The Bill has

  737
  been passed, and I believe everyone deprecates the idea of its being possible to work it in any way for political purposes. Still, in my opinion, with the object of keeping polities out of the Bill, or any form of favouritism, it would have been better if we had had a Board. It is a consolation to know in this connection we have Clause 3 in the Bill, and that the Statutory Committee will continue to exist and be able to give valuable advice and assistance to the Pensions Minister. I am sure everyone who has followed this matter at all will be glad to know that the Statutory Committee, presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local? Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), which has done very valuable work in organisation, is to continue to exist and will be able to advise the Pensions Minister, who no doubt will avail himself to the fullest extent of its assistance. The House has done a good stroke of business to-day. I am glad we did not adjourn the matter and hang it up, because this is a question which brooks of no delay whatever. We want to see the regulations so framed as to be on a more generous, more liberal, and more just basis.
  Sir N. HELME: I think we shall have satisfaction in knowing that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, the country will feel greater security that justice will be done to disabled soldiers and their dependants. We recognise that the Government have given generous consideration to this matter, and have realised the strength of the feeling expresssed in this House. We have now got a Bill, not a halfway house, but a real and complete measure that will co-ordinate the various conditions and interests with which it has to deal, and all will be under one Minister, who will be responsible to Parliament. In so construing the feeling of this House I would gladly recognise the Amendment put down by the Paymaster-General, wherein he provided that the powers of the Statutory Committee should be extended, so that where a separate local committee has not been established under the Act for any borough or urban district in England, or for any Royal or police borough in Scotland, provision is made for the establishment of such committees in such boroughs or police districts. The fact that this Amendment was put on the Paper by the Government represents, I hope, a distinct policy on the part of the new
  738
  Minister. I trust that the Statutory Committees will be recommended to act upon it in regard to the extension of the number of local committees. Many refusals have in the past been given to applications made for the establishment of this Committee, but under this Bill I take it, there will be an opportunity for any of these municipal areas or boroughs, at any rate with over 20,000 population, to send in a new claim, and such claims will receive a considerable re-hearing, in harmony with the Amendment inserted in the Bill, by the Government.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I have done a good deal of work on this Bill, and I am glad it is now passed. I hope that the powers which have been taken by the Minister in this Bill will be freely exercised. It has been impossible for the Statutory Committees to do other than carry out the existing law, but the new law which will come into force will itself have much greater elasticity, and its advent will be welcomed by no one more heartily than by members of the Statutory Committees, who in the past have rather feared to strain the law, however inadequate their powers might appear to be to them—in. order to bring it more in correspondence with public feeling. No one in this House is more prepared to welcome this Bill than the members of the Statutory Committee, and I congratulate the Government on having passed it.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.—(Class II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) in his place, as he put a question to the Prime Minister this afternoon in regard to this subject, and I am now in a position to give him the information he desires. This Vote is to provide the salary of my right hon. colleague the Paymaster-General as from August last. The salary of the office of Paymaster-General is £2,000 per annum. No extra charge is imposed on the public funds, because my right hon. Friend while receiving a salary as President of the Board of Education during that period did not draw the salary of this post. It is not really necessary to obtain statutory authority to pay this salary, because when the office was established, in the time of William IV., provision was made that the salary should be fixed and regulated from time to time by the Commissioners to the Treasury. For a long time the holder of the office did receive a salary, but for some years the post was held in association with some other office and no salary was paid. For a good many years no salary has, in fact, been paid to the holder of this office. The sum now asked for, £600, will cover the period from August last to the date when my right hon. colleague will commence to receive his salary as Minister for Pensions, and then, of course, he will cease to draw salary as Paymaster-General. I hope that that explanation will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend, and that it is unnecessary for me to say anything more on this very small matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his full and adequate explanation of this Vote. The situation is now regularised. Undoubtedly there was some confusion in regard to it until the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us the explanation we have now received.

  PUBLIC EDUCATION, IRELAND.—Class IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £178,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including Grants in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  Mr. DUKE: There are a few words I should like to say in reference to this Estimate. It is well known that the large majority of the elementary teachers in Ireland are paid on a very modest scale at the present time. To some extent the position has been met by the grant of what is called a war bonus, but there was another difficulty which could only be met by this proposal. The pay of Irish teachers in past years has been handed over quarterly, and the result has been that men in receipt of these small salaries have been obliged to live upon credit unless they could succeed in saving one quarter's salary. The hardship of this state of things was strongly represented to the Government by those who speak on behalf of the elementary teachers in Ireland, and the decision was arrived at that payment of the salary should be made monthly instead of quarterly. This Supplementary Estimate is brought forward in order to give effect to that decision, as monthly payments could not be made unless the Committe and the House sanctioned the provision of the necessary funds. I can assure the Committee there is nothing in the nature of extravagance in this proposal, and it is absolutely necessary and proper that I should ask for this extra Vote for the reasons I have stated.
  Mr. DEVLIN: All of us who sit on these benches recognise the warm and sympathetic spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this question of the payment of teachers monthly instead of quarterly, and the warm interest which he took in securing for the elementary teachers in Ireland a war bonus. The teachers of Ireland owe him a great debt of gratitude for the influence he exercised on the Treasury in securing that women teachers should be placed on the same basis as men. He will be gratefully remembered in Ireland for what he has done in this respect during his short tenure of office. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to raise the question of the position of ex-teachers in Ireland. I confess, however, with regard to the war bonus, we do not regard it as by any means adequate to meet the situation. It was a great pity while the right hon. Gentleman was manifesting such a sympathetic spirit towards the teacher he did not take up the question of ex-teachers and their pensions. I would remind him that the average pay of a teacher is about £40 per year, and that works out at a pension of £16

  741
  or £17 per annum. I believe it is agreed that these figures are substantially correct, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman does he think that such a sum is sufficient to maintain an ex-teacher, who has rendered great services to the State, in decent comfort and in a position of respectability? No one could possibly live on that amount.
  I have been working at the figures as I eat here, and I find that if the Treasury consented to give a bonus of 3s. to ex-teachers it would only cost about £15,000. Everyone admits that in these days of economic stress it is vitally important that the State should be a model employer. It ought to show an example to private employers throughout the country. But in regard to the treatment of teachers in Ireland, it certainly cannot claim to be a model employer. No one denies that it ought to treat servants—who have given meritorious service in one of the most vital questions that concern the welfare of the nation—the moral and mental development of those who are to constitute its manhood and womanhood—in a fairer and more reasonable way than it has done in the past. When the Treasury came to calculate the amount of pensions that ought to be paid to the teachers, it was based upon the salaries which they received, and the present Minister for War, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared in a public statement, declared that the salaries paid to the Irish national teachers, when the representations were made to him by members of his party and by a large deputation, were a public scandal, and nothing less than a public scandal. It was upon the basis of the scandalously inadequate salaries which were paid that these pensions were calculated.
  A great Empire engaged in a vast war, on which it is spending some £6,000,000 a day, ought really to be ashamed of itself in expecting teachers who have spent their lives in the public service, and in whose hands were the moulding and fashioning of the rising generation, to respectably starve upon an income of £16 or 17 a year. I mentioned in a supplementary question the other day that many of these teachers in Ireland were in the workhouse. That statement was subsequently contradicted by one of the officials at Dublin Castle, who informed the right hon. Gentleman that I had made an inaccurate statement. The right hon. Gentleman sent me the communication of this official in Dublin
  742
  Castle, and I am now here to say that I acted on information I received. Perhaps I exaggerated the number of these teachers in the workhouse; still, I would wish the right hon. Gentleman to explain by what economic and domestic measure an ex-teacher in Ireland can live out of the workhouse upon a pension such as I have indicated. For the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me to-day on the question, it is only a matter of something like £15,000 a year, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his influence as the head of the Government of Ireland to set the Treasury to pay this infinitisimal sum—because really it is not worth speaking about—to these poor men and women who have now reached an age at which they have to depend upon the amount I have stated for their livelihood. I would further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to complete the work he has already done by conceding this demand which I have ventured to make.
  Mr. FIELD: I support the appeal made by my hon. Friend, for I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members must know perfectly well that the amount of the pension is on simply a starvation scale.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member opposite has made references to the small part I have played in regard to the Supplementary Vote which is before the Committee, and I am most grateful to him, I am sure, for his observations. He has made a moving appeal to the Government in regard to pensions, and he says that £15,000 is only a small sum. So it would have been in the pre-war period, but with this huge expenditure of £6,000,000 a day upon the War, small sums which are saved at least come as some relief towards that enormous expenditure. I am sorry to say that the larger expenditure has its effect upon smaller proposals. In the case of the salaries, there were public grounds of a convincing character in regard to the Irish teachers, and especially as to the women teachers, and I felt justified, on grounds of propriety as well as of expediency, in acting as I did. In regard to the pensions, we could not increase them in one quarter without doing so in every quarter, and to embark upon a proposal of that kind, because in a particular instance the rate of pensions is on an exceedingly moderate scale, of course must lead to embarrassment and trouble,

  743
  and therefore I regret to say, in answer to the appeal of the hon. Member, that it cannot be done.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a final appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant this sum? The point which the right hon. Gentleman made that owing to tremendous expenditure on the War it was necessary to make these savings. Surely such savings ought not to be made at the cost of a notorious body of public servants? I believe that the Treasury really know how small is the amount that is needed, but it means much to these poor people, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to close the door absolutely on this subject, but to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bringing before him what is the united representation of Ireland. There is not a Member from Ireland who does not feel strongly on this matter. We have been often told that Irish Members should come to this House unitedly to make any reasonable demand, and I would point out that in this instance the right hon. Member for Trinity College and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford both formed part of a deputation on this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there you had a united demand from Ireland on not only a matter of justice, but a matter of deep concern. I do not see why it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to associate his name, as he did in regard to the other matter, with a simple act of justice to these poor people.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Acquisition of Land compulsorily for the purpose of Street Improvements.)
  (1) Where the right honourable the lord mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Dublin (in this Act referred to as "the corporation") require to purchase land under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, for the purpose of
  744
  widening, opening, enlarging or otherwise improving streets, or making new streets in the city of Dublin in connection with the reconstruction of areas, streets, houses or buildings destroyed or damaged in the course of the recent disturbances, they may be authorised to purchase the land compulsorily by means of an order submitted to the Local Government Board and continued by that Board in accordance with the schedule to this Act.
  (2) The procedure under this Section for the compulsory purchase of land shall be substituted for the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land under Section two hundred and three of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
  Mr. P. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  Before the Autumn Adjournment, it will be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised to consider this measure with a view to its becoming an agreed Bill, and not sending it upstairs. My object in submitting this Motion is that if he will put it down for the Report stage a number of Gentlemen who are interested but are absent to-night will be present to discuss various questions which will arise, and to state their views. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that I should be perfectly satisfied, and not press the Motion.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member has made a perfectly reasonable proposal. I am not taking the Committee stage to-night because I want to push it against the will of those who are concerned; all I wish is to make sure that the Bill shall not fail to pass through Parliament for lack of time. There is great risk of there being a lack of time unless the Bill is proceeded with now. As the hon. Member has said, the Report stage could be taken at a time when Members are present, and, for the very reason that I have put down the Committee stage to-night, I should be glad to meet the reasonable demand of the hon. Member in regard to the Report stage.
  Mr. CLANCY: I would like to have one more assurance from the Chief Secretary. I have in my hand a long Resolution passed by the Dublin Corporation to-day asking that a week's adjournment should be granted in order that various questions

  745
  might be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman could take part of the Committee stage to-night, and probably questions on the Amendments and the New Clauses, and all these matters could be debated on the Report stage. I think that suggestion is a convenient one, and might be adopted, but I would like an assurance that these questions can be debated on the Report stage.
  Mr. DUKE: So far as I am concerned, I will do everything in my power to make sure that on the Report stage any Amendment which should have been considered in Committee shall have fair opportunities on Report.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "the City of" ["Burgesses of the City of Dublin"].—[Mr. Duke.]
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or making new streets"["or making new streets in Dublin"].
  The corporation moved in this matter in pursuance of their public duty, and saw the owners of property in the neighbourhood. The question arose as to the work of making new streets, and the parties came to an agreement, and this Amendment is to give effect to that agreement, limiting the powers of the corporation to old streets.
  Mr. CLANCY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, after consultation with the Dublin Corporation, that I entirely agree with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and for my own part my intention is to stand by every part of the agreement arrived at.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to leave out the words "by that Board"["Board in accordance with the Schedule to this Act."].
  The question in dispute between the corporation and the owners of property was as to what should be the confirmatory authority with respect to certain matters for which extended powers were to be taken. Provisions are made in a subsequent Amendment for a confirmatory authority which is satisfactory on all hands, and this is an Amendment preferable to the intended Amendment which will enable their introduction.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words"(2) The powers of the corporation under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, for the purchase of land by agreement for the purpose aforesaid shall extend to and authorise the purchase by the corporation by agreement of any land which they may think it desirable to purchase in order to provide substituted sites or facilities for any persons whose lands may be required by the corporation for the purpose aforesaid and for any persons whose lands may be required for the purpose of providing any substituted sites or facilities."
  The intention there is to give the corporation a power which it would be very beneficial for them to exercise. I believe it accords with the judgment of most people conversant with affairs in Dublin, that there should be a power of this kind, namely, that where there has been destruction of part of the frontage of a street and the question of rebuilding arises in such a way that it would be desirable to widen the street to some moderate extent and for that purpose to set back buildings having frontages on the street, the corporation should be in a position to facilitate that by purchasing premises at the rear of those premises in order that they might shift back the ground plan of the premises.
  Mr. CLANCY: I only want to say one word. There was a Clause to carry out the proposals of this Amendment in the original plans of the corporation. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having found a satisfactory settlement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment."—[Mr. Duke.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 2.—(By-laws as to New Buildings,)
  (1) Section 41 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall be extended so as to enable the corporation to make bylaws with respect to the structure, materials, design, alignment, and general symmetry of new buildings for the purpose of securing amenity and convenience in the reconstruction of areas, streets, houses, or buildings destroyed or damaged as aforesaid, and as respects any by-laws proposed to be made under that 'Section

  747
  as so extended Section 221 of that Act (which relates to confirmation of bye-laws) shall apply with the substitution of "eight days" for "one month."
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to omit Clause 2. I think the main ground of difficulty in the earlier stages of this Bill arose with regard to proposals made perfectly naturally, and certainly made in the interests of the city, that the corporation should have a certain degree of control over the character of the buildings to be erected in Sackville Street and adjoining thoroughfares where damage had been done. It was natural that differences should exist between those who represented public interests for the beautification of the city and those who represented private interests. A compromise has been arrived at which is embodied in the Clause which I intend to propose in substitution for Clause 2. This compromise substitutes for what might have been elaborate and costly proceedings between the parties a simple process, by which, if there is a difference as to the character of the buildings proposed to be erected, and as to whether within certain limits they are suitable buildings for the situation, it is to be decided by arbitration in the manner familiar to us all, and provision is made for the various stages of that arbitration.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Loans in Aid of Expenses of Reconstruction.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Section the corporation may advance money on the security of the ownership of the site of any house or building which has been damaged or destroyed in the course of the recent disturbances for the purpose of enabling the house or building to be rebuilt or restored in such manner as will comply with the requirements of any by-laws of the corporation under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, as extended by this Act.
  (2) The advance shall not exceed the difference between the amount which the Local Government Board certify to be the total cost of rebuilding or restoring the house or building in such manner as aforesaid and the amount of the compensation granted out of public moneys in respect of the destruction or damage of or to the house or building, and no advance shall be made unless such compensation has
  748
  been granted and unless the Local Government Board certify that the advance is necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
  (3) The advance shall be repayable within such period, with interest at such rate and by such instalments or otherwise as may be agreed upon subject to the-sanction of the Local Government Board, but the term of repayment shall not exceed thirty years from the date of the advance, and the rate of interest shall not be more than ten shillings above the rate at which the corporation can at the date of the advance borrow money for the purpose from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. Provided that in the case of an advance in several sums successively the foregoing provisions as to the term of repayment and as to the rate of interest shall have effect as respects each sum advanced as if it were a separate advance.
  (4) The repayment of the advance and interest as aforesaid shall be secured by a mortgage of the site of the house or building in such form as may be approved by the Local Government Board. The mortgage may contain provisions for authorising the advance to be made in several sums successively as the works of rebuilding or restoration proceed, and for ensuring that the advance will be applied in defraying the expenses of those works and such other provisions as the Board deem necessary, and no money shall be advanced unless and until the Board certify that they are satisfied that the value of the estate or interest assured by the mortgage is sufficient security for the repayment of the advance and that the title to the estate or interest so assured is one which an ordinary mortgagee would be willing to accept.
  (5) The corporation may exercise all the powers and remedies for recovery of the principal money and interest which are expressed in the mortgage or implied therein by law.
  (6) In this Section the expression "ownership" in relation to the site of a house or building means such interest or combination of interests as constitutes an estate in fee imple or fee farm in possession or a leasehold interest in possession of at least sixty years unexpired at the date of the mortgage.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "by-laws of the corporation under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, as extended by this Act," and insert instead thereof the words

  749
  "existing by-laws of the corporation and any requirements of the city architects under this Act."—[Mr. Duke.]
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "building"["building and no advance shall be made"], to insert the words "after deducting their existing charges."
  I move this in order to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of considering between now and the Report stage whether the Bill as at present drafted, without these words, might not have a prejudicial effect upon the holders of mortgages existing prior to the destruction of the property. I dare say between now and the Report stage the banks which are largely concerned may look into this matter and make representations. It does not seem fair that mortgages which were in existence at the time of the destruction of the property shall now take second place, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member has accurately forecasted the class of difficulty which will arise if this Amendment were adopted. There are strong business interests to be considered here, and it is impossible to set them aside. If those mainly concerned in this matter will put forward some mode in which the difficulty may be met I will consider it, and those in my office who advise me upon these matters will also consider it.
  Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if they can be paid out of the exgratia Grant existing charges?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Gentleman will see that if once I make a bargain out of what he calls the ex gratia Grant it would cease to be an ex gratia Grant.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "and no advance shall be made unless such compensation has been granted and."
  I have some experience of the courts-martial which have been held in Ireland, and, in my opinion, many innocent men were condemned on insufficient evidence, and I wish to make sure that it shall not be possible for anybody to be condemned for complicity in the recent outbreaks without being given an opportunity of defending himself.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Chief Secretary has not informed the House of his intentions to make this Bill a penal Bill. The words which it is proposed to leave out are penal words. They are penal words founded not upon the result of any inquiry or any sworn evidence, but on the secret evidence of detectives and spies. I respectfully submit that this Bill is not an occasion for a punitive enactment. Dublin has suffered enough. The Chief Secretary will admit that, that Dublin has suffered enough, and should put down now once and for all these punitive and penal measures. The words I propose to leave out will cleanse the Bill of that ugly defect. I sincerely trust that this Bill brought forward by the new Chief Secretary will not be sullied with a provision of this discreditable character. Let the Bill be purified from this proposal and dealt with on its merits as a Bill for the reconstruction of Dublin. The meaning of these words is that those persons to whom compensation has so far been denied on the evidence of detectives and spies are not to be allowed even to benefit through the Corporation of Dublin. That is a most unworthy proposal, and I trust it is only necessary to urge the Chief Secretary to purify the Bill of this nasty proposal and let it go forward to be dealt with on its merits.
  Mr. NUGENT: I desire to support the Amendment. My object in doing so is to say that there has been brought under my notice a case which is one of clear injustice and to which, I think, the Chief Secretary will give some personal attention. If he does so, I think he will admit that it is a clear case of injustice. It is a case of a partnership in which the junior partner of the firm had a very small share, and he was supposed, at all events, to be a participator in or to have sympathised with the recent rebellion, to which the other partner was entirely opposed. Men in the same partnership may have different political views, but a report has been widely circulated that the firm will not get a single penny of compensation. I think the Chief Secretary will admit that that would be a gross injustice. If a person deliberately takes part in a rebellion or sympathises with it there might be some argument, but it is absolutely no argument against a man who has no sympathy with the rebellion at all. I hope the Chief Secretary will not allow a man to be victimised because he happened to be in partnership with one whose political

  751
  opinions he was not perfectly clear upon. When he was forming the partnership he naturally only tried to ascertain the business capacity of his partner, and not his political views.
  Mr. DUKE: I will deal with these matters separately. First of all, with regard to the Amendment. The effect of the words which it is proposed to omit is not, I think, accurately appreciated by the hon. Members who spoke on the subject. The words are not necessarily of a penal character. I take notice of what has been said as to the effect which is apprehended. I am not sure that the House would be willing to legislate for what is regarded as a creation of facilities for persons who may have taken part in the rebellion, but if benefits are intended for a class you must not habitually exclude any man from that class. He must have an opportunity of being heard. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and I would ask hon. Members not to press this Amendment now. I will consider between now and the Report stage whether any language is necessary to render the meaning of the Bill more clear. With regard to the question of partnership raised by the hon. Member, it appears there is some citizen of Dublin who runs the risk of being penalised for somebody else's misconduct. I may say with regard to the administration of this grant that it is purely an administrative matter and, so far as I am concerned, I should be the last man in the world to punish A for the misdeeds of B. The hon. Member, if necessary, can raise the question of this particular case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to leave out the words "but the term of repayment shall not exceed thirty years from the date of the advance."
  The explanation of this Amendment is this: A term for repayment of the intended loans is contained in the Bill as it now stands which upon consideration is found not to be necessary for the protection either of the rates of Dublin or the public Exchequer, and is found to be on the other hand, somewhat stringent having regard to the difficulties. Irish borrowers, it has been said to their credit, are good payers. I have no doubt they will pay well in this case. The Treasury has not objected to a prolongation of the term for which these loans are made, and
  752
  the proposal I am now making is to admit of further prolongation of the proposed term.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, after the word "Ireland"["the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland"], to insert the words "and the term of repayment shall be a term six months less than the term for which the corporation can so borrow, unless a shorter term is agreed upon."
  That will enable the citizens of Dublin who are placed in difficulties by the events of the rebellion to get from the corporation substantially the best terms the corporation can give, borrowing from the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to insert a new Sub-section:
  "6. An application for an advance in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall not be refused, except where and so far as the corporation cannot borrow money for the purpose from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
  This is part of the scheme for making the process of facilities for loans available on all hands. Apprehension was felt—I do not think myself that there was any ground for it—that there might be some capricious refusal of the facilities which had been granted by Parliament and by the Treasury, and it is to meet apprehensions of that kind that these words are proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the word "sixty"["at least sixty years unexpired"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ninety."
  This is consequential upon the other proposal. It is in order to cover the longer period of borrowing.
  Amendment, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Acquisition of Derelict Premises by the Corporation.)
  (1) At any time after the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act", if it appears to the Local Government Board, on the application of the corporation, that the rebuilding or restoration of a house or building destroyed or

  753
  damaged in the course of the recent disturbances has not been commenced or, although commenced, has been discontinued, the Board may, unless they are satisfied that the rebuilding or restoration will be completed within a reasonable time, make an Order authorising the corporation to acquire the site thereof.
  (2) Applications under this Section shall be made in such manner and after publication and service of such notices as may be prescribed, and before making an Order the Board shall consider any objections which may be made thereto by any persons interested in the site.
  (3) When an Order is made under this Section the Corporation shall have power to acquire the site specified in the Order under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, as amended by this Act, in like manner as if it were land required for the purpose of improving a street, and may sell, let, or otherwise dispose of the same when acquired in such manner as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "manner"["in such manner as may be sanctioned"], to insert the words "and on such conditions."
  This is one of two Amendments which were designed, with the consent of everybody substantially interested, to meet the objection of this kind which was made, namely, that the corporation, when they have used compulsory powers to acquire sites because others have made default in occupying them, might themselves become defaulters. A discussion took place between the parties and the difficulty has been met by the adoption of the proposal contained in this Amendment and the next one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "including conditions for securing the eretion of suitable buildings on the site. Provided that it shall be the duty of the corporation, on the expiration of two years from the acquisition of the site by them, to erect thereon suitable buildings if they have not in the meantime sold, let, or otherwise disposed of the site as aforesaid."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 5 (Expenses and Borrowing, etc.,) 6 (Interpretation,) and 7 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Preservation of Amenity.)
  A person who proposes to erect a new building on the site of a building which has been damaged or destroyed in the course of the recent disturbances or to reconstruct or alter a building which has been damaged as aforesaid (in this Section referred to as "the building owner") shall, in addition to any plans and sections of the proposed work which are required by the bye-laws of the corporation to be delivered at the office of the town clerk, deliver at the same time and place elevations on the same scale as that of the plans and sections and shall furnish to the city architect, if and when so requested by him, any detailed drawings or other particulars which the city architect may consider reasonably necessary for the further explanation of the documents delivered.
  (2) If it appears to the city architect, having regard to the nature and situation of the site of the proposed new building, or of the building proposed to be restored or altered, or the external design of any buildings erected or in the course of erection in the neighbourhood of that site, that the character of the proposed new building, restoration, or alteration is such as would be injurious to the amenity of the street which the front of the proposed new building or the building proposed to be restored or altered faces, whether on account of the proposed external design, the proposed line of frontage, or the materials proposed to be used in the external walls facing that street or in any portion of the building which will be visible from that street, he may require such reasonable alterations to be made as respects the design, line of frontage, and materials as he thinks proper, and may require the plans, sections, and elevations to be amended accordingly. The front of a building at the corner of two streets shall be deemed to face each street for the purposes of this provision.
  (3) A requirement of the city architect under this Section shall not have effect unless notice thereof in writing is delivered or sent by post to the building owner within one month after the day on which the plans, sections, and elevations are delivered as aforesaid, or within fourteen days after the day on which the

  755
  further particulars (if any) are furnished as aforesaid, whichever period expires later.
  (4) If any dispute or difference arises as to the reasonableness of any requirement of the city architect under this Section the matter in dispute shall be settled by arbitration between the corporation and the building owner, and the corporation shall appoint the city architect or a person nominated by him to be arbitrator on their behalf, and the building owner shall appoint an arbitrator on his behalf, and Section two hundred and seventeen of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall apply with respect to the arbitration as it applies with respect to arbitrations under that Act, subject to the following modifications:

  (a) The reference to the Local Government Board shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Lieutenant;

  (b) Any reference to that Act shall be construed as a reference to this Act;

  (c) In considering the reasonableness of any requirement, the arbitrators or umpire may take into account the expenses which would be incurred in complying with the same and a requirement that any material or materials shall be supplied from any specified source of supply shall be deemed to be unreasonable;

  (d) The arbitrators or umpire shall have power to make such modifications of any requirement of the city architect as seem proper, and the requirement as so modified shall be deemed to be a requirement of the city architect under this Section;

  (e) The powers of the arbitrators and umpire as to the costs shall include a power to direct to and by whom and in what manner the costs (including solicitor and client costs) or any part thereof are to be paid;

  (f) The appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the corporation may be made by any committee of the corporation to which that power is delegated and need not be under seal.

  (5) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section a requirement of the city architect under this Section shall be enforceable under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, in the same manner as if it were a proper requirement contained in by-laws of the corporation relating to buildings, as if the notice of
  756
  the requirement were a notice of disapproval of the proposed work given by the corporation in pursuance of the by-laws, and as if the execution of the work, otherwise than in accordance with the requirement, were an offence against those bylaws, and its continuance in such a form and state as to be in contravention of the requirement were a continuing offence.
  (6) Anything to be done or omitted in relation to any building in order to comply with a requirement of the city architect under this Section may be done or omitted notwithstanding any covenant, condition, or provision to be contrary in any lease, mortgage, or other instrument affecting the building or the land on which it is erected, and the act or omission shall be deemed not to be a breach, non-performance, or contravention of any such covenant, condition, or provision.
  (7) Where a requirement of the city architect under this Section necessitates an alteration of the former frontage line the provisions of Section thirty-nine of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as to compensation shall apply in like manner as if the new frontage line had been prescribed by the corporation under that Section.
  (8) The corporation may on the recommendation of the city architect relax or waive any by-law of the corporation relating to buildings where and so far as such relaxation or waiver is necessary in order to enable a joint plan of reconstruction to be carried out in relation to two or more buildings subject to the consent of the owners of these buildings, but, save as aforesaid, the provisions of this Section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any by-laws of the corporation relating to buildings.—[Mr. Duke.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause embodies a proposal in regard to which there was a good deal of difficulty in agreeing, by way of composition of differences. It is for the purpose of providing the control which I mentioned just now over the new buildings which are to be erected on the sites of the damage caused by the rebellion. What is intended briefly is this: That the plans of the proposed buildings shall be submitted to the city architect of Dublin, a gentleman of great eminence in his profession, that he

  757
  shall have powers with regard to the external design and with regard to certain other matters to this effect, that if the external design in his view is such as would be injurious to the amenity of the street, whether on account of the proposed external design, the proposed line of frontage, or the materials proposed to be used, he may make requisitions. If the building owner does not agree arbitration will take place, and the difference between the judgment of the city architect and the contention of the building owner will be resolved. There are further provisions embodied in this series of Clauses 1 to 7. These provisions are to this effect, that the requirements of the city architect, if acquiesced in, are to be enforceable in the same way as the requirements under by-laws are enforceable; that such requirements are to override any conditions which may be in existence at the time of the destruction of the premises; that the same provisions for compensation for frontage taken shall be allowed in the case of these buildings as in the case of buildings where the frontages have been taken without the urgent reasons that exist in the present circumstances; and further, that the corporation may authorise a joint plan for the adjoining premises.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CLANCY: The Clause for which this was a substitute was, of course, the great bone of contention. It has been the subject of very anxious and careful consideration, and I hope the agreement between the parties on both sides will be carried into effect. I think the agreement is fully expressed in the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. In my opinion it substantially carries out the original proposal of the corporation.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Loans Secured by Charging Order.)
  (1) Where a person desirous of obtaining an advance under the last preceding Section is not in a position to secure the repayment of the advance in accordance with the provisions of that Section owing to defective title or the insufficiency of his interest in the site or of the value of that interest and the other persons whose concurrence is necessary in order to remedy or remove the defect or insufficiency are unable or unwilling to concur in securing
  758
  the advance he may apply to the Land Judge for an order charging the ownership of the site and any inferior interest therein with the repayment of the advance and interest.
  (2) On any such application the Land Judge may direct such inquiries and investigations as he thinks proper for the purpose of ascertaining the title to the ownership of the site and the values of the several interests therein, and if after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard it appears to him that the advance would enure to the benefit of other interests besides the interest of the applicant, and that all those interests afforded together sufficient security for the advance, he may make an order charging all such interests and each of them with the repayment of the advance and interest, and may by the same or any other order apportion the advance, interest, and instalments as between the several interests charged in proportion to the benefit accruing from the advance.
  (3) Subject to the limitations imposed by the last preceding Section the amount of the advance, the rate of interest, and the term and method of repayment shall be at the discretion of the Land Judge.
  (4) Provision may be made by the charging order for ensuring that the advance will be applied in defraying the expenses of the works of rebuilding or restoration and for any other matters for which, in the opinion of the Land Judge, provision ought to be made.
  (5) A charging order shall be effectual to charge each interest expressed to be charged with the repayment to the corporation of the advance and interest in manner therein provided as a first charge in priority to all charges and incumbrances thereon and the order shall be registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles as the case requires in such manner as the Land Judge may direct.
  (6) Where the Land Judge makes an apportionment order he may, if he thinks fit, declare that the whole of the principal money, interest, and instalments for the time being payable under the charging order shall, in the first instance, be paid by and recoverable from the owners for the time being of any interest in the site which he may specify, and may provide for contribution and adjustment of rights and liabilities as between the several interests charged and the several owners thereof for the time being in such manner as

  759
  appears to him to be equitable, but nothing in the order shall operate to prevent the corporation exercising their remedies as against all or any of the interests charged for the recovery of the whole of the advance, interest, or instalment for the time being payable.
  (7) Applications under this Section and the practice and procedure thereon (including costs) shall be regulated by rules made by the Land Judge, who may, if he thinks fit, apply for the purposes of this Section any enactments or rules regulating practice and procedure in the High Court, or any Division or Court thereof, with such modifications as he deems proper.— [Mr, Duke.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This Clause has also been the subject of very great difficulty. There will be a large number of cases where, owing to the intricacies of titles, unless some machinery is provided to adjust and distribute the burdens, the charges between the different premises will prove a serious obstacle to the effective operation of the Bill. The parties discussed this matter, and ultimately they and I came to the conclusion that if such difficulties as those I have mentioned could not be solved by anyone who knows the parties they should be solved by the learned judge of the Land Court in Ireland, Mr. Justice Ross, who most generously and with the greatest public spirit acceded to the request I made to him that he should undertake this laborious and difficult work. He assured me, on his part and on the part of the staff of the Land Court, that there would be the greatest possible readiness to do everything they could to facilitate the settlement of these difficult questions.
  Mr. WHITE: The new Clause introduced by the draftsman raises this objection—it will cause great delay. It is quite possible there may be seven or eight people involved who will all have to appear before the learned judge, and nobody can tell when the proceedings will be finished. In the meantime, operations cannot proceed until all these people have had an opportunity of being heard before the judge. Some of them may be abroad, and I know one or two interested parties in some of the cases may have to go to the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. CLANCY: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. White) as to the effect of this proposal. My opinion is that if some machinery such as is proposed is not adopted the legal expenses which the parties will have to bear will be one hundred times more than they would be under this Clause. There is not a single case mentioned by my hon. Friend where six or seven interests are involved which would not became the subject of a separate action, or at least the subject of a separate motion in the Chancery Division, and the Chief Secretary knows, and I know myself, how often these motions are duplicated and triplicated, and adjourned from time to time.
  I really do believe that if some machinery like this were not adopted, it would be years before all these cases could be completed, and the compensation towards them from the Treasury would be probably all spent in solving the difficulty. I hope the Clause will be accepted.
  Mr. FIELD: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I appreciate how expensive it is to go to law, and also how much delay is occasioned. This seems to me to be the only way in which this difficulty could be met.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  The following stood in the names of Mr. NUGENT and Mr. BRADY:

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Licences of Public-houses and Hotels Destroyed.)
  All licences of public-houses and hotels destroyed during the recent disturbances shall be deemed to continue in existence free of Licence Duty until the respective premises affected have been rebuilt and trade resumed in the same. In case of the death of the holder of any such licence during this period, the licence shall enure for the benefit of the person or persons who shall be entitled to the said premises under his will or as his personal representatives, heirs at law, or next of kin.
  The amount of the Licence Duty paid in respect of any such licence for the period between the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and sixteen, shall be repaid to the person entitled to the said licence.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the new Clanse in the names of the hon. Members for Dublin (Mr. Nugent and Mr. Brady); I am afraid the second paragraph in the Clause involves a charge on the Exchequer. It proposes that certain license duties shall be repaid. That requires a Money Resolution. Of course hon. Members can move the first part.
  Mr. NUGENT: I will move the first paragraph.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. NUGENT: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I will move the first paragraph only. When we come to deal with the Report stage the other portion can be considered. The first Clause is absolutely necessary in the interests of property owners. If some Clause like this were not inserted, licensed holders whose premises have been destroyed would lose their entire benefits. In the ordinary course, when a licensed house has, been closed twelve months the license lapses, and in these cases the houses will not be ready for twelve months or perhaps two years. The object of the Clause is to secure that the licences will be kept alive during the period. I hope the Chief Secretary will agree to accept this, and so far as the other portion is concerned when the Report stage is dealt with we will meet it in some way. There is no reason why these people should be compelled to pay duty on houses which cannot be utilised for the transaction of their business.
  Mr. DUKE: This apparently reasonable proposal is that licences attached to premises should be retained pending the reconstruction of the premises—that is to say, that the owners of the premises should not lose the privilege of the licence by reason of non-occupation. I am not sure that this is the best way of effecting the object in view. I should like the opportunity to consider the proposal in its various aspects, and if the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion now and raise the question again on Report, in case I do not put down an Amendment, the subject shall be dealt with on Report. If I can see my way to do it I will put down an Amendment on the subject.
  Mr. CLANCY: When is my hon. Friend to know whether or not the Chief Secretary will do a thing he admits ought to be done?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member thinks fit to put down his Amendment, the matter can be dealt with on his Amendment, in case I do not deal with it by separate Amendment. One way or another it shall be dealt with on Report.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following stood in the name of Mr. WHITE:

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Savings.)
  (1) No hereditament or tenement upon which was built any building or house damaged or destroyed, nor any such building or house when rebuilt or restored, shall be liable to be valued under the Irish Valuation Acts at a sum larger than the valuation in force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, for a period of thirty years from the passing of this Act.
  (2) No building or house damaged or destroyed, nor the land on which the same stood, shall be assessed or liable to any poor rate or local rates from the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, until the expiration of one year from the rebuilding or restoration and occupation of the said house or building.
  (3) The amount of any Licence Duty paid in respect of any licence for a public-house or hotel destroyed during the recent disturbance for the period between the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and the date of resumption of trade in such licensed premises shall be repaid to the person or persons entitled to the said licence.
  The CHAIRMAN: Sub-section (3) is out of order, as it involves a charge on the revenue.
  Clause (Sub-sections (1) and (2)) brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The city asked for something, and the Corporation of Dublin very generously met them and said, "You put up your premises in accordance with our design, and if we put you to more expense in erecting premises for your own purpose, we will meet you in this respect, that your premises shall not be subject to increased valuation for a certain period of years." It is in consequence of the corporation doing that that an agreement has been come to such as is indicated in the new Clause. It will not in any way affect the Treasury. The valuation will remain the

  763
  same, and the Income Tax for thirty years, but this concession was made to the citizens in consequence of the corporation imposing upon them burdens which they would not have had to bear otherwise. We ask you to ratify the agreement, and to say that on behalf of the Treasury you have no objection.
  Mr. McKIN NON WOOD: This is a proposal that no land built upon or any house rebuilt shall be liable to valuation at a sum larger than the valuation in force on 1st April, 1916, for thirty years. That is a very strong proposal to prevent any increase of valuation. I see that the hon. Member does not propose to stereotype the valuation and prevent it, for instance, coming down. Really this is a provision which would benefit the owners of these particular properties to the disadvantage of the other ratepayers. It would not be fair to the poorer ratepayers of Dublin, who would have to pay higher rates, because you had given a special privilege to these particular owners, or occupiers. I do not see how that proposal could be justified. It may be that the valuation of the property is as high as it is likely to be for a long time.
  Mr. WHITE: That is so, as there was a revision of the valuation last year.
  Mr. WOOD: All these exceptions to the general principle of valuation are bound to lead to unfairness to different classes of ratepayers, and I think ought always to be resisted. We have got cases in the City of London of privileged ratepayers, and I think it always leads to friction in after years. It merely means that the person who owns the property and who has a privilege in rating it puts the difference in his pocket, and it adds to the value of the property of particular owners. I do not think it is at all fair as between different classes of ratepayers, and as far as the Treasury is concerned we cannot accept it.
  Mr. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be more solicitous for the citizens of Dublin than the citizens of Dublin seem to be themselves. This is an agreement and concession made at the expense of the Corporation of Dublin to bring about this settlement. What moral right has the right hon. Gentleman or the Government to try and upset that agreement? I think the right hon. Gentleman's motive was not that which he avowed, but another motive altogether, and that he is
  764
  looking at the matter from the Treasury point of view. He is aware, I suppose, that if this Clause is accepted he will not get as much Income Tax out of that part of Dublin as he otherwise would, and that he will not get as much Licence Duty out of public-houses that may be restored. If that is the explanation of his action his interference in this Debate and opposition to this proposal is of a rather mean and shabby character. The idea of the Government allowing the Chief Secretary to settle this matter, and then, on a point of small pecuniary importance, trying to upset the settlement altogether, seems to me to be a perfectly extraordinary proceeding. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will persist on the present occasion in proceeding with his Amendment. I would advise him not, but to reserve it for the Report stage, and I promise the Secretary to the Treasury that he will hear more of it on that occasion.
  Mr. FIELD: I rather think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not realise the fact that this arrangement made between the corporation and the property owners is one of the fundamental bases why this agreement was arrived at, or the difficulty which "might stand in the way if it were not carried out. We want this Bill carried, and one of the reasons why an agreement was arrived at was because the corporation agreed to forego the taxes for a certain time and that the valuation would not be increased. Therefore, I think the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Clancy) ought to be accepted and this matter deferred until the Report stage, so that we may have an opportunity of arriving at an agreement.
  Mr. WHITE: I should like to hear what the Chief Secretary has to say on this matter as he was in Dublin. The moral aspect of it would appeal to him, as he knows the difficulties we had about it.
  Mr. DUKE: The parties composed their own differences and proposed to provide a solatium for one of them at the cost of the Exchequer and the local ratepayers. My right hon. Friend is here to speak for the Exchequer.
  Mr. WHITE: He will not speak for the City of Dublin.
  Mr. DUKE: He referred to the proposal to stereotype the valuation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury says that they are not parties to this arrangement. As regards the ratepayers, if I were

  765
  sure that the multitude of the ratepayers with poor and small assessments were parties to the proposal that ratepayers in some of the best sites of the city should receive a boon at their expense it might influence my opinion, but as yet I have had no such indication that that is the view of the poor ratepayers, and we know there is a very great number of those small ratepayers.
  Mr. CLANCY: The Chief Secretary knows that it is quite impossible to get an authoritative expression such as he has mentioned from the mass of the ratepayers, but the representatives of the citizens of Dublin in the corporation have agreed to this proposal. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his previous statement, that if we agreed on a plan to solve these difficulties, the Government, and he especially, would be exceedingly glad to carry it out. We have done so, and now he backs out of it. The motive of the Treasury is not the interests of the city of Dublin, but that they will receive less Income Tax for thirty years. What a nice light it throws on Treasury methods that they should be moved by motives of this character in a matter which, as the Chief Secretary knows, excited bitter passions, and was very difficult to settle, and which almost the whole of the citizens of Dublin would regret if it were not settled in some way or another. I trust it will not subsequently have to be said—for the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not fail to hear of it—that after all the Treasury opposed to the arrangement that he himself was willing to make.
  Mr. BYRNE: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware that in some cases the revaluation of Dublin has increased by upwards of 50 per cent., and in one case of which I know by almost 60 per cent. The new valuation of Dublin alone brings in, unasked, to the Treasury as a police rate £32,000. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider that point. The increased rate of the Dublin Corporation has brought in, unasked, something like £70,000 a year to the Government in Licence Duty and in Income Tax. It is not too much to ask, having regard to the fact that the lost trade in some of the houses may take twenty years to bring back, that the property of those people should not be revalued for at least thirty years. If the suggestion cannot be carried out perhaps
  766
  the matter might be postponed until the Report stage, so that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury may make inquiries and see what the revaluation of Dublin will bring into the Treasury thirty years from 1916.
  Mr. NUGENT: Under this Bill the corporation claims the right to have buildings erected according to. their design and there will thus be a considerable increase in the valuation of those premises. If that is done in the interest of the city as a whole, if the corporation insists upon a structure twice the size of that ordinarily erected before, and which will be twice the valuation, in the interests of the beautification of the city the people who are concerned in it ought to have the consideration for which we plead.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Acquirement by Corporations and Grant of Leases in Special Cases.)
  Where the onus of rebuilding in accordance with the design of the corporation is thrown upon any individual or company and such individual or company cannot before rebuilding obtain a lease upon reasonable terms from those entitled to grant the same for a period covering the period of repayment of any necessary public loan, the corporation shall acquire the higher interest in such sites at a price to be fixed by an arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board, and such individual or company shall be bound to take a lease of the premises from the corporation at a rent which will produce at least 5 per cent. upon the total amount of the outlay incurred by the corporation in connection with the acquisition with the acquisition of such higher interests.—[Mr. White.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time." I think this Motion would be an important addition to the machinery of the Act in connection with the beautification of Dublin.
  Mr. DUKE: I do not think there is any substantial benefit in this piece of machinery that would warrant me to run

  767
  any risk of those whose interests are con-merned in this matter not being properly heard. For this reason I am unable to accept the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Occupation Rents.)
  All occupation rents in the ruined area shall be borne proportionately by all those interested in each site.—[Mr. White.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the occupants of houses which have been renewed since last April will be liable for a new rent. When they were insured the Government admitted their liability, and paid their insurance rate to the extent of one year. The Government ought either to pay the rent all round or to insert such a Clause as this, whereby the loss incurred will be shared by all the people alike. Why should those who occupy houses not pay their share of the loss? It was not the occupier of the house that was responsible for the damage. It was the act of the Government in the defence of the rights of the State to level the house, and surely the loss ought either to be borne by the State or borne during the temporary period proportionately by all those concerned.
  Mr. DUKE: This is another Clause which embodies an idea, and which is very plausibly drawn, but it is impossible to adopt it because the parties have not been heard. By this public Bill it would take away the structural rights of the parties, and that is a reason why it is impossible to adopt it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906.)
  The provisions of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, shall apply to any house or building, or part of a house or building, destroyed or damaged as aforesaid as respects compensation for improvements and disturbance, notwithstanding that the rent may exceed one hundred pounds per annum or the premises be held on a contract of tenancy for less than a year, or under lease for more than twenty-
  768
  one years, or for a life or lives made after the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and six, and on any application under that Act as so extended, regard shall be had to any expenditure by the tenant not being expenditure incurred in pursuance of a covenant in the rebuilding or restoring of any such house or building or part of a house or building.— [Mr. Field.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. FIELD: I beg to move 'That the Clanse be read a second time."
  It is not necessary to make any speech with regard to this, because it is a matter which crops up in connection with this whole business, and is more or less connected with the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act. I understand there is practical agreement on all the points.
  Mr. DUKE: The Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, to which the hon. Member has referred, contains Clauses no doubt which give tenants who may remove during the term of their tenancy certain rights of compensation by the lessors. It is very strictly limited, whereas the Clause which is proposed here is of the most wholesale character, and extends to tenancies quite outside the contemplation of that Act. Owing to the Amendment being a manuscript Amendment, I have not had the opportunity of considering it. I cannot accept it in Committee, and I do not see the prospect of being able to accept it on Report, because of the reasons I pointed out to the hon. Member. In Committee, however, it is impossible to consider it.
  Mr. FIELD: The prospects may improve when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a better acquaintance with it. Of course I must accept the suggestion. I will therefore bring it up on Report stage.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CLANCY: There are four new Clauses in my name, unfortunately, not on the Paper, and although the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the substance of them, I do not intend to move them on this occasion, but I hope they will appear on the Paper on Report. I want to know whether it is necessary to hand them in again?
  Mr. DUKE: I am sorry to interrupt. but it is impossible of course to discuss

  769
  these new Clauses without consideration. I promise the hon. Member that they shall not be prejudiced by not having been discussed now. If the hon. Member puts them on the Notice Paper before the Report stage, I will have them carefully considered, and, whatever opportunities there are for debate now, will arise then.
  Mr. CLANCY: That is exactly the declaration I rose to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I will hand the Amendments in again, though I do not know whether that is necessary.

  SCHEDULE.
  Provisions as to the Compulsory Acquisition of Land by the Corporation.
  1. The corporation where they propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act may submit to the Board an Order authorising the corporation to put into force as respects the land specified in the Order the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.
  2. An Order under this Schedule shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Board, and the Board may confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit, and an Order when so confirmed shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act; and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly made, and is within the powers of this Act.
  3. The Order shall be in the prescribed form, and shall contain such provisions as the Board may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the Order into effect, and shall incorporate, subject to the necessary adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts as defined in this Schedule.
  4. The Order shall be published by the corporation in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed.
  5. If within the prescribed period no objection to the Order has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order, but if
  770
  such an objection has been presented, and has not been withdrawn, the Board shall forthwith direct a local inquiry as to the propriety of confirming the Order, and the corporation and all persons interested in the land and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry. Before confirming the Order the Board shall consider the report of the person who held the inquiry and all objections made thereat.
  6. The arbitrator appointed for the purpose of settling compensation shall, in addition to his powers under the Acts incorporated in the Order, have power—

  (a) to state his award or any part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court on a question of law under Section eight of the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, and, on the application of the corporation.

  (b) to order works to be executed by the corporation for the accommodation of adjoining lands or buildings either instead of or in addition to the payment of compensation.

  7. In determining the amount of compensation payable to any person interested in the land, the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which any adjoining or neighbouring land or here ditaments in which the same person is also interested may be benefited by the improvements to be made by the corporation on or in connection with the land taken or any adjoining or neighbouring land.
  8. In construing for the purposes of this Schedule or any Order made there under, any enactment incorporated with the Order, this Act together with the Order shall be deemed to be the special Act or the confirming Act as the case requires, the confirmation of the Order to be the passing of the confirming Act, the Board to be the confirming authority, and the corporation to be the promoters of the undertaking, the company, local authority, or district council as the case requires.
  9. In this Schedule the expression "Board" means the Local Government Board, and the expression "Lands Clauses Acts" means the Lands Clauses Acts as amended by Section eight of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, and by Section eleven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
  Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), after the word "confirmed"["an Order when so confirmed"], to insert the words "on the expiration of one month from the publication of notice of confirmation."
  This is one of a series of Amendments which provide for the process by which Orders under the Bill shall take effect. It is a simple protest. It is intended by this safeguard that if any person feels himself aggrieved and is able to find five other persons with a like grievance, that they may petition against the Order. If the Provisional Order of the Local Government Board is not agreed to between the parties, the objectors will have the right to go forward and have the dispute settled in the same manner as in any other Provisional Order.
  Private rights of a very large value are involved in this Bill—the private rights of those who have been heard by the corporation—and it is obviously proper that these rights shall not be taken away by this measure.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph (2), after the word "shall"["when so confirmed shall become final"], insert the words "save as otherwise expressly provided by this Schedule."
  In paragraph (4) at the beginning, insert the words "On the submission of the Order to the Board notice of."
  In paragraph (5) leave out the words "the prescribed period," and insert instead thereof the words "one month after the publication of the notice of the Order."
  In paragraph (5) at the end insert the words"(6) On confirming an Order the Board shall forthwith publish notice of the confirmation, and if within one month after such publication a petition against the Order is received by the Board signed by not less than six persons interested in the land then (unless the petition is withdrawn within the prescribed period) the Order shall be provisional only and shall not have effect unless confirmed by Parliament.
  A certificate by the Board that no such petition has been so received, or that every petition so received has been withdrawn, as the case may be, and that the Order has taken effect shall be conclusive evidence of the facts certified."
  In paragraph (8), after the word "order"["together with the order shall be deemed"], insert the words "when duly confirmed."
  In paragraph (8), after the word "the"["the confirmation of"], insert the word "due."
  In paragraph (9) leave out the words "and by section eleven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906,"and insert the words "Provided that in the application of the Second Schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, so much of Article 26 of that Schedule as (a) limits the right of appeal to cases where the compensation or price exceeds one thousand pounds and (b) requires that leave to appeal shall be obtained from the High Court, shall not have effect."—[Mr. Duke.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (DUBLIN).
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. HAZLETON: I rise to protest against a recent Regulation made by the Treasury raising the fees in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin. These Regulations, in the opinion of a great many people in Dublin and in Ireland, constitute an unwarrantable raid on the part of the Treasury upon the public in that country. Generally, it is complained by the Treasury that Irish Members are making a raid upon them, but this is a reversal of that usual complaint. We think that very unfairly they have made a raid upon the public in Ireland. We have been driven to raise this matter upon the Adjournment, because the Government has taken the whole time of the House, and the practice before the War, by which we could have moved to set aside these Treasury rules, which have been ordered to lie upon the Table for forty days, is no

773
longer possible. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. J. Mac-Veagh) on 21st November, follownig upon previous questions, asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question with regard to this matter, and in the course of his reply the right hon. Gentleman said that the average annual loss for the last ten years on the Registry of Deeds Office in Dublin was £3,400. From 1830 to 1865 he said the expenditure was met out of receipts, and a surplus of £42,000 was paid into the Exchequer. Since then the total expenditure had exceeded the total receipts by about £135,000.
I complain of the methods which have been adopted by the Treasury. The deficit which has arisen in this office is due to the fact that so many Government Departments in Ireland are getting their work done there, and the Treasury now propose to make the Irish public pay for it. They are proposing to raise these fees in this office all round. A Royal Commission which sat to inquire into the working of this office in 1886, and the late Registrar of Deeds, Mr. Henry Bingham Leech, and Mr. George Fottrell, later Clerk of the Crown Peace, and were two of the Commissioners. Special inquiries were made as to the fees for searching in this office, with the result that the Commission strongly advised against any alteration. Without any further inquiry of any kind, whether from a Royal Commission or Department, the Treasury, because it wants to meet this deficiency which has arisen through the action of the Government, make this unwarranted raid upon the Irish public and propose to raise these fees. Many years ago the Old Registry of Deeds Acts contemplated that this should be a self-supporting office, but owing to the practice of the Government in not charging fees to Government Departments it is no longer self-supporting; if it were, there would be no reason now for raising the fees.
I would like to point out the reasons in particular for this deficit. All searches directed by the Irish Land Commission in the Registry of Deeds are made without charge, and from January, 1904, to December, 1911, there were 6,126 searches made on such requisition, and the fees remitted amounted to £14,051. Again, all searches directed by solicitors for Rural District Councils in Ireland under the Labourers Act of 1906 are made without charge. Up to December, 1911, there were 5,429 searches, and the fees remitted
774
amounted to £4,969. All searches directed by solicitors to the Congested Districts Board are made without charge. Under another Act, up to December, 1911, 152,841 memorials have been registered from the Local Registration of Titles Office free of all fees, and as the fee for the registration of a memorial is 8s., the total remitted for these registrations would be £61,136. It will be plain to the House that all this work is being done for these various purposes free of charge has naturally brought it about that the Office has ceased to pay for itself. Who is paying for that work at the present time? There has been a deficit, and the amount of that deficit has very properly come out of the Treasury, but in future the Treasury no longer propose to meet its liabilities in this respect, and the deficit is to be taken out of the pockets of the Irish public by raising the fees of those who have got to go and transact business in this Office. It is an extraordinary action on the part of the Treasury that they should come forward now and make this imposition in this way, because I do not believe that it can be justified in any respect. As the increase of the staff that has been necessary, and the increase of expenditure that has been necessary by these free searches in all directions are included in the yearly expenditure, it is only reasonable to expect that the Treasury should continue to meet this liability and should not seek by this extraordinary method to get rid of its responsibility.
With regard to the new soale which is proposed, my opinion is that searches costing under 2s. 6d. per docket are the exception, and, taking the average, the requisition would include three names and cover about twenty years. A search which? can be made on a 2s. 6d. docket would, under the new scales, cost on one scale 8s. and on the other 10s. This amounts, therefore, to a very considerable increase indeed. Another search which at present would cost 5s. for two dockets for two days would, under the new scales, cost the exorbitant sum of 18s. or 20s. There is no warrant at all for this extraordinary charge, in view of the fact that it will have to fall in the future on very few shoulders. It is suggested by those whom this Order concerns in Ireland that it should be amended by the addition of a fixed scale for what are called fishing searches, say, a day's search fee of 7s. 6d. I want to explain to the Secretary to the Treasury that the Registry of Deeds Office in Dublin

775
only makes official searches when a requisition is laid giving in detail names and addresses and periods. They will not make searches of an official nature for the purpose of tracing the title. It is evident that in arriving at fees payable in future the authorities have only had regard to hand searches of the same nature as official searches. There is, however, quite a different class of work which is of daily occurrence, when it is necessary to make out a title or perhaps to explain away a particular Act. If the proposed scale is adopted, without alteration, it will be quite impossible for solicitors or professional searchers to do this class of work except at a prohibitive cost. This work has become of even more importance than ever on account of the large destruction of documents in Dublin arising out of the late rebellion. There is one thing I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to do when he replies, and that is to assure us that even if he cannot meet us on the other points he will look into this particular point and so amend this Order if he finds the complaint to be reasonable, just, that a day fee for covering these fishing searches will be made, and solicitors and their clients will not be charged this extra cost under the new regulations. The Registry of Deeds authorities have absolutely no experience of this particular class of work and have had no regard to it whatever in fixing the new fees. I would like to give one illustration from an instance supplied to me by a solicitor in this connection. He says:
"To-day we have instructions from a solicitor to search for a lease. He gives names of several parties who may have made it. He cannot give the date. He gives three Dames the premises may have been known by, and states that within the past thirty years conveyances may have been made by the executors of A or the executors of B, but he cannot give any further information."
My informant further says:
"Under the new scales we could not possibly undertake this search as we could not form any idea as to how much the dockets would run into. In such a case a fixed docket per day is necessary. As above mentioned, the Registry officials never have this class of searching before them, and have not, therefore, provided a fee to meet it."
9.0 P.M.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will be going some way, at least, to meet the criticism of this Order of he does provide a fixed fee to meet these day searches, and I urge that upon him very particularly. It is believed in Dublin that the expenses of this office could be very largely reduced. First of all there is a gentleman who is drawing a salary of £1,400 a year as
776
Registrar of Deeds. From one year's end to the other that gentleman never goes into that office in Dublin. He does all his work at the office of the Registry of Titles, where he is also employed. It is true that the man who is next to him in charge at the Registry of Deeds receives a salary for doing his work. There is no reason whatever why this £1,400 should continue to be paid, considering that the gentleman who draws the salary never enters the office or does any work for it, although the Statute laid it down that his duty was to be the superintendent of that office. By reducing expenses in that way, and by reducing other office expenses where found possible, the deficit could be made good, or partly made good, and this extra charge need not be imposed, as now proposed by the Secretary to the Treasury. I am told that there has been a good deal of feeling among solicitors and those concerned at the proposed change and the proposed additions to the fees in the office of the Registrar of Deeds. As we have been compelled owing to the alteration in the Rules of the House to raise this matter on the Adjournment. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way as far as possible to meet us upon this particular case.
Mr. FIELD: I think our whole system of the register of deeds is absurd. There is nothing like it in any part of the world. I have had some correspondence with men in France, on the Continent, and in America, and they have public offices there where they manage these things on a far better principle, and the searching is done at almost nominal cost. One of the reasons why men are afraid to do anything in property in England, Ireland, or Scotland is on account of our system in regard to the register of deeds. It is unsafe, especially if you lose your deeds; it is also expensive, and it causes delay. The system of the register of deeds and the transmission of property in the three kingdoms is exceptionally costly. It seems to be designed for the purpose of enriching lawyers and preventing business men from obtaining property. I endorse everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman, and I trust we shall get a satisfactory reply.
Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend who opened this question has proceeded on an entire misconception of the facts as to the calculations that have

777
been made by the Treasury. He was under the impression that if we were to charge the public Departments for the work that was done for them there would be a considerable surplus instead of a deficit. The fact is that before arriving at an estimate of the annual loss a considerable sum was taken out for the free work which is done for the Departments.
Mr. HAZLETON: For the whole of it?
Mr. WOOD: Yes, a very ample sum, as the hon. Member will appreciate when I tell him what it was. The loss at the present time is over £10,000 a year.
Mr. FIELD: Change the system.
Mr. WOOD: That is what we are trying to do. A sum of £6,000 has been allowed as the value of the work done for the Departments. The Retrenchment Committee raised the question with the Treasury as to Departments where the proceeds did not pay for the cost of the work, and this was one of the Departments which was referred to by them. The increase proposed by the Treasury is very small. The loss, after allowing for the free work done for the Departments, is something over £3,000 a year. We propose to increase the fees to the small extent of £l,200 a year. I think the hon. Member will consider that that increase is not unreasonable. At the present moment there is a charge of 2s. 6d. for a search, and the office may have to search for a whole day for 2s. 6d. That is a ridiculously inadequate fee. What is proposed now is that the small sum shall vary from 1s., according to the length and difficulty of the search. We further propose to increase the minimum fee for the registration of memorials from 8s. to 9s. I do not think that increase at all unreasonable. I have had a comparison made with the charges in other places. The Registrar of Sasines in Edinburgh informs me that the Irish fees, even with the increase, are lower than those in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend will agree that my fellow-countrymen are not inclined to pay too much for these things.
Mr. SCANLAN: They get value in Edinburgh.
Mr. WOOD: The other point raised by the hon. Member is quite a new one, and is not dealt with in the Order, that is what he calls fishing searches. I do not think he would expect me to pledge myself, without inquiry and getting information from
778
experts on the subject, to make any promise in regard to fishing searches. I do not know whether they are made in England. If we compare the Irish fees with the English, you must come to a conclusion in favour of the Treasury proposal, because the English fees pay the costs, and I find that with the increase of £1,200 now proposed we shall still be considerably below the cost of the work. I do not think that my hon. Friend has made out a case for any reasonable complaint. Although I will consider the other matter about the fishing searches, I think he will agree with me that it will require expert advice before I can make a promise.
Mr. FIELD: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries in any other country except Scotland and England? Has he made any inquiries as to what system is followed in other civilised countries?
Mr. WOOD: I am afraid I have not.
Mr. FIELD: It is nearly time you did.

GREECE.
Mr. LYNCH: I wish to raise again the question of Greece, but I am by no means sure to whom I am addressing myself, seeing no representative of the Foreign Office present, although the Foreign Office had ample notice of my intention. Again and again this question has been raised, and it would appear to me, from the manner of the Foreign Office in dealing with this question, that it is really immaterial whether or not they be represented on the Treasury Bench. While* we are enjoying this rest from our labours, or this little political revolution, or solution of continuity, or whatever it may be called, affairs in Greece are going from bad to worse. They are drifting. I once before remarked in reference to this Government that I had known instances of a Government drifting to defeat, but I had never yet known one drift to victory. Whenever I have touched upon this question I have been forcibly impressed above all by the fact that, whether you take the diplomatic service, or the military service, or the general direction of affairs, one never seems able to come in contact with what might be called the engineering type of mind. That is the type of mind of one who sees a problem before him, no matter of what magnitude, who

779
takes the necessary steps to carry out the work of solving that practical problem, and, having formed his plan and having seen it before his eyes in a regular, consecutive, concatenated manner, proceeds at the beginning to execute it and so, from the very first, to make sure that he will terminate the work. Instead of that, we find the lawyer type of mind, of which the first instinct seems to be to put off till tomorrow or throw dust in the eyes of those who are criticising his action. If any man responsible for this business had that engineering type of mind, he would, from the great problem of the Balkan campaign, step by step be led to consider that the crux of it was the Grecian question, and he would tackle it with all the renewed impetus derived from the knowledge of the importance of the great issues that had been raised. Instead of that we have hesitations, delays, counter orders, and all the marks of weak and incapable men; never once clear vision and bold decision.
Let us consider what is actually happening in Greece for the moment. The reports which we get from the newspapers, exciting and alarming as they are, are nothing to the reality. Greece is evidently in a state of the utmost effervescence. The parties are sharply divided among themselves. Hostility and animosity has grown up, leading to resistance on the part of the enemies of the Allies. Supporters of M. Venizelos are imprisoned without trial, adherents of M. Venizelos are being thrown into prison and otherwise persecuted, and in the country districts, where the Royalist party remains supreme, the utmost pressure and persecution is being exercised against those inhabitants who are friendly to the Allied cause. Let me give one example to show how opinion may be manufactured. The Mayor of Colyndro is a Venizelist partisan. Pressure, that is to say real menace, has been brought to bear upon that man, so that he has been forced to sign a document in favour of the Reservist party. Multiply that by 10,000, and you will have an idea of what is going on now in Greece, and the manner1 in which public opinion is being manufactured. That instance will also enable me to account for a certain discrepancy between statements I myself have made, agreeing with the general opinion running throughout the whole of this country, and the statements of the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office, namely, that M. Venizelos himself
780
is not in favour of a change, for instance, in the Government of Greece, say a change in the supreme head. M. Venizelos may be forced to take that attitude by the same sort of pressure as that exercised on the Mayor of Colyndro, who, being a Venizelist, declares himself to be an adherent of the Reservist party. That pressure may be exercised on M. Venizelos, I do not say publicly, but behind the scenes, so that when ultimately he is forced to make a public declaration, it comes out in a certain form as if to indicate that he is in favour of preserving the present regime in Greece.
I go further than that. It has been suggested, and even declared, that in this matter the hands of this country are tied because other Allies are in favour of retaining the present regime, and the Republic of France has been mentioned, as if the very mention of that fact would not make its absurdity leap to the eyes— that the Republic, possessing no kind of attachés with the Royalist regime, and being by its spirit and inclination opposed to tyranny, insists on maintaining King Constantine. While it is quite consistent to say that in council the Republic of France is in complete accord with the Allies, because behind the scenes, and in in a most unwarrantable manner, persuasions, or interferences, have been brought to bear upon the minds of French statesmen in order beforehand to mould their opinion in what they believe to be agreement with the reigning opinion of this country. The nature of that interference I cannot describe, because that would be out of order, and in order to discuss the whole matter it would be necessary for me to bring forward a substantive Motion. If this situation continues I will not hesitate to take that course. I will bring forward a substantive Motion, and I will tear the last veils which hide this matter from the eyes of the public.
The situation is going from bad to worse while we are resting from our labours. What is to be done? The problem, which at the beginning was a fairly small one in which all the chances were in favour of the Allies, has been converted into one of great complexity and great magnitude, in which all the chances are turning against the Allies. They have interfered with indecision, they have interfered too late; they have interfered without sufficient means of supporting that interference, and they have sustained in Athens itself, and before the eyes of the

781
Greek people, a reverse unfortunately associated with much bloodshed, and one which will cause still deeper feelings of resentment and hatred between the opposing parties.
Once they determined to interfere they should have interfered with a force not only sufficient to carry out their will, but to make even the most fervid of the Reservists disinclined to oppose them. Instead of that they gave notice to their enemies. They encouraged their enemies by their own timid and hesitating councils and their weak actions until now the problem is a hundred times more difficult than it would have been a few weeks ago. I believe I can say from my own knowledge that if General Sarrail, who is often attacked, and against whom insinuations are insidiously spread but who has proved himself to be one of the most capable French Generals—if he had months ago been given a thoroughly free hand, not only would he have dealt adequately with this Grecian situation, but it would have seemed to be a matter of very trifling importance, instead of looming up as a serious situation which is menacing the whole of the fortunes of this War. I will affirm again and again in spite of all contradiction, because the evidence remains stamped on the very nature of the transactions, that the whole of the resistance has been due to the desire to uphold the Greek dynasty. I will not labour this further to-night.
Again and again the Allies have had chances presented to them which to all of us seemed to be opening up the path of victory. Again and again they have thrown away those chances. They have behaved like the spoilt children of victory. But the Sibylline leaves presented again and again became dearer each time. They will not be presented for ever and in the end the spoilt children of victory will become the spoilt children of defeat. Even now destiny seems to be writing the main decisions of this War. That handwriting is appearing in the scrolls of Fate. The Adamantine Gates are closing; the great decisions of campaigns are often taken long before those campaigns are actually terminated. Now is not the time for weak counsels, for cowardice, for mean ideas, for lack of energy, for indecision, for all those vices which seem to have been stamped upon the Foreign Office since the inception of this War, but rather once and
782
for all, if a miracle can bring them forth, for bold and masculine qualities of energy, of power, for golden deeds, for feats which blaze in the eye of time, and remain immortal in the history of the world.
Mr. DILLON: I agree with my hon. Friend that it matters very little to this House whether the Foreign Office is represented on that Bench or not. A week or ten days ago this question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis Griffith), and the Foreign Office was represented and gave us a succession of pledges that the followers and supporters of M. Venizelos would be rigorously and effectively protected. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Office did on that occasion, and in reply to repeated questions, give us the most solemn pledges that efficient steps would be taken to protect M. Venizelos' friends, and in to-day's "Times" there is a letter from Professor Burroughes containing a telegram from M. Venizelos, in which he says that nothing has been done to protect his friends, and that they are now exposed to systematic terrorism and are prevented from joining the National Army. The history of this Greek matter has been a history of blunders perfectly unparalleled, I think, in civilised lands. A full year ago this country had a clear treaty right to intervene in Greece, and she landed at Salonika at the invitation of the lawful Government. If she had not been invited by the Government, of course her landing in Salonika would have been on a parallel with the action of the Germans in Belgium. The only justification for our ever having set foot upon the soil of Greece was the invitation of the lawful Government of Greece. When that took place, and when the King of Greece broke the constitution of his country and swept it away, and when, by the recent election we were entitled to appear in Greece, invited by the lawful Government, and as the protectors of the majority of the Greek people who recorded their votes at the poll and by a great majority returned M. Venizelos to power—the treaty of guarantee of the three protecting Powers, guaranteed to Greece a constitutional monarchy and did not guarantee the present dynasty—we had a clear right to come in as the protectors of the Greek people and to see that their voice, constitutionally expressed at the poll, was carried out.

783
Instead of that we stood idly by. We defied the orders of the King, who invited us to quit. We refused to quit, but we stood idly by while this man for a whole year spent millions of German money in organising a system of terrorism and intimidation against our friends in Greece, and endeavoured to overcome the voice of the majority of the Greek people. A year ago we had a clear right. A year ago our intervention would have been effective, and by this time we should have had the whole Greek nation at our backs, and could have used Greece as an efficient base for our operations in Macedonia, and in attacking Bulgaria, but we have allowed all that time to pass, and now look at the position in which we are. We marched on Athens the other day, having in this House, since these unconstitutional actions, persisted in recognising the King of Greece as the lawful sovereign of that country. We then served him with notice that he must deliver up his artillery. What right had we to serve that notice? We have deliberately and elaborately put ourselves in the wrong, and having put ourselves in the wrong, we deliver an ultimatum to the King of Greece that if he does not hand over ten batteries of artillery by 1st December we will make? him do it. Then what do we do? We advance on Athens on this buccaneering expedition, having put ourselves in the wrong, and we advance in such force that we meet with a most humiliating and disastrous reverse. Could human folly go any further than that? Can hon. Members not picture to themselves the ruinous effect on the prestige of the three Allied Powers, throughout the whole of the East, of this performance? We proposed to rescue the Balkans, to redeem the East, and to defeat Germany, and we are defeated by King Tino in the streets of Athens, and obliged to return from there under the escort of a Greek guard ! Was there ever such a farce? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Was there ever such a Government?"] I think it is most melancholy.
The pledges given to this House by the Foreign Office are treated with absolute contempt. Now for a period of several days we are relegated to silence. During those days nothing can be said in explanation, nothing can be demanded. But, after all, I suppose it does not very much matter. This House has already been practically obliterated. We get no explanations
784
here. We are kept in as much ignorance as the man in the street, while foreign assembles, even the Duma in Russia, and I need not add the French Assembly, are at this moment discussing this crisis with closed doors and with the fullest information that Ministers possess, yet the British House of Commons, the ancient House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments as she has been designated, is told nothing by the Coalition Government. I hope those who manufactured that Coalition Government are proud of their production. I thank God the Irish Party are absolutely clear of all responsibility for this transaction by which this Mother of Parliaments, having been muzzled, is kept in ignorance and treated with contempt. We are now to be relegated to a period of silence—an indefinite period, because I do not believe that Thursday next will see the end of this ministerial trouble. I have sat in this House for thirty-eight years, and I have never known it presenting a more melancholy aspect. It is sinking day by day lower and lower in the estimation of the people until we find the Northcliffe Press saying the best thing we can do is to close our doors.
Mr. GRIFFITH: I agree with everything said by my two hon. Friends. This is not the first or second time we have raised this question with considerable difficulty in this House. We have no one here representing the Foreign Office. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. McKin-non Wood) appears in his capacity as a Member for Scotland or as a representative of the Treasury. But my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) gave distinct notice this afternoon to the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he intended to raise this question on the Adjournment. That was said in the presence of both the Noble Lord and his Parliamentary Secretary, and I think it is treating the House of Commons somewhat with contempt that the Noble Lord should not now be present. I know there are people who are reconstructing the Government. It may be that the Noble Lord is reconstructing his foreign policy. If he is, it is none too early. According to the Cecilian view the House of Commons has very little to do with foreign politics. and no doubt if that is the Noble Lord's view he is justified in saying, "why should I waste time in coming here in order to

785
listen to a discussion on Greek affairs." But that is not a very useful way for the Government to treat the House of Commons, especially as we hear that is the last day of its existence.
This matter has been before the House several times. It is one of those questions upon which the Government have had ample warning. They know the views of the people of this country about the position in Greece. We have not been very fortunate in our championship of small nationalities. We went to war mainly because Belgium was attacked. Belgium has been overcome. Incidentally we went to war to protect Serbia and Montenegro, and both those countries, too, have to a great extent been overcome. The last small nation to come in was Rumania, and Rumania, position is nothing of which we have cause to be very proud. We have gone to Greece in virtue of certain rights, real or alleged, and we have taken a portion of Greek territory. We have known, even the man in the street has long known, that the King of Greece has always been opposed to the Allies. It is common knowledge that, for dynastic and matrimonial reasons, he is so opposed. Why not recognise the position? It is the excess surely of political folly not to recognise facts as they present themselves. We took a portion of his territory, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been representative of the Foreign Office, rather than the Exchequer, I would have asked him one or two questions which no doubt he would have answered quite as intelligently as the Noble Lord would have done had he been here. Probably the right hon. Gentleman would have said he could not answer because he did not know, while the Noble Lord would have declined to answer whether he knew or not. The right hon. Gentleman is a very welcome figure on the front Government Bench and no doubt his appearance here is in great part a recognition of the fact that he thinks the Government ought to be represented by somebody.
I should have liked to have asked him if he had been in a position to answer, whether it is not true that the failure of the Gallipoli Expedition was in no small part due to the interference of certain enemies of ours in the Kingdom of Greece, and if the Government did not have full warning of what they were doing. Really, if anyone had a sense of humour, such as
786
is possessed by the right hon. Gentleman coming from Scotland, it would be impossible not to find humour in the way we have treated this Kingdom of Greece. There is a man there who has absolutely asked men to join in acting independently of the King of Greece. He is really a traitor to the King of Greece, and we have encouraged him to be a traitor. We have recognised him as a traitor, but only a de facto traitor, not a de jure traitor. We support this man, who is a traitor to his King. We give him £400,000. We give him perorations; they are very plentiful on the Front Government Bench. We praise him. We say he is all that is excellent. We do everything we can for him, except the one thing he wants. We will not recognise his position in Greece. Yet without our recognition he is a traitor who might be brought to justice, and, according to the law of the land, be rightly executed by the King of Greece. We have delayed doing everything.
Delay is the order of the day, not merely ill Greece but in every other matter. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo when he says that the events of the last two days have probably been the most humiliating that have happened to us during the War. What are we doing? We take a part of Greece. We deliver an ultimatum to the King. We say we want a given number of batteries delivered to us, and if we do not get them by a certain time we will land troops. We do land troops. We land them, of course, in inadequate numbers, with the result that many are killed and many are wounded, and British soldiers, and French soldiers as well, are led back through the streets of Athens under the escort of Greek soldiers. Really! Has ever such a humiliating thing happened to a great Empire as the condition of our soldiers in the streets of Athens within the last few days? Why does not the Government make up its mind, I may say that it has got a mind to make up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Several minds."] I am not so sure about that. Let us assume that the Government have got a corporate mind, a collective mind, to make up in a certain direction: why should they not make up that mind once for all as between. King Constantine and M. Venizelos? That is the real point.
The Noble Lord was very eloquent the other night when he said he must not give away the secret of the position of the Allies. We do not ask for secrets,

787
we ask for action. Really the position of Great Britain is strong enough in the Alliance; we do quite enough; we have done our full share in it, perhaps more than our share. I am one of those who have never concealed that from my mind, and, whatever the Allies have done, I believe we have done as much and more, and that we ought to have a. voice in decisions of this kind. I think we have a right to ask His Majesty's Government to use all their influence in the direction I have indicated and to make up their mind once for all either to leave King Constantine alone and get done with it, or prevail upon him to do what you said publicly you want him to do. It has been one of the great misfortunes of the last few months that we have not been allowed to have a discussion upon the real points. It is a great mistake; it is a mistake for the country, and a mistake for the Government, because the Government has nothing to lose by allowing full, frank and free discussion of all these points. It may be that there is some answer, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who is at present representing the Government that there is a feeling of disquietude
788
throughout the country about the matter. It is a small matter; it may be that it does not affect the War at a vital point, but I feel quite confident in my own mind that there are thousands or millions of people in this country who are disquieted by our conduct in Greece. If the Government wants to get the confidence of the country, as I am sure the Government is anxious to have the confidence of the country, let them behave with consistency and have a definite policy, and let them convince the electors of this country, not only that you will not abandon—as the Noble Lord said the other night, and it was a poor sort of consolation—not only that you will not abandon M. Venizelos, but that you will support him, that you will put every facility in his way, and that Greek subjects, at any rate, who are in favour of his policy shall be allowed to join him without let or hindrance; and if let or hindrance is put in their way, that then you will speak with all the authority and force at your command to make sure that your support shall be secure and firm.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before Ten o'clock till Thursday next, 7th December, pursuant to the Resolution of the of the House of this day.