Commons Sitting of 13 January 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Cambridge (Western or Chesterton Division), in the room of the Right Honourable Edwin Samuel Montagu, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.— [Mr. Gulland.]
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 346 to 348, inclusive, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Three Orders in Council, dated 12th January, 1916, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16).
Estimate presented of the Additional Number of Officers and Men required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1916 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 414.]
BANK OF ENGLAND.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Accounts of Amount of Exchequer Bills and other Government Securities purchased, and Amount of Balances of Sums issued for the Payment of Dividends, etc., for the year ending 5th January, 1916 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 415.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PERSIA.
    Sir J. D. REE'Sasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who held the office of British Minister at Tehran during the recent critical occurrences at the Persian capital?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The post of His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has been held from the 17th of April last by Mr. Charles Marling.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that our representative acted with great tact and diplomatic skill during a most crucial period?
    Sir E. GREY: Oh yes, that is quite true. Mr. Marling has conducted affairs with great judgment and skill.

    EGYPT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether recent developments in Turkey, Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Middle East will occasion any changes in the administration of Egypt or in the political direction of affairs in these countries?
    Sir E. GREY: No changes of the nature referred to by the hon. Member are at present in contemplation.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does not the direction of affairs in Egypt at present possess a paramount importance compared with that of previous conditions, and is not any change contemplated there in consequence?
    Sir E. GREY: There are no changes contemplated in the political direction of affairs, but, of course, there may be military changes according to the progress of the War.

    NEUTRAL STATES.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked whether belligerents who wilfully destroy the life of persons belonging to neutral States by inhuman methods of warfare are under the practice and custom of international law entitled to purchase indemnity by payment of moneys to individuals?
    Sir E. GREY: No action of His Majesty's Government has given occasion for such question to arise between His Majesty's Government and any neutral State. I am not aware of any international law that has the effect described in the question.

    BULGARIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who now represents British interests in Bulgaria; and what information has reached him with regard to the status and property of British subjects in that country?
    Sir E. GREY: British interests in Bulgaria are in the hands of the United States Chargé d'Affaires at Sofia; British subjects in Bulgaria are free to leave the country if they wish to do so; as far as we know none are interned; no complaints have reached me of damage to British property in that country.

    INTERNATIONAL LAW (BRITISH SUBMARINE).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the crew of the British submarine which sank off Texel on the 6th instant, having sprung a leak and grounded, who were rescued by a Dutch cruiser and brought into Helder, have been interned at Groningen by the Dutch Government; whether, having regard to the fact that the British submarine whose crew were thus rescued was not sunk by a belligerent, the detention or internment of that crew by the Dutch Government is contrary to the principles and practice of international law; whether Article 13 of Convention X., of the Second Peace Conference, providing that if shipwrecked sailors are taken on board a neutral man-of-war precaution must be taken so far as possible that they do not again take part in the operations of the war, applies only to sailors whose ships have been wrecked by the enemy, not to sailors whose ships have been wrecked in the ordinary course of navigation; and whether Great Britain will demand the immediate release from detention of these sailors, whose case does not differ from that of any other British subjects in neutral territory, and who should, even if their ship had been dis-
    1744
    abled by a belligerent, as in the case of the Russian sailors rescued by British, French, and Italian cruisers from ships disabled by the Japanese, be not detained but handed over to Great Britain on the condition that they should not take part in hostilities during the War?
    Sir E. GREY: The crew of the E 17 has been interned by the Dutch Government, but the place of internment is as yet unknown to His Majesty's Government.
    The answer to the second part of the question is that Article 13 of Convention X. of The Hague draws no distinction between ships wrecked by the enemy or in the ordinary course of navigation. As to the remainder of the hon. Member's question, I will see that the suggestions and arguments put forward by him are very carefully considered.
    Mr. McNEILL: Thank you.

    DISTRESS COMMITTEE, DUBLIN (GRANTS).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that owing to the condition of many poor people in Dublin it is necessary to continue the Grant to the distress committee; and whether he will inquire into the matter and assist them to obtain a Grant from the Treasury?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Treasury have notified the Local Government Board that they do not propose to make Grants to distress committees this year in any part of the United Kingdom.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked whether any instructions have been issued recently to the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to their prosecuting persons who may be walking beside their bicycles with the light accidentally or otherwise extinguished?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. WHITEasked whether, when members of the Royal Irish Constabulary use their bicycles in performance of duties for which they would be entitled to hire a

    1745
    car they are given the equivalent of the car fare; and, if not, why is this not done; and upon what basis their allowance is calculated?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, on the general principle that expenses cannot be allowed for a mode of locomotion not actually used. The cycling allowances of the police are calculated so as fully to recoup them for the wear and tear of their machines so far as used on the public service.

    RECRUITING (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked what position Mr. Kevin Kenny has occupied in the service of the Irish Government since the tuberculosis campaign ceased to pay; and what position he occupies now?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The gentleman referred to does not occupy and, so far as I am aware, has never occupied any position in the service of the Irish Government, but I understand that his services as an advertising agent were for a time utilised in the ordinary course of business by the Department of Recruiting and payments for advertisement space made through him.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does not that bring him into convenient and intimate contact throughout Ireland with the owners and editors of provincial newspapers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know, Sir, whether the employment has that disagreeable result.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the number of elected public bodies in Ireland that have adopted resolutions calling for the repeal of the National Insurance Act so far as regards its application to Ireland; and what action it is proposed to take towards meeting their wishes?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have received resolutions of the nature indicated from six of the several hundred elected public bodies in Ireland, and I do not propose to take any action on them.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that only
    1746
    six representative bodies in Ireland have called for the abrogation of this Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; all I say is that I have only received representations from six of them.
    Mr. GINNELL: Mr. Speaker, the question does not ask the right hon. Gentleman how many have been received, but how many have been adopted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that.
    Mr. GINNELL: You should say so.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman ever read the Irish newspapers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Occasionally.

    EDUCATION GRANTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked on whose advice the actual withdrawal of education Grants in Ireland has been made; if further withdrawals of educational Grants in Ireland are being contemplated; and whether the Treasury will seek the advice of Irish educational experts, willing and competent to advise, before further limiting Irish educational Grants?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Grants that have been effected by reductions are almost wholly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and no advice has been asked or given by the Under-Secretary for Ireland in the matter.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of restoring the educational Grants which have been withdrawn from Ireland?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The decision of the Treasury in the matter was based on the most careful consideration of all aspects of the question after consultation with the Department primarily concerned. The Treasury can act in such matters only on representations from the Department responsible to Parliament.
    Mr. BYRNE: That is not an answer to my question, which is whether the Grants will be restored.
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to that, I assume, is "No."
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the reduction of the Grant in Ireland for technical education with the speech of his right hon. colleague the President of the Board of Trade in this House the other night?
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I shall.
    Mr. BYRNE: Why should there be this injustice to Ireland in the matter of education as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Grants have been cut down all round.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade said there were no reductions being made of a similar character in Scotland or Great Britain?
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Treasury contemplate any further withdrawals of Irish educational Grants?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir, I cannot say that. I am only answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

    HORSE-BREEDING (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether it has been proposed by the Development Commissioners to reduce the Grants for the encouragement of horse-breeding in Ireland; and. if so, to what extent?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture,): The Development Commissioners proposed in August last that their Grant of £10,000 for horse-breeding in Ireland should be reduced by £5,000. They have within the past week suggested reasons why the Grant should be stopped altogether. Among these reasons is the reduction of the Department's expenditure on horse-breeding from their endowment fund brought about through the shrinkage of Government securities due to the War, which has left the Department a smaller amount available to apply to their schemes.
    Mr MEEHAN: Have the Grants for horse-breeding been stopped in England?
    Mr. RUSSELL: No; I rather think they have been increased.
    Mr. BOLAND: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any further representations on the subject since he learnt that they have been increased in England?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Oh, yes; we have been in constant communication about them, because we think it is a most serious thing.

    LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the Navan board of guardians, at which was read a letter of resignation from the chairman and secretary of the committee appointed to manage the plot on the Oldtown farm set apart for the use of local labourers, because of the action of the Department in refusing to allow a necessary operation to eradicate disease by temporarily ploughing the land; and whether, seeing that he has issued pamphlets and leaflets and addressed many public meetings urging upon farmers the importance of cultivating more land in order to increase the supply of home-raised food, he will explain why he refused the local committee the right to till the farm in order, in addition to other reasons, to produce food for the labourers' families, especially when the local landowners had offered to plough the land free of charge?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The attention of the Department has been drawn to the report of the meeting referred to. The plot in question was allotted by the Estates Commissioners to the Navan Rural District Council for purposes of pasturage in accordance with Sections 4 and 20 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by Section 18 of the Irish Land Act, 1909. The proposal of the rural district council was to amend the scheme of user approved under these Sections so as to permit of tillage. Unfortunately tillage is not one of the purposes enumerated in the Sections, and the Department have no legal power to amend the scheme of user in the sense desired.
    Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the country is at war, and that the production of food is (necessary; and could he not do away with some of the red-tape of his office?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The fact that the country is at war does not authorise me to break an Act of Parliament.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (FREE MEALS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Newport Education Committee in striking 400 children from the list of those previously receiving free meals; whether he is aware that this action on the part of the committee has given rise to considerable feeling in the locality; and whether he will make representations to the committee on the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): From the information received by the Board it appears that the number of children fed during November, 1915, was about 270 as compared with about 720 in November, 1914. The decrease, the greater part of which occurred in the first half of last year, is, so far as I am aware, due to ordinary causes, such as improved trade, which have operated in the same direction over the whole country. I will, however, make inquiries and let the hon. Member know.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    24. Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that, despite the undertaking that the Central Control Board would not make any Order affecting any new area without consulting interested parties in the locality, including amongst others specially named the licensed trade, the Board held an inquiry on 16th December at Hull with reference to the scheduling of the Humber district, the East Riding, and parts of Lincolnshire, at which inquiry, although all the other interested parties were consulted and represented, the licensed trade were not only not consulted, but on their making application to be present were refused repre-
    1750
    sentation and participation; and, if so, whether he will take steps to ensure that in future in similar inquiries the licensed trade shall be consulted as one of the interested parties in accordance with his undertaking?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 6th instant. If he will also refer to my right hon. Friend's statement on the 9th December, he will see that no engagement taken by him has been infringed either in letter or in spirit.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (EMPLOYES' CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company locked out from 24th December to 3rd January several thousand men employed at their Doncaster works; that many of these skilled men could have obtained work elsewhere but for the fact that the company refused to give them their cards; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that the period referred to in the question was that of the Christmas holiday of the establishment in question. I am further informed that the company did not refuse their insurance cards to the workmen. I may add that under Clause 5 of the Munitions (Amendment) Bill, workmen, under the circumstances stated, would be entitled as of right to leaving certificates in the future. I do not think it would be possible to take any action in regard to the past.

    CONTROLLED FACTORIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked when it is expected that the Dublin arsenal for munitions manufacture will be open to give employment; and why the Dundalk Munitions Factory has been scheduled in the northern area although it is within the province of Leinster?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Dublin National Shell Factory is already giving employment. The weekly wages bill at the end of last month was £150, and is rapidly increasing as additional machines become available. The Dundalk Munitions Factory is controlled by the Great Northern Railway Company, who are carrying out part of their contract at their works in

    1751
    Belfast. It was therefore considered advisable for administrative reasons to include Dundalk in the Belfast area.

    MESSERS. THORNYCROFT'S WORKS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Munitions whether complaints have been received concerning the conditions of labour at one of Messrs. Thornycroft's works, and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the workers there employed on account of the shortage of necessary tools involving waste of time and money, and also on account of the condition of the yard pre venting men working dry shod; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the works referred to by the Noble Lord are those at Woolston. I will have inquiries made and communicate the result to him.

    ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the destruction of munition works in the United States by incendiarism and the number of persons killed and injured thereby, he can state how many aliens are at present employed in munition factories, controlled or otherwise, in this country; and what are the conditions and safeguards made in connection with their employment?
    Dr. ADDISON: The matter referred to by my horn Friend has not been lost sight of. I do not think, however, that it would be in the public interest to state the nature of the precautions taken, and I am not in a position to state the number of aliens employed in munition factories, but I can assure my hon. Friend that great care is being exercised in this matter.

    TRANSPORT WORKERS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the recommendation put forward by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce that all transport workers, including carters on the list of reserved occupations, be placed in a position similar to that of munition workers, so that there may be a co-ordination of labour in the interests of the nation; and if, in view of this recommendation, he can see
    1752
    his way to put these men in the same position as munitions workers who are recognised as working for the vital interests of the country?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. James Hope): My hon. Friend has been called away, and has asked me to answer this question. I understand that the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce have recommended that all transport workers, including carters, on the list of reserved occupations be placed under control similar to that of munition workers. As at present advised, however, I cannot see my way to adopt the recommendation.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade on what day he is prepared to introduce the promised Bill for dealing with enemy companies and firms trading in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The Bill dealing with enemy companies and firms trading in this country will shortly be introduced—I hope early next week.

    STEAMSHIP "PERSIA" (LIFE PROTECTION ON STEAMERS).
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked what special precautions are insisted upon as a protection to life in ocean-going steamers; and whether any and, if so, what such precautions were taken in the case of the steamship "Persia" before leaving port on her last voyage?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: In order to meet the special risks which have arisen during the present War, the Board of Trade some time ago issued to masters and owners of passenger vessels instructions with regard to the special precautions to be taken. I am sending the hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of these instructions. The Board have no reason to think that any precautions were omitted in the case of the steamship "Persia."
    Mr. SMITH: May I give notice of my intention to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment on Monday next?

    SEED POTATOES.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that owing to the shortage of railway wagons, potato growers in England are unable to obtain from Scotland, more especially from the counties of Perth and Forfar, the necessary supplies of seed potatoes for the coming season's crop; whether, in view of the importance of that crop from the point of view of the nation's food supply as well as for industrial purposes, he is aware that damage has already been done by the non-delivery of thousands of tons of seed potatoes for sprouting and early planting; and what steps he has taken or proposes immediately to take in order to ensure to the English growers the raw material essential for their industry?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed by the Railway Executive Committee that special steps wall be taken to deal with this traffic.

    COMPANIES IN LIQUIDATION AND BANKRUPTCY.
    Mr. FELLasked the number of companies wound up in the United Kingdom or, failing that, in England during the year 1915; and how it compares with the years 1914 and 1913?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The numbers of companies which went into liquidation in the United Kingdom during the years 1913, 1914 and 1915 are 2,120, 2,183 and 1,812 respectively.
    Mr. FELLasked the number of bankruptcies in the United Kingdom or, failing that, in England during the year 1915, and how it compares with the years 1914 and 1913?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The number of bankruptcies in England and Wales gazetted during 1915 was 2,411; the corresponding number for 1914 was 2,887; and for 1913, 3,393. So far as regards Scotland and Ireland, the question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

    BRISTOL CITY LINE (REQUISITION OF VESSELS).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from the Dock,
    1754
    Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union against the proposal of the Government to commandeer some of the vessels of the Bristol City Line; and whether due consideration will be given to those representations before any action is taken?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, but no guarantee can be given of exemption from the ordinary liability to requisition for naval and military purposes which attaches to all British ships.

    NATIONAL REGISTER (ALIENS).
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if aliens of military age were registered under the National Registration Act; and, if so, how many were included?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the numbers, I may refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow.

    CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. O'SULLIVANasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a resolution from the Kerry County Council protesting against the action of the Post Office censors in opening and censoring letters of the Most Reverend Dr. Mangan, Bishop of Kerry, and the nuns throughout the county; and if he will see that such action is not repeated?
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Kerry County Council have unanimously passed a resolution condemning the censoring of letters addressed to His Lordship the Most Reverend Dr. Mangan, Bishop of Kerry; whether he is aware that Dr. Mangan himself found it necessary, after repeated complaints, to publicly call attention to the fact that letters of a most private and confidential character addressed to him on purely religious questions were censored; and whether, in view of Dr. Mangan's well-known position and public feeling, as also

    1755
    that he is a colleague of the Chief Secretaries of Ireland on the Congested Districts Board, he will be further spared the affront of having his private and most confidential communications examined?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have not seen the resolution from the Kerry County Council, but I have seen letters addressed to the Postmaster-General and to the War Office on this matter by the Bishop of Kerry, and I have seen a statement made by the Bishop in the Cathedral, Killarney. A full explanation of the action taken was sent to the bishop on the 11th January, in which it was explained that the censorship of letters was imposed out of military necessity, and that it was conducted by a staff of honourable persons in accordance with instructions which do not discriminate between letters addressed to the bishops and clergy in Ireland and those addressed to the bishops and clergy in Great Britain. It would not be possible, without delaying the correspondence more than it is now delayed, to sort out and exempt from censorship particular classes of correspondence addressed to or sent by different categories of persons.
    The object of the censorship is to prevent the disclosure of military information as much by innocent inadvertence as by deliberate intention, and to confine it to examination of the correspondence of known enemies of the Empire would, even if such a course were feasible, defeat one of its main objects. The censorship of letters is undertaken solely with a view to protecting the lives of the soldiers, in whose safety I know the people of Ireland are as keenly interested as are the inhabitants of other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Are the military authorities in Cork allowed to censor letters of a purely religious character, and has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt the patriotism of the Bishop of Kerry?
    Mr. TENNANT: The county of Cork is not treated differently to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Ought not there to be at least a suspicion of a person before letters are opened, or some reason for suspecting that a letter of a treasonable character is being sent?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no suspicion in any individual case, and it is only by opening a mass of letters that one is able to ascertain what is actually being communicated.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Why do they open private and confidential letters of a most sacred character dealing with purely religious matters addressed to a bishop?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to know until the letters are opened.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Ought not the mere fact that a letter is addressed to a prominent bishop of the Roman Catholic Church to be a sufficient security that it is of a loyal character?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that would not be sufficient security. The letters of the bishops in Ireland have not been treated differently to the letters of bishops in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. FIELD: Letters from Members of this House to their families at home have been censored, and I want to know is this allowed by the Post Office?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that. There are no bishops here.

    ADMIRALTY EXPENDITURE.
    42. Sir J. WALTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed, in connection with Admiralty expenditure, to appoint a Committee similar to that now considering the possibilities of economy in Army expenditure?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A Committee has been appointed by the Government, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to consider questions of Departmental expenditure?

    COMPANIES OF ENEMY CHARACTER BILL.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister, whether he will give facilities for the consideration in this House of the Companies of Enemy Character Bill brought in by Lord Halsbury in another place?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not prepared to give facilities for the Bill referred to, but a Bill dealing with the matter will shortly be introduced in this House.

    PENSIONS ACT (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).
    49. Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked what funds, if any, have been placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee set up under the Pensions Act; whether a secretary has been appointed and what the staff is to be; whether any premises have yet been allocated to the business of the Committee; and when he expects that the Committee will begin its work?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The question of the funds to be placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee is receiving consideration. No decision has yet been arrived at in the matter of the appointment of a secretary and staff, or as to the choice of permanent offices, but correspondence may be addressed for the president to the vice-chairman, at the offices of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, 17, Waterloo Place, S.W. The Committee will hold its first meeting on Monday next.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the work of the Statutory Committee is to go on without any funds whatsoever?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The work of organising the Committee which will do this work can easily go on with very little expense, the money for which can be readily obtained. In a short time we hope to know the decision of the Government as to the funds, and that decision will be communicated to the House.
    Mr. RAFFAN: When the Statutory Committee is set up to which Minister will questions have to be addressed?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Prime Minister has arranged that, for the present at all events, I shall answer all the questions of hon. Members relating to the Statutory Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a waste of public money to appoint a paid secretary in addition to a paid vice-chairman?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should say certainly not. If the hon. Member will look at the functions and powers of this Statutory Committee he will see the enormous amount of work which they will have to do all over the country in England, Scotland and Ireland, and he will see that a paid secretary is absolutely necessary, as well as a paid vice-chairman.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it was advocated in this House that there should be a paid secretary instead of a paid vice-chairman?

  MILITARY SERVICE (No. 2) BILL.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked if single men with dependants are to be exempted from compulsory enlistment, what is the position of an attested married man with a widowed mother dependent upon him; and is he also exempt?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Under the Bill, single men with dependants can claim an exemption (absolute, conditional, or temporary), and an attested married man with a widowed mother dependent upon him can claim a similar exemption under the Derby scheme.

    EMPLOYES IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the number of employés of military age in the Government Departments in London; and how many are still unattested?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The exact numbers are not available, and I understand that the labour involved in procuring them would be considerable. I am, however, informed that there are very few eligible Civil servants who have up to the present failed to attest.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that every effort will be made to release all available men in the Government Departments in order to set an example?

    LORD DERBY'S SCHEME.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of doubts prevalent concerning what constituted youth in the pledge given concerning young unmarried men, he will say whether all unmarried men to the age of forty-one are held to be young; or whether young men means men up to a lower age; and, if so, to what age?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is difficult, if not impossible, to define the precise boundary line at which a man ceases to be young; but for this purpose I should be disposed to regard all men of military age as still young.
    Mr. KING: Does the Prime Minister know that each man is for himself the best judge whether he is young or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to say that my experience is the same as that of the hon. Member. Some of us are young long after the calendar marks us old, and others are old long before the calendar marks us old.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Scotland has given more men to the Army and Navy in proportion to her population than any other portion of the United Kingdom; and whether he is prepared to furnish the House with the figures to enable it to determine whether Scotland should, like Ireland, be excluded from the provisions of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Recruiting in Scotland has undoubtedly been most successful, but the figures for which my hon. Friend asks are not available. The suggestion in the last part of the question cannot be entertained.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that an Amendment will be put down to exclude Scotland, he will provide us with the figures in order to enable us to come to a decision on that subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to do so, and I shall certainly oppose any such Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that the figures for Scotland are withheld in order to spare the blushes of England and Wales?

    "CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR" (DEFINITION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Attorney-General whether he will now take steps to define by legislation the meaning of the phrase, "for the continuance of the War"; and will he move to add a Clause to the Military Service (No. 2) Bill with this object?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The phrase referred to in my hon. Friend's question occurs in a great number of statutes, and will undoubtedly require definition at some period. It cannot, however, be usefully defined until we are in a position to foresee the circumstances under which the War will end. The more particular point
    1760
    raised by my hon. Friend in relation to the Military Service (No. 2) Bill will no doubt require consideration in the Committee stage of the Bill when my hon. Friend will be able to develop his point.

    ARMY DISCHARGES (MEDICALLY UNFIT).
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Under-Secretary for War if men who have been discharged from the Army on medical grounds since the commencement of the War are excluded from the provisions of the Military Service Bill?
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether men who enlisted since 4th August, 1914, and have since been discharged as medically unfit, are exempted from the provisions of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it has yet been decided if men discharged from the Army as medically unfit shall have some distinctive badge?
    Mr. TENNANT: That matter is under consideration, and I believe a solution is being arrived at. I will inform my hon. Friend if he will repeat his question next week.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary how many German and Austrian alien enemies, male and female, respectively, are now at large in the United Kingdom?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Brace): As regards males, the figures for Great Britain are: Germans, 7,449; Austrians, 5,088. I have not been able to obtain the figures for Ireland. A final census of female alien enemies has not yet been taken for the whole Kingdom, but the available records show that the number at large, excluding British-born wives, is between 10,000 and 11,000, of whom about two-thirds are Germans and one-third Austrians.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Seeing there are nearly 12,000 male alien enemies at large, may we ask the new Home Secretary to take this matter into more serious consideration?
    Mr. BRACE: I will report the hon. Gentleman's desire to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Are any steps taken from time to time to review those cases which have been adjudicated upon?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes, there are.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary how many alien enemies are now at large in prohibited areas and, in particular, how many are still residing in Northumberland and in Kent?
    Mr. BRACE: The available figures show that as regards the prohibited areas on the East and South Coasts of Great Britain, for which statistics have previously been given, the number of male alien enemies now residing in them is as follows:—

    Germans

    353

    Austrians

    48

    401

    For the prohibited areas of Northumberland and Kent the figures are:—
    Northumberland.—Germans, 74; Austrians, 17; total, 91.
    Kent.—Germans, 15; Austrians, 2; total, 17.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman really take steps to see that prohibited areas are made what their name implies and that these aliens are moved elsewhere?
    Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend knows that no alien can live in a prohibited area without an order. The Home Office has to pay some regard to the opinions of the chief constable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, if the number of aliens in the country can be given, the figures of Scotsmen in the Army cannot be given?

    NITRATE OF SODA.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what the Board have done or intend to do with the nitrate of soda bought by them?
    Mr. ACLAND: It will be shipped to this country if sufficient freight can be obtained in time for the ensuing agricultural season.

    HORSE BREEDING.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what sum has been granted by the Exchequer to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purchase and maintenance of the Tully Stud?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Tully Stud was given to the nation, and therefore no Grant has been necessary for its purchase. An estimate has been presented to the Treasury showing that the cost of its maintenance for the next fifteen months will be about £4,000.
    Mr. MEEHANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the amount of the Grant for the encouragement of horse-breeding made by the Development Commission to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries last year; and what Grants are arranged to be made to the Board for the encouragement of horse-breeding this year from the Development Commission or from the Exchequer?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Grant for 1915–16 was £31,500, £26,500 of it coming from the Development Fund and £5,000 being an ordinary Exchequer Issue. For the year 1916–17, expenditure from the Exchequer not exceeding £40,000 has been authorised, and there will be no Grant from the Development Fund.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason for the increased Grant this year?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I think it is because of the anticipated great need of the Army for horses of a Cavalry type, for which on mobilisation they have to rely largely on England.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Would not the same reasons apply to Ireland, where they have reduced the Grant for horse breeding?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think not quite. It is a matter of hours rather than days to get the horses.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that before the War all the remounts necessary for the Army were bought in Ireland?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, but there is a difference between annual purchases and war mobilisation.

  FINANCE (No. 3) ACT.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether donations for patriotic purposes are allowed as deductions in excess profits; and whether Excess Profits Tax can be exacted in the case of a company which is wound-up in order to escape payment thereof?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 44 (2) and Section 45 (4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.

    GERMAN FINANCIERS (OPERATIONS IN PARIS AND LONDON).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to German financiers negotiating securities in Paris and London through neutral intermediaries; and what steps he is taking to prevent this practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: No information has reached me which tends to show that German financiers are succeeding in negotiating securities in London through neutral channels. The precautions established under the temporary regulations for the reopening of the Stock Exchanges and under the Trading with the Enemy Acts are expressly designed to frustrate any such attempts, and I have no evidence that they are not proving effective.

    GOLD COINAGE (BRITISH AND GERMAN RESERVES).
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reserve of gold coinage in the possession of the Bank of England and in that of the German Imperial Exchequer, respectively, on 31st December, 1915; whether it is still obligatory on the Bank of England to deliver gold to all who ask for it in exchange for notes; and if he can state approximately how much of the gold coinage of this country was melted down during the year 1915 by the manufacturers of jewellery?
    Mr. McKENNA: As shown by the Bank of England Return for 29th December, 1915 (the last of the year), the amount of gold and silver coin then held by the banking department was £137,977, and the amount of gold coin and bullion held by the issue department was £51,338,430, or together £51,476,407. No information has been published since the outbreak of war as to the state of the German Imperial Exchequer. If by "Imperial Exchequer" the hon. and learned Member means to refer to the German Imperial Bank, the amount of gold held by the Imperial Bank on 31st December, 1915, was, according to the official German return, £122,259,250. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative and to the third part in the negative.

    WAR LOAN INVESTMENTS (UNREGISTERED TRADES UNIONS).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Bank of England declines to recognise the trustees of unregistered trades unions for the purpose of investing funds in the War Loan for and on behalf of their unions; whether he is aware that large sums of money are being withheld from investment in the War Loan in consequence of this action on the part of the Bank of England; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is the uniform practice of the Bank of England to decline to register stock in the name of trustees as such, as it can take no cognisance of any trust. But it is open to trustees of unregistered trade unions to open stock accounts in the names of the trustees as individuals, or the trustees may apply to the Public Trustee to act for them.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether recent developments in Turkey, Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Middle East will occasion any change in the military administration of affairs in these countries; and whether the Mesopotamia Expedition is still controlled entirely by the Government of India?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer for changes that may be occasioned by future developments, but at present the Mesopotamia Expedition is controlled by the Government of India.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether Mesopotamia is not rather remote from India, and whether its present close connection with Egypt does not make a change desirable?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of any geographical changes.
    Sir J. D. REES: Although the right hon. Gentleman may not be responsible for the geography of the globe, is he not responsible for answering as regards military proximity?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is true that, measured by miles, Mesopotamia is nearer to Egypt, but for military convenience it has been arranged—and I do not think this is likely to be altered—that the Mesopotamia Expedition shall remain under the control of India.

    ARMY LEAVE (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary for War, if he will issue a request to the military authorities that all men who have been on service, say twelve months, without leave shall have priority in the granting of leave over those of less time service?
    Mr. TENNANT: The instructions already in force are to the effect that those who have been in France the longest time shall have preference as regards leave. This, however, does not mean and cannot mean that until all the men who have been in the War the longest have had leave no others shall be granted leave.
    Mr. WING: Has the right hon. Gentleman not had complaints that the rule, as he has stated it, is not being carried out?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to carry out a scheme for leave for such a large Army as we have in the field without there being complaints of hardship in individual cases, but that is inevitable to any large scheme.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among the Forces at the front owing to the differences in granting
    1766
    leave to various units, especially the Territorials, they having greater difficulty in obtaining leave than those in more recent enlistments, some never having had leave since the beginning of the War; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: The granting of leave is not, I think, affected by the consideration whether any individual is a Territorial or Regular soldier. Military exigencies make it inevitable that leave in units in different parts of the front cannot be distributed with absolute equality. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is well aware, I am sure, of the feelings and wishes of his troops in regard to this matter, and consistently with the military considerations, which are paramount, will give leave to the largest number possible.
    Mr. WING: Is it true that suspension of leave has become a form of punishment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that is true, but leave has been deferred to those who have been constant delinquents. I think that is not unnatural.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will outline the regulations that govern the granting of leave of absence at the front; whether he is aware that officers who have only been at the front for less than three weeks have been granted leave of absence, and that publicity was given to their presence in London; and, having regard to the dissatisfaction that exists among non-commissioned officers and men at the way in which leave is granted, some men having been at the front ten or eleven months without leave whilst others have been granted leave twice in that period and commissioned officers are allowed frequent leave, whether, with a view to allaying not only the dissatisfaction among the rank and file of our Army but also the misgivings of parents and others anxious to see their sons and relatives, he will arrange for some uniform system being applied which will be fair to all concerned regardless of position or political influence?
    Mr. TENNANT: The general principle is to send daily on leave as many as the train and boat accommodation will permit. Which individual officers or men are selected must depend on the military conditions at the moment, which obviously vary and can be known only to the military authorities in France. I am not aware

    1767
    of any cases of officers returning after three weeks' service at the front, unless any Members of this House may have returned after that short interval in order to take part in the important Debates which have recently taken place in this House.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many parents of soldiers are complaining when they know men are home on leave who have not been at the front as long as those in whom they are interested? Is it not causing general dissatisfaction?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have endeavoured to have this matter put right. I have had correspondence with Field-Marshal Sir John French, the late Commander-in-Chief at the front. He informs me there were really great difficulties, but every effort is made to give leave to those men who have been out longest. The hon. Member must know that is not always possible. It must depend on military conditions.

    LOCAL ROYAL ARTILLERY BRIGADES (PORTSMOUTH).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary for War if it is the intention of the War Office to allow of the raising of local Royal Artillery brigades and any more local battalions of Infantry; if he is aware that at Portsmouth three battalions have already been raised locally; and that Portsmouth is specially suited for the raising of local Royal Artillery brigades, inasmuch as so many residents are mechanics and skilled labourers?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no present intention to raise any more local units either of Artillery or Infantry. Should there be reason in the future to alter the present policy, the suitability of Portsmouth, where two service battalions and one reserve battalion have been raised, for such a purpose will be borne in mind.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE CORPS.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the men lately employed in the outside stations of the anti-aircraft defence had been trained at anti-aircraft work for about a year or more; whether most of these men were unfit for foreign service; whether the men
    1768
    who have superseded them are physically fit and of the right age for foreign service, but with no experience of anti-aircraft work; and can he say why this change was made?
    Mr. TENNANT: The first two parts of this question should be addressed to the Admiralty. As regards the third part, no men have been superseded, but certain changes agreed to by both the naval and military authorities, both in organisation and in the distribution of personnel, are in progress. It is not desirable to furnish information on the details of these changes.

    MOUNTED BRIGADES (WALES).
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the. Under-Secretary for War whether any decision has been taken to break up the South Wales Mounted Brigade, and the Border Mounted Brigade by utilising the regiments to provide drafts for an Infantry division recently employed in the Gallipoli Peninsula; and whether he will reconsider this decision with a view to employing these units collectively either as Cavalry or Infantry?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad to be able to inform the House that both the brigades mentioned will go abroad as brigades.

    AVONMOUTH DEPOT (DISPOSAL OF STABLE MANURE).
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the War Office are building kilns at £50 a-piece in order to burn to ashes the many thousands of tons of stable manure produced at the remount depot at Avon-mouth; whether he is aware that this valuable fertiliser is greatly in demand by Gloucestershire farmers outside the immediate neighbourhood of Avonmouth, but that, owing to the impossibility of obtaining railway trucks, a large number of which are kept empty and unused out-side certain railway stations in case of emergency, it cannot be conveyed to them; and whether, in order to avoid its contemplated destruction and satisfy the farmers' growing needs, the War Office will place temporarily at the disposal of the Agricultural War Committee of the Gloucestershire County Council for this purpose either a few of the trucks now standing idle on railways in the West of England or some of the motor transport

    1769
    lorries similarly standing idle in the neighbourhood of the above remount depot?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The cinerators were erected by the commandant as he was unable to get rid of the enormous accumulation of manure from last winter in any other way. As my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, the difficulty has been the impossibility of obtaining railway trucks for its removal from the depot to places where it could be made available for the farmers' use. I am informed that no railway trucks suitable for the purpose are being held up by the War Office, but the local military authorities are now considering the possibility of providing some motor lorries to take the manure into Gloucestershire, and I shall welcome my hon. and gallant Friend's co-operation.

    MIDDLESEX REGIMENT (MEN MEDICALLY UNFIT).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that certain men of the 3/8th Middlesex Regiment are still being kept at the country's expense, although they were certified as medically unfit for service by the medical board sitting at Tunbridge Wells on the 14–15th October last; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have asked for a report on this matter.

    3RD WELSH REGIMENT (COURT MARTIAL).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that No. 1565, Private J. E. Russell, of the 3rd Welsh Regiment, was recently tried by court martial for insubordination in connection with some trouble arising out of the quality and quantity of the food supplied to the men in camp, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and his wife and children are deprived of the separation allowance; and, in view of the length of the sentence and Russell's age, which is fifty-seven years, and of the fact that he had previously served twelve years in the Royal Marines, he will consider whether some mitigation of the punishment can be made?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will have inquiries made into this case.

  FOLKESTONE AND DOVER CLIFFS LANDSLIDE.

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the delay in making the new short deviation of the main high road between Folkestone and Dover; if he is aware that this road has been forcibly closed since the great landslide which destroyed the South-Eastern main line beneath, and if his attention has been called to the inconvenience and loss now incurred both by the military authorities and by civilians owing to the delay in reopening the main highway; if he will, in the circumstances, urge the authorities concerned to hurry on the new deviation and, until this is finished, if he will take steps to obtain immediate permission from the Royal Naval Air Service, which without any delay immediately began to make and promptly finished a deviation for themselves, to rejoin the damaged main road for military ambulances travelling between Dover Pier and the different hospitals in the Shorncliffe area to use this temporary junction road; if he is aware that, owing to the state of the interior roads, wounded soldiers transported from Dover to the hospitals in the Shorncliffe area have now, under orders, to be taken in ambulances round by Denton and Broome Park, an additional 10 miles; and if, as the road journey via the Naval Air Service deviation there and back would be less than half (namely, 19 miles) the journey via Denton (namely, 39 miles), he will at once issue instructions for all military vehicles forced to travel between Folkestone and Dover to use the same short road and deviation, in order that both the British and Canadian Governments may be saved the present wastage in wear and tear, in petrol, tyres, and oil, and also in the time of officers and men in charge of transport?
    Mr. TENNANT: No formal representations on this matter have, so far as I can trace, reached the War Office, but the inconveniences experienced as a result of the recent landslide are known. The reopening of the main highway is a matter for the county authorities, and I believe that the General Officer Commanding concerned is doing all in his power to forward the restoration of the ordinary means of communication. I will ask him to arrange for the temporary utilisation of the shorter route referred to if that can be done.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the charge now made to private soldiers travelling between Folkestone or Shorncliffe and Dover; if he is aware that soldiers are now charged 3s. 4d. single third-class fare and that the journey by ordinary trains takes three hours; if he is aware of the number of British and Canadian soldiers who have to travel between Dover and the neighbouring camps; if so, can he see his way to make some arrangement for a motor omnibus service between the two towns as a temporary measure; and, if he is able to do so, if this service can also be arranged for Sundays, on which days, when many soldiers travel on leave as well as duty, the afternoon train as at present advertised leaves Folkestone at 2.5 and arrives at Dover, if it is not late, at 7.34?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that the only means of travelling between Folkestone and Dover is, owing to the recent landslide, circuitous, but I am not aware of any military necessity for soldiers to travel between the two towns mentioned, and I am advised that it is not feasible to set up a motor omnibus service.

    AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL CORPS.
    Captain AMERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant-Colonel J. W. Barrett, Australian Medical Corps, occupied the Imperial appointments of Assistant Director of Medical Services on the staff of the Director of Medical Services, Egypt, and consulting oculist to His Majesty's Forces in Egypt; whether he was removed from these offices without inquiry by the Australian Government on a recommendation of the Army Council, which the General Officer Commanding in Egypt subsequently pointed out was due to a misunderstanding; whether a Court of Inquiry has been held and what was the finding of that Court; and whether, if that Report is favourable, the Army Council is prepared to reinstate Lieutenant-Colonel Barrett, or whether he is prepared to make any statement with regard to the value of the work done by Lieutenant-Colonel Barrett?
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe the facts as stated in the first two parts of the question are substantially correct. A Court of Inquiry was held in Egypt in October last year, and in its finding the Court exonerated Lieutenant-Colonel Barrett
    1772
    and spoke in the highest terms of his work. The High Commissioner of the Commonwealth was informed that there was no Objection to Lieutenant-Colonel Barrett being employed in Egypt or elsewhere, provided the Government of the Commonwealth concurred.

    RATIONS FOR TROOPS (ALDERSHOT AND IRISH COMMANDS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps have been taken in the Aldershot and Irish Commands to effect economies by ceasing to issue excessive and unnecessary rations to the troops in these commands; and whether, if such steps have not yet been taken, he will give directions to ensure that proper economies shall at once be put in force?
    Mr. FORSTER: Reduction in the scale of the meat ration has been made in some instances in the Irish Command where, in the opinion of the General Officer Commanding, local conditions justified it. In the Aldershot Command the General Officer Commanding has not as yet found it desirable to reduce the scale owing, I understand, to the arduous character of the work done by the troops. Instructions have been given to the Inspectors of Quartermaster General's Services that they are to pay special attention to the question of preventing rations being drawn in excess of requirements.

    VETERINARY OFFICERS (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. DALRYMPLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of veterinary officers granted temporary commissions since the outbreak of the War who have been promoted to the rank of captain, the number of veterinary officers granted commissions in Territorial Forces since the outbreak of the War who have been promoted to the rank of captain, the number of veterinary surgeons offering themselves for commissions and granted the rank of temporary lieutenant in the Regular Army and the Territorial Forces, respectively, during the last six months; and whether veterinary surgeons in the Territorial Forces will for the future

    1773
    be granted the same rate of promotion, carrying with it the same rate of pay, as the same officers serving in the Regular Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: The numbers are, respectively, 118, 4, 148, and 134. It has been decided to promote Territorial Force lieutenants to captains after one year's mobilised service. The rate of pay will be the same as laid down in the pay warrant for Regular officers.

    WAR CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the percentage of war contracts given to Ireland for November last was only 1.68 and little more than three out of 200; whether these contracts are those made for ordinary manufactured supplies which are made in Ireland, exclusive of war material, imports, food, or forage; whether the taxation of Ireland is relatively about 5½ per cent., whilst the manufactured contracts amount to only 1½ per cent. or about a quarter of the contribution without taking into consideration the still smaller proportion of war material made in Ireland; and whether, under those circumstances, he will arrange to have the examining and receiving depot established in Dublin for stores and supplies?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that it would take some time to verify the figures given in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but I have no reason to doubt that they are substanitally accurate. The statement in the second part of the question is correct. The point raised in the third part is hardly a matter for the War Department. As regards the last part, I regret I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 23rd of last month.

    INDIAN ARMY (TRANSFER OF OFFICERS FROM BRITISH ARMY).
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for India how many captains and majors have, since 4th August, 1914, been brought into the Indian Army from the English Regular and Territorial Armies, respectively, and how many of such captains have had nine years and how many
    1774
    of such majors have had eighteen years' previous service in the English Regular or Territorial Armies; if not, what is the average number of years' service of such captains and majors, respectively; whether any and, if so, how many of such officers so brought in have been previously certified as proficient or were in fact previously proficient in the native languages of the regiments to which they were brought in; and what steps have been taken to ensure that captains and majors brought in to the Indian Army since 4th August, 1914, from outside are proficient in the native languages of the troops which they have to command as captains or majors, respectively?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In the period mentioned, no majors and only four captains have been transferred from the British Regular Army to the Indian Army, and none from the Territorial Force. The four captains were transferred for duty in the Indian Supply and Transport Corps, in which they had completed the prescribed probationary service. Three had more than eleven years' service and one more than twelve, and all had passed the higher standard examination in Hindustani.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken to complete purchase negotiations on the property of the Knight of Kerry, in Valentia, Ireland, by giving the tenants the full reduction to which they are now entitled?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that in the case of the estate mentioned it is proposed in the near future to have undertakings to purchase signed by the tenants of all holdings which do not require improvements or alterations, and on completion of these undertakings interest will be collected on the purchase prices. Holdings requiring rearrangement cannot be dealt with pending the carrying out of the improvements, but this is being expedited.
    Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon this will be done; I got the same information three months ago?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, Sir, we are contemplating it. I really hope that the words "in the near future" mean very soon.
    Mr. WHITEasked whether the un tenanted lands on the Headfort estate in the townlands of Ballintillan and Moate have been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that in connection with the sale of this estate by the owner direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the owner has offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners some 60 acres of untenanted land in his occupation in the townland of Ballintillan and 247 acres in the townland of Moate.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired the un tenanted land on the Alexander estate at Cruicetown, county Meath; how many uneconomic holdings are on the estate and how many others in the immediate neigh bourhood; whether it is proposed to allocate the untenanted land to their enlargement; and if any application has been made to the Commissioners to devote a suitable portion of the land for the pasturage of labourers' cows?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. In connection with the sale of the untenanted land by the owner direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the owner has offered some 270 acres of the lands of Cruicetown in his occupation for sale to the Estates Commissioners for purposes of distribution, and the acquisition of these lands will be considered by the Commissioners when dealing with the estate in its order of priority on the principal register of direct sales (all cash). There appear to be nine holdings on the property, the Poor Law valuation of which does not exceed £7. In the distribution of the un-sioners will have due regard to the wants and circumstances of the occupiers of tenanted land, if acquired, the Commissmall holdings in the neighbourhood. The reply to the concluding part of the question would appear to be in the negative.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Castletown is letting his demesne lands at Granstown, Queen's County, to large farmers in the locality under lease
    1776
    for terms of twenty-one years; whether he is aware that a definite pledge was given by Lord Castletown's agent, Major Hamilton, at the time the sale of the tenanted land was being negotiated, that the demesne lands would be sold to the Estates Commissioners for the purposes of redistribution and to relieve congestion in the district; and will the Estates Commissioners take steps to void those leases and see that the pledge of Lord Castletown's agent, upon which the sale was based, is fulfilled?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to my reply of Thursday last to the hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County. I have no information as to the matter referred to in the second part. I am informed that the demesne lands mentioned were not included in the lands concerning which proceedings for sale were instituted before the Estates Commissioners, but in any event the Commissioners have no power to void leases.
    Mr. DELANY: Would the Commissioners communicate with Lord Castletown?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They are in communication already, I know.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any law under which Lord Castletown has ceased to be the owner of his own estates?
    Mr. BIRRELL: If he has not sold them he remains the owner.

    Labourers Act.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the number of labourers' cottages erected in county Meath since the passing of the first Labourers Act?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Two thousand six hundred and forty cottages were provided in county Meath up to the 31st March last, the date to which the last returns in the matter were prepared by the Local Government Board.

    Floods (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked, seeing that the Department of Agriculture is not heeding the overflow of Irish rivers and lakes this season, whether any Irish Department is recording the area of arable land submerged and the amount of the loss or any species of loss sustained thereby?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is this big matter of the submerging of arable land matter of such indifference to the Chief Secretary that he will not inquire about it?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I do not say that for a moment. We have kept very careful records of the rise and fall of the waters in the Shannon and other parts of Ireland.
    Mr. GINNELL: Why not do it now?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am doing it.

    Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the acreage under tobacco cultivation in Ireland for the years 1913, 1914, and 1915, respectively?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The area under tobacco in Ireland in each of the years in question was as follows: 1913, 162 acres; 1914, 225 acres; 1915, 230 acres.

    Railway Trains (Electric Lighting).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, arising out of recent railway accidents involving the firing of carriages and consequent additional loss of life, representations have been made to the various railway companies suggesting the lighting of trains by electricity in place of gas; and, if such representations have been made, will he state the nature of the replies received by the Board?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade have been in frequent correspondence with the railway companies on this subject, and they have recently asked the companies to consider what further steps they can take to accelerate the change from gas to electricity on main line and express services. The replies received show that the companies generally have made considerable progress in effecting this change, but that the wark has necessarily been interfered with owing to shortage of labour and material and other conditions caused by the War. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Board of Trade are fully alive to the importance of this matter, and that it will continue to receive their careful attention.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of children vaccinated in Great Britain in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915, respectively, and the number exempted on account of conscientious objections on the part of their parents; and whether any, and, if so, how many prosecutions were instituted against parents for non-compliance with the law during each of the years mentioned?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The number of successful vaccinations for which vaccination officers receive certificates at all ages in England and Wales was, in 1913, 430,470, and in 1914, 404,616, and the number of declarations of conscientious objection to vaccination in 1913, 308,235, and in 1914, 321,313. I cannot give the actual number of children vaccinated, nor the figures for 1915, which are not yet available. As to the figures for Scotland, a question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. It appears from the Criminal Statistics for the year 1913 that 146 persons were proceeded against in that year for offences against the Vaccination Acts. The statistics for 1914 and 1915 have not yet been published.

    Killeshin Post Office, Queen's County.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the closing of Killeshin post office, Queen's County, has caused public inconvenience, and imposes on old age pensioners and the public generally in that district a journey of from three to six miles to the nearest post office; and, seeing that the saving effected by the closing of the Killeshin office amounts to about £12 annually, will he give directions for the reopening of this office?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): This office was recently abolished on the occurrence of a vacancy, as the business transacted was insignificant; and I regret that in existing conditions I am unable to restore it in view of the loss incurred on the postal services in the district. I regret any inconvenience to the inhabitants, but arrangements are being made for the establishment of a letter box in the village.

    Irish Agricultural Organisation Society (Grants).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, to what extent the grants made by the Development Commissioners to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society have been reduced or affected?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Grants made from the Development Fund to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society during the last three years have been as follows:—

    For year ended 31st March, 1914

    £4,000

    For year ended 31st March, 1915

    £5,000

    For year ended 31st March, 1916

    £5,970

    The sum of £5,970 includes an emergency Grant of £3,000 to meet the special conditions in which the society has been placed by the War, and a special Grant of £1,000 for work in organising an increase of tillage among small farmers in the congested districts. In view of the close connection of the work of agricultural organisation societies with the question of food supply, the Development Commissioners are not recommending the reduction of Grants to either the English, Scottish or Irish Agricultural Organisation Societies.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a Grant to this private society has been made while similar Grants to public Departments, like the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, have been reduced or withdrawn?
    Mr. ACLAND: I know nothing about the reductions, but as I happened to be Financial Secretary when this Grant was increased I can inform the hon. Member that it was undoubtedly owing to its extraordinary good work.

    National Standard Life Insurance Corporation, Limited.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Attorney-General for Ireland if the National Standard Life Insurance Corporation, Limited, have not paid a sum of £800 due to industrial policy holders in the district of Mountmellick, Queen's County, since the 1st November, 1915; if the company's local agents are still collecting £6 per week in the district from poor policy holders; whether any complaints have been made to the authorities, or any information conveyed to them, that this company have had to be compelled to pay on matured policies by legal process after lengthy
    1780
    evasion and delay; if he has any information as to the financial position of the company; and whether he proposes taking legislative or other action to protect policy holders under such circumstances from being subjected to fraud?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Gordon): I have been informed that there are claims of a considerable amount due to industrial policy holders in Mountmellick district, Queen's County, which have remained unpaid since the 1st November, and that the agent of the National Standard Insurance Corporation, Limited, has on these grounds refused to collect for the company the premiums on current policies since the 27th December. No complaints have been made to the authorities by the policyholders in Mountmellick district, who, it is understood, are taking legal advice in the matter, while those in Tullamore have already taken proceedings. I have not sufficient information on which to form an opinion as to the financial position of the company.
    Mr. DELANY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Crown would prosecute if sworn information was made in one of these cases?
    Mr. GORDON: I must see the information before I answer a question like that.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what reason was alleged for the Order made by the Wessex County Council prohibiting the admission of Irish live stock; whether he is aware that there has not been any foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland since July, 1914, and only one case of anthrax in two years, and further that the number of swine fever and sheep-scab cases have seriously diminished; and whether, in view of these facts, he will have the restriction Order abrogated?
    Mr. ACLAND: I understand that the West Sussex County Council made the Regulations referred to because they surmised that the Somerset and district outbreak might have been due to the landing of Irish animals at Bristol. The Department are well aware of the fact that Ireland is and has for a long time been free from foot-and-mouth disease, and they have made certain representations to the West Sussex County Council in regard to this matter.
    Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand that Ireland is to be boycotted on the mere surmise of a county council? Is there no power to stop it?
    Mr. ACLAND: There is power to prevent it, and where it is necessary the Board will exercise that power. It is not fair to Ireland that anything should be done under suspicion that foot-and-mouth disease exists there when it does not.

    Hops (Imports).
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will state the quantity of hops imported into the United Kingdom during the first eight months and the remaining four months, respectively, of each of the years 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915?
    Mr. ACLAND: The net imports of hops into the United Kingdom during the first eight months of the years mentioned, as shown in the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation, were 60,368, 61,126, 42,905, and 146,509 cwts. respectively; during the last four months of the same years 174,955, 184,962, 40,685, and 52,838 cwts. respectively.

    Income Tax.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether no discount is to be allowed to those who pay both instalments of Income Tax upon demand for the first instalment?
    Mr. McKENNA: A person who pays in advance an instalment of tax which is payable on or before the 1st July would be able, under the Income Tax Acts, to obtain an allowance of discount calculated at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum for the period from the date of payment to the 1st July. The payment in advance must be made to the Accountant-General at Somerset House, or to the proper collector of Customs and Excise, and the discount must be claimed at the time.

BILL PRESENTED.
Army (Suspension of Sentences) (Amendment) Bill,—"to amend the Army (Suspension of Sentences) Act, 1915," presented by Mr. TENNANT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. KING: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he hopes to allow us two days for the Committee stage of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill next week, and whether in any case he will arrange the business so that we do not have to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The hon. Member had better wait and see what progress we make on Monday. At any rate on Monday the Eleven o'Clock Rule will not be suspended.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a general desire in all parts of the House that no time should be lost in passing the Bill?
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill have no desire to obstruct its passage?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is he also aware that the Prime Minister promised that facilities should be given for reasonable and for a full discussion?

  NAVAL FORCES (SERVICE ON SHORE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a small one-Clause Bill which I hope will commend itself to the House. It empowers the Admiralty to make orders directing that any officers and men of the Navy, while serving on shore, shall be subject to military law under the Army Act, just as in like case Royal Marines are subject to it to-day. The necessity arises from the fact that we now have men in large numbers borne on ships' books, and therefore under naval discipline, but serving with the Army in the field. Take the Royal Naval Division. I must not be supposed to suggest for one moment that their discipline is other than satisfactory—not at all—nor to
  1790
  suggest that anything more than a change in the method of procedure is necessary. That would be particularly ungracious after the gallant service they have rendered their country. The fact is that, although borne on ships' books, and therefore under naval discipline, their organisation and training are based essentially on military lines, and they have served so far exclusively with the Army in the field. In such circumstances, should a serious offence be committed, considerable inconvenience would follow. A soldier can be dealt with promptly on the spot. A man on a ship's books, unless the case is one that can be dealt with summarily by the maximum penalty of ninety days' imprisonment, has to be taken down to the base for the purpose of court-martial. A naval court-martial can only be held on board ship or on shore at a port, and there must be two ships present. If there is no officer at the base authorised to issue a warrant for a naval court-martial or a sufficient number of ships to constitute a court, then more delay will occur. The only officers authorised to issue a warrant to enable a court-martial to be held are those who have a warrant from the Admiralty. Such warrants are issued to every flag officer present at the base at the moment. The result of the delay may be and, indeed, it has happened, that the witnesses are not available when the trial is ready to be held. It is to render this contingency no longer possible that this little Bill has been prepared. We first proposed to make it apply only for the period of the War, but since the possibility of employing naval units alongside military units seems more likely to occur in the present day than in the past, especially in regard to the developments of the Royal Naval Air Service and so on, it seems expedient to ask for this power once and for all. That is what we do in this Bill, and it empowers the Admiralty, in any case where it seems to them expedient, to order any officers and men while serving on shore with the Army to be dealt with under the same code of discipline as the Army. In effect it places the officers and men to whom it may be applied in the same position as the Royal Marines on shore. As regards the codes of discipline in the Army and the Navy, there is not much practical difference. The principal difference is in the procedure of adjudication. I think the House will agree as to the expediency of this proposal, and I hope it will also agree that there is no good and sufficient reason

  1791
  why we should not dispose of the further stages of this small measure forthwith.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Before I come to deal with the Bill, may I say how delighted the Navy is, and I anticipate the whole of the House, with the honour which has been given to Lord Charles Beresford, and how we shall miss him from our Debates on these occasions? We are fortunate that we shall have a very distinguished admiral joining in our Debates on naval questions in the future—Sir Hed-worth Meux. The question dealt with in this Bill is a very old question, and one which has become accentuated in recent years. It is an inverted repetition of what occurred in 1804, when the Navy had very considerable difficulty with the Army serving on board ship. I have fortified myself with a couple of extracts, showing how that difficulty arose. A number of Artillery officers—very junior officers— were shipped on board our ships under Nelson, and the Navy had very considerable difficulty in dealing with them, because they refused to be subjected to naval discipline, and it was a source of great trouble. What was true of the Navy is true of the Army, and if the Navy serves on shore it ought to be possible to put naval men under military discipline. Nelson on that occasion was so distressed at the trouble which arose with the Artillery officers on board ship that he wrote to Lord St. Vincent:—
  "There is no real happiness in this world. With all content and smiles around me, up start these Artillery boys—I understand they are not beyond that age—and set us all at defiance, speaking in the most disrespectful manner of the Navy and its commanders, etc. With your quickness, the matter would have been settled, and perhaps some of them broke. I am, perhaps, more patient, but I do assure you not less resolved, if my plan of conciliation is not attended to. You and I are on the eve of quitting the theatre of our exploits, but we owe it to our successors, never, whilst we have a tongue to speak, or a hand to write, to allow the Navy to be in the smallest degree injured in its discipline by our conduct."
  The difficulty, Nelson proceeded to point out in other letters, was that you had two sets of discipline on board ship, and you could not have two captains in the same ship, and the same thing is bound to occur on shore. He said, in writing to Lord Melville:—
  "It requires not the gift of prescience to assert, if soldiers embarked in ships of war are not, as heretofore, left subject to the Act of Parliament for the government of His Majesty's ships, vessels, and forces by sea,…that the Navy, which we have all heretofore looked up to, will be ruined. The absolute power must remain; there cannot be two commanders in one ship, nor two sets of laws to regulate the conduct of those embarked in the same bottom."
  1792
  The Bill is a very short one, and I do not think anybody can discover any hidden dangers in it. They will not be able to discover the work of that mythical personage, Lord Northcliffe, nor will they be able to discover that anything but mythical personage who is the Minister of Munitions. It is simply to rectify what the Navy and the Army acknowledge to be an evil. I am glad the Financial Secretary said there had been no cases of indiscipline among the naval forces, seeing that the naval forces have worked alongside the military men without raising the question which the Artillery raised when they were on board ship in 1804. Still, I think both the Navy and the Army would like these forces to be subjected to military discipline when on shore. What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admirralty said is perfectly true. You have great delays due to courts-martial. There are large bodies of men at the Crystal Palace. If there be an offence against discipline, the offender and the whole of the witnesses have to be brought to a naval port and two ships of war have to be present for a trial by court-martial. That, of course, means great difficulty, and it is far better to have the thing adjudicated on the spot as promptly as possible, so long as at least twenty-four hours are given for anger to cool, and therefore to get lighter punishment. As a matter of fact, under military discipline the men will get lighter punishment because naval discipline at sea, where you are always in the presence of danger, involves heavier punishment. I hope the Bill will pass rapidly.
  Mr. WING: I am rather struck by the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as giving an indication that sailors love discipline. I have not found much admiration of it myself amongst those with whom I have mixed. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, in introducing the Bill, he should not have told us what are the conditions governing the Marines. We have here a small measure of one Clause brought in, and from the remarks made by my right hon. Friend in introducing it there seemed very little cause really for its introduction. It is simply brought in in order to bring a certain number of people under certain conditions governing another branch of the Service.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal Marines when on shore are, by order, under military discipline, and this Bill will provide

  1793
  that men on ship's books when on shore will be under military discipline.
  Mr. WING: Thanks. May I also ask whether this is to include the new bodies of men who have been brought to the Navy more directly than in the way alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs)? For instance, a mine sweeper.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Mr. WING: Then do I understand that this only applies when they are on shore on duty, and that there is no interference with them whatever when they are ashore not on duty?
  Dr. MACNAMARAassented.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. WING: May I ask if there can be a fuller description of some of the punishments given to these men, as I have had complaints from them saying that they really do not know what offence they have committed. They say they have done something under Section 41, Sub-section (5), but what the offence is they seem to be in some doubt about. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that a large number of men now serving under orders of His Majesty's Navy are quite unaccustomed to the discipline now imposed upon the Navy, and I would suggest that they should be kept fully informed as to any possible offence that they may innocently commit. These men are rough-and-ready, brave, courageous men, and have had little knowledge in any sense of discipline as we understand it. They have had their own rough-and-ready way of settling matters, and in joining the Navy they find an altogether new form of discipline from that to which they have been previously subjected. I have no desire in any way to delay the Bill, because I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of carrying out a measure for the greater efficiency of the Navy, but I would suggest, as I suggested on a previous occasion, as recently as last March, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Naval Discipline Bill, that there might be some popular form of exposition given to these men in order that they may carry out the laws by which they are governed, and to enable them to be obedient to and not break the laws purely through ignorance of the laws which govern them.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT(indistinctly heard): The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill suggested that it was for the better discipline, as I understood him, of the Naval Division. The experience of the Naval Division has not been altogether of such a character as to make it worth while to make a permanent change in the law in regard to them. The experiences of the Naval Division are familiar to all of us, and will be well within the recollection of the House. Their experience at Antwerp and the Dardanelles was not altogether fortunate, and I do not know whether it is worth while to alter the whole law permanently on their account. This measure in a rough-and-ready way makes sailors into soldiers.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Like the Royal Marines.
  Mr. LAMBERT: It has taken seventeen months of the War to discover that. We have gone on without this Bill all these years, and if the Bill is brought in for the purpose of assimilating the law simply and solely for the better discipline of the Naval Division—
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no!
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am not at all sure that it will find favour with the whole Navy. I am quite certain that in many naval quarters the Naval Division was regarded with a good deal of suspicion as being outside the purview of the Admiralty. I do not know whether this Bill portends some land exploits on behalf of the Admiralty. I hope not, because the land exploits of the Admiralty have not been particularly fortunate. I hope, therefore, that this Bill is not the prelude to the Navy undertaking great land operations. If that be so, we shall have a repetition of the disasters that we have had in Gallipoli and elsewhere. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that this does not portend any change of policy in regard to the Navy, and that the Navy will carry out its duties upon the sea, and that it is not intended to engage in any extensive land operations. I think that is rather important, because I observe, according to the Bill:—
  "The Admiralty may by order direct that all or any of the officers and men borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships shall be subject to military law."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: When serving on shore.
  Mr. LAMBERT: That means that they are subject to military law; in other words, we turn sailors into soldiers. That is a very strong order, and it is permanent. It is not for the continuance of the War only. It is not an emergency measure. Therefore, I do most sincerely hope that its introduction does not portend any new large land developments on the part of the Naval Forces of the Crown.
  Mr. KING: I am very interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) because he has had ten years' experience of the Admiralty; a good deal longer, I think, than the Secretary to the Admiralty who introduced the Bill.
  Dr. MACNAMARAindicated dissent.
  Mr. KING: At any rate it is longer, and when you get a critic out of your own office I think he is worth listening to, and I think the Admiralty ought to reply to him. I shall be sorry if there will not be an opportunity for that to-day. I have down a Motion for the rejection of this Bill, not out of spite or with any intention to obstruct in any way the work which the Government at this time think necessary for the conduct of the War, but I do feel that there are certain points which ought to be met and certain considerations in connection with this Bill which ought not to be so neglected that the Bill passes without any discussion or protest. In the first place, the Bill is not emergency legislation; it is legislation for the whole time. I should have thought, at the present time, that if there was one thing that was uncertain in connection with our military and naval organisations it was the exact relations of the Army and the Navy, and of the War Office and the Admiralty. We shall come out of this War with a great deal of experience, and, I hope, a great deal of determination to reorganise the Services. Why, therefore, when you have pledged yourself only to introduce emergency legislation, take this opportunity of establishing a new principle, by which you are going to hand over men in the Navy to Army authority, and to be entirely under Army control. I should like to see words added at the beginning of the first Clause, "for the duration of this War." It could very easily be done in Committee, and it could be done without any discussion. We can have the Report
  1796
  stage at once and the Third Reading, and send the Bill along the passage in the space of half an hour, and it would be a greatly improved measure if that is done.
  Undoubtedly we must not conceal from ourselves the fact which was quite evident from the remarks the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) that there is in the minds of a number of men who have come into this War, and taken service under the Admiralty, a certain suspicion of their position, certain friction, and a feeling of uneasiness as to how they are being treated fairly, or how they may be treated. I can point out one or two directions in which that feeling has come to my notice. There is no great grievance, and no feeling that they have been unfairly treated, but a suspicion and doubt where they are, what is going to happen next, what is going to be done with them and under what orders or conditions are they going to serve. Take the case of the anti-aircraft men, There have been chop-pings and changings of that service until the poor fellows do not know where they are or what is going to happen. They are fine men. Among them are a large number of clerks engaged in this House, to whom many of us have spoken about the work they have done at night in protecting us in the Anti-Aircraft Service. They have given up their nights again and again, and now they are being put under the War Office, and they do not know what development is going to come. They are uncertain and doubtful about what is going to happen if they are placed under the Army Act. This is a point to which I should like to call the attention of the Solicitor-General, because it is a legal point which I do not think the Secretary to the Admiralty quite appreciates. If these anti-aircraft men are now placed under the Army Act they are also placed under the Army Amendment Act, and the Army Amendment Act is emergency legislation by which the War Office can transfer any man from any one arm of its Service to another. They can take a man out of the Royal Army Medical Corps and put him in an Infantry regiment, or they can take a man out of an Infantry regiment and put him into the Army Service Corps.
  Commander BELLAIRS: That would be quite impossible as regards the Royal Marines or any naval forces serving on land. They could not do it; they could not transfer men from the Royal Marines or the Navy to the Army in that way. The War Office knows that though the men

  1797
  may come under military discipline when serving on land, they cannot transfer any man from the Royal Marines or from any naval service to the Army in the way suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr.KING: That point had not been ignored by me, but I would point out that in the wording of the first part of this first Clause the Admiralty are going to be able to order that all officers and men of His Majesty's ships whilst serving on shore shall be subject to military law under the Army Act. I suggested in a conversation which I have had with the Secretary to the Admiralty that he should make it quite clear by putting in the words "for military purposes be subject to military law." Apparently he is unable to accept that suggestion.
  Dr. MACNAMARA(was understood to say): It is in later on.
  Mr. KING: That is a different matter. Why not put it in twice and make it quite definite and clear? Then I should be satisfied. Possibly my argument is not of sound value. I do not mean to say that it is a profound legal argument that will hold water, but it is an argument which has been represented to me by two members of the anti-aircraft service, both of whom I believe were quite independent of one another, and both have come to the same sort of suspicion or idea. I think it ought to be made quite certain that this is only for disciplinary purposes. I know that is the intention, but it is very often the case, and it has occurred once or twice during this War, that the War Office or the Admiralty or some other Government Department have found that they are armed with powers they had not recognised or did not know about, and they have used those powers which they got inadvertently, and which they were glad to have, in a way which was never intended by Parliament or even by themselves at the outset. I have called attention to this matter so that there might be no mistake. It must be made clear that this is only to be for disciplinary purposes. I hope, too, it will mean that there is going to be increased effort to see that certain branches of the naval service which have been, as it were, under a cloud, or in doubt as to their position, shall be treated in such a way that their confidence can be freely gained, and their utility in the great service they render to the Crown be ensured.
  Mr.BOOTH: I would remind the Government in respect of a Bill of this kind that there was an engagement, indeed something in the nature of a contract, not to be broken, that none save emergency Bills were to be introduced, and the Prime Minister asked private Members to refrain from introducing Bills, in view of the fact that the House did not want, under stress of the War, to discuss private Members' measures. In regard to this Bill which is now before the House, nobody can say that it will have any influence upon the War. It may be a proper thing that men serving in the Navy when on shore should be under discipline, but that is a domestic question, rather one of police or local administration. I do not see why the words suggested by the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), "for the duration of the War," should not be put in. It might well be that the Government, having had experience of this measure, might want to continue it in an amended form, and in that case they would be bound to come to the House in order to perfect it. Therefore, I do not see how the Government can justify the introduction of this measure after the repeated undertakings given by the Government, unless it is limited to the duration of the War. If that be done it will ease the passage of the measure very considerably. Those words have been inserted again and again in legislation of this kind. I do not think there is really any hostility to the Bill, and I confess myself, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), and in view of the fact that grave apprehension is entertained by many Members of the House in regard to this proposal, that we ought to have something said of a reassuring character, which I am sure would be accepted.
  Mr. HOGGE: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty a question before he replies to the discussion upon this Bill. I hope the Navy will understand that the House, though sparsely attended, has yet great interest in what happens to that branch of the national services. Since the War broke out there have been added to the Navy for naval purposes a great number of extra aids, such as the Royal Naval Division, and I understand that the Crystal Palace, where they are lodged, is known as His Majesty's ship "Crystal Palace," and that when the men get leave from the "Crystal Palace" they go on

  1799
  shore. That ship, of course, is on shore all the time, and I want to know from my right hon. Friend how these men are to be affected by this Bill. Will they be directly under the Admiralty at such a place as the Crystal Palace; will they be directly under Admiralty discipline, or come in any way within the four corners of this measure? That ought to be made quite plain, at any rate, to those men who are only serving in the Navy for the period of the War. They have done it extremely well in many parts where we have been fighting, and I think that they should understand precisely what is their position, by whom they are to be controlled, and whether this is to be a temporary measure.
  Mr. RADFORD: I think the House will regard with very proper jealousy any measure which on the face of it is not intended for the present situation, but is really to be of a permanent character. I do not speak in the interests of private Members as did my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), but in the interest of the legislation of the country. I think that, unless there is good reason for this measure, it would be a misfortune on the present occasion, in a House which is thinly attended, and not largely fortified with naval authorities, to adopt this permanent change in the law relating to the Navy. Of course, it is natural that an able and zealous Minister should seek to effect what no doubt he believes would be a permanent improvement in the law which he has to handle; but there seems to be very great doubt as to whether that is really the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), at any rate one of the naval authorities at present in this House, appears to have some misgiving which is shared by other hon. Members who heard him in regard to this Bill. Under the circumstances, I venture to join in the protest which has been made by various hon. Gentlemen, and I suggest that, whatever becomes of this Bill, it should be limited, like other Bills of the kind which have been passed, to the duration of the War. I do not think that we should now consider a permanent change in the law relating to this subject. It is quite true, as has been already remarked, that when the War is over—and I pray God that time may be soon—there will be a great deal to reflect over, and probably a great many changes to make. I do not think it is desirable
  1800
  that a change should be made in what I may call a habit in a hurried and, after the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton, reckless manner, but that we should defer what may be necessary to be done to effect improvements in the Navy and Army until the War is over, when these matters could be deliberately considered.
  Dr. MACNAMARA(indistinctly heard): I tried to make my explanation of this small measure clear and to the point, so far as I could, but apparently doubts have arisen amongst some hon. Members as to its scope and purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing) has some anxiety in regard to minesweepers, who, he says, do not know very much about Navy or Army discipline, being quite new to this work. I would point out to my hon. Friend that this Bill does not affect mine-sweepers in any way whatever; it is a measure which affects men who are on ships' books, and who may be engaged with land forces, with soldiers on land expeditions, if the Admiralty so direct.
  Mr. WING: They serve in the Navy.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will read the Clause once more, and then the hon. Member will see in what circumstances men of the Navy will be engaged in operations on land with land forces; he will see what are the circumstances which would justify the Admiralty in directing that they should be for a time under military discipline. I can imagine no circumstances under which mine-sweepers would be engaged with land forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton, I must say quite unintentionally, seriously misrepresented what I said about the Royal Naval Division. It must not be supposed that I have suggested for one moment that the discipline of the Royal Naval Division is other than satisfactory, and I suggest nothing more than a change of the method of procedure which is considered to be necessary. These men have rendered excellent service to their country.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The point I made had reference to men of the Naval Division coming under military discipline.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is a large number of men on the ships' books, and they have been acting on land in military service, and that is really the reason why a change of this sort is necessary. There are other cases which might arise where

  1801
  it would be necessary for them to serve on land, and it was thought that it would be well to deal with the whole matter at once. I have stated that the immediate reason for this Bill was the fact of the existence of the Royal Naval Division, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend does not wish that anybody should think that this change was necessary because the discipline of the Royal Naval Division was other than very satisfactory.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I objected to the Naval Division, which is under the Admiralty, going from Admiralty control to work under military control upon land.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend holds that view consistently with his equal conviction that they have rendered excellent service when on land?
  Mr. LAMBERT: Quite so.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This change which is proposed does not affect the question of their discipline, for everybody knows how excellent the discipline of the Naval Division is. But, as I stated, I will read the Section as it stands, in reply to my hon. Friend below the Gangway:—
  "The Admiralty may by order direct that all or any of the officers and men borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships shall, whilst serving on shore, be subject to military law under the Army Act, and, while such an order is in force, the officers and men to whom the order relates shall for disciplinary purposes be subject to military law under the Army Act in like manner as officers and men of the Royal Marines when so subject."
  That is all that is intended. A large number of the men, as I have said, are borne on the ships' books, and, when they act on land, they will be under military orders and not under naval orders. That is all the Bill does. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton seems to see some portent of more land exploits on the part of the Admiralty, and he asks if that is to be the case. Not so far as I am aware. There is no arrière pensée connected with this Bill, and my right hon. Friend can accept my assurance that it is simply an administrative change. I repeat that so far as I am concerned it does not portend any more land exploits at all. It is simply a piece of administrative improvement, and nothing more, and I am sorry that so small a matter should have
  1802
  raised such ideas. The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) said, "Why do you want to make this permanent? Why do you not deal with it as a piece of emergency legislation?" Indeed, the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said the same. I say quite frankly, as I have said, that we at first did propose to make this a piece of emergency legislation, and take these powers to make an Order as set forth in the first Clause for the period of the War; but it seemed so good a thing to do in the circumstances, and so likely that for purposes of training and so forth that it might happen that men on ships' books were working with soldiers, that it might be well to do it once for all, and to obtain permanent power to secure that these men should be under Army discipline. But if there has been any understanding—I understand from the hon. Member for Pontefract that there was some pledge— that nothing but emergency legislation should be taken, I am quite sure, although I do not know—
  Mr. BOOTH: Yes, it was specific.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In any case, I am very glad to meet the convenience of the House. I must confess that I am sorry that we should have to make two bites at the cherry, but if there is a feeling that we should apply this to the War only, of course I think it a pity and we can only do it again, but I have no objection to making the first Clause read:—
  "The Admiralty may, during the present War,"
  putting in the words "during the present War."
  Mr. BOOTH: May I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman were to say six months after the War it would meet us?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The understanding is that if I accept the principle of dealing with this for the period of the War, or such period after as may be expedient, and I get those words put in in another place, getting all stages of the Bill now, that will meet his case. I am sorry, because it is a useful piece of legislation, and nothing more than an administrative matter, and there are none of these rather serious things in it that the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. The hon. Member for Somerset said, "Why have you not

  1803
  the words 'only for disciplinary purposes' in the first Clause? Why does it read,
  "The Admiralty may by order direct that all or any of the officers and men borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships shall, whilst serving on shore, be subject to military law.'"
  He asked, "Why do you not put in 'only for disciplinary purposes? "He ought to have read a little further down. We propose to make an order, and officers and men to whom the order relates shall "for disciplinary purposes"—the words he desires to see in are in effectively lower down, and I can assure him that their presence there covers the whole field of their operation, and there is not the danger he apprehends. The hon. Member referred to the Anti-Aircraft Corps. If members of the Anti-Aircraft Corps are transferred to the War Office, then obviouely they will be subject to the whole of the Army Act if they are transferred. They will then be subject to the whole of the Army Act, and, therefore, to the disciplinary provisions of that Army Act. If they are not transferred to the War Office, then if you give us this Bill it will remain for the Admiralty to direct whether or not there is a proper case to put the powers of this Bill into an Order and say that they shall be subject to military law for disciplinary purposes as officers and men of the Royal Marines are so subject. I think I have covered all the points raised, and I hope I may now get the Second Reading of the Bill, and that having explained all the purposes of this simple piece of administrative machinery, we may pass it through all its stages.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. James Hope.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  NAVAL FORCES (SERVICE ON SHORE) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Army Act to Naval Forces Serving on Shore in Certain Cases.)
    The Admiralty may by order direct that all or any of the officers and men borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships shall, whilst serving on shore, be subject
    1804
    to military law under the Army Act, and, while such an order is in force, the officers and men to whom the order relates shall for disciplinary purposes be subject to military law under the Army Act in like manner as officers and men of the Royal Marines when so subject.
    Mr. KING: I have an Amendment to insert, at the beginning of this Clause, the words "During the continuance of the War" ["the Admiralty may"]. From what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman I assume that I need not move this, because it will be met in another place.
    Dr. MACNAMARAinterposed a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. KING: Then I will not move this Amendment. I beg, however, to move, after the word "subject" ["on shore, be subject"], to insert the words "for disciplinary purposes."
    We have had this point already elucidated and discussed, and I am not at all satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He said there are the words "disciplinary purposes" lower down in the Clause. Let me point out that if that is so, the whole of this first phrase might be left out and yet give everything for which the right hon. Gentleman contends. I think the Solicitor-General will appreciate my argument. If the whole and sole object of this Clause is to place certain men under the Army Act for disciplinary purposes the Clause will be perfectly sound and effective if it reads:—
    "The Admiralty may by order direct that all or any of the officers and men borne on the books of any of His Majesty's ships shall for disciplinary purposes while serving on shore be subject to military law."
    There is no reason for having what I might call a double-barrelled sentence here at all, if there is only one object to be attained. The first barrel of this sentence is that they should be subject to military law under the Army Act. I have turned up the Army Act, a copy of which is available for any Member. Here may I point out to the hon. Member for Durham that if he wants to instruct his mine-sweepers and other friends as to what their duties are under the Army Act he can get this book from the Library, as they have so many surplus copies that they are

    1805
    only too glad to give them away, and he can send them out to the Navy, which can then have many pleasant hours. There are a great number of the portions of this Act not disciplinary at all. It is very long, but it is only Part I. which is disciplinary. Then there is another very long part which is about enlistment, Part II.; Part III. about billeting and impressment of carriages; Part IV. about general provisions; and Part V. about definitions, and many other things. I want these men, therefore, restricted to Part I. of the Army Act only, and I believe that is the intention. It is not necessary to have this double-barrelled sentence, the first barrel of which shoots them into the Army Act as a whole. My legal argument may be all wrong, and a great lawyer may very easily confound a humble layman. At the same time, I think there is some point in my argument, and I do not think a number of words are put into a Bill without there being a meaning for it.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir George Cave): I really hope this will not be pressed, because it is quite unnecessary. The Order to be made is in a very simple form, and says that these men while serving on shore shall be subject to military law. When that Order has been made they are subject to military law for disciplinary purposes, and then there are the further words,
    "in like manner as officers and men of the Royal Marines, when so subject."
    So that although the Order is in general terms, the effect is limited in two ways—firstly, to imposing military law for purposes of discipline, and secondly, to imposing only such parts of military law as relate to officers and men of the Royal Marines when so subject. It would be unnecessary to require all these details to be stated in the Order, as the Order has no effect except in that sense, and if made in the form prescribed the effect will be to subject the men to this law for disciplinary purposes only as prescribed in the latter part of the Section. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. KING: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very satisfactory in intention, and I have no doubt in other ways as well. Now we have it on record, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the words "provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence."
    I am not quite clear that this is not necessary. When, exactly, does a man on shore pass from military to naval discipline?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: When the Order is made.
    Mr. KING: But when the Order is made in London, and being sent to a place at a distance, such as Gallipoli, the poor man may have been under conditions different there. He may have been sent down to a place to be tried by court-martial, may be back again, having suffered his punishment, when the Order comes, and may then find that he is under military orders. He might even be in danger of being punished twice. The case is a remote one, but this is a provision often inserted in some similar Acts of Parliament, and I hope that, at any rate, some attention may be given to it, and if it is found that there is any substance in it, I think it might be added in another place, as in the case already conceded.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend referred to the text of the Army Act, but I think he should have pursued his inquiries a little further into that Act. Section 46, Clause (7) says:—
    "An offender shall not be liable to be tried by court-martial for any offence which has been dealt with summarily by his commanding officer, and shall not be liable to be punished by his commanding officer for any offence of which he has been acquitted or convicted by a competent Civil Court or by a court-martial."
    And Section 157 says:
    "Where a person subject to military law has been acquitted or convicted of an offence by a court martial, he shall not be liable to be tried again by a court-martial in respect of that offence."
    The Naval Discipline Act, as is shown very clearly in the Manual of Navy Law, contemplates, though it is not so expressed, that if the accused has been tried already for the same offence he may plead that fact, and he cannot be tried again. I think my hon. Friend will see that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. It is, I may say, extremely far-fetched.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir G. CAVE(indistinctly heard): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill is intended to make certain Amendments in the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915. The effect of Clause 1 is this: Where goods have been imported in contravention of the law relating to trading with the enemy they may be seized and forfeited, but on seizure notice must be given to the owner of the goods, and he has a month within which to put in his claim. In certain cases where goods are seized on the ground that they are of enemy origin and the owner has no address in the country it is obviously very difficult to give that notice, and the Clause provides that in such cases notice may be given by publication in the "London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette," as the case may require. Clause 2 deals with the case of declarations as to the persons or country to whom any goods are ultimately destined. Sub-section (1) provides that the obligation to satisfy the Commissioners that goods have not reached the enemy shall apply when the declaration is made after shipment as well as when it is made before shipment. Sub-section (2) of this Clause makes it unnecessary for some officer of the Commissioners to go down and prove that they are not satisfied that the goods in question have not reached an enemy. In other words, the Sub-section requires the person summoned to prove that the goods have not reached the enemy to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and if the Commissioners are not satisfied they take proceedings against the man, and the mere fact of taking proceedings ought to be sufficient evidence that they are not satisfied. The third Clause gives power, pending the issue of a Proclamation, to prohibit or restrict the exportation of any article. The intention to make a Procla-
1808
mation may get out, and at once goods of the kind affected are exported, and in that way the Proclamation is forestalled. It is desirable to prevent that, and this Clause will enable the Commissioners to do so. I think that is an object everybody will desire to assist. Clause 4 prescribes a penalty for attempting to ship goods in contravention of an Order under 39 and 40 Victoria, c. 36, s. 139. I hope that the House will assent to the Second Reading and allow us to get the Committee and other stages.
Mr. LOUGH: I am sure the House will be willing to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman in getting this Bill through. With regard to Clause 3, which proposes to give power to the Customs authorities to prohibit exportation pending the issue of a Proclamation, is there not some time limit required? What is the meaning of the word "pending"? At present there is no limit of time in the Clause and the effect might be that the Customs might go on prohibiting the export of some particular articles for an indefinite period. I do not think that that can be intended. I think that almost all the points that have been explained to us will commend themselves to the judgment of the House, and I have no objection to all the stages of the Bill being taken. By Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 the exporter is required to prove a negative. I was under the impression that that was provided in the Bill which was passed last year. This, however, does not stretch the law very far, and I have no doubt we will be assured that the matter shall be administered reasonably, as, indeed, I must say the Customs authorities always do in dealing with the legitimate trade of the country. Subject to any question which I may wish to raise with regard to Clause 3, I think the Bill might very well be allowed to go through.
Mr. WATT: I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to proceed with the Committee stage to-day. It seems to me desirable that there should be longer notice. This is an important measure for the mercantile community and I think it is desirable that they should have time to put forward any objections they may have to any of its provisions. There is, for instance, Clause 3, which proposes to give power to prohibit the exportation of goods pending a Proclamation. I really have no objections to the measure, but I

1809
think that the country in which the mercantile community form so important a part should have longer warning than it has had with regard to the proposals of the Bill.
5.0 P.M.
Sir G. CAVE: I shall be glad to accede to the request of the hon. Member and not take the further stages of the Bill to-day. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lough) say that the Customs authorities administer their powers with great consideration. I am sure they will use this power with the consideration with which they always exercise their functions. As to the criticism on Clause 3, it is very difficult to fix a limit of time before a date which is itself uncertain. As I understand it, the Clause would not become effective until a decision had been come to to issue a Proclamation. From the time such a decision has been arrived at by the right authorities the Customs authorities may take steps to prohibit the export of the goods, so that advantage shall not be taken of the time that is necessary to issue the formal Proclamation That is the only effect of the Clause, and if hon. Members can devise some limit of time I shall be glad to consider it.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Commitee of the Whole House for Monday next.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to Mortgagees in Possession.)
  It is hereby declared that the provisions of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, preserving to mortgagees in possession their powers of realising their security by way of sale without the leave of the Court, shall not extend to and shall be deemed never to have extended to mortgagees other than mortgagees of land or some interest in land:
  Provided that nothing in this provision shall affect a sale of any security completed before the nineteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
  Adjourned Debate resumed on Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir G. CAVE(indistinctly heard): This Bill was introduced some time ago, was read a second time, and went into Committee. When the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," was proposed, my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) objected to the Bill on the ground that it ought not to apply to loans made by bankers on personal securities. I think the Committee should know the effect of the Bill.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to move an Amendment. The Question, "That the. Clause stand part of the Bill," having been proposed, the Amendment cannot be moved at this stage. He will be able to move presently that the Bill be recommitted in respect of this Amendment, and then it can be moved.
  Sir G. CAVE: I understood that that was the course which must be followed, but before asking the Committee to allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill I thought it right to explain that I intended to move an Amendment later to meet the objection which had been taken. The bankers made representations and satisfied the Government that the objection was a reasonable one, and that the Bill ought not to extend to loans of that kind. At the same time the members of the Stock Exchange are anxious that the Bill should pass, and that the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act should apply to account-to-account loans on the Stock Exchange. What I propose to do is to move an Amendment giving effect to that arrangement and limiting the Bill entirely to loans of that character.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Might we hear the Amendment?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will read it. I propose to leave out the words "other than mortgagees of land or some interest in land," and to insert instead thereof the words
  "in relation to securities held by them as cover for account-to-account loans on any Stock Exchange, if these mortgagees can take or could have taken advantage of any scheme agreed to by His Majesty's Government for advances being made to these mortgagees in order to enable them to continue the loans."
  I do not propose to take the Report stage to-day, so that the matter can be further considered if necessary.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was stopped, owing to the exigencies of the Rules of Order, he was in the middle of an explanation of the original intention of the framers of the Bill. I understood him to say that the intention was that the Bill should extend only to real property. I shall be glad to know if that was so, and whether under the Bill as amended solicitors, for instance, in possession of such securities as policies, or anything of that kind, will be exempt from the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The Act applied to all mortgagees, and prevented mortgagees from realising their security without the leave of the Court. There was an exception in regard to mortgagees in possession, and I am told that it was intended that the exception should apply only to mortgagees of land, but the Courts have held that in fact the exemption applies to mortgagees in possession of personal property. This Bill was intended to put a fetter on mortgagees of personal property, but bankers desire to be free, as they now are. The Bill does not free anybody; it puts a new fetter upon a certain very limited class.
  Mr. WING: Does it mean that bankers who hold real property will have special advantages over outside persons who have mortgages on real property?
  Sir G. CAVE: No.
  Mr. KING: There is one little point to which I would like to call the attention of the Solicitor-General; it is a matter of drafting. Clause 1 begins with these words: "It is hereby declared that." These words are quite unnecessary. They are, I believe, sometimes used when the law is in doubt, but there is no question here of the law being in doubt. We know what the law is, and in the public interest we are going to alter the law. The words would be right if they were to remove a doubt, but they are not right when the Clause is definitely intended to alter the state of the law. Perhaps that point would be considered by the Solicitor-General?
  Mr. BOOTH: I would like to ask if I am correct in my understanding of one point. I understood that there had been a different decision in the Scottish Courts to the English Courts upon this very matter,
  1812
  and that, therefore, this alteration had been made necessary. I have been listening very carefully in order to hear how the matter stands. I am indebted to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark for my information in regard to this point. The hon. Member is generally pretty correct in his information. I understand that you cannot have in Scotland a floating charge or a debenture such as you can have in England, and that in Scotland it can only relate to landed property. Owing to that, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, which I understand this is sought to amend, works out quite differently in Scotland to England, and a mortgagee in possession of the same kind of security has been proved to be in an entirely different position across the border. So far as I can follow the decision in the Scottish Court, it seems to be more equitable—that is, it left the parties in a more just position than in England. I had my attention drawn to this matter. One of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors was good enough to see me, and we had some correspondence upon the point. My representations were made on behalf of some solicitors, both in London and in Glasgow. I understood that this Amending Bill was to make the thing equal, so that men having the same kind of security, whether in England or in Scotland, would be in just the same position in relation to this matter. If the Amendment which has been suggested is put in, in the interests of the City bankers, it rather does away with that, because the form is more comprehensive in its operation than in this Amendment. I would like some assurance from the Solicitor-General upon this point, because, if in future there are decisions of a different character in the two countries you will have to have another Amending Bill. Directly the parties, who are following this closely, find, especially in regard to what I may call international institutions—I mean international in the sense of being either banks or insurance companies doing business on both sides of the border—their experience different with regard to the same point, they are sure to make representations, and there is no answer whatever except another Amending Bill. I should like to be assured that the law in the two countries will be exactly the same in respect to these institutions, and that they will under similar conditions receive the same treatment in England and Scotland.
  Mr. DAVIDSON DALZIEL: May I ask what is exactly meant by Stock Exchange account-to-account loans? There are several kinds of Stock Exchange loans. There are, as I understand it, loans which are made on securities from account to account, and there are loans which are made on securities for a period, the interest being payable on the account. To which class of these loans does the Amendment apply?
  Sir G. CAVE: In reply to the hon. Member who has just put a question to me, the account-to-account loans are those on any Stock Exchange; but even so, they are restricted to the case where the mortgagees can take advantage of the Government scheme. In reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract, I am reluctant to embark upon the sea of Scottish law, but I believe it is the fact, having regard to the terms of the original Act, that these provisions in regard to mortgagees apply in Scotland only to mortgages on land, so that this Bill will have no other effect in Scotland except to give effect to what is already the law.
  Mr. BOOTH: I grant it, and that, of course, clears up that part of the matter. But the hon. Member for North-West Lanark assured me on this point, and I want to know, when we make this Amendment, which applies to England, shall we then be in the Scottish position?
  Sir G. CAVE: We shall be nearer to it.
  Mr. BOOTH: We are getting nearer? The next Amending Bill will probably make us equal.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1915.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out "1915," and to insert instead thereof "1916."
  We should not pass an Amendment to a 1914 Bill in 1916 and call it 1915. I might as well call the attenton of the Solicitor-General at the same time to the fact that I think at the end of this Act that we ought to make it:—
  "This Act and the Courts (Emergency) Act, 1914, may be cited together as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914–1916."
  1814
  It is very usual to do this, and it makes the matter clear.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think the hon. Member is quite right in respect to his first point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "That this Act for the purpose of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, may be cited as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914–1916."
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think these words are necessary, but if their insertion will give pleasure to my hon. Friend, he is so very obliging, that I am very much disposed to accept them.
  Mr. KING: I shall be obliged to the Solicitor-General if he accepts them, and for this reason: In recent Acts, with which the right hon. Gentleman has had something to do, we have had these sort of Clauses put in. Whatever we may do in our speeches, arguments, and pledges, when we come to put our intentions into Acts of Parliament, I think we should have some sort of rules and regulations that we abide by.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Clause 1, to leave out the words "It is hereby declared that." I suggested in Committee that we might do this on the Report stage, and for reasons that I then gave. The whole object of this Bill, as anybody can see who looks at the Memorandum, is to reverse the position of the law. There is no doubt what the law is, and we are out to alter it, and I think the Solicitor-General might have these words struck out.
  Sir G. CAVE: These words, I think, are right in the Bill. It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that the words are not used in a Bill amending the law, and that this Bill does amend the law as declared by the Courts. But it is conceivable, although I do not for the moment suggest that it is probable, that a different view may be taken by the House of Lords in another case. The intention is to declare the law as from the beginning, and not as from to-day. That being so, the Bill was framed purposely so as to declare the law, and not merely to amend it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Clause 1, to leave out the words "other than mortgagees of land or some interest in land," and to insert instead thereof the words
  "in relation to securities held both as cover for account-to-account loans on any Stock Exchange if these mortgagees can take or have taken advantage of any scheme agreed to by His Majesty's Government for advances being made to these mortgagees in order to enable them to continue the loans."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I think that rather alters the position of the Amendment that my hon. Friend moved and which has been accepted by the Government. It apparently alters the whole procedure in dealing with this matter. Therefore, there is no reason for this Bill at all. I would therefore ask for an opportunity to deal with this Amendment, as we have only now just had it put into our hands and read to us. Will the Amendment leave the law absolutely, as regards all other people who have got securities, in the state in which it is declared by the Court of Appeal?
  Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That is absolutely clear?
  Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Because the declaration of law here and now is confined merely to declaring it as regards certain specified transactions on the Stock Exchange. That is all the Bill is going to do. If that is so it limits the Bill very much. May I put again my position? If it is perfectly plain that the effect of this Amendment is that the whole effect of this Bill is restricted merely to this very exceptional class of case, namely, the loan from account-to-account on the Stock Exchange and to nothing else, I have nothing more to say. The Bill then is merely dealing, if I may call it so, with a matter of domestic politics on the Stock Exchange, and that is for the Stock Exchange to deal with rather than for us. That being so, I should not, of course, oppose the Amendment as it stands. Unless that is made perfectly clear I think there may be some difficulty about the matter.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I appeal for this Bill not to be taken until Monday or Tuesday, in order that we may see these words upon the Paper? I left the House a few minutes ago and ascertained from some interested people that they were under the same impression as I that this Bill would assimilate the two positions of England and Scotland, and we would like to see what the effect of this Amendment would be. There is a special phrase to suit the Scottish case and another to suit the City bankers, or, at any rate, the City bankers would be satisfied. I have had a consultation with counsel in the lobby, but it is rather difficult for me as a layman to form an opinion on the words. If I have any point to make, I will make it between now and Monday, so that it shall not take up much time.
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot resist that. It is a business matter, and I want the House to consider every possible interest, so perhaps I had better move the adjournment of this Debate.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next (17th January).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean) pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, until Monday, 17th January, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February.

PETITION PRESENTED.
The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
WEDNESDAY.
Military Service (Conscription),—Petition of Christadelphians of Birmingham and other places, for exemption.