Commons Sitting of 4 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Municipal Corporations (Buxton Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill,
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill,
Uxbridge Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Irvine's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

ORDINANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY COURTS OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF ST. ANDREW'S, GLASGOW, ABERDEEN, AND EDINBURGH, GENERAL No. 4 (REGULATIONS AS TO PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS).
Petition of the General Council of the University of Glasgow, against enforcement; to lie upon the Table
COAL SHIPMENTS.
Copy presented of Tables giving details as to Shipments of Coal Abroad, Coastwise, and as Bunkers, from each port of the United Kingdom for each of the years 1914 and 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE TAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Four Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT. 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, approving a Memorial to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to increased salary to the Superintendent of the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Two Orders in Council, dated 27th June, 1916, made under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING, TOWN PANNING, ETC., ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Draft Order of the Local Government Board approving, with modifications, the Chesterfield (Chester Street Area) Town Planning Scheme [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local

1341
authority, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

Urban district council of Bedlington-shire

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return ordered "showing the names, addresses, occupations, or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the 31st day of December, 1913, including all appointments to the end of 1915 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 461, of Session 1914–16)".—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
Copy ordered "of the Directors' Report and Balance Sheet for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1915."—[Mr Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMANY (TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION)
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any official information to the effect that the German Chancellor has authorised a statement in the semi-official "North German Gazette" to the effect that he endorses the speech delivered by Herr Scheidemann at Breslau, when the latter opposed all territorial acquisition by Germany; and whether he has any other information confirming this view of the Chancellor's attitude?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey):I have no other information on the subject except what has appeared in the Press.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN BULGARIA AND TURKEY.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he
    1342
    will now publish such Reports as have a reached him upon the conditions of British prisoners and prisoner camps in Bulgaria and Turkey?
    Sir E. GREY: No recent Reports have been received from the United States representative at Constantinople as to the condition of our prisoners in Turkey, and we are inquiring when Reports that may be published may be expected. With regard to Bulgaria, we are informed that all f the British prisoners have been assembled at Philippopolis, with the exception of a small number who are employed in construction work in the interior. As soon as f this work is finished they will be sent to Philippopolis. The prisoners are treated on an equal footing with Bulgarian soldiers. Parcels are being distributed to them. Their health is good.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the Report, so far as Bulgaria is concerned?
    Sir E. GREY: No, Sir; it would be too much to say whether we are satisfied with the Bulgarian Report, but we have not got anything we can publish.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the Reports made by the United States Embassy, in Paris, upon the condition of the prisoner camps in France, to which German prisoners have been sent to work from England?
    Sir E. GREY: We hope to publish the Reports in question, and are in communication with the United States Embassy on the subject.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it proposed to continue sending prisoners to France in view of the fact that British prisoners are now being sent to Poland by the German Government in retaliation?
    Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question. I think it ought to be addressed to the War Office, who are responsible. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will consent to publish any official or semi-official Reports that may have reached him from neutral sources on the subject of the treatment of German prisoners of war, military and civilian, in Great Britain?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The only official reports on the treatment of combatant and civilian prisoners of war in this country emanate from the American Embassy and from the International Committee of the Ked Cross, Geneva. The latter have been published and the advisability of publishing certain of those made by members of the American Embassy is under consideration. The publication of semi-official reports is not thought to be advisable.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether British prisoners of war interned in detention camps in Germany are still forbidden to receive parcels of food from home; whether a similar prohibition exists for German prisoners in England; and, if so, will he consent to relax this regulation and ask for reciprocity of treatment for British misdemeanants in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: It appears by the latest reports from the American Ambassador in Berlin that some latitude is allowed in regard to what a prisoner of war in detention in Germany may receive, but it is evident that bread is not allowed. German prisoners in this country who are similarly situated are not permitted to receive parcels of food, but a suggestion will be put forward to withdraw this restriction on the promise of reciprocity by the German Government in regard to British prisoners.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say German prisoners in camp are not allowed to receive parcels of food?
    Mr. TENNANT: I said those in detention camps were not.

  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.

    INADEQUATE FOOD SUPPLY.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply, if any, has been received from the German Government regarding the starvation of British prisoners at Ruhleben; and what course His Majesty's Government intends to adopt towards German civilians interned in Great Britain?
    Sir E. GREY: No reply has been received from the German Government to our Note, a telegraphic summary of which was communicated to them on the 26th ultimo. I cannot say more till His
    1344
    Majesty's Government have been able to consider the question of German prisoners in this country.

    BARLEY (SCANDINAVIAN IMPORTS).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that large quantities of barley were shipped from America to the Scandinavian Peninsula and thence forwarded to Germany last season; and if he will take steps to prevent renewal of these supplies of barley to Germany?
    Sir E. GREY: The information in the possession of the Foreign Office does not confirm that of my hon. and gallant Friend. The importation of barley and meal into the Scandinavian Peninsula as a whole since January, 1915, has been below the normal. The matter will, however, be carefully watched and any information which my hon. and gallant Friend can give us on the subject will be welcomed.

    DETENTION BARRACKS AND MILITARY PRISONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, both in the case of conscientious objectors and of Irish prisoners imprisoned without trial, so much sympathy is often evoked in the soldiers and warders guarding them in confinement that these soldiers and warders smuggle out letters to friends, and bring in letters or food to those suffering imprisonment; whether such smuggling of letters or food is against regulations; whether any soldiers have been punished in connection with such practices; if so, how many; and whether, in view of the wide sympathy shown to so many thousands of British subjects in prison who might be doing useful service, he will mitigate the Regulations now in force?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware whether conscientious objectors or Irish prisoners evoke sympathy in the soldiers and warders guarding them. My hon. Friend will find complete information on the subject of the smuggling of letters in paragraph 151 of the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons," which are published by Messrs. Harrison and Sons, St. Martin's Lane, W.C.; and I take this opportunity of pointing out to my hon.

    1345
    Friend in regard to his request that I will mitigate the Regulations now in force, that the "Rules for Detention Barracks and Military Prisons" are statutory and made by the Secretary of State for War under Section 133 of the Army Act.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the case of E. F. Lawley, who was granted by' the Croydon Local Tribunal absolute exemption, but who has been nine times subsequently before the tribunals, local and Appeal; whether he is aware that this case is, after months of delays and adjournments, not yet settled and that Lawley, who is a capable clerk, has been thus thrown out of all employment; and whether, in view of Lawley being a man of slight physique and declared by medical authority to be quite unfit for any military service, he will now instruct the military authorities to close their persecution of a man who can in no case become an efficient soldier?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have inquired into this case and I am sorry that my hon. Friend should have been misled into using the word "persecution" in connection with it. Mr. Lawley was granted exemption from cambatant service only by the Surrey Appeal Tribunal and applied to the local tribunal for a review of his certificate and declared willingness to undertake work of national importance. It is true that his case came before the tribunal on the 13th April, 16th, 22nd and 25th May, and 2nd, 8th and 16th June, and on every occasion was adjourned either at his direct request (I would ask my hon. Friend to note this) or solely with a view of giving him time to find suitable employment. At last, on the 22nd June, Mr. Lawley stated that he had an offer of educational work. The necessary inquiries were made and on the 30th June the tribunal granted Mr. Lawley a certificate of exemption conditional on his remaining in scholastic employment. I suggest that it would have been fairer if my hon. Friend had carried his researches into this case somewhat deeper. If he had done so, I venture to think he would have abstained from presenting it in a false light.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is safe to entrust the education of our youth to men of this sort?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think he will have much opportunity of inculcating our youth with these principles.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War how far tribunals have been supplied with Instructions R86; and is he aware that many members of the tribunals have no knowledge of any such Instructions being issued, and that, consequently, sole proprietors of businesses are not receiving any of the considerations they are entitled to under those Instructions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Copies of the Instructions were sent on the 8th ultimo to all tribunals. Additional copies may be obtained, if requested. There is, therefore, no reason why members of tribunals should not be acquainted with the Instructions.
    Sir GEORGE TOULM1Nasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the reversal of the exemption granted by the Widnes Tribunal to Mr. James A. Hill, manager of Messrs. Bibby and Baron, Limited, by the Liverpool Appeal Tribunal; whether he is aware that the firm transferred their machinery from Bury to Widnes because of the difficulty of securing sufficient female labour; that this transfer took place after consultation with the superintendent of the Labour Exchange of Warrington and district, and after several appeals from the Widnes Exchange on account of the amount of unemployed female labour there; whether he is aware that Mr. Hill is the only eligible man employed by the firm who has not enlisted and the only man capable of managing the concern and adjusting the machinery, the only other man employed at Widnes being a disabled and discharged soldier; whether he, is aware that the military representative appealed from the decision of the Widnes Tribunal and gave the Appeal Tribunal to understand that the undertaking was a new one only open two months; whether he is aware that this statement led the Appeal Tribunal to refuse to listen to any explanation and to decline to allow any appeal, although the statement was entirely correct, no new

    1347
    machinery being employed; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Hill is indispensable if the women and girls are not to be thrown out of employment, the military representative can be instructed to assent to the rehearing of the appeal, or some other method be found of securing a hearing on appeal of the full facts of the case?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am obtaining information about this matter, but it has not reached me yet.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has yet obtained a report as to the allegations of brutal ill-treatment and cruelty perpetrated on 17th June and other days by Lance-Corporal Barker and others upon a number of conscientious objectors at Prees Hill Camp, near Whitchurch, Salop; if he will say what was the nature and conditions of the inquiry that was held; whether the men themselves were questioned and examined; and whether any independent person from outside the Army took part in the investigation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will read to the House a report which has been made by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command:
    "Chester,
    28th June, 1916.
    1. On 19th.June, 1916, a telegram was received from Mr. Bland, 203, Barkerbouse Road, Nelson, to the effect that certain conscientious objectors in 17th Battalion Cheshire Regiment at Frees Heath Camp were being ill-treated by a Lance-Corporal Barker.
    2. A copy of the telegram was at once sent to the General Officer Commanding Frees Heath Camp, for full inquiry and report.
    3. The report has now been received, and is as follows:
    'Private Carradice arrived in camp under escort, and was placed in the guard-room. He stated that, as a conscientious objector, be could obey no orders. The next day be was sent to his own tent, and when ordered to turn out on parade would not do so. Lance-Corporal Barker then seized him by the back of the neck and ejected him. As he would not march anywhere, Lance-Corporal Barker cuffed him along. Private Carradice was next taken to the bath cubicle, and, refusing to wash, was bandied somewhat roughly by Lance-Corporal Barker—having his ear pulled.
    The case of Private Ingham is practically similar.
    The Commanding Officer states that these men (with five others) were seen by him on arrival. They refused to answer any questions, were most disrespectful in manner, and stated they were conscientious objectors. He consequently directed that they should be handed over to a N.C.O. who was a good disciplinarian. On visiting the tent where these men were first placed he found it in a dirty and disgraceful state. The men absolutely refused to clean up. He then directed Lance-Corporal Barker to have the tent cleaned, and as is done with all recruits) to see that they had a bath. He
    1348
    (the C.O.) states he has never seen any violence offered to these men, nor have they ever made any complaint to him.
    It is undeniable that undue force was used by Lance-Corporal Barker, who was carried away by excess of zeal in his efforts to carry out the instructions of his superior officers. No permanent injury was inflicted, however, and what roughness he used was under very great provocation, as the men appear to have been in league to disobey all orders given to them. As Lance-Corporal Barker has crippled fingers, it would appear to be physically impossible for him to have struck severe blows.
    It may be added (a) that disciplinary action has been ordered to be taken against Lance-Corporal Barker for his treatment against these men, and that he is not in future to be placed in charge of conscientious objectors.
    (b) Mr. Bland has been written to informing him that disciplinary action has been taken in this case.
    (c)Orders have been given that in future no attempt is to be made to compel soldiers physically to obey orders, but that, if insubordinate, they are to be forthwith remanded for trial by District Court-Martial.'"
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a conscientious objector named Sydney Cooper, of Leeds, who, on or about Monday, 29th May, at Richmond, was roughly handled, then frog-marched until blood rushed from his mouth; whether he will use his best endeavours to put a stop to such treatment; what steps he proposes to take; and (2) whether he will inquire into the allegations that have been made with regard to the treatment with certain conscientious objectors, including Fred, Charles, and Harry Walker, are believed to have undergone at the lower barracks, Chatham, on or about 18th May, and in particular if he will ascertain whether these men were-knocked about in such a manner that one of them fainted twice; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Member will forward me definite statements upon which inquiry can be based, I shall be happy to have the same instituted.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Was not the first case brought before the House a month ago by the hon. Member for York, and full details then given?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know. I could' not be expected to put the two things together.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the investigator whom he sent down to inquire into the alleged complaints of Private Ithel Davies as to his treatment in the Mold Detention Barracks for refusing to obey military orders on conscientious grounds saw and examined Private-Davies; whether the staff-sergeant and

    1349
    the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks; whether the investigator saw and examined these two non-commissioned officers; and whether, in order that he may not be imposed upon or placed in a false position before coming to a final decision as to the facts alleged by Private Davies, he will cause the investigator to obtain from Private Davies himself an account of the treatment which he received from the staff-sergeant and the corporal during the first three days which he spent in the Mold Detention Barracks?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the supplementary answer I gave on the 27th June, where I spoke on an independent investigator, I was referring to the detention barrack visitor mentioned in paragraph 45 of the Rules for Military Detention Barracks and Military Prisons. My hon. Friend will realise from my former answer that an exhaustive inquiry has been made into this case. The main facts elicited are: That Davies, though given ample opportunity for making a complaint to the visiting officer, made none; that four non-commissioned officers state that, so far as they are aware, Davies was never struck or ill-treated in any way; that there were no marks of ill-usage to be seen upon Davies; that the sergeant-major took him aside, talked to him, endeavoured to give him good advice, but could exert no influence over him; and, finally, that Davies told the medical officer that he had no complaint to make. I trust the House will agree that this is a complete answer to this question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions I have put down, namely, whether the staff-sergeant and the corporal who are accused of having ill-treated Private Davies have now been removed from Mold Detention Barracks—
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to that is in the negative.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: And whether the investigator asked a single question of Private Davies?
    Mr. TENNANT: I gave my hon. Friend a very complete answer to his question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No!
    Mr. TENNANT: Whether the visitor actually cross-examined Davies or not I cannot say—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: He did not.
    Mr. TENNANT: There was no necessity for him to do so, absolutely none. Under the Rules of Detention Barracks if a visitor goes along and asks if there are any complaints, and no one makes a complaint, it is not the business of the visitor to go round to each individual and ask, "Have you any complaint?"
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made of the colour-sergeant who rescued Davies from the brutality?
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give any information with regard to Llewellyn Hughes, a conscientious objector, who was tried by court-martial at Chatham on 1st June and transferred to Wandsworth on 9th June; whether he has been kept for some weeks in solitary confinement; whether he has suffered severely in health; and whether he will soon be transferred to civil custody under the Army Order of 25th May?
    Mr. TENNANT: This man was admitted to Wandsworth on the 9th June and on 10th June was awarded punishment for refusing to obey orders. He was in hospital from the 13th June to the 26th June and was visited in hospital by his mother as a special case. On the 27th June he refused to parade and there is reason to believe he is a malingerer. I understand the man has been remanded for trial by court-martial, in which case he will doubtless come under the conditions of Army Order No. 10 of the 26th May. My hon. Friend's suggestion that he has been kept some weeks in solitary confinement, unless he regards hospital treatment as solitary confinement, appears to be without foundation.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the thirty-four conscientious objectors sentenced to death in France have now been brought to England; if not, when are they expected; whether it is his intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative so that the commuted sentences of penal servitude shall not be carried out; or whether they will be treated under the scheme announced on 29th June?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member may rest assured that all prisoners sentenced to penal servitude are sent to England as soon as the necessary arrangements for their movement have been made. The

    1351
    hon. Member is doubtless aware that sentences of penal servitude cannot be carried out in France. It is not the intention to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative, and the conscientious objectors under discussion will be treated under the scheme announced on the 29th June.

    RIPLEY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that on 10th May, when the Ripley (Derby) Co-operative Society appealed for four men to be exempted, the military adviser told the society's secretary that it was not in the national interests that co-operative societies should exist, because they do not pay Income Tax; that a special meeting of the members has expressed the opinion that this statement prejudiced these four cases, that this adviser does not deal impartially with such cases, and that another person should be appointed to deal with their cases; and will he give instructions for some other person to attend when this society's cases are to be considered?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called to a statement made to the local tribunal in connection with an application by the Ripley Co-operative Society. Instructions have been sent to all military representatives informing them that the question of the special arrangements as to Income Tax in connection with co-operative societies are not relevant to an application for the exemption of employés of such societies. I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the latter part of the question, but I think that the instructions to which I have referred will meet the case.

    BRAMSHOTT CAMP, HAMPSHIRE.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common land used for the formation of Bramshott Camp, Hants, has been taken over by the War Office; to whom, and for how much, has any payment been made; for how many years is it arranged that this camp, if desired by the War Office, can be maintained; whether any compensation has been or will be offered to the commoners for the loss of their rights; and whether pending legislation is intended to give to the War Office or other Government Department greater powers over the land of Bramshott Camp?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The common was taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. The commoners at a meeting held in December, 1915, passed a public-spirited resolution promising to assist the War Office as far as possible on the understanding that the camp was for war purposes only, and that when it was given up the buildings would be removed and the ground restored as far as possible to its former condition, compensation being paid for actual damage. The Lord of the Manor's claim to compensation in respect of his common rights and military occupation of his freehold land has been dealt with by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission who awarded him payment at the rate of £165 per annum, the bulk of this being in respect of his freehold land. The question of reinstatement on termination of the occupation was reserved. The Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill is not intended to give the War Office or other Government Departments any increased powers over Bramshott Common beyond specifying the maximum period during which this camp can be used after the War.
    Mr. KING: In view of that reply, will the Government agree to the insertion of some provision which will absolutely safeguard the common and the commoners?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising this question in Debate to-morrow, and I hope a satisfactory explanation will be forth-coming.

    WITLEY CAMP, SURREY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the terms on which the common lands on which the Witley Camps, in Surrey, have been established have been taken over; what sums, if any, have been paid to holders of manorial rights, or what sums are so due or payable, and to whom are such sums paid; for how many years have the lands been acquired; and whether any recompense has been made, or will be made, to those who have common rights in the commons on which Witley Camps have been established?
    Mr. FORSTER: These commons were taken over at an early stage of the War under emergency powers. No compensation has been paid to the Lords of the Manor who generously agreed that the Department should have the use of the

    1353
    commons during the present national emergency without payment. The War Department, on the other hand, agreed that, on the cessation of military user, the grounds should be reinstated as nearly as possible to its former condition, and that compensation should be paid to commoners who suffered substantial monetary loss.
    Mr. KING: Will the same remarks apply in this case as in connection with the preceding question.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think so.

    EXEMPTION OF CLERGY.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whilst there are a number of men who refuse to undertake military service on conscientious grounds but who are subject to the Military Service Act, there are at the same time a number of men excepted as clergy who have no such objection; and will he consider the advisability of inviting or compelling these clergymen to take the places of the conscientious objectors in the ranks?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

    ATTESTED YOUTHS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS.
    Mr. MORRELL(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for War a question of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Snowden) has given notice, whether he can say what are the probabilities of attested youths being called to the Colours before they reach the age of nineteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting what I said on 26th June. I should have said it is not improbable that these youths will be called to the Colours, whereas I fear I did say it is not probable. An error had crept into the typewritten reply from which I was reading.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    WOUNDED CIVILIANS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the military authorities under martial law in Dublin refused to take the evidence of
    1354
    wounded civilians in the Dublin hospitals, seeing that all those wounded persons declared it was the soldiers who had fired on them, and were willing to give evidence to that effect?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that there is no truth in this insinuation.

    MRS. NAYLOR.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received a report in the case of Mrs. Naylor, shot on the bridge at Great Brunswick Street, Dublin, by soldiers firing from the belfry of Haddington Road Church; under whose orders those soldiers continued for five hours firing on that bridge, where there were no Irish combatants, thus preventing the removal of the dying woman, who eventually died while being carried to hospital; and why the military did not allow an inquest in this case?
    Mr. TENNANT: No information has been received in the Irish Command of the alleged shooting of Mrs. Naylor, but I am taking steps to ascertain the facts.

    DEATH OF REV. FATHER WAITERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for War at what date martial law was relaxed in Dublin to the extent of allowing priests to visit the sick and dying; whether from the Proclamation of martial law until that date priests could discharge their functions only at the risk of their lives; whether it was within that period that the Rev. Father Watters, while on his way to administer the last sacraments to the dying, was shot dead by the military in the sight of several witnesses; and why no inquest or inquiry of any sort has been held?
    Mr. TENNANT: While the fighting was in progress and an area was enclosed by a cordon permits were sent to the Most Rev. Dr. Donnelly, P.P., to hand to priests who wished to attend to the dead, dying, or wounded inside the cordon. Priests inside the cordon could move freely there. The moment the cordon was withdrawn all priests could move freely. No complaint as to this arrangement was received. No priest was known to have been injured except Father Watters, who was reported to have been wounded by a stray bullet while entering his house. He died of his wounds on 8th May and was buried on 10th May. No suggestion has ever been

    1355
    made as to his wound having been inflicted in any but an accidental manner, nor was any request for an inquest sent in.

    PATRICK PEARSE'S PAPERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the UnderSecretary for War, seeing that the only formal surrender of the Irish republican army allowed to reach the public is that purporting to have been signed by Patrick H.Pearse when in custody, whether he is now in a position to describe the surrender fully; whether all who knew the terms of surrender first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender have since been executed; whether it was to prevent his making those terms known that, differing from the other men sentenced to execution, no one was allowed to see Mr. Pearse; whether his mother was prevented from seeing him; whether his brother William, subsequently executed, was prevented from seeing him lest he should learn and convey the terms of surrender; if there was any other motive for the exceptional seclusion, what was it; and whether, now that the exigencies of the time are past, he will, in justice to a brave man, state the terms first offered by Mr. Pearse before surrender?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to give the hon. Member any information at present as regards the publication of official Reports describing the events connected with the recent rebellion in Ireland. There is no truth in the allegations contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us when that Report will appear? Is he aware that in denying the statement in the latter part of my question he is grossly misinformed?
    Mr TENNANT: No, Sir, I cannot fix the date. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to the Prime Minister on that subject?
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it true Pearse's mother was not allowed to see him before his execution?
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes.
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no reason to believe it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged it in this House?

    PRISONERS UNDERGOING PENAL SERVITUDE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister how many prisoners are now in penal servitude in connection with the recent insurrection in Ireland; whether any but those are undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courtsmartial; and whether, having regard to the character of the Courts and to the circumstances, the Government have considered the advisability of treating them all as prisoners of war, subject to effective security of detention?
    Mr. TENNANT: According to the latest returns 125 are in penal servitude. The answer to the rest of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Were all these cases tried in camera?
    Mr. TENNANT: I dare say that is so.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Messrs. O'Flaherty, Troy, and Sweeney are still detained untried prisoners in this country though known to the medical officers to be in a state of health unfit for imprisonment, the first from age and heart disease, the second from acute rheumatism, and the third from a mental disease; whether Mr. Troy, while unfit to be out of bed, has been forced to walk in great pain several miles to the camp at Frongoch; whether he has yet recovered from the effects of that treatment; and, if these three men are not to be released immediately, whether an independent doctor will be allowed to examine them?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H Samuel): There are four prisoners at Frongoch bearing the surname of O'Flaherty, and two bearing that of Troy. If the hon. Member will furnish the full names of the two prisoners in whom he is interested I will make inquiry with regard to them. Peter Sweeney is receiving all necessary medical attention. The medical staff of the places of detention is adequate to deal with cases of illness.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will Mr. Sweeney be released, as the prison officials wish him to be off their hands?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot give any assurance that he will be released.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is he still in solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think he has been in solitary confinement.
    Mr. HEALY: He has been, and you denied it in this House.

    INTERNED PRISONERS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary what steps he took to satisfy himself in each case before he signed internment orders for hundreds of Irish prisoners who have been interned under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I had in each case before me a recommendation from the competent military authority showing definite grounds for internment under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The order is not final; it is subject to revocation if the prisoner makes representations and if the Advisory Committee, after full consideration of the case, recommends that the internment should mot be maintained.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself in each case, before he signed the internment order, that there was competent evidence on which such order might be signed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I accept the recommendations of the competent military authority. It is not possible for me on the evidence at my disposal to examine the cases individually of all the 1,800 prisoners. They have all been referred to the Advisory Committee for further examination.
    Mr. HEALY: Did the right hon. Gentleman take any steps specially as regards any prisoners to prescribe that certain of them should be kept in solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: To whom is the reference made? Is it to the police, or a recommendation which is not final, as the right hon. Gentleman has now said, or to the military authority of Ireland; and from whom does the right hon. Gentleman expect the report upon which he can act before releasing the person recommended?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not quite follow the question. I do not know what recommendation the hon. Member means. The report which I am awaiting in this case
    1358
    is the report of the Advisory Committee, the constitution of which I have repeatedly mentioned in the House.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it the position of the right hon. Gentleman that he has made orders for internment without himself investigating the cases?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The orders have been made by me on the recommendation of the competent military authority which has investigated each case, and I have referred all the cases for further inquiry to the Advisory Committee which advises me.
    Mr. HEALY: At whose instance were special prisoners marked out for solitary confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No prisoner has been sentenced to solitary confinement.
    Mr. HEALY: It is so.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the competent military authority exercises any care or discrimination whatever in the examination on which he acts?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I know that he has made very careful inquiries and received legal advice with regard to the various cases.
    Mr. GINNELL: Have these persons been furnished with any charge but the vague one of hostile association, and what is the hostile association referred to?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting rather far from the question on the Paper.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Home Secretary whether he will publish immediately a full statement of the procedure of the Advisory Committee now inquiring into the cases of the interned Irish political prisoners; and whether he can state what steps have been taken to convey to the prisoners full and detailed knowledge of their rights in regard to an appeal to this Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The procedure is simple and informal. All written representations made by the prisoners are referred to the Committee, and the Committee give full individual consideration to each case. They are now engaged in seeing the prisoners personally and hearing any statements they may wish to make, and, after they have seen the prisoners, they will, if they consider it necessary, call witnesses. They propose to go to Dublin

    1359
    in order to hear witnesses there. In each case the prisoner has been served with a written notice informing him of the grounds on which the order was made, that he is entitled to make representations against the order which will be submitted to the Committee, and that, if I am Ratified by the Report of the Committee that he can be released without injury to the public safety, the order will be revoked.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In each individual case is the prisoner, before he is called upon to appear before this Committee, supplied with a definite statement of the charge against him?
    Mr. SAMUEL: He is supplied with a statement which is in general terms, though not so indefinite as suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it the case that no particulars are given to a prisoner before he appears before Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee except the facts to which he has to answer?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There is nothing in the nature of a legal indictment. The proceedings are more or less informal, and the man makes his own statement as to his share or lack of share of complicity in the rebellion.
    Mr. HEALY: Is the statement in the Press correct that the hon. Member for Newry is a member of Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. HEALY: Why do you not put on the hon. Member for Waterford?
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the Government even now consider, in regard to the public advantage, the advisability of giving a general amnesty to close up the whole business?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this.

    VISITS TO PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will arrange with the Home Office to allow visiting at Frongoch camp on Sundays; and if he will extend the time allowed to visitors to one hour?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I
    1360
    regret that, owing to exigencies of staff, it is impossible to give such facilities for visits as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the train journey to Frongoch from London is about six hours, and Irish Members visiting the prisoners are only allowed a quarter of an hour to interview the prisoners at the prisons?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of that.

    DR. KATHLEEN LYNN.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether permission, will be given to Dr. Kathleen Lynn to visit her sister, who is medically certified to be lying dangerously ill of fever at Cong, Ireland, and to nurse her until she is convalescent, Dr. Lynn being willing to sign any reasonable undertaking required by the Home Office or the military authorities; and whether the permission will be wired to her to-day?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I have only just received notice of my hon. Friend's question. Dr. Lynn is not interned, but is required to reside in this country, at Bath. After verifying the facts, and on receiving the assurance of which the hon. Member speaks, I hope to be able to arrange for Dr. Lynn to go to nurse her sister.

  MUNITIONS.

    BARNBOW MUNITION WORKS, LEEDS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that two trade union organisers were arrested and detained on the instructions of the manager of the Barnbow Munition Works, Crossgates, near Leeds, on 21st June; whether he can state the reason for this action; and will he give instructions to the manager that such conduct is improper?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am informed that these two men were found within the boundaries of a national munitions factory without the passes which are required for admission to such factories. In the circumstances they were very properly detained by the management and transferred to the custody of the police for inquiries to be made. They were liberated within a very short time.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Was there any notice up on the road on which these people were walking?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer that without further inquiry. But it is well known people cannot enter munition works without passes.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if the sanction of Parliament will be asked for the purchase of the breweries and licensed trade in the Carlisle area; and if the price to be paid will be submitted to the approval of Parliament?
    Dr. ADDISON: The purchase referred to and the question of the price to be paid are fully covered by the Defence of the Realm (Amendment—No. 3) Act, the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, and the terms of reference to the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Royal Commission. Parliament can, of course, express its opinion when the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions is under its consideration.

    WOMEN WORKERS (WAGES).
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions when he will take steps to redeem his promise, in July last, that women in controlled firms should have a fair wage; and whether he will exercise the powers conferred on him by the Munitions (Amendment) Act to secure that all women workers in munition factories shall have a minimum wage of 5d. an hour, seeing that the cost of living has risen 40 per cent, since the outbreak of the War?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Attercliffe.

    RAILWAY SUPPLY DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has concluded the inquiry which he has been making into the payments made to miners employed in the Railway Supply Department; and, if so, will he state the result of his inquiry?
    Mr. FORSTER: The inquiry is not yet completed.
    Mr. HANCOCK: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when the Report will be ready?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not losing any time unnecessarily, but I cannot give the exact date.

    WAR OFFICE (TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS).
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary for War why the temporary women clerks in the War Office are paid 25s. for a week of 48 hours whereas in all other Government offices they receive 25s. for a week of 42 hours; whether the temporary male clerk in the War Office receives a minimum of 31s. 6d. for a week of 42 hours;: and whether the temporary male clerk receives overtime pay after working 42 hours a week and the temporary women clerks do not receive overtime pay till they have worked 48 hours?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the pay issued in other Government offices to women clerks, but I would point out to the Noble Lord that women clerks in the War Office, after passing a satisfactory probation, receive 30s. a week. The answer to the last two parts of the question, is in the affirmative.

    GERMAN CASUALTIES (KILLED).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give an estimate of the number of Germans killed since the outbreak of war; and how many male Germans reach the age of eighteen each year?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman's bloodthirsty cravings only with estimates, and not with scientifically ascertained facts. According to the German official casualty lists published up to the 31st May, 690,268 of all ranks had been killed or died of wounds. I must not be taken as doing more than giving the official German figure. Hon. Gentlemen must form their own estimate of the credibility or accuracy of these figures. Any estimate, however, in the numbers of killed and died of wounds, whose names have been omitted from these casualty lists, must be purely conjectural

    1363
    In answer to the second part of the question, I may inform him that it has been calculated that the number of males between seventeen and eighteen years of age on the 1st December, 1914, was 674,580, and on the 1st December, 1915, 691,274.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to this question as being a bloodthirsty craving on my part, when the object of it was to show how many Germans of military age are killed each year and therefore the futility of the War?

    INFANTRY EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the 1908 Infantry equipment was adopted on ideas submitted by Colonel (then Major) Burrowes, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers; whether this officer placed his ideas entirely at the disposal of the War Office in 1903; whether Burrowes' design was eventually patented in 1906 by the Mills Equipment Company, at present contractors for supplying this article; whether the Mills Equipment Company are now in a position to exact royalties from the War Office and from other firms manufacturing the article on their patent; and will he state the reason for the War Office agreeing to a private company patenting an invention handed ever by an officer on active service to the Department?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. Colonel Burrowes' design was adopted as the most suitable, but it could only be satisfactorily carried out in web material by employing a special weaving process belonging to the Mills Equipment Company. Colonel Burrowes was, therefore, allowed to enter into arrangements with the Mills Equipment Company, under which he was remunerated by them in return for the right to use his design. The royalties payable to this firm are partly in respect of Colonel Burrowes' design and partly in respect of the use of their special weaving process.

    WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if at least one-third of the 1916 clip of grease wool was sold at 15d. per lb. before the issue
    1364
    of the order; and if he will fix that as the price to be paid by the Government in taking the wool they require?
    Mr. FORSTER: No figures are available to show the amount of the 1916 clip, which had changed hands before the date of the order, but I am advised that the quantity is probably small. The price at which such wool changed hands would vary greatly according to quality. The prices which it is proposed to pay for English wool will be higher than the price quoted in some instances and lower in others. I think that it would be convenient if I were to say now that I am prepared to receive a representative deputation on the question of the price to be paid. We have no wish to be harsh or unreasonable, and I think the matter could best be dealt with in this way.
    Captain BATHURST: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that many farmers have already paid for the wool on their sheeps backs considerably more than he is now offering them for it?
    Mr. FORSTER: That, among other aspects of the question, can be best dealt with when we deal with the matter by deputation. I hope the deputation will be representative of all classes who are interested in the question so that we may have a thoroughly satisfactory discussion.
    Mr. G. FABER: When will it be held?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know. As soon as the deputation can be organised.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Was the Board of Agriculture consulted?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Gentleman sending out invitations to persons suitable to form part of such a deputation?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it rests with me to send out the invitations, otherwise I might unconsciously invite those whom I wished to meet. Perhaps the arrangements had better be in the hands of the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it a fact that the price the War Office are now offering for wool is 60 per cent, higher than it was during the ten years preceding 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is 60 per cent, higher than the average of eight years preceding 1914.

    INFANTRY SUBALTERNS (PAY).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the pay in cash to second-lieutenants of Infantry of the Line serving at Home varies from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a day and the pay of first-lieutenants is 1s. a day more, he can see his way to extend to subalterns of the Line serving at Home the same privileges as to grants for meeting rent, rates, taxes, and other liabilities as have been granted to those serving in the ranks?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he is prepared to agree to the extension of the scheme to lieutenants and second lieutenants who joined the Forces on or after the 4th August, 1914, whether they joined as officers or in the ranks.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does that apply to the Navy as well?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, I think it will apply to the Navy as well, but I will consult my right hon. Friend before giving the hon. Member a final answer.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board what is the number of disabled soldiers at present receiving industrial training under schemes initiated by the Statutory Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee think it desirable to utilise existing schemes for training disabled soldiers pending a full consideration of the whole of this difficult and complicated subject. They are giving earnest attention to it. I may add that there are in operation a number of schemes for the purpose referred to.
    Mr. J. SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Statutory Committee to appoint a permanent secretary to the Committee; and, if so, when?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee have not at present decided upon the appointment of a permanent secretary. Meanwhile the duties of secretary have been performed by Lieutenant-Golonel Alfred Welby, the secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Does not the Statutory Committee think that it is essential that there should be now a permanent secretary appointed so long after the constitution of the Committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is still more essential, that they should get the right man. They have every hope of getting the right man if they wait a little longer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is Colonel Welby giving his services voluntarily, or is to be paid?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He has been secretary of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Whether he will receive any honorarium at the end of his term of office it is impossible for me to say.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL OWEN THOMAS.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister what are the duties of the administrative military position in Wales which has been offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas; and whether the position has been accepted?
    Mr. TENNANT: The appointment offered to Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was a recruiting appointment. I understand that General Thomas has stated he is unable to accept the offer.

    SUPPLY OF COAL TO FRANCE.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the circular headed Supply of Coal to France, dated 25th May, 1916, has been issued with the authority of his Department; whether Clause 8 of that circular provides that coal exporters and coalowners in each district of the United Kingdom shall appoint committees; whether the coal exporters of the Port of London have appointed a committee; whether that committee has been refused by the Central Executive Committee the right of representation upon its membership, and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to ensure such representation, in view of the large tonnage of coal exports controlled by London firms trading with France?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The circular referred to was printed and issued by the

    1367
    Board of Trade, and Clause 8 provides for the appointment of local committees. I understand that a London Committee has been appointed, but that it is not represented on the Central Committee. Neither the local committees nor the Central Committee are in any way appointed by the Board of Trade, and I fear, therefore, that the Department cannot well intervene in the matter.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the influence of his Department to enable this appointment to be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will see what can be done.

    AMERICAN MEAT TRUST (BACON SUPPLIES).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many tons of American bacon there are in the London docks; if he is aware that the American Meat Trust will not allow tons of bacon to leave the docks, and in consequence tons of it are going rotten; and if he has received a Report on the matter in accordance with his promise; and (2) if he is aware that fifty barges of bacon seized as unfit for human food on the Thames belonged to the American Meat Trust firms; and if he will take steps to prevent the American Meat Trust allowing good food to perish?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The quantity of bacon now on the docks and quays in London is considerably larger than usual, but I have been unable to learn from reliable sources of the condemnation of any important amounts other than such as had suffered sea damage; the last occasion when considerable amounts were condemned on this ground was over five months ago. After careful inquiry I cannot find that there is any foundation for the statements in my hon. Friend's questions.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the Board of Trade any power to make the American Beef Trust unload this bacon instead of keeping it stored, not only in London but in the Port of Liverpool, for the purpose of keeping up an inflated price?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot answer as to powers without notice.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discover whether the American Beef Trust is in fact holding up supplies, and if so, make short work of them?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.

    CHURCH LANDS (SMALL HOLDINGS FOR SOLDIERS).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the clergy of the Church of England have secured exemption from the Military Service Act, he will promote legislation for Disendowment, so that the lands held by the Church may be put to national use, such as the provision of small holdings for discharged soldiers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I do not propose to adopt the suggestion.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (RATES OF PAY).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that when men are moved from southern Royal dockyards to similar yards in the north, a distinction is made between the allowances made to skilled as against less skilled men of 2s. 6d. for the night; and whether he can see his way clear to raise all to the 7s. 6d. rate?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The allowances mentioned are those payable under Admiralty Regulations. They are based on the workmen's rates of pay. The rates of allowance have been fully considered, and no alteration therein is proposed. My hon. Friend seems to think that a new rule as to these allowances has been introduced in connection with the transfer of men from the south to the north. That is not so.

  AIR SERVICE.

    CAPTURE OF BRITISH MACHINE.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as representing the Air Department, whether a flying machine of the latest type was recently sent from Farnborough to France in charge of a pilot -who had never been abroad before;

    1369
    whether the officer informed the authorities beforehand that he did not know his way; whether he lost his way and eventually landed by mistake in the German lines; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to avoid our newest machines being handed over to the Germans within a few hours of completion?
    Major BAIRD: The facts are as stated, except that from the inquiry held it does not appear that any protest was made by the officer in question. The circumstances under which the incident occurred are as follows:—A batch of machines of a well-known type had been fitted with a new type of engine. These machines were urgently required at the Front, and a number of officers were detailed to take them over to France. Some of these officers had done the journey before, others had not: all were qualified cross-country pilots trained to fly the type of machine in question. The particular officer referred to graduated as a pilot for this type of machine after thirty-two hours' flying, which is considered an ample amount. His report showed him as efficient and a good cross-country flier. The need for machines in France is so great that it is impossible to keep them back until officers are available to fly them over who have previously done the journey, which, moreover, is not considered a difficult one for a trained cross-country pilot. To take a machine across is an ordinary incident in a pilot's duties, and as many as twenty-four machines have gone over in one day lately. Such regrettable incidents have occurred to the Germans also, who recently presented us with a brand new Fokker. There is no means of avoiding them altogether in war times, but every care has been taken and will continue to be taken to reduce the risk of their occurrence to a minimum. The pilot in this case evidently lost his way, and it appears from a letter received by his parents from him that his machine was hit and rendered unmanageable by fire from the ground as he was descending. Otherwise, on discovering his mistake, he might have got away.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Was the pilot supplied with the usual map, or was it an out-of-date map?
    Major BAIRD: I anticipated some curiosity on that point, and consequently
    1370
    I have taken the precaution of providing myself with a copy of the map, which I shall be prepared to show to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the Ordnance Survey map as used by the general staff and supplied to pilots.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether there was an observer on board, and, if so, had he any experience of the route?
    Major BAIRD: Yes, Sir, there was an observer on board, but he had no more experience of the route than the pilot. It is not a question of knowing the route any more than you can expect the man who takes a ship to New York to know the road to New York. It is a question of knowing the navigation. This pilot was qualified as an aerial navigator, and he should have had no difficulty in finding his road.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Was the passenger an observer, or simply a passenger?
    Major BAIRD: I should like notice of that question.

    PORT OF LONDON (WAGES OF WATCHMEN).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a petition presented by the watchmen of the Port of London to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise has been brought to his notice; and whether further consideration will be given to the possibility of making some concession to meet the increased cost of living to these men, whose standard rate is only 24s. a week?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): A petition from the London watchers was received by the Board of Customs and Excise on the 27th June. It has been transmitted by them to the Treasury, and is now under consideration.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (RATES OF PAY).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India under what Regulation officers on the supernumerary list of the

    1371
    Indian Army have their Indian pay cut when temporarily employed under the War Office?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): The officers of the Indian Army, to whom I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer, ordinarily receive "unemployed" pay, which has been fixed on the assumption that they would not be receiving other pay from Government sources. On their employment by the War Office the question of the total emoluments that these officers should be permitted to draw was discussed with that Department, and it was decided that in certain cases a reduction of Indian unemployed pay should be made with the object of fixing the aggregate emoluments at reasonable rates, having regard to British and Indian scales of pay generally. Under this decision officers whose War Office pay does not exceed £200 a year continue to receive their full Indian unemployed pay; in other eases a reduction is made which varies according to the rate of pay received from the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question: Under what Regulation has this been done?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I gather that it is not a Regulation, but a decision between the War Office and the India Office.
    Colonel YATE: Then I am to understand that this is done ultra vires and contrary to the Regulations?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I do not think that inference can be drawn.
    Colonel YATE: I do.

    MID-SCOTLAND CANAL.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether our naval activities in the North Sea have demonstrated the advantages that would have resulted from a mid-Scotland canal connecting the Forth and Clyde; and whether he will secure from those best able to judge a report on the strategic value of such a canal?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that this question cannot be discussed with advantage at the present time.

    LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
    Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[The Lord Advocate.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Can the Prime Minister inform the House what business will be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Subject to rearrangement, on Thursday we shall take the further stages of Bills on the Paper to-day and to-morrow.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will give an opportunity for discussion of the new scheme as regards conscientious objectors?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think we had better see the new scheme in working first.

  OUTPUT OF BEEK (RESTRICTION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  OUTPUT OF BEEK (RESTRICTION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Limit on Brewers' Output.)
    (1) A brewer shall not brew at his brewery during the first two quarters to which this Act applies more than the aggregate maximum barrelages for those quarters as determined for the purposes of this Act, and shall not brew at his brewery in any subsequent quarter to which this Act applies more than his maximum barrelage for the quarter as determined for the purposes of this Act.
    (2) If a brewer acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of one hundred pounds, and, in addition, to an Excise penalty of two pounds for every barrel of beer brewed by him exceeding the maximum barrelage.
    (3) This Section shall not apply to brewers other than brewers for sale.
    Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "brewery" ["brewery during"], insert the words "or breweries."
    Leave out the word "two," and insert instead thereof the word "three."
    After the word "brewery" ["brewery in any"], insert the words "or breweries."—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "nor to beer brewed solely for export, if exported."
    A very large quantity of beer brewed in this country is exported, and the restrictions embodied in the present Bill have been designed for use at home. A very large business has grown up during the last eight or ten months in connection with this export, and the effect of this Bill if forced on the brewing trade would be to cut off a very large part of that beer, which would be supplied through other sources. I am informed that in certain cases the export of malt for beer is going on, and I believe that to be the fact. There is also the fact that the Government, while restricting the output of beer for consumption by the troops in France, are not restricting the importation of foreign barley as malt which is to go on under this Bill, and though the beer is not brewed in this country, the malt is sent to France to ferment there. There is also this consideration. The supply of German beer to foreign countries has been very largely cut off, in fact, almost entirely cut off. This given our breweries an opportunity for trade which will be useful to this country at the termination of the War. If there is a restriction on export that trade will be lost and will fall back again into German hands. There are brewers in this country, of whom I am one, whose trade in beer for export purposes is a trade in old beer—that is to say, beer brewed in one season would not be exported from this country until the year after. For brewers in that position the supplies of beer brewed before this Bill was introduced will suffice for the immediate future, but looking ahead for a year or more, this Bill is going to impose most serious restrictions. I think that those points should be taken into consideration. I am not impressed by the arguments in reference to the tonnage occupied by beer that is exported. Beer is not exported in shiploads. It is only exported in small quantities, in comparatively small consignments, as part of a general cargo. The beer exported from this country goes to those particular foreign countries to which there is not a very large export of material at the present time, and where ships are constantly required to bring back articles which are urgently needed in this country, often by

    1383
    the Government, and nearly always for national purposes. I certainly think that this case requires some consideration by the Committee, and I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, because the effect of it would be that whereas all the beer available for consumption in this country was to be reduced by 15 per cent, any quantity of beer might be exported. That would clearly defeat the object of the Bill. I think that I can answer the points that have been made by my hon. Friend. The export of malt is now prohibited. My hon. Friend shakes his head.
    Colonel GRETTON: It is licensed.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is prohibited. It cannot be exported without a licence. Licences are being confined to a quantity of lager beer malt which is already in existence in this country, and which it would be waste not to allow to be exported, because there are only two or three brewers of lager beer in this country, and without exception they prepare their own malt. I understand that the malt used for brewing lager beer cannot be used for brewing ordinary English beer. Therefore, if this malt were kept here and not allowed to be exported it would be simply wasted. The malting season is now over, and it is not proposed to allow this export to continue when the new malting season begins. Maltsters have been so informed. I assent to what my hon. Friend says, that the object of this Bill is not to prevent small parcels of beer or malt either being exported. The main object is to prevent the importation of large quantities of brewing materials. If we accepted this Amendment I am afraid that the object of the Bill would be defeated. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Perhaps my hon. Friend's Amendment goes a little further than he desires, because it refers to the export of beer to every part of the world, but the hon. Gentleman's answer with regard to the beer exported for our troops in France is surely not conclusive. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the malt
    1384
    which was going to be sent from this country to France to make this beer is lager beer malt, which would be of no use in this country. It would be of no use in this country at the present moment, but it can be made of use by putting it into the kilns and exposing it to a higher temperature than that to which it was originally subjected. But this is an argument which I take note of in order to emphasise, if I can, the almost idiotic way in which the Board of Agriculture has dealt with this matter from the beginning. I do not think that I am using too strong a word. More than a year ago it was brought to their notice that a certain amount of malt was being made by maltsters in certain parts of England and Scotland for the purpose of lager beer brewing in Holland and Denmark. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland showed conspicuous and somewhat unusual good sense by prohibiting its export altogether. But that policy did not find favour with the Board of Agriculture here, and it was hard lines on those in Scotland who had made this malt, without any idea that their trade would be interfered with, not to be permitted to export it, while in England they were exporting on a licence—this was a year ago—and there was no need whatever that they should go on making any more. The hon. Gentleman now tells us that they have made a great deal more, causing a repetition of the situation, which has been one of acute agitation ever since, and they should not, I submit, be put in the difficulty of having to ask the hon. Gentleman now for leave to do that which they had leave to do last year. I hope that the practice will be stopped now, and that a little more consideration will be shown than has been manifested in the past in this matter. If it be true that the malt can be utilised here, it is surely better to brew the beer here than to send the malt to France to be brewed there. In the first place they brew in France under very bad conditions, which cannot be compared to the conditions here with regard to cleanliness or in other respects, and I believe there have been very grave complaints from the military authorities as to the beer which is brewed in France. In any event, even if the bad beer were made in this country instead of in France, there would be the advantage of having it brewed here, and the money coming back to us.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: This amount of malt I is additional, and, if the hon. Gentleman stopped it, you would not be able to export another gallon of beer.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not understand that last remark made by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite clear that there is power to export malt by licence, and it has been very plainly put by the acting President to the Board of Trade, in answer to a question the other day, that the, Department still intend, so far as they are concerned in the matter, that malt shall continue to be exported for the supply of beer to the troops. We are asking that the beer shall be brewed in this country as far as possible, but you are going to allow the malt to be brewed abroad, and you will not allow the extra quantity to be brewed in this country. The matter apparently does not seem to be very clearly understood, but I do not want to press it on the Government at the present moment. There are certain facts which I do not wish to discuss publicly at this stage, but which I may have to bring before the House on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Standard Barrelage.)
    (1) The maximum barrelage shall be determined by the Commissioners in the ease of each brewery and shall be, as respects any quarter, the standard barrel-age as defined in this Section with the addition as respects any quarter after the first quarter of the surplus barrelage as so defined.
    (2) The standard barrelage for the purposes of this Section shall be—

    (a) in the case of a brewery which was working during the corresponding quarter in the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to have been brewed at the brewery in that quarter; and

    (b) in the case of a brewery which was not working in the corresponding quarter of that year, the number of barrels which appear to the Commissioners to be reasonable having
    1386
    regard to the average number of barrels brewed at the brewery during the time the brewery has been working; and

    (c) in the case of any special brewery where the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the transfer of a brewing business or any other change of circumstances taking place after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions affords an unfair standard of comparison or no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just having regard to the special circumstances of the case;

    reduced in each case by fifteen per cent.:
    Provided that if a brewer rives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen, that he desires that this Section should be applied to his brewery with the substitution of the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, for the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and of thirty per cent, for fifteen per cent., this Section shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege or to substitute any higher percentage for thirty per cent. if, at any time after the expiration of six months from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it appears that the rate of the total output of beer in the United Kingdom is not reduced to below a rate of twenty-six million barrels a year.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section the surplus barrelage shall be, as respects any quarter, the number (if any) of barrels by which the aggregate number of barrels brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen."

    1387
    I understand that the retail trade offers no objection to this proposal, and it appears moreover to be very necessary. This is where I think it comes in. I understand that at a later stage an Amendment will be moved, imposing the same dates, which the Government will accept, and which has been agreed to by all the traders concerned, to the effect that the retail trader shall, under certain circumstances, be entitled to a certificate to enable him to get his beer as a free trader. It is quite obvious that if the retail trader under this Amendment has to work on a period to be inserted in the Bill, the wholesale trader must work on the same period. The effect of the Amendment which I submit is to substitute last winter for the winter before. It is obvious that if the production in the earlier period had been higher and business had fallen off, no difficulty would arise because there would be sufficient beer in the market, but the case must be considered where, by the development of large munition works, or as the result of Government orders for troops and so on, there has been a large increase in the demand for beer during last winter. If this Amendment is not inserted, this peculiar ease will arise, that the output of beer in a particular neighbourhood will, under this Bill, remain at 85 per cent. of the amount in the earlier period, and if my Amendment is not inserted, and the later Amendment is accepted, the result will be that the retail trader will be able to go to the brewer and require a certificate of 85 per cent. on the second winter when trade was so much higher. The brewer cannot brew it, and the retail trader will go to another brewer and get a larger quantity than the previous brewer was allowed to produce. If the certificate of the brewer and of the retail trader corresponded and were for the same period, the quantities would correspond.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have considered this Amendment very carefully, and because of the difficulty which it raises I cannot see my way to accept it. I really do not think it is necessary, and it would cause very great inconvenience, particularly at the Excise. The period we have chosen is the complete brewing year, ending the 30th September, 1915, and in conferences which have taken place about this Bill several suggestions were made of different periods not ending with the complete brewing year, and the Excise authorities always expressed great objec-
    1388
    tion to any departure from that, unless it was absolutely necessary. The brewers generally have agreed to the 1915 period. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but they have agreed to that. We had conferences with the trade, at which my hon. Friend could have been present if he liked. The trade conference of the Brewers' Society agreed to the period for 1915. That was the arrangement; and the amount of beer brewed in the twelve months of the complete brewing year ending 30th September, 1915, the standard year, was 30,222,000 barrels, the total amount of beer brewed in the year ending 30th of March, 1916—that is what my hon. Friend suggests we should take—was 30,290,000 barrels, practically identical. The position to which my hon. Friend refers is really provided for and we are perfectly prepared to take that risk. It may make a few gallons of difference, and, if so, that will have to be adjusted, if adjustment is necessary, which I hope it will not be. The suggestion is that under a Clause which we hope to accept later on from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) we shall allow a licence holder to give a certificate to a brewer for a quantity equal to that which he received during a certain period, and that that certificate might be larger; but, on the other hand, it might be less than the amount he would be entitled to brew under the Bill. If a few odd barrels are added to the brewer's output under that arrangement he will have the right to them and no objection will be raised to that certificate being returned to the same brewer. Therefore I think my hon. Friend ought to be grateful rather than the reverse for this arrangement being allowed to stand. The reason for the adoption of the 1916 period in the later Clause is, as I explained on Second Heading, to carry the arrangement between the licence holders and the brewers up to the latest possible date, so that we may take the arrangements as they are and not as they were six months before. Therefore, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that in the interests of the Bill and of all concerned it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: When the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman refers was made the Clause of the hon. Member for Birmingham had not been considered and was not on the Paper. The object of proposing this Amendment is in order to bring the two Clauses into really close

    1389
    relation with one another; otherwise you will require adjustment between the year chosen and the period selected, since the year 1914–15 may be quite different from those of 1915–16. Take the case of a canteen, for instance. They may ask for a certificate and get it, but their camp may then be in Southampton and it may have previously been in Edinburgh, and other brewers would probably not be able to supply the order. This is merely a question of expediency. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an Excise difficulty and of the brewing year. The Excise make up their accounts every month and make their calculations on monthly or quarterly figures, and it would be no trouble to them to take any particular period, so that that is no argument whatever against the adoption of the Amendment.
    Colonel GRETTON: It has never been explained what the objection of the Excise is, except, perhaps, to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill has nothing to do with the Excise except in the limitation of brewing. As it happens, the quarters would work out very evenly under this Amendment, and the figures are always made up in quarters. If that is the only objection to the Amendment, I really must press it upon the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs mentioned the case of canteens. This Amendment will facilitate the business of canteens, and if he has in mind the Board of Control, to which I do not feel any particular friendliness at present, if necessary this will facilitate them also. I cannot accept the objection of the hon. Gentleman, and I am surprised that the argument has been used that this has been agreed to by the trade generally. When 1915 was agreed to there was no question of substituting another period for another purpose. The whole position is changed by the Amendment at a later stage. Obviously the thing is unworkable in itself, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to further consider the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable to press his Amendment, which, after careful consideration, I cannot accept. The whole of the arrangements have been based on the year 1915. So far from the statement of the hon. Gentleman being justified, he was not present, and perhaps is saying what he has heard and not what he knows himself. After my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham's Amendment appeared on the Paper there was a further confer-
    1390
    ence of brewers with all the representatives of the brewers, when they agree in substance to accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not after the Amendment was on the Paper.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Not in its exact present form, but the Amendment in its original form. It has been modified to a certain extent, but the principle as it now stands—that is, the principle of Free Trade against Compulsion, which is what it amounts to—was agreed to at that conference. No suggestion of this kind was put forward, and no suggestion officially made afterwards. I am perfectly certain this Amendment would injure the bill and create difficulties. This Bill has really been in operation since the 1st April last, and has been working on the standard of 1915, and has been accepted and in force all over the country. My hon. Friend, who is in constant touch with us, thinks it desirable to make changes which will be of some advantage to the trade. I have no doubt his object is to help us in every possible way, and I desire to acknowledge that the brewers generally have done their best to help us. But we have to deal not only with my hon. Friend but with the whole trade, large brewers and small brewers and everybody concerned. They have been proceeding on the understanding that we are going to act on the 1915 standard. Further than that, we have given an alternative of 1914. They have made careful calculations, and have made up their minds whether they are going to have 1914 or 1915. Now my hon. Friend wants suddenly to put all that into the melting-pot and suggests that we should take 1916, which would mean that everybody would have to reopen the books and go into a totally new calculation and discover whether it would be better to decide, not between 1914 and 1915, but between 1914 and 1916.
    If I saw any real advantage in the change I would face that, because my whole object has been to try and cause the least inconvenience possible to everybody concerned. I recognise that inconvenience has to be caused. As long as we get our restrictions, after that our object is to cause the least possible inconvenience to all concerned. I have gone into this Amendment from that point of view, and I do not think my hon. Friend has really made out any strong case for the Amendment. Officials and others who have a most intimate knowledge of the trade an I

    1391
    with every desire to give as little trouble as possible take that view, and I have come to the conclusion, taking all things into consideration, that the present standard of 1915 is better, even allowing that some small discrepancy may happen when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham is accepted, therefore I must adhere to my decision.
    Colonel GRETTON: I understand the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was speaking with the concurrence of others in the brewing trade. I can assure him that if that is his difficulty then I think it can be overcome. I hope I shall afford him proof that this Amendment is really required, and I now ask leave to withdraw.
    Mr. HODGE: I object to the Amendment being withdrawn, and I do so only for the purpose of pointing out how the whirligig of time brings its own revenge. When various other Bills have been before the House the Government have been jibed at from the other side of the House because they consulted with Labour Members, as, for instance, in the case of the Munitions Act. But here to-day we have evidence of the fact that the Government have been in consultation with the brewing trade with respect to this particular Bill. I do not object to that. I think in the best interests of measures of this character that it is essential that those who know most about them and are greatly interested in them should be consulted. I simply desire to point the moral that in future we should remember this particular aspect of the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) (a), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
    Although the hon. Gentleman told us that the brewers agreed generally to this, as a matter of fact a very great deal happened between 30th September, 1914, and the corresponding date in 1915. In some cases brewers took very large contracts for the supply of beer to canteens, while in other districts brewers found that a great many of their customers had removed from the neighbourhood, and therefore their output was reduced. The diminution of output in respect of brewers who agree to take the 1915 standard is 15 per cent., but the smaller
    1392
    country brewers who are injured by the removal of their customers, and by their concentration in camps where canteen contracts operate, are required, if they select the 1914 standard, to reduce their output by 30 per cent. I cannot see any equity or justice in that. I should like to hear what the real reason is. It may be necessary to take into consideration the fact that there has been this concentration of beer drinkers in certain localities, that these large contracts have been made, and that the brewers who have been fortunate enough to increase their profits in this way should get off so much more lightly than the unfortunate country brewers who have been harassed in every possible way under the Regulations of the Central Control Board. They have the worst of both worlds. Their customers have been taken away and they are not allowed to supply those remaining, and yet if they want to have a normal period of their brewing output taken as the basis, they are to have their trade reduced by double the amount proposed in the case; of the more fortunate brewers. I am sure that the small country brewers never agreed to this, either at the conference which has been referred to or anywhere else. I have had the strongest protests from them. If the real object of the Government is to reduce the consumption of malt, hops, and other articles of that kind, they have secured the full benefit of what is proposed in this Bill by the unnatural reduction of trade which has already taken place in consequence of the War. I therefore ask for some explanation of why, in the framing of this Bill, they have consulted only the interests of the big brewers who have the best opportunities for making additional profit, and sacrificed the smaller brewers, who have not had any of these canteen contracts to swell their profits.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am afraid this Clause is really past praying for, after the withdrawal of the previous Amendment. I have risen merely to enforce what my hon. Friend has just said, to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the case of the country brewers should be very carefully considered, and to warn him that he is now reaping some of the odium caused by the extreme injustice of the Central Control Board, which must animate everybody who wishes to see justice done to the liquor trade, and will affect every Amendment and every Clause in this Bill.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept the responsibility for the sins of the Central Control Board, as it is not under the Board of Trade, nor do I know what are the particular iniquities to which my hon. Friend refers. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I really do not quite understand his point of view. Although we have had conferences with the brewers, there are such people as the consumers, and in considering this Bill we cannot consider it solely a matter for the trade. We have to consider also the question whether or not the consumers can get their beer. There has been a large migration of the beer-drinking population owing to the War. In many rural districts, such as that represented by my hon. Friend, recruiting has been admirable. A large proportion of those who drank beer in the Devizes district are now at military centres, which are usually nearer the East Coast, or on some ground taken by the War Office as a centre for training. It would be ridiculous for us to propose by means of this Bill to restore the position of the brewer in Devizes, who through that migration has lost something like 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of his trade. The suggestion apparently is that under this Bill we should give him back some of the trade that he has lost, that we should enable him to brew in Devizes beer which cannot be drunk in Devizes, and congest our already congested railways by carrying that beer from Devizes to Ripon or elsewhere. I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest anything of the kind. It is impossible to do that. We have to recognise that, before this Bill was thought of, this migration had taken place. Originally it was suggested, I think on behalf of the brewers, that the year 1914 should be taken. The Army Council, the military brewers, and everybody who had any real knowledge of the subject at once said, "If you take the year 1914, you will take the pre-war condition, and by so doing you will ignore the present distribution of the population. You will have to carry the beer from the places where it is brewed under the old condition to the places where it will be drunk under the new condition." Really that would be a most un-businesslike proceeding, and I should have been very sorry to have had to face the criticism in Committee here which would very properly have been directed against the Board of Trade, if, merely to benefit the small local brewers, we had adopted
    1394
    any such principle. What we have done is to meet the brewers as far as we can by giving them the 1914 alternative as an option. The reason why 30 per cent, is taken instead of 15 per cent, is very simple. The consumption of beer in 1914 was very much greater than in 1915, and in order to get down to the 26,000,000 barrels which is our basis, we had to take 28 per cent., instead of 14 per cent., and the corresponding figures of 30 per cent, instead of 15 per cent, simply represent a reduction to the same level. The question of differentiation against the small brewer as compared with the large brewer does not arise at all. We have done the best we can to adjust the figures, and to do the least possible injury to the brewers. We are bound to have regard to the consumers from one end of the country to the other. That is the reason why I cannot accept this Amendment. I think we have gone as far as it is possible to go to meet my hon. Friend. I quite feel the hardship which the small brewers have suffered, but that hardship has not been caused by the Government, nor is it due to this Bill. We are told that they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, of their trade. Under this Bill they are to be forced to reduce their output by only 30 per cent. Therefore if they have lost 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, they will be able to increase their present output by 10 per cent, or 20 per cent.
    Mr. PETO: After the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to> withdraw the Amendment, but I would call his attention to the percentage in the proviso at the end of the Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: I beg to move, after the word "brewed" ["brewed at the brewery"], to insert the words "by the brewer."
    This Amendment has to be taken in conjunction with other Amendments standing in my name. As the Committee is aware, Clause 2 deals with the standard barrel-age, which is the barrelage for the year ending the 30th September, 1915. What would happen to a brewer who, on the 1st October, 1915, sold his premises but not the goodwill of his free trade and tied trade. I am afraid that in such a case there might be two claimants to the barrelage of the brewing premises. Unless the brewer transferred his barrelage to another firm he would be unable to supply his customers. I hope that some

    1395
    Amendment of this sort will be accepted, otherwise there will be a great deal of trouble, and possibly litigation.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I quite recognise my hon. Friend's point, but this Amendment could not be accepted, as it would go very much further. I think the point will be met by two changes in the Bill, which will be made by Amendments standing in my name to paragraph (c), under which full power is given to the Commissioners of Excise to make any necessary changes. The paragraph will read:
    "…where the Commissioners are satisfied that owing to the transfer of a brewing business, or any other change in the circumstances of the brewery, taking place after the 30th day of September, 1914, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provision does not afford a proper standard of comparison, or affords no standard of comparison, such number of barrels as the Commissioners think just, having regard to the special circumstances of the case."
    That would enable all these adjustments to be made by the Commissioners. The insertion of the word "proper" instead of the word "unfair" will enable the barrelage to be decreased as well as increased. The word "unfair" rather suggests only increase. The word "proper" covers decrease as well as increase. I know my hon. Friend will suggest that tinder Clause 5 difficulties may arise, but when the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe) is accepted, compulsion goes, and the free trade Clause will apply. Therefore I think that these changes will absolutely meet my hon. Friend's point. I believe he has one particular well-known case in mind. I have taken advice upon that case, and I am advised that these changes will cover it without any further Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), to leave out the words "of circumstances" ["or any other change of circumstances"], and to insert instead thereof the words "in the circumstances of the brewery."
    I think it is pretty obvious on the face of it that "in the circumstances" is too wide. The words might cover changes of population, and innumerable matters might be brought before the Commis-
    1396
    sioners which it was never intended should be brought. Therefore I propose the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    Leave out the word "fifteen" ["nineteen hundred and fifteen"], and insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
    Leave out the words "and before the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    Leave out the words "affords an unfair" [" affords an unfair standard of comparison"], and insert instead thereof the words "does not afford a proper."
    After the word "or" insert the word "affords."
    Leave out the word "June," and insert instead thereof the word "August."
    After the word "that" ["that this Section "] insert the words "the foregoing provisions of."
    Leave out the words "this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "those provisions."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "privilege" ["to withdraw this privilege"], to insert the words "as from the date of such Order in Council."
    I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will accept it, and will improve it, if I may.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, very well!
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The form in which I shall in a moment propose my Amendment, I think, will be rather better from the hon. Member's point of view, for the date of the Order in Council might even be a little too soon. I therefore propose to add "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, that is better.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words, "as from a subsequent date, to be fixed by the Order in Council" there inserted.—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "percentage for thirty per cent.," and insert instead thereof the words "percentages pro rata."—[Sir G. Younger.]
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move to leave out the word "a" ["below a rate of"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the required."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That Amendment is unnecessary.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it would be better if the Bill were altered as I suggest.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a matter of drafting—"the required" refers to nothing. I have referred the hon. Member's suggestion to the draftsman, and I hope he will leave the Bill as it now stands.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope there is no point in the Amendment, but I have very grave doubts as to whether or not it does not involve a very large matter. However, if the right hon. Gentleman tells me across the floor of the House that my words are not needed, I am perfectly willing to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words:
    "(3) If any licensed premises shall after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen, have been or be sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased to any brewer, the brewer shall be entitled thereafter to supply to the licensed premises the same quantity (less fifteen per cent.) of beer as has previously been supplied to those premises, and if the beer has previously been supplied by another brewer the maximum barrelage of that other brewer shall be reduced by the amount of such supply, and the maximum barrelage of the brewer to whom the premises shall be so sold, transferred, mortgaged, or leased, shall be similarly increased. The transfer of a mortgage on any licensed premises shall be deemed to be a transfer of licensed premises within this Section."
    To begin with, I may point out that this Amendment does not in any way interfere with the main object of the Bill, which is to restrict the output of beer generally. This Amendment does not have the effect of increasing that output in any way, but it is really a safeguard—a very small point really—of the power, of the free, unfettered power, which the licence holder now possesses to sell his premises, to mortgage them, or to lease them in any market which he may consider to foe the most favourable. It is per-
    1398
    fectly obvious that in the case of such a man the people he would first go to in case he wished to sell or mortgage his premises would be the brewers, and the more brewers he could go to the more competition there would be, and the more favourable terms he would be likely to get. In the Clause as it stands it seems to me that that might be somewhat interfered with. Under paragraph (c) in the Clause as it stands the brewer could only get the right, although ho has purchased the premises or lent money on mortgage, to supply them with beer if he satisfied the Commissioners of Excise that that constituted such a change in circumstances as enabled him to increase his output. At all events, I think that there is considerable doubt about the matter, and I think it is very desirable to have these words in, both in the interests of the licence holder and of the brewers. I submit they are reasonable, and I trust my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am quite ready to accept this Amendment. It is quite reasonable, but it really relates mainly to the transfer of tied houses, and enables the brewer who purchased the tied house from another brewer or, as my hon. Friend has suggested, purchased any licensed premises whatever, when he purchases the house, to assume the right to brew—that that right to brew should pass from the brewer hitherto supplying the house, without in any way an alteration of the total output of beer as restricted by this Bill. It merely transfers the right to the person who has bought the premises to which the rights apply.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I have no objection whatever to this Clause being put into the Bill except that it is redundant, because the point is or will be covered.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I express my satisfaction at the way this matter is going. The right hon. Gentleman is very ready to accept anything that he can which does not impair his Bill.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, this only applies to tied houses.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then how stands the case of a free house in which the supply of beer is divided amongst a number of brewers? Will account be taken of the amount supplied by each of

    1399
    the brewers to this free house? And will this, or will it not, have the effect of reducing their output?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A later Clause covers that point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. E. STRAUSS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add,
    "(4) Provided that where a brewer has ceased to brew at a particular brewery and continues to brew at another brewery, or has contracted with another brewery to brew for him the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer has ceased to brew, shall, so long as such arrangement remains in force, for the purposes of this Section be deemed to be part of the barrelage of the brewery at which such brewer continues to brew, or of the brewer who has contracted to brew for such brewer. In the event of the contract of the brewer who has ceased to brew being terminated he shall be entitled to transfer such barrelage to any other brewer with whom he may make a fresh contract."
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. It removes all doubt, and I can assure him there is an apprehension in the minds of a number of brewers who have entered into brewing arrangements that they are at the tender mercies of the Commissioners. If the Amendment carries out the wish of the hon. Gentleman I see no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. It only carries out what he desires. It is very unpleasant to people who have entered into brewing arrangements that there should be litigation or trouble, and if the hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment I am sure it will relieve the minds of many brewers who have entered into such arrangements, and will satisfy those who have invested their money.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have consulted the draftsman, and I really think this is better left out, because it is absolutely covered by paragraph (c). It is impossible to foresee what exact arrangements may, be made for a transfer, and when you get a general Clause, covering every conceivable case, it will cover the particular case or so which my hon. Friend has in mind. I really think it is better left general, and I do not think my hon. Friend need have any fear of the Commissioners.
    1400
    They have no possible interest in the matter, as there is no question of taxation or interest to the State. It is merely to provide, where there has been a transfer of brewing rights from one brewery to another, that the Commissioners will be able to adjust the matter as between one brewery and the other. In the interests of drafting and the proper carrying out of the Bill, I think the professional advice I have had is really to be relied on.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not accept this.
    Mr. HODGE: Will this have any effect on those who are at present brewing nonalcoholic beer—that is, beer under 2 per cent, proof spirit?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It does not touch that point at all. This Clause simply deals with the question where one brewer has sold part of his property to another. I think it would be out of order to discuss it on this particular Amendment, although I am quite ready to explain it.
    Sir G.YOUNGER:I think on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," it will be possible to discuss that particular point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: This Clause restricts the output in future by 30 per cent. from 1914 or 15 per cent. from 1915. I do not mean to make any objection whatever to the Clause as it stands. The brewing trade, when faced with the dictum of the Board of Trade that it was essential to restrict tonnage, and that this was the only possible way in which they conceived it could be done, accepted at once the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade, and set to work with him to try to devise a scheme under which it might be carried out. In that particular calculation every material used in brewing brought from abroad was taken into consideration, and amongst these were hops, and the restriction of 15 or 30 per cent, has been based upon the calculation that something like 10,000 tons of hops were imported from America, Germany, and the Colonies in the past years for the purposes of brewing. The President of the Board of Trade has prohibited the import of hops largely under the pressure

    1401
    of my hon. Friend, one of the Members for Kent, and no doubt his intention was very admirable so far as his constituency is concerned. Hon. Members know that Kent grows most hops in England, and the best hops in England, I will say. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has now prohibited the import of hops, and in doing so has gone altogether outside the arrangements which he made with the brewers with regard to the restriction of their material, because this 30 and 15 per cent, reduction in the output of beer is calculated on the assumption that there will be an equal reduction in the future in the import of barley and also of hops. The hon. Gentleman realises no doubt perfectly well that even with the restricted quantity of beer to be brewed, the military beer, which everybody is so anxious to provide, cannot be produced unless a certain amount of foreign and Colonial hops is introduced into this country. No doubt at present there is a considerable quantity of hops in the country, but that time will pass very soon, and those stocks will be used up, and you will be left subject to the home grown article and the imported, which, no doubt, under licence the Board of Trade in certain cases will permit.
    What I want the hon. Gentleman to say is, that if this restriction is going to have the effect of curtailing the necessary supply of hops, there will be no difficulty whatever in granting suitable licences for importing hops, and I want him to go further and say, that if growers of hops in England take unfair advantage of the restriction, and put an absurdly high price on their product, he will reintroduce the free import of hops. It would be grossly unfair to prohibit the import altogether, if he is going to allow those people—and, mark you, agriculturists are not liable to the Excess Profits Tax—to do that. Therefore they must be controlled in some kind of way from taking an unfair advantage. The other point I want to mention is the question of non-alcoholic beer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had it brought to his notice that the Board of Control is about to issue an order to prevent, I believe, licence holders from selling during prohibited hours any class of liquor which contains less than 2 per cent, proof spirit. That is the sort of beverage sold in refreshment houses. That requires to be looked into and altered. But, over and above that, if there is going to be a demand for this particular article, the brewers will not be able to brew it,
    1402
    while people outside without any restriction will be able to brew it as much as they like. It is made from malt and hops, but is lighter and contains more water, and if brewers wish to brew this they will be prevented by the fact that they are restricted, while the people outside can use barley, malt and hops because they are utterly uncontrolled. That is another matter the hon. Gentleman's Department will have to deal with.
    Mr. HODGE: I should like to support the hon. Baronet in the case he has put. A certain number of brewers are brewing this non-alcoholic drink. Are the gallons they brew to be reckoned as part of the quantity they are permitted to brew, or will those be treated as not coming under the category of this Bill? I think it is an important point, and the Government should also take into consideration the point of view that the hon. Baronet has placed before the Committee. In the brewery they must pay the duty upon this particular non-alcoholic beer, but if it is brewed in a place that is not called a brewery there is no duty to pay.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They pay duty under the Finance Bill.
    Mr. HODGE: Another point is that this non-alcoholic beer can be sold in refreshment houses or in sweet shops without a licence, but the brewer and the publican during prohibited hours cannot sell it. I think that that is really an anomaly which the Government ought to deal with, and probably the hon. Gentleman on Report stage will accept an Amendment that this Bill should not apply to beer brewed of a gravity not exceeding 1.026 and which is no more than 2 per cent, proof spirit. I hope the hon. Gentleman will keep the matter in mind and not only accept this Amendment, but press upon the Government the removal of the other anomalies which the hon. Baronet mentioned.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. L. HARDY: I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not at once give way to the questions addressed to him by my hon. Friends to-day, because I do not think there is any proof whatsoever that there will not be hops sufficient for the requirements of the country, especially under the reduction enforced by this Bill. The question of price has been raised, and I go so far with my hon. Friend in this, that I think if there is any large increase of price in consequence of the prohibition it ought to be met by some other action on the part of the Board of Trade. But

    1403
    it must be remembered that the price of hops has been unduly depressed. The importations were greatly in excess of the average during the last month and the home market has suffered considerably. The prohibition has not in any sense raised in any way the price. The market has remained quite stagnant, showing that there is no real desire on the part of the brewers to get hops, and there are quite enough hops in the market at present for the trade. There is no likelihood of any question of this sort arising at the present time. I should like to ask how long the importation of hops is going to be allowed without licence? It has been increasing in the last few weeks. I find that during the week of the 29th it amounted to 6,000 cwts. I should like to know when the actual prohibition ceases and whether it does affect all countries. I do not know whether hops are being admitted from the Continent or not.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: For the first time in my life I should like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I would like to know whether the brewers have to pay above and beyond the duty levied under the Act. If so, I hope the Government will take steps not to discourage the brewers in utilising their premises for the production of harmless instead of a very harmful beverage. If there could be a profitable development in that direction it would be a great advantage to the public at large, and it might not, in the long run, be a disadvantage to the brewing trade. If there is anything which deters the development of what I hope will be a profitable trade in an article that will do less harm than most of the products of breweries, I hope the Government will remove any such obstacle.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On the Second Beading of this Bill I made it perfectly clear that this was not a temperance measure, but simply a Bill for restricting imports on account of the shortage of tonnage, and I stated that I should resist any attempt to use this measure for any other purpose than as a measure of war legislation. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend (Mr. Chancellor) wishes to do otherwise, but I feel sure that all hon. Members will agree that we cannot use
    1404
    this measure for that purpose. If we did the trade would have a very just cause for complaint. After all, brewing materials have to be used for temperance beer as well as for other beer, and it would be unfair to restrict, on purely war grounds, the importation of materials for one kind of beer whilst allowing absolute freedom in regard to other kinds of beer produced in the same brewery. I have had this question before me, and I need not wait until the Report stage to explain the position. This non-alcoholic beer is a beer which must have less than 2 per cent, of proof spirit in it. This beer has the property, if it is kept for a certain time, of further fermentation, and perhaps in a few weeks, if the beer is kept, you may find the 2 per cent, of proof spirit has very considerably increased, and that beer may no longer be a temperance drink. There also arises the question of gravity, and I believe that the limit of gravity at which beer ceases to be excisable is 10.16. It has been stated that some of this temperance beer has a gravity of less than 10.16, but I believe that is rarely the case, and the gravity is more often 10.18, 10.20, 10.22, and 10.24, and where you have 2 per cent, of proof spirit it may become 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, by process of time if it remains in the barrel.
    Ordinary beer which is kept some considerable time gains in strength, and I am afraid that temperance beer is so nearly beer that it is subject to the same tendency, and becomes non-temperance after a certain time. The reason I am pointing out these scientific details is that it is quite obvious that for the purpose of the Excise where it is necessary to go into a brewery and supervise the whole production of beer in that brewery, and treat it as a whole and assess the duty which is payable, it would be absolutely impracticable to attempt to draw the line between temperance beer and ordinary beer brewed in the same brewery; in fact, it would be almost impossible to draw the line, because this beer is variable after it is put into the cask. I have discussed this matter with the Excise authorities, and they inform me that it is quite impossible to allow a temperance beer to be brewed at a brewery and to be treated apart from the other beer brewed in the same brewery which is subject to duty. That, however, does not prohibit a man under the ordinary law outside the brewing trade who chooses to manufacture any

    1405
    liquor which is non-alcoholic, whether it be ginger beer, or this particular form of drink, which may be made from brewing materials, but which does not come under the Excise. A man will do this at hip own risk, and if he chooses to keep that non-alcoholic drink until it becomes alcoholic, and then sells it, he is subject to heavy penalties for selling alcoholic drink under the guise of non-alcoholic drink. Therefore it is impossible to alter this proposal in the Bill.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is there no way of restricting the people who use the same materials as brewers, mostly sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Why should they not all be restricted in the use of sugar?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend's suggestion is perfectly logical, but that would apply to everything used in this country. We are restricting beer, and what has been mentioned here is not beer. It may be necessary to restrict other things, but I hardly think we can go into that matter in connection with this Bill, and it would have to be done under a totally different class of restriction on all forms of beverages. With regard to hops the Board of Trade is rather between the hammer and the anvil in regard to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kent (Mr. Hardy), but I do not think the course taken by those hon. Members is unreasonable, and it would not be difficult to hold a fair balance between them. I agree that the importation of hops must be permitted under licence, under two conditions. First of all, if there is a real scarcity of hops and the Board of Trade is satisfied on the subject, licences may be granted. There may be an unfair price and price is the barometer of scarcity. The point on which we might differ would probably be as to what was too high.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: From £5 to £6 per hundred weight is a good price for one class, and £7 or £8 for the other.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My right hon. Friend opposite does not contradict that, but I do not mink the Board of Trade is likely to have much trouble in arriving at a proper price. I do not think we should be justified in withdrawing the prohibition and allowing the free importation of hops.
    1406
    All we should have to do would be to grant such licences as are necessary to enable brewers to obtain the quantity required for their trade.
    Mr. HARDY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he would consult the trade before granting licences on account of scarcity?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We should consult both the trade and those interested in the hop industry. We shall endeavour to inform ourselves on this point. It is impossible for us to know without inquiry on what principle licences should be granted unless we have informed ourselves as to the tax on both sides. The present position is that prohibition is already in force, and the hops which are now coming in are those which had started before the prohibition was enacted. As soon as those are here they will be added to the stocks, and then the licensing system will be enforced on the principle which I have mentioned, which I hope will be satisfactory.
    Sir J. D. REES: The hon. Gentleman; representing the Government said he was rather between the hammer and the anvil on this question, but I think he is rather between an overwhelming element and an overpowering personality. I do not want to lengthen this Debate, but I should like to say a word on the controversial note which was struck by the hon. Member for Haggerston (Ms. Chancellor). I do not want this Debate to degenerate into a talk on teetotalism, but I would like to know if some other word could not be used for this non-alcoholic drink than beer? Could it not be given some other name? I think it would be very advantageous that it could be called by some other totally different designation.
    Colonel GRETTON: On the question of this so-called non-alcoholic beer, like all other liquors that contain sugar, it has in it alcohol, but in a smaller proportion. I understand that the Board of Trade do not recognise this particular beverage as beer. If that is so, I would like to know will they undertake prosecutions against people who sell it as beer? Brewers and the public have to pay a very heavy tax on beer, and the Board of Trade and Customs take up the position that all liquor fermented in a brewery is beer. Surely if an article which is more or less a colourable imitation of beer be sold under the same name in competition with beer which is taxed so heavily, it should be treated

    1407
    in the same way and subject to the same restrictions, or it should not be sold as beer. This non-alcoholic beer may be made to any extent, and many hon. Members desire that it should be made to a greater extent, although there is no suggestion of restrictions upon the importation of the materials from which this article is made. I am not quite sure that this particular article is going to be the success which some persons wish it to be. I tasted it without prejudice, and it is exceedingly nasty. I am told that people will drink it out of curiosity, but they do not drink it very often. If they do, they get very thirsty and are very glad when the houses open and they are able to get an ordinary drink. There is really no justification in this measure for prohibition of the importation of hops, because they are very light and they do not add very seriously to the weight of a cargo. The object is an entirely different one. I am not putting forward my own case, but I want to draw attention to the fact that some brewers in this country use these foreign imported hops for particular purposes. It is not only a question of the quantity, but also of the quality. This, however, is a matter in which I believe the Board of Trade mean to act fairly, and if any hops are required licences will no doubt be obtainable. The brewing trade do not wish to be unreasonable. The assurance of my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Laurence Hardy) that prices will not be made extortionate, and the understanding that if they are the market will be opened again, will be considerable consolation to those brewers who strongly object to prohibition.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Restriction on Establishment of New Breweries.)
    A manufacturer's licence for a brewer for sale shall not after the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be granted while this Act is in operation, except to a person holding such a licence and for the same premises as those in respect of which the licence is held.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "licence" ["holding such a licence"], to insert the words "or to his successors in business."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am advised that these words are unnecessary. Of course, I should naturally accept them if they were necessary, because clearly the point should be covered, but I am advised that the words are redundant.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "as," and to insert instead of thereof the words "or other premises in connection with."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My Amendment at the end of the Clause to add the words "or for premises substituted for those premises" would take the place of this Amendment, if my hon. Friend would agree to it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not quite sure about those words. There are outlying premises and so forth in connection with breweries, and I think we must have both Amendments. Premises in connection therewith as well as premises in substitution for those particular premises should be included if you are to be quite fair in the matter.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Amendment that I have on the Paper goes quite far enough, and I do not think that we could accept the hon. Member's Amendment in this form. It is rather vague to say "other premises in connection with." There might be stables and all kinds of outbuildings in connection with a brewer's premises. We have considered the matter very carefully, and I have put down an Amendment which I think really does meet my hon. Friend's point. We take the premises which are now being used for brewing, and if the brewer desires to substitute any part of his premises not now so used he can do it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In my own case there are premises a mile and a half away entered in the Excise regulations. It is not only the brewery, but all the premises, with which you have got to deal.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If they are already licensed, they remain licensed.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is not a question of licence. They are entered along with the brewery premises, but they are not licensed as such.
    Mr. PRETYMANThey will not need to be.
    Colonel GRETTON: There is really something in this point. The question of the premises entered in the licence is really a complicated and technical one and has arisen in the past. These words would really be necessary in many cases, and, if they were not inserted, the hon. Gentleman would be reverting to a state of things which does not now exist, and would be putting brewers in a worse position.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The matter is, obviously, very technical. The object of the Clause is to protect the existing brewing trade and to provide that no premises shall be licensed except those already licensed. That is perfectly simple, and I honestly cannot see the object of the Amendment, but as my hon. Friend raises it from a technical standpoint I am really not qualified to argue it—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider it between now and the Report stage?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It has been carefully considered, and my Amendment is all that we can do at present, but I will have the arguments used by my hon. Friends carefully considered and let them know on the Report stage whether I can accept their Amendment or not.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "or for premises substituted for those premises."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Effect of Act on Contracts.)
    Where the provisions of this Act interfere with any contract made by a brewer before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, to deliver beer or in connection with the delivery of beer, that contract shall be modified so as to conform with the provisions of this Act in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties to the contract, or, in default of agreement, determined in England by arbitration, in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1889, in Scotland by a single arbiter to be appointed by the sheriff, and in Ireland in accordance with the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, and for the purposes of that Act, but subject to any agreement of the parties to the contrary, this provision shall have effect in like manner as
    1410
    a submission to arbitration by consent authorising a reference to a single arbitrator and incorporating paragraph (i) of the Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1889.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "any contract made by a brewer before the first day of April nineteen hundred and sixteen, to deliver beer or in connection with the delivery of beer," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the performances of any contract to deliver beer, or in connection with the delivery of beer, or of any condition, express or implied, in any tenancy agreement or other contract made by a brewer before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    I understand that these words are really necessary in order to cover cases which are left in a vague position.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I really do not think that these words are any better than the words in the Bill which are perfectly clear. I propose, however, to accept an Amendment to leave out the word "deliver," and to insert instead thereof the words "sell or supply." I do not think it makes any material difference, but if my hon. Friend suggests those words and thinks that they are better I do not object to them.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The object of my Amendment was to bring in tenancy agreements which are not in some cases regarded in the same light as contracts.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The effect of these words might be limiting. I am advised that a tenancy agreement is a contract and that the words in the Bill will cover everything.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "deliver" ["deliver beer, or in connection with the delivery of beer"], and insert thereof the words "sell or supply."—[Sir F. Lowe.]
    Sir F. LOWE: I beg to move to leave out the words "in connection with the delivery of beer." I presume this Amendment will be somewhat altered.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No; we do not want it
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Supply of Beer to Free Licensed Souses.)
    (1) Where a licence holder who is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, and is not otherwise under Any direct or indirect obligation of any kind to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, was, on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, obtaining a supply of beer from any brewer, he shall be entitled to obtain from that brewer under reasonable conditions a similar supply, reduced by fifteen per cent., during any period for which this Act applies, or such less supply as he may require.
    (2) If a licence holder considers that any brewer has in connection with the supply of beer to him failed to comply with the provisions of this Section he may apply to the Board of Trade for relief under this Section, and the Board of Trade may if they are of opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to do so, give relief by the reduction of the maximum barrelage of the brewer who has failed to comply with the provisions of this Section, and the transfer of that barrelage to any brewer who has undertaken to give the required supply to the licence holder.
    Where relief is so given the maximum barrelage of the brewers concerned shall be adjusted in such manner as the Board of Trade direct as a consequence of the relief given.
    (3) In this Section the expression "licence holder" means the holder of a retailer's on-licence authorising the sale by retail of beer; and includes, where any licensed premises have changed hands, the licence holder for the time being; and where any premises on which beer is sold are under the management of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), the Central Control Board.
    Sir F. LOWE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-sections:

    "(1) Any licence holder in so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled to obtain
    1412
    from such brewer or brewers particulars of the quantities and gravities of the beer supplied, and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.

    (2) The licence holder shall after forwarding any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain the same number of standard barrels (reduced by fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply."

    The object of this Amendment is to leave the free-licence holder as free as he is at present to obtain supplies of beer from any brewer or number of brewers. Under the Clause as drawn he will become practically tied and bound to one brewer, because, although he could continue to obtain supplies from the particular brewer with whom he has been dealing, he would not be able to go and obtain supplies from any other brewer. That seems to be manifestly unfair, and it is only right he should be left as free as he is at the present time. The only way in which he can, under the Clause, change his brewer is by satisfying the Board of Trade that the brewer with whom he has been dealing has failed to comply with the provisions of the Clause. That is a very cumbersome and it might prove a very dilatory and inconvenient process. Furthermore, if the brewer fails to comply with the provisions of the Clause, the buyer does not want to be tied to any particular brewer any more than he is now. It seems to me only fair and reasonable that this alteration should be made, especially as it will preserve the freedom of the free-licence holder. In fact, it will carry out the main provisions of the Act, because the buyer will only be able to obtain the same supply as before, less 15 per cent. But if this method were adopted, he would be entitled to ask the brewer who had been supplying him for a certificate giving the particulars of the quantity and gravity of the beer supplied, together with the number of standard barrels, and having got that certificate he

    1413
    could take it to another brewer who might be willing to supply him, or, indeed, he might take it to several brewers, so long as he only obtains the quantity which he purchased in the comparative period, less 15 per cent. There are one or two Amendments on the Paper, but I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to them at the present moment. The first—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): We had better deal with the Amendment when that arises.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I may apologise to the Committee for making a very great change in the Bill by accepting this Amendment. It is my intention to accept the Sub-sections proposed by my hon. Friend in the place of those which stand in the Bill. The reason is this: Obviously one of the greatest difficulties in framing this Bill arose in dealing with supplies of beer which are obtained by retailers, those retailers being at the same time free to change the brewer from which they have obtained their supplies in the past. Clearly it would not be right in the Bill to tie the retailer, who is a free buyer of beer at the present time, to the particular brewer who happened to be supplying him at the date of the introduction of the Bill. It would really convert all buyers of beer into tied-house tenants, and that is quite unnecessary. The suggestion made in the original Clauses of the Bill was that we should apply compulsion to the brewer who was supplying at a particular time to continue to supply, and if for any reason the parties quarrelled, then the buyer was to be enabled to go to the Board of Trade, who would put him on to another brewer who could supply that which, owing to the disagreement, he could no longer obtain from the original brewer. That appeared at the time to be the only method of dealing with that difficulty. If we had acceded to the licence holders' request for compulsion, we should have had to adhere to this Clause, subject, of course, to any Amendments this Committee might introduce.
    But, after considering the proviso, the free buyers came to the conclusion that they would prefer real free trade to compulsion, and, the suggestion for compulsion having been abandoned, they preferred to have a Clause on the lines proposed by my hon. Friends opposite, which ^would give them this right, that while
    1414
    they are obtaining beer now from any brewer, they should be able to obtain a certificate from that brewer showing the number of standard barrels of beer they are getting, and with that certificate they should be at liberty to go to any other brewer and ask him to supply them. If the brewer agreed to supply them—he being, of course, perfectly free to supply or to refuse to supply—he would then be permitted by the Excise, to whom the certificate would be sent, to brew the extra quantity of beer stated on the certificate, while the original brewer would have the amount he was entitled to brew decreased by the same quantity. That, in itself, is a great saving of administrative trouble. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is doing very good work in a similar matter in regard to supplies of paper will be able to inform the Committee that a very great burden is thrown upon the tribunal which has to adjust supplies between the wholesale and the retail trade. At first we saw no alternative to a like burden being thrown on the Board of Trade; it would have involved some kind of tribunal together with a good deal of administrative trouble. This arrangement, however, has been suggested by the free-licence holders themselves, and it has been accepted entirely by the brewing trade. Both parties are satisfied, and I hope the Committee will agree to the change, and at the same time accept my excuses for not having put it in the Bill originally. Any Amendment can, of course, be discussed later on, but I ought to say that the Bill as originally drafted applied only to on-licence holders. By Amendments to be introduced later on, however, it will cover clubs, and licences in every form.
    Sir F. LOWE: And canteens?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, clubs, canteens, and all licence holders of any kind whatsoever will be covered by the Amendments which are to be inserted in the Bill later on. All these persons, whether clubs, off-licence holders, or free buyers of beer (other than buyers for private consumption), and free buyers for resale, will be entitled under this Clause, some even being brewers themselves—brewers who have licences as beer dealers and who buy from other brewers—all these will be entitled to change their brewer and take a certificate, showing the quantity they are entitled to purchase, to another brewery.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will the words be "holders of Excise licences," and will provision then be made for the inclusion of clubs?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes; all the Amendments are on the Paper. I have described what will be the effect of the Clause as amended, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Mr. NIELD: I have been very glad to hear the observations of the hon. Gentleman, because it relieves many of us who had intended to propose Amendments providing for the inclusion of clubs of our task, seeing that their inclusion has now become an accepted principle. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage whether the words of the proposed Amendment, "the 31st day of March," are as good as the words "or before the passing of this Act." There are some points which might be raised, and it would be as well therefore for the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the wider words would not be better under the circumstances. This affects clubs in a different way to the ordinary licence holder or beer seller.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does my hon. Friend want to alter the date, the 31st March, 1916?
    Mr. NIELD: Yes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates what these words really do. They fix the date, which is the end of the twelve months, which will be the comparative period, and it is obviously necessary to bring them up to the last possible moment. We want to deal with the trade as it is and not as it was. We hope the Bill will come into operation as from the 1st April, and therefore we have fixed the date at the 31st March.
    Mr. NIELD: But—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better wait until we come to this particular Amendment.
    Mr. DENNISS: It strikes me, reading the proposed Clause side by side with the one at present in the Bill, we may, by making the change, defeat the object with which the Clause is put in. Under Clause 5, Sub-section (1), when a licence holder has been in the habit of buying his beer from a certain brewer he will be entitled to obtain from that brewer a similar
    1416
    supply. Under the proposed Clause he will not have that right. He will not have the right to compel the brewer with whom he has been dealing to continue to sell to him, and he may be unable to get his beer elsewhere.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The licence holders are satisfied.
    Mr. DENNISS: It is not satisfactory to me.
    Sir F. LOWE: They have asked for it.
    Mr. DENNISS: The trade may have asked for it.
    Colonel GRETTON: The retail trade has asked for it.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am not thinking of the trade or of the brewer. I am thinking of the consumer, and of the club, and in conjunction with my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ealing I have put down certain Amendments, but the agreement to include clubs has rendered it unnecessary, for us to move them. I do ask the hon. Gentleman, however, when dealing with this question, not to leave the clubs out in the cold, and I fear this Clause as amended will do so unless further words are introduced.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that if it is the general wish of the Committee to allow Sub-sections (1) and (2) to go out of the Bill, they should be struck out, and then we can deal with the substituted Sections in due course.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am rather opposed to these Sub-sections going out, because the result would be to deprive the licence holders of their absolute right to get their beer in any case from the brewer with whom they have been dealing. I am not for a moment considering the case of the retail trade, or the free public-house, or the brewer. I am speaking for the clubs, and I very much object to these Sections being left out, because they do now give an absolute right to go to the brewer in any case. I do not want them to be left out in the cold. I do not want the brewer from whom they have been buying to be in a position to refuse to continue to supply them. Of course they will get their certificate all right, but then other brewers to whom they apply may refuse to supply them. A brewer, for instance, may say, "I want to give all my beer to my tied houses," and there is

    1417
    nothing in the Bill to prevent a brewer giving more than 85 per cent, to that customer.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that the clubs can go to the brewer and say, "If you brew me this beer I will give you a certificate which will enable you to brew so much more." That cannot be done in the case of the tied house.
    Mr. DENNISS: It seems to me the effect of this proposal would be to leave the clubs out in the cold. Brewers do not like clubs. They would readily squeeze them out if they could do so. They prefer the retail houses We want to protect the clubs, and see that they get their proper 85 per cent, of their ordinary beer supply. The mere fact that the brewer gets a certificate enabling him to brew the quantity of beer he has been selling to the club previously does not, when the club goes to buy from another brewer, protect the club. It may go in vain to the other brewer.
    Sir F. LOWE: On a point of Order. There is nothing whatever about clubs in these Sub-sections. They only deal with licence holders. When we come to discuss the question of the licence holder, then the question of clubs will come in also.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) is objecting to the deletion of these two Sub-sections.
    Mr. DENNISS: Yes, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has told us that he is going to put clubs in the same position as the licence holder.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The hon. Member is quite in order.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. There is nothing about clubs in these Sub-sections which it is proposed to leave out. They only deal with licence holders.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am urging that the clubs will be in jeopardy.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. I have undertaken to put in clubs, and if these Sub-sections go out, neither clubs nor anybody else will be able to get compulsory powers.
    Mr. DENNISS: That is the point. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I contend that it will be a position of jeopardy for the clubs. If
    1418
    they were doing a retail trade or were tied houses they would be perfectly safe. Inasmuch as arrangements have been made between the brewing trade, the retail trade and the Government, we do not mind, but when it comes to the question of clubs, of which the retail trade is absolutely jealous and would crush them out if it possibly could, then we say that advantage might be taken of this arrangement between the retail trade and the brewers to crush out the clubs. I would ask the Committee to consider very carefully whether or not in these circumstances clubs will suffer.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has referred to the fact that I have had some experience of this kind of thing in connection with paper. I would suggest to the Committee that the arrangement now suggested is a very great improvement upon the arrangement in the Bill. Therefore it is desirable that these Sub-sections should go out. The difficulty of an arrangement like this is where you have a standard year some time back, when you are dealing with people who have to get their supplies now and who are, perhaps, dealing with another firm. It is a very serious difficulty, of which this is a very happy solution. It is only possible because of the peculiar conditions of the liquor trade, where you have the Excise at work and can do it. In connection with the paper trade you could not make an arrangement like this. In regard to the objection raised by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) it is not a real one. The clubs will have the same rights as they have now. They will have a great power. They will have a certificate which will entitle them to get their beer from any brewer who will supply them. They have with that certificate a power to the brewer to brew the quantity of beer to supply them. That is the point. That brewer will thereby get an extra amount of business which he cannot ask from anyone else. He will be glad to have that business, because he will have the extra right to brew which will follow the certificate which the club will take to him. My experience is that the brewer is not opposed to the club. The retailer is, but the brewer is not. It is an outlet for his supply. The brewer will be willing to supply, and the club buys from the brewer. The hon. Member will find there is no danger in that direction. From the experience I have had I should say that this

    1419
    will prove to be far the simplest method of dealing with a difficult phase of this question.
    Colonel GRETTON: I see no objection to the main features of this Clause. There are however, great disadvantages from the point of view of the free trade brewer. The Government are setting up a restricted market by limiting the possible amount of beer to be sold to 26,000,000 barrels. They intend, very rightly, to give the licence holder a right to trade in that market and make what terms he can in order to get the best beer that suits his trade. They are not, by the principle of their Bill, providing the free trade brewer with a free market. It will come to this, that the tied brewers, with a market created by their own tied houses, have got concessions with which they are well satisfied. The tied licence holder, by the conditions of his tie, gets all he requires, so far as the Bill permits. The free buyer, the licence holder, the bottler, the dealer, and even the brewer who buys beer from elsewhere, will be able to get his beer where he chooses. But the free trade brewer cannot go out into the market. He has an absolutely restricted market, and in that way he is being hit harder than anyone under the Bill as it now stands. This is a serious grievance among the free trade brewers, which I have been asked to put before the Committee. It is difficult for those who are not accustomed to the trade to understand what a free market means. It has been created by custom and generations of trade. The effect of the proposal is that free buyers have their market, while the free trade brewer is only to have a restricted market imposed upon him by the restriction of his output, which may be further reduced by certificates taken away.
    As regards clubs, I do not think there is any great fear that they will not get the beer they want. There are many brewers who consider that clubs are not desirable customers. That, no doubt, is because of their experience of clubs in a particular district. Clubs vary. There are very good clubs, and bad clubs. Some clubs do a good trade with the brewer; they pay punctually, and their accounts are good. Others are different. They pay badly in some cases, and their trade is of very little use to the brewer. If brewers do not wish to trade with clubs, it must be because they do not wish to trade with a particular
    1420
    class of club who do not trade in a satisfactory manner. I am not going to object to these words being struck out. Several points will have to be raised upon the Clause. I shall have to raise again the point as to the date. I understand the; Government are willing that it should be the 31st of March in this Clause, but that they are not willing that is should be the date of the passing of the Act. I also propose to insert the words "failing agreement with such brewer or brewers," and I have another Amendment which I propose to make at the end. I think it is right that the Government should give the free trade buyer liberty to buy his beer where it best suits his trade.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will realise that the acceptance of this Amendment has made such a vast change in the Bill that it is quite right that those of us who are anxious to protect any particular body should have some little time to consider the change and to get from the hon. Gentleman any particulars we desire. There is no desire on our part to adhere unnecessarily to the words in the Bill if we can see our way clear to the protection we desire being obtained by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe). We must have that made distinctly clear. There is not the slightest doubt that, as the Bill stands, the clubs have a protection. Whatever may be the abstract opinion with regard to clubs, they have as much right to have their interests safeguarded in a measure like this as any licensed body or any other person dealing with the sale of beer. As the Clause stands, they would have a distinct claim on there brewers for a supply of beer. We are told that they would be in no worse position if Sub-sections (1) and (2) are taken out and the new Sub-sections are inserted. I want to have from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a lucid explanation in full as to how far the clubs are protected by this certificate. I do not say there will be such a thing, but it is possible that you may have a body of brewers, such as those foreshadowed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton), who have a strong objection to clubs—
    Mr. PRETYMANmade an observation, which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Perhaps you will explain that point. You say that they will not be in any worse position under the existing Sub-sections than they would be under the proposed new Sub-sections, because they will be debarred from having their supply of beer under the Bill as it stands at present.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps I ought not to have interrupted the hon. Member. What I meant was that the position in which clubs will be put under the new Sub-sections is exactly the same position they are in now—not under the Bill, but as now. They can go to any brewer they like and get their beer from him. The brewers now, if they choose, can create a ring and refuse to supply the beer. They do not do it, and they will have no more reason for doing it after the Bill is passed than they have now. [An HON. MEMBER: "The supply is limited."] Not more than it is now.
    6.0.p.m.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: We are legislating now with regard to a limited supply. I understand the answer is that the clubs are protected in respect of the limited supply, because they possess a certificate which gives the brewer the power of creating the necessary supply, and that without that certificate he would not have the power of creating that supply, ergo, he will be anxious, on account of the extra profit brought by the club to him, to do the business with the club. I want to see that clearly foreshadowed. If we do decide to make this alteration, will the hon. Gentleman give us a few days consideration before putting the Bill down for Report?
    Sir J. D. REES: Referring to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denniss), did I understand my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to accept his argument? I did not quite understand some of the remarks he interjected. There are some of us representing different interests interested in this Bill who believe that there is no interest of clubs or anything else which is prejudiced by the substitution of these two Sub-sections for those in the Bill, but that it will make for the general improvement of the Bill. If there is any difference of opinion about that I should like to know. Will my hon. Friend make that extremely clear? Otherwise some of us who have put down and taken off Amendments will
    1422
    be in a somewhat awkward position. I do not understand why we should be discussing clubs upon this Amendment, and I do not really believe they are prejudiced by it. We shall have the clubs on later. No one is likely to overlook the clubs. Most of the drinking of Members of Parliament is done in clubs, and they are not likely to forget the clubs at all. They will be fully considered when their time comes. Nor is there this antagonism which my hon. Friend dwelt upon between the brewers and the consumers—I believe the brewers honestly try to suit the consumers—over and above such inevitable antagonism as must exist between everyone who supplies and everyone who uses any commodity. I hope my hon. Friend will stick to his guns.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I should like to support the suggestion of my hon. Friend that time should be given for the consideration of these two Sub-sections. This Bill has been before the country for some weeks. It has certainly been before all the clubs, which take quite a keen, if not a keener, interest than a good many retail traders in this matter, and it seems to me that the principle now is turned inside out. Under the Clauses of the Bill as they stood the desire of the clubs was to receive protection—that they should not be boycotted if you like—and that they should not be placed at a disadvantage compared with the houses known as tied houses and so on. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill gave a promise that the clubs should be protected. There is no indication given that the Clauses as put down, which have been accepted, would be taken over by the Government, and it is from that point of view that I think those whose interests are vitally affected, and who number some millions of men and many thousands of clubs, should have an ample opportunity of considering the altered state of the Bill, and if that is done, perhaps, the result may be more satisfactory.
    Sir J. WALTON: I rise to support the contention of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. The situation is certainly complicated, and the matter requires the most careful consideration. As the Bill stood when we met to-day, clubs were given the right to demand 85 per cent, of the beer that they were receiving before the restrictions came into force, and they were to receive it under the Bill under reasonable conditions.

    1423
    Already I have communications from licensed holders in houses in my Division that the brewers have raised their prices 6s. per barrel, whilst they have not raised the price to their tied house licensed holders at all. I thought we should require to make a clearer definition of what was meant by their receiving their supply under reasonable conditions. But these new Clauses revolutionise the Bill and alter the basis altogether, and if, on the other hand, it prevents the brewer selling the beer that he has hitherto been supplying to clubs elsewhere, the clubs can get a certificate which entitles them to go to any brewery in the country. In that way I am not certain that the clubs would not fare just as well if not better than under the Clause as framed in the original Bill. But it is such a vital change in the principle, especially when you have compulsorily reduced the quantity of beer to be brewed, that it would almost follow, on the other hand, that you must compulsorily protect the consumers of that beer so that they shall have their proper proportion of the reduced quantity. At any rate, I feel in this matter that it is not sufficiently clear for us to come to a final decision on it, and I should rather that a little time were given in order that both free house licensed holders and also clubs might have an opportunity of considering the proposed Amendment.
    Sir F. LOWE: I should like to say, in reply to the suggestion that there has not been sufficient time for these new Clauses to be considered, that they have been on the Paper for two or three months at least. I put them on the Paper before the whitsun holidays. The whole thing was before hon. Members. They had the Bill and the Amendment proposed. If they have not considered them it is entirely their own fault, and I cannot see any ground for postponing the discussion. Then, as regards the clubs, they will, under these new Clauses, have just the same power of getting beer from the brewers as they have at present. The only thing is that, as the Bill was originally drawn, it proposed to make it obligatory on the brewers to supply licensed holders and clubs and every sort of person. They are under no such obligation now. A brewer can either supply or not. But the chances are that plenty of brewers would be only too pleased to supply a club or any other person who had a certificate. I cannot for the life of me see, therefore,
    1424
    what the grievance is in regard to clubs, and no case whatever has been shown for any delay in the final consideration of the Bill.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I think the hon. Member is not quite fair in suggesting that those interested in the Bill are at fault because they have not regarded his Amendments on the Paper as Amendments on which they could base their negotiations. They have carried on their negotiations with the Government. They were not told that the Government was going to accept the Amendments of the hon. Member. Therefore, the changes introduced into the Bill by the Government suddenly accepting the hon. Member's Amendments are very large, and I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bowerman) is quite right in asking the Board of Trade and the Committee to give those who are concerned with regard to these proposals time to consider their effect. It is rather difficult for us to make up our minds, sitting here in Committee, to the extent of the change or how far it will affect clubs. There is a very large number of clubs in the country. They have approached many Members of the House. I raised the question on Second Reading and the hon. Member agreed to make a concession on the Committee stage, and we are grateful to him for having kept his bargain. I do not suggest now that there is any breaking away from what he promised or that what was in his mind then is not what is in his mind now, but the clubs, which have asked so many Members and who are very much concerned about the provisions of the Bill, should have time to tell' Members of the House who take 'an interest in the matter what they think of the changed conditions which will arise from the introduction of these two Sub-sections. I think the clubs are protected. The main point is that the clubs should be in as good a position in the Bill. I think they are protected, and I should be prepared to meet representatives of the clubs and tell them that in my opinion they would be perfectly safe in readily accepting the altered conditions. But at the same time they have a right to put their case and tell us their views and put them before the Committee, and if we could have inserted in these new Sub-sections the provisions which the Government are prepared to put in with regard to clubs—and there are many Amendments on the Paper with regard to them—we might between now and Report, if the Government do not propose to take

    1425
    it too soon, get into touch with the representatives of the clubs and, so far as we can, keep them favourable to the proposals of the Government.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to support this contention on broad grounds. I can quite understand how it has come about that the acceptance of this Clause has been notified to those representing free houses, but, in the great press of business, has not been notified to those who have been the spokesmen for the clubs. In order to get this legislation accepted with the maximum of acquiescence, and to avoid friction throughout the country, surely a very few days are worth while for the purposes which have been made so clear by my hon. Friend. We understood, from an answer of the Prime Minister to-day to the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the Report stage of this and other Bills before the House to-day is contemplated on Thursday. If it were possible to take the Report stage of this Bill on Monday instead of Thursday, there would be ample time to make it clear to the clubs that they are in as good a position as they were in the original Bill or to make it clear to the Government that there is a material difference. I want the Bill to pass into law with the certainty of acceptance, which at the moment it has not got.
    Mr. N1ELD: I think, after the last one or two speeches which have been made, it is my duty to say this: It may be by accident, but I had knowledge that the Government intended to accept these Amendments, because I was jointly approached with my hon. Friend (Sir F. Lowe) to support the Amendments which were proposed by the licensed holders, and so in a dual capacity I got notice that they were going to accept these Amendments, I can say this, speaking as a member of the governing body—and there are two or three other Members of the House who are also on the governing body of the association of a body of clubs numbering over 1,650 and comprising upwards of half a million of members—that they were acquainted with these proposed Amendments and have considered the substitution of the altered Sub-sections for the old ones. They do not fear the absence of compulsion in regard to getting beer. They are perfectly satisfied that under these new conditions the clubs will be put upon the same basis as the licensed holders, and therefore they do not ask for anything further. They are quite content to accept
    1426
    this position, and I assure the hon. Member that a very large number indeed of these clubs have thoroughly considered the effect of these Sub-sections and are satisfied to leave matters as they are.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: While I accept very fully what has been said, I must say that I would rather the assurance came, from the responsible officials of the Clubs Union. So far as I know, whilst they were perfectly satisfied with the assurance given by the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) on the Second Reading, that protection would be afforded them, no expression of opinion has been given by the executive of that organisation on the two Sub-sections that are now to be accepted by the Government. It is for that reason that I think they should be given a full opportunity of considering them.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that necessity arises, because we make it perfectly clear on the face of this Bill that the pledges given to the clubs are absolutely fulfilled, and that they should have exactly the same treatment as other free buyers. That is in the Bill. What we have said in the Bill is that we will put the clubs on exactly the same footing as any other free buyers, without reservation of any sort or kind. What we desired to do was to meet the wishes of the free buyers. They first asked for compulsion. I we then inserted Clause 5 as it stands in the Bill. What is the kind of protection they would get from compulsion? I think I may, perhaps, show the Committee what the difficulties would have been. Under compulsion there would obviously have been a disinclination on the part of the brewer to give beer which he was compelled to give against his will, and which he would prefer to give to his tied house. There would have been all sorts of questions about the quality of the beer, and there would have been complaints as to prices, and so on. The question might have been raised on the part of the brewers that the person who was asking for the beer was not certain to pay for it, and so on, and these questions would have had to have been adjudicated upon by the Board of Trade. We foresaw these difficulties, and we felt, having undertaken to protect the free buyer, that we must face them. The free buyers themselves also realised these difficulties, and they came to the conclusion that from their own point of view the protection which we had undertaken to give them would be

    1427
    better accorded by giving them their full free trade rights instead of compulsion. They preferred that form of protection rather than the form of protection given in the Bill. As the Clause put down by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) and other Friends were almost similar, we conferred with the representatives of the free buyers, and we amended that Clause on the advice of the draftsman, and the Sub-sections which are on the Paper are the result.
    I do not think there is any case for delaying the Bill. The clubs are getting the full measure of the promises made to them, and they are getting absolutely the same treatment as anybody else. That is the promise that I gave and that is the guarantee I give. I am sure the Committee will not suggest that we should give one kind of treatment to free buyers at large and another kind of treatment to the clubs. I quite understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss), and I do not in the least complain of this point being raised in the form in which he raised it, and I do not complain of one word he said, because I admit that our acceptance of this Clause has come as a surprise to a large number of hon. Members. I agree that putting down a Clause in the name of a private Member, however distinguished, does not mean necessarily that it will be accepted, and until the statement was made on behalf of the Government that the Clause will be accepted no hon. Member could necessarily be held bound to have examined the Clause and to have supposed that these words necessarily would be incorporated in the Bill. Were the circumstances not so perfectly clear as they are, I think there would be a very strong case. However, I hope, after what I have said, remembering that this is a War measure, and that it has already been hanging about for a very long time, and that the clubs are getting full protection, and are really going to be not only in the same position as they are now, but even better, I hope we may proceed. The fear expressed is that a club would go to the brewer and that the brewer would be unwilling to supply them and that if he would not supply them any other brewer might refuse. That is exactly the position now without any Bill. If a club goes to a brewer now and that brewer will not supply them they can go to another brewer, and if he will not supply them and if they go to another brewer and
    1428
    he will not supply them, there is no compulsion at the present time. Therefore, in that respect this Bill does put the clubs in a better position than they are in now, because if a club now takes its custom away from a brewer, that brewer is perfectly at liberty to go on brewing the same amount of beer and can sell to anybody else he likes. The brewer cannot do that under this Bill. The club is given a privilege in common with every other free buyer. If its custom is withdrawn from a brewer, and the brewer has refused to supply them, the club can take its free rights to another brewer, and the amount to which they are entitled will be taken from the maximum barrelage of the brewers ceasing to supply and added to the amount which may be brewed by the brewer who has undertaken to supply. There is no protection of a Government Department, by licences, guarantees, and the rest of it, anything-like as good as the free right to take their custom where they like and get a good article and pay a fair price for it. That is the best guarantee that could be given to them, and they get it under this Bill Therefore, I hope the Committee will accept this change. I have tried to explain it as fully as I can. I hope the words of the Clause as it stands will be allowed to-be withdrawn
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted—

    "(1) Any licence holder m so far as he is not bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking to obtain a supply of beer from any particular brewer, and who has at any time during the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, been supplied with beer by any brewer or brewers, shall be entitled to obtain from such brewer or brewers particulars of the quantities and gravities of the beer supplied, and also a certificate or certificates stating the total number of standard barrels represented by the beer supplied during each quarter of the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such shorter period as the supply has continued.

    (2) The licence-holder shall after for-wording any such certificate to the Commissioners be entitled to obtain the same number of standard barrels (reduced by

    1429
    fifteen per cent.) from any other brewer who may be willing to supply him therewith, and in every such case the maximum barrelage of the brewer ceasing to supply the licence-holder shall be reduced by the amount stated in the certificate (less fifteen per cent.), and that amount shall be transferred to the brewer who has undertaken to supply."

    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to insert at the beginning of Sub-section (1) the words "A registered club or."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Member will look further down on the Paper he will see that I am dealing with that on Sub-section (3).
    Mr. NIELD: That is the Definition Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not actually a Definition Clause, but it is Sub-section (3) of Clause 5, which states what is a licence holder. The words that I propose to insert enlarge the expression "licence holder" so as to include clubs, thereby giving clubs the full privileges of a licence holder, whatever they are under the Bill. If my hon. Friend will accept that and withdraw his Amendment, I shall be glad.
    Mr. NIELD: The only reason against accepting that is that it is the old form of legislation, which gives rise to difficulties hereafter when the Statute has to be construed. You have got to deal not only with the club as an entity, but presently with the person who shall act for the club.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
    Mr. NIELD: Yes.
    Colonel GRETTON: Where does this Amendment come in? How will the Subsection read?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It will read "(1) A registered club or any licence holder," etc.
    Mr. NIELD: I wish I had been able to move it earlier. I saw that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) was "stealing my clothes," and I determined to put in an Amendment to give me an opportunity of placing before the Committee that which I was entitled to put on behalf of the clubs I represent.
    1430
    That is how it comes in as a manuscript Amendment. I can answer the objection of the Board of Trade by saying that it is far more satisfactory in the substantive Section to deal with it in the way I suggest rather than accept what is proposed later on to enlarge the definition of licence holder so as to include clubs, because there you are dealing with an individual, whereas the club is an entity, and you require to have words expressing the person who is to act for the entity, the club. Presently you will have to insert the words "the secretary of any such club." I do think that in the interests of clear reading of the Statute that we should, as far as possible, take care to have it clearly understood without the necessity of explaining it hereafter in some Definition Clause.
    Sir RYLAND ADKNS: I should like to support the Amendment. I am thinking of the person who will be reading this Act of Parliament. If you say on the face of the Sub-section "A registered club or a licence holder," etc., there is no room for mistake, there is no temptation to go to consult someone else, and there is no unnecessary expense in understanding what the Statute means in this respect; but if it is a question of going to a later Definition Clause and seeing that it includes so-and-so, we all know in practice that that means time wasted.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is not in another Clause; it is in the same Clause, and only a few lines further down. I do hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Amendment. The matter has been very carefully considered by the draftsmen. This question is dealt with in a Sub-section which stands in my name and which has been on the Paper for a considerable time, and anyone who reads this Sub-section, which is not a Definition Clause at all, will see that it states, "This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens held under the authority of the Secretary of State," etc. This is not a question of words inserted in a Clause by a private Member; it is an official Government Amendment, and it applies the whole of this Section to registered clubs. I am sure that in the interests of good drafting and in the interests of clearness we must retain this form of expression rather than the haphazard suggestion that has been made, though with perfectly good intention. I Even though made by a gentleman skilled

    1431
    in drafting as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield), I do not think it would be desirable to accept it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member has told us that clubs are to be put upon the same principle as any other private person.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No; I did not say so. I said, "as any licence holder and free buyer." A free buyer does not include a private individual. The expression "free buyer" that I used is not used in the Bill; he must be a licence holder. Any licence holder who is a free buyer, whether he be the licence holder of an on-licence public-house or whether he be a beer seller who has been hitherto a free buyer of beer, and not under any kind of contract with a brewer which compels him to sell particular beer provided by a particular brewer, under this Bill he, as a free buyer and licence holder, gets the privileges which this Clause confers. The words I propose to insert provide that a club is included in that definition. It does not include private individuals. A private customer who is in the habit of buying beer direct from the brewer does not get it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have kept out of this discussion because I think that the Government are doing what I want them to do. I am thoroughly in favour of the Clause as it was being struck out and the Amendment being put in. What I am asking now is that the words which the right hon. Gentleman used, very likely through a slip of the tongue—"free buyer"—should be incorporated in the Bill, because there is no reason why persons who buy direct from the brewer should not have the same privilege as a club in the same district. I would therefore suggest that the words simply should be "any person." As it is now I think that it is an extremely clumsily-drawn Clause. There is no reason why a club should be in a better position than any other free buyer. The club is in a totally different position from the licensed house, as it does not pay Licence Duty, but it is in exactly the same position as a private person.
    Mr. DENNISS: If the word "person" were put in a club would not be included, because a person is the one thing which a club is not. It is an association of persons which has no corporate existence. The Interpretation Act which says the
    1432
    "person" includes corporation and so on would not include club. The word would have to be "purchaser," or some such word as that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) made some suggestion that I had stolen his clothes over this Clause. I do not think that that is quite correct, as I had put down the Amendment for to-day first.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: The whole difficulty seems to have arisen from the Clause which the Government have adopted beginning with the words "licence holder," and many who want every free buyer to be included, including clubs, say at once that a club is not a licence holder, and there are any number of free buyers who are not licence holders. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill says that he is going to put some words in, in a Subsection a little lower down, in order to make clear that in addition to licence holders certain other persons, who are free buyers, are to have the same privileges. I do not think that exception will probably be taken to the course suggested by the Government. At the same time the Amendment now before the Committee is equally open to objection because it is "any registered club or licence holder." There are other free buyers besides registered clubs or licence holders. Therefore the suggestion already thrown out would be a very good one, if the Government see their way to adopt it, to commence the Clause by saying "a free buyer as defined in Sub-section (3) shall have" so and so. Then you go to Subsection (3) and say the benefits of this Clause are to belong to so and so, free licence holders, who are free buyers, and to the various classes which the Government have already indicated they would include. There is a proper way to do these things, and there is a way which is bound to lead to confusion. My sympathies are entirely with the public who have got to construe this Bill. Some day or other a copy of this Act will be found in every club, and they will want to know exactly how they stand. I do not think it fair of the Government, or of anybody who proposes an Amendment here, to cast upon a number of individuals, some of whom have no legal training whatever, who are running these clubs, the difficulty of construing an Act of Parliament that commences with a statement that is inconsistent with the rest of the Act. I think, therefore, that the initial words of the Clause ought to be such as to enable the

    1433
    members of every class entitled to benefit under it as free buyers to know that they are included in that class. It should not begin with an expression clearly restricting it to one class.
    Mr. STRAUSS: The hon. Gentleman will agree that free buyer and club are not exactly the same thing. A club might have an agreement to take some beer, which agreement might be terminated after the termination of this Act. Will such institution have the benefit of Clause 5?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is so. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend that we should include every private buyer, for all the small quantities of beer required by private buyers in a free market. I do not think that this is necessary. Does my hon. Friend really suggest that every private buyer who has ever bought beer from a brewery in any small quantity should be entitled to a certificate for that amount of beer less 15 per cent. I do not think he would press that. I rather expected when we included clubs that someone would raise this point—"Why should not every private buyer have these rights?" I do not think it necessary. It would throw a lot of work upon the commissioners who would be plunged into all sorts of difficulties. There will be very little difficulty for private people who want beer getting all they want.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the words, "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    The hon. Gentleman made great difficulty about accepting an Amendment of mine to make the periods of the brewers and the buyers correspond. The Bill proposes to give the free licence holder a different period from that given to the brewers. Whichever period the Government adopt will make no difference in the total quantity of 26,000,000 barrels. A large proportion of the business of many brewers is dealing with free traders. There is for brewers obviously great difficulty if the free buyer has certificates for one period and the brewer himself has only a right to brew quantities for another period with a less quantity of beer in his
    1434
    particular case. It has been suggested, that the free buyer might call for a certificate and hand it back to the brewer. It is an extraordinary suggestion that the brewer should increase his quantities by a process of that kind, and I cannot think that it is seriously proposed. I see very great difficulties in carrying out this process. The Excise would have great difficulty because they would have to amend and adjust their quantities.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot accept this Amendment. The reason for bringing this up to the date 31st March, 1916, is that we are dealing with contracts between retailers and consumers and brewers, and it is obvious that we want to take the most recent period we possibly can in order, as far as possible, to make our arrangements upon the existing basis, and not upon arrangements which were made some time ago. The small difference which my hon. Friend suggests will create great difficulties will not create any difficulties. The only difference between a certificate given under this Clause and a certificate-perhaps given under the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is this, that if we alter the date to September, 1915, the sum total of the certificates which can be given would necessarily tally exactly with the limitation of the 26,000,000 barrels under this Clause. There might be a trivial excess. To that extent the brewer would benefit, but beyond that there would be no trouble whatever. They would have in some cases when a certificate is handed to them to alter the total. I cannot see that any difficulty would arise. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment as it stands as one which is convenient for both parties.
    Colonel GRETTON: I cannot think that my hon. Friend realises the position. The sum total of the quantities for the United Kingdom will show very little variation in the certificates, but there will be considerable variation in certain districts. I do not object to the words here, provided that there is the same period for the brewer and the buyer. I think I can convince my hon. Friend, and will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to propose as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "brewers," to insert the words "failing agreement with suck-brewer or brewers."

    1435
    This Amendment is, of course, somewhat different from what the Government contemplates. Its effect would be that the buyer, before taking his certificate, should endeavour to come to some agreement with his brewer. It is not the intention of this Bill that the free-licence holder, or anyone else should upset the trade. We want to carry out the object of the Government, and they desire to carry out the restriction with the least amount of possible disturbance. Therefore, I ask that these words may be inserted in order that the buyer may go to his brewer and settle with him, and not take away his custom for frivolous or unnecessary reasons, or anything of that kind, but that there shall be the ordinary trading negotiations. As this Clause stands it is contemplated by some of those who agree with it that the buyer should go to his brewer and get a certificate of the quantity of standard barrels, and go straight with it to another brewer. The presumption is that he has bought at a certain price beer of a certain quality which has been suitable to his trade and given satisfaction. Why should it be presumed that this trade is necessarily to be upset? I ask that these words should be inserted, so that there may be some negotiations between the two parties before certificates are transferred, and I take it that it is not desired to upset existing trade arrangements by reason of the necessity of having to pass this Act.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot accept these words. I do not think it at all amiss that the hon. Gentleman should move the Amendment and in the opinion he has expressed, and I am, personally, quite in agreement, and I hope that no customer will take the certificate away from the brewer who is at present supplying him without previous negotiation, and I assume that will be done in the ordinary course of trade. I cannot sec why the right to this certificate should make any difference in the natural order of proceedings between the brewer and the customer, and no reasonable man would leave his brewer without he had some ground of complaint or until after he had entered into some kind of negotiation. The proceedings under the Bill merely give him the right to a certificate, and for myself I do not think we ought to insert words which would give the right to demand a certificate. I hope the hon.
    1436
    Gentleman will be content with having raised the point, and will not press words which would have no meaning and no effect whatever.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What is the position with regard to the Clause? It is desired that there shall be perfect freedom to deal with anyone, and, supposing that is the effect of the Clause, the words which are now proposed would in no way limit that freedom. They merely suggest that in the giving of this freedom there should be some negotiations with the brewer before the trade is taken away. The words would not have the slightest effect on the question of principle, and they would express the intention of Parliament in giving this very wide freedom. Of course if the words are refused I do not suppose they will be pressed upon the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. NIELD: If the Government accepted those words I think the draftsman would have something to say about them to begin with, and, moreover, the buyers would find they were fettered, because they would first have to fail to get an agreement as a condition precedent to asking for a certificate to buy elsewhere. The seller of the beer should be a free man, and if he says he is going to a new brewer he might be told that he could not get a certificate because he had failed to come to an agreement. He would have all the trouble of a miniature arbitration, if he failed to come to an agreement, before he could enforce a certificate. I certainly object to the insertion of the words.
    Colonel GRETTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and another hon. Member on the other side, have talked of the free buyer being able to endow another brewer with the certificate. That is not the intention, and what is wanted is that if the buyer cannot get beer of the quality which he requires, and on terms which are reasonable under the circumstances, he should be able to get beer elsewhere. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Nield) is under a misconception of what took place earlier in the Debate, and he has clearly indicated that these buyers should be able to demand a certificate and put it in his pocket to go elsewhere. The free buyer, and everybody who has any dealing under this Bill, is treated better than the brewer. I think it is unfair that the hon. and learned Member who has got so much without any opposition whatever should raise objection

    1437
    to these words. I will raise this point again on Report, and I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be in a more conciliatory frame of mind, and do -something to meet the free trade brewer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quantities" ["particulars of the quantities and gravities"], to leave out the words "and gravities."
    There would be great difficulty in supplying the gravities, and in the case of very small orders it would, in many cases, mean an enormous amount of research. The gravities vary owing, it may be, to variations of temperature, and so forth, and it would be exceedingly difficult to give the information. In moving to leave out the word "gravities," I had intended to include the word "qualities."
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The object of putting in the word "gravities" is to enable the customer to test whether the number of standard barrels which the brewer gives him upon certificate tallies with his own records of the amount of beer which he has received. The buyer knows that the standard barrel is 10.55, and the gravity of the beer supplied may vary anything from 10.30 to 10.55.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Or 10.70.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Or 10.70. I only give the information which I naturally absorb in studying the Bill. I understood it was 10.55 the standard barrel, and the gravity of the beer, may be either greater than 10.55 or less, that is supplied to the customer in so many barrels of beer. The customer may not know exactly what the gravity was, and if he desires to ask his brewer for a certificate, he will have had, say, 200 barrels during the period to which the certificate applies, and he will get a certificate from the brewer for 189 barrels. He will want to know whether he can check that quantity against the 200 barrels of beer which he actually had, and in order to do that he would only have to do a simple sum to get the gravities, by multiplying each set of barrels by the gravity of the beer he has had, add those together, and divide it by 55.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: How is that to be found?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If my hon. Friend will have one moment's patience, I will
    1438
    explain. The reason why those words were inserted was that customers thought them necessary to enable them to have a check. My hon. Friend says it is impossible that those particulars can be furnished.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Accurately.
    7.0.p.m.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, if they cannot be furnished accurately I do not think we should impose an obligation on the brewer which cannot be carried out; but my information was that the particulars could be supplied. Still, I know that my hon. Friend is a very high authority on the point, and I will consider it with the experts before the Report stage. I think it better to leave it as it stands now, and between now and Report perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with me and the experts, and if it is found that it is impossible really to give the gravities, then I will take the word out, or insert some other word. The word "qualities" is rather an indefinite word, and it would be rather difficult in regard to the quality of beer to find what is exactly meant by the word "quality." We will discuss that point on Thursday on the Report stage, and, I hope, arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    Colonel HALL WALKER: I think if you read the next line it might cover the whole case, because in any event you have to supply a certificate of the standard barrel-age, and it is, as a rule, quite sufficient for the man when he gets the same quantity of standard barrels, less 15 per cent. One brewer may be making beer of a strong brew and another of a weaker brew, but the main thing under this Bill is that every man gets his fair share, less 15 per cent. of the standard barrels brewed.
    Colonel GRETTON: Beer generally is sold under descriptions, with no guarantee of gravities, although certain brewers have gravities which they use and which are well known to the trade. What is proposed by the Section could not really be done.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think that these words ought to be left out. I think the customer will get all the protection wanted and reasonable by having the quantity supplied and also the standard barrelage. If you are going to ask every brewer to go back over last year and make out a statement as to the gravity of all the beer he supplied, you are asking brewers to do something which the majority would be absolutely unable to do. Even if it were

    1439
    possible, it is one of those particulars which each individual member of the trade keeps to himself. I trust that the hon. Member will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "provided that where the licence holder is himself a brewer for sale, the certificate shall not be used to obtain a transfer of barrelage for himself."
    I think this Amendment is one which is thoroughly justified. It really does not concern anybody outside brewers themselves, and it carries out the principle of making the least possible disturbance of trade. These words are not my own, but were suggested to me, and I am indifferent as to the exact form of words, as long as the principle is carried out.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle. I have not yet had time to submit the actual wording to the draftsman, but will do so between now and Report stage. If I have any change in drafting to suggest, I hope my hon. Friend will not object.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "a retailer's on-licence," and to insert instead thereof the words "an Excise licence."
    This is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with this Sub-section. These Amendments are intended to include in this Section under the expression "licence holder," as I have already indicated, all the free sellers of beer and also the clubs. I will read the Section as it will stand when amended, and I hope that the Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Sir F. Lowe) and other hon. Members, which are designed to carry out the same intention as that carried out by my Amendments, may be withdrawn. The Section will read:
    "In this Section the expression 'licence holder' means the holder of an Excise licence, authorising the sale by retail of beer, whether wholesale or by retail, and includes where any licensed premises have changed hands the licence holder, for the time being…and where the holder of a licence is a manager, managing the licensed
    1440
    premises on behalf of any other person, or a tenant of any other person, who controls the ordering of the beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer. This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens, held under the authority of the Secretary of State, or the Admiralty, as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club or canteen for the licence holder."
    Mr. NIELD: I agree that the word "Excise" carries out every point, and I have no further objection to make.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "by retail" ["retail of beer"].
    After the word "beer" ["retail of beer"] insert the words "whether wholesale or by retail."
    At the end of the Sub-section insert the words "and where the holder of the licence is a manager, managing the licensed premises on behalf of any other person, or a tenant of any other person who controls the ordering of beer for the premises, the person who so controls the ordering of the beer." After the words last inserted add,
    "(4) This Section shall apply to registered clubs and to canteens held under the authority of the Secretary of of State, or the Admiralty, as it applies to licensed premises, with the substitution of the person managing the club or canteen for the licence holder."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Definitions.)
    In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expressions "brewer" and "brewer for sale" have the same meaning as in the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, and the expression "beer" has the same meaning as in Part II. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910;
    The expression "brewery" means premises in respect of which a manufacturer's licence to a brewer for sale is in force;
    The expression "barrel" means the standard barrel containing thirty-six gallons of beer of original gravity of 1,055 degrees;
    The expression "quarter" means the three months commencing on the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October in any year; and
    The expression "Commissioners" means the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
    Amendment made: After "1880" [" Inland Revenue Act, 1880"] insert the words "and includes the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)."—[Colonel Gretton.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    CLAUSE 7 (Short Title and Duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II.—MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Meet.]

  GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
  Ordeir for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. KING: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has just got one Bill through so easily that he might possibly do the House the kindness of explaining a little about this Bill. I did not rise immediately the Question was put because I had hoped that we should have had an explanation—
  Mr. PRETYMANrose—
  Mr. KING: I am afraid I shall lose my right of addressing the House if I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will make a few observations on this Bill which will enable him to know the line he ought to take in reply. This is an extremely good Bill, at any rate in its object. The object is quite admirable, and in saying that at once I say it without any qualification. I wish to see achieved that object, which is to substitute for the illuminating standard of gas a standard of heating
  1442
  power. In the old days when we had open flame burners, and people used gas for lighting purposes with open flame burners, it was of the utmost importance to have good illuminating gas, but now there are hardly any illuminating burners of that kind. We use gas with mantles from which we obtain light from heat and not really from illuminating power. We also use a great deal of gas for cooking and stoves, and it is altogether right that we should alter the standard of power. Why is this done at the present time? It is not emergency legislation at all. It is legislation that is very belated, very belated indeed, and which ought to have been carried through long ago. It is all very well to say that it is better to carry it now than to put off the time. I think very likely that is so; but what does this Bill do? It enables the Board of Trade, or in the case of gas undertakings which are under local authorities the Local Government Board, to make Orders by which any gas undertaking may alter its standard of power. That is quite right; but how many gas undertakings are there? There is an enormous number in this country, and they will all be immediately benefited to this extent: that they can at once, if they get an Order made on their behalf, reduce their illuminating power with very great advantage to themselves, and also to the consumer if they reduce the price to the consumer. The result will be that as soon as this Bill is passed you will have applications from all the various gas undertakings in the country for Orders in this direction, which, no doubt, will be quite a right policy. How many gas undertakings are there? We have a very large and voluminous Return issued every year. The last one was ordered to be printed by this House on the 26th July, 1915, and I presume that very few Members have really studied this very long and really rather uninteresting and unnecessary Return. I will give to the House the total at the conclusion of the Return, which shows the number of undertakings, and which also shows what a very great industry this gas industry is. There are 831 gas undertakings in this country. Are they all coming at once for Orders to the Local Government Board, or the Board of Trade? That is the point to which I hope my hon. Friend will reply. If we have 831 applications from the various gas undertakings in the country for Orders in this direction immediately this Act is passed, are you prepared to give them Orders at once?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. KING: Very well, then. To whom are you going to give preference? You are going to give preference to some companies and not to others.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. KlNG: Oh! Then what is the necessity for having the Bill at all?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will explain that.
  Mr. KING: I should very much like to know that. I will put my point in another way. If you are going to pass legislation of this kind, it is for some immediate purpose. What is it? So far as I can make out it is only to issue Orders. There are 831 undertakings which are available for receiving these Orders, and how are you going to cope with them all at once? It is a very important point indeed whether you are going to use the powers in this Bill at once, and, if so, whether you are in a position at a time like this to cope with them adequately. No less than £160,000,000 are invested in these gas undertakings in the country. The expenditure for the year is £28,000,000, so that, of course, in order to alter the whole basis of the gas industry, as this Bill does, you are not undertaking a small task, and I think we ought to have some assurance as to how this Act is to be worked, why it is wanted at the present time, and whether the authorities are in a position to deal fairly with all the localities at one time.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. KING: We may have a satisfactory answer. I come to another point. We have here in Sub-section (2) of this Bill a very important provision, which says:
  "In considering the expediency of making such an Order the Department shall have special regard to whether the undertakers have erected—and worked or are prepared to erect and work—suitable crude benzol recovery plant for the production of benzol and toluol."
  What does that mean? It means this: That these undertakings, companies, or local authorities which are to have the benefit of these Orders are to be encouraged to go into the chemical trade—a very desirable thing at this time—for the purpose of obtaining as plentifully, as possible the raw materials of munitions, especially explosives, and the raw materials of many of our industries for which we have in times past been largely
  1444
  dependent on Germany. What does it mean? It means that gas companies, which were not established to do chemical work primarily and principally, are to be encouraged to set up plants. Are all of these 831 undertakings to be encouraged to set up special plants for the production of benzol and toluol, and to be told that they are not to be allowed to have the benefits of this Act unless they do? That is a point which really is very serious, because it may mean, and very possibly will mean, that if there is an enormous increased production of all these byproducts the price will go down, and there will be an over-production of them. I have no doubt that is a matter which has had some consideration at the hands of the Board of Trade—indeed, I hope so. We ought to have some indication of what this policy means. I will go further and ask whether, when you are encouraging companies to make chemicals which have had Acts of Parliament given to them to make gas, and for that purpose alone, are you going to keep the accounts separate? You ought to keep the accounts of the gas companies separate for their gas undertakings and for their chemical undertakings. Otherwise, you would be allowing them to give to the public at no reduction of price possibly an inferior article, while all the time they are speculating and possibly losing very heavily in their chemical industry. It is all very well to say that in this way we are going to encourage the chemical industry of the country, and that is a very good object. I quite admit it. These companies, however, were formed and had special privileges given to them for the purposes of gas, mainly or solely, and so I think the public ought to have some assurance and some safeguard that their interests as gas consumers are going to be properly conserved. How does the hon. Gentleman propose to safeguard the rights of the public as consumers of gas? So far as I can make out, there is in the Bill no provision at all for that object. I do not see one. I have tried to draft a provision of this nature which I shall put on the Order Paper, and which we may possibly consider in Committee. It may be that the hon. Gentleman may be able to satisfy me that that is not necessary. I may, of course, here refer to the sliding scale. All gas companies are now under the sliding scale; which means that if they reduce the price of gas, then they can increase their dividends payable to their shareholders, and

  1445
  only as they reduce the price of gas may their dividends be increased. That, of course, is an excellent provision, and a great security to the public. But there is no reference to a sliding scale here. The illuminating power, the quality of the gas, may be reduced, and the public may be getting an article which is going to be produced very much more cheaply by the company; but there is no provision whatever that I see that when a cheaper article is given to consumers by the company then the consumers are to pay less, or, indeed, to get any benefit at all. There is another point on which I think there ought to be some assurance given. Of course, this Bill is not entirely clear, because it leaves a good deal to the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board as to the forms and conditions under which the Orders will be granted, and perhaps quite rightly. I have thrown out a few points which I think worthy of consideration, and I hope we shall have some answer to meet possibly the objections and difficulties which I foresee, and which I think are quite real and worthy of attention.
  Sir NORVAL HELME: I rise to support the Bill. The fact is that at the present time it may be taken that some 95 per cent, of gas is consumed for heating purposes and through the incandescent lights, 5 per cent, only remaining which is used for purely illuminating purposes. Hence, in asking the House to accede to this Bill, I think the public are to be advantaged by the principle that is now before it. As a matter of fact, in many of the recent private legislation Bills application has been made for powers, which have been granted, to vary the standard which has been given in former days, and when you remember that the greater the calorific power of the gas the more illumination you get from it, from the incandescent burners, it makes a great difference to the arguments which have just been pressed. There is economy for the public in the use of such burners, and I think, therefore, that we should support this Bill, and that we can trust the Government to see to justice and equity in its administration. The old tests are obsolete. The prescribed quality of the gas, which had to be fourteen candles, tested in a surface burner and so on—all this test was very difficult. At the same time we now have an advance in the system of illumination, and the Government are requiring the extraction of toluol, thus reducing the illuminating power of the gas supplied under the old
  1446
  standard. I think the Government is to be congratulated that now, in this Bill, for which it asks the consent of the House, it is going to bring the practice of the day into harmony with the general law. I beg to support the Bill.
  Sir W. PEARCE: We do not often find a Bill dealing with gas companies generally: but I welcome this Bill to-day because I think it does deal with a point that really requires a change. The substitution of the calorific power standard for illuminating power is, of course, some small financial help to gas companies. On the other hand, I do not know that the public is disadvantaged in any way. The gas companies certainly require some return for the large operations many of them have undertaken at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions in increasing the supply of benzol and toluol, and I am glad to see that this is an important condition in the Bill. Although I say this, I do feel very much the point which was made by the hon. Member opposite, that in view of the fact that these operations of the gas companies are becoming very, very considerable, and in come cases more than considerable—almost a larger production than the gas itself—I should have been glad if the Government had included in this Bill a Clause dealing with the financial separation of the two operations. It really is required in everybody's interests. It is required in the interest of the gas companies, so that they should know exactly how much profit they are making on their various operations; in the interest of the public and in the interest of the consumers. The point is one which has often been raised, but there has seldom been an opportunity of introducing it into a Bill. Here we have a Bill which deals with the gas companies generally, and although I welcome what the Bill contains, my complaint is that the Bill does not include the other point for the a lvantage of the whole country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether the Government intend to make provision to give gas consumers some compensating advantage for the value which they lose by this Bill, which is of general application. If I remember rightly, when the South Metropolitan Gas Company, the Gas Light and Coke Company, and one or two others of the gas companies of London, were promoting private Bills for the purpose of reducing the illuminating power of their gas from

  1447
  sixteen to fourteen-candle power, there was a Clause in all these Bills which made it compulsory for the gas company to reduce the price of gas 2d. per 1,000 feet. The reason that concession was made was that by reducing the candle-power from sixteen to fourteen a saving of many thousands of pounds was made by some of the larger gas companies. It was the purification for the extra two candle-power that cost the companies a good deal of money. At one time a great deal of Cannel coal was used for illuminating purposes, and in consequence of there being a shortage of this coal the companies used other coal. The result was that it saved the companies many thousands of pounds, therefore the consumers were entitled to the reduction of 2d. per 1,000 feet. If this is going to be of general application, the Government should see that these particular gas companies reduce the price of gas at least 2d. per 1,000 feet. It is upon those lines that the hon. Member for North Somerset has raised this particular question. I do not know whether there is anything in the Bill giving the Government power to reduce the gas 2d. per 1,000 feet; if not, I think there should be. If it had not been for the introduction of gas-mantles the gas company would not have been allowed to supply gas of the quality they do now. If you were to discard your gas-mantles and fit on old burners you would soon find out what I might call the various kinds of impurities that pass through in consequence of the candle-power being reduced. I contend that the consumer is entitled to a reduction of 2d. per 1,000 feet in consequence of the change to which I have referred.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad I did not rise to explain the Bill in the first instance, or I should have had no opportunity of replying on the points raised. I think all the points which have been mentioned have been met in this Bill. The object of the Bill is twofold. First of all, it is a war measure in that the present object of the Bill is to do everything possible to induce gas companies to increase the supply of benzol and toluol required by the Ministry of Munitions. The reason that the Bill has been drafted is that we wish, and intend, during the War to confine the permission given to companies which are prepared to erect plant for the purpose of producing benzol and toluol, which are badly re
  1448
  quired. I am glad to see from the speeches which have been made on this Rill that the House itself supports the idea of this change being made permanent—that is to say, it is quite obvious that it is quite out of date to insist upon the quality of gas being gauged by its illuminant power simply as gas in old-fashioned burners. My hon. Friend who has just spoken pointed out that this is a matter of past ages, for the old class of burner in an inhabited room is a thing to be by no means encouraged, but rather discouraged, because, from the impurities of the gas, it is a distinct danger to health. Many of us remember the kind of atmosphere we used to encounter in places of amusement, for instance, where the light was obtained from the old-fashioned gas burner, and all must agree that any legislation which intends to prolong that state of things was not only mischievous, but very much out of date now, and that we ought to have altered our standard long ago. The standard has been altered in this sense: that in all the separate Orders which have recently come before Parliament—and that covers already a very large proportion of gas companies and includes the Gas Light and Coke Company, which had an enormous output of something like 13 per cent, of the whole output of the country—the companies are now under the system to which my hon. Friend referred. Therefore, we are only really carrying out a principle of which Parliament has already approved, and which it inserts in the private Bills which gas companies bring to this House.
  We do not, however, propose to extend the principle generally until after the War, for the reason which I have given; though we take power to do it, and it is our intention to do it. We do not intend to carry it out during the War beyond the giving of Orders where those concerned will erect this plant, for the first object we have here is to provide for the necessities of the War. We must, therefore, defer till afterwards subsidiary considerations. We thought, however, we had better take the power, if the House would consent, for general purposes. Both during the War and after the War the question will certainly arise as to whether a company will derive considerable advantages by this change, and how far the consumer should share those advantages. The power that is taken in the Bill gives to the appropriate Government Department, which hon. Members will see

  1449
  from the Bill is the Board of Trade in the case of private companies, and the Local Government Board in the case of public authorities who are undertaking to supply the gas, authority to hold an inquiry before giving an Order. In holding that inquiry it can examine into the question of the advantages which the gas company or the public undertaking will derive from the changed standards. The Departments will be certainly within their powers, and they will certainly exercise the powers, to examine into the advantages obtained, and as a condition of giving the Order, they will be able to insist that any proper and reasonable reduction in the price of gas shall be included. I think, therefore, that meets the point which has been raised. I must point out now, however, that it may be in the Orders which are made during war—in some cases certainly—there will appear advantages which the company will derive on account of this particular situation or opportunities in putting down plant which will be required for national purposes during the War, but which may not in all cases remain profit afterwards, because there may not be such a demand for the products of toluol and benzol. In some cases there may be more, and in some less. That will be a point which the inquiry will have to embrace. It may be that on that point the company will be able to put forward the plea that while it derives profit from the erection of the plant during the War, that plant will be of very little use to it after the War. Up to the point to which that applies that will have to be taken into consideration, and I think my hon. Friends will agree that that could not possibly be left out of account.
  As to the point raised by the hon. Members for North Somerset and Lime-house, who spoke in favour of the keeping of separate accounts, I shall certainly have it considered. I would point out, though, that in the selling of gas a company or a public authority takes into account all the profits which it makes by the by-products. The production is treated as one. Perhaps my hon. Friends would like to confer with the officials of the Board of Trade upon the matter, for it does seem to me to be rather necessary to keep these things as one in order that the real ultimate cost of the gas may be arrived at, and in estimating the price at which it should be sold. The prime object of the company, and the object which
  1450
  it has received the authority of Parliament, is to supply the public with gas, and any subsidiary operation which the company undertake apart from the main undertaking should be credited to the main undertaking, and should be an element in deciding what price the company is entitled to charge for its gas. Though it may be desirable or necessary as a matter of account, I should rather like to go into that matter in detail, for I do not quite appreciate the reasons for the separation of the accounts; and we get back to the fact that whenever chemicals may be produced as by-products that the result, whether it be profit or less in the production of those chemicals, really goes to affect the profits of the company as a whole, and cannot be financially separated from the general statement of accounts upon which the company's rights to charge them is based. I think that really deals with all the points which have been raised, and I think I can undertake that, if the House will be good enough to give authority for this Bill to be passed, that in carrying it out that the Government Departments will have regard to the considerations which have been raised here.
  Sir R. ADKINS: May I inquire whether the Bill applies to companies which already have special departments for the treatment of benzol or toluol?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly. I will certainly see that if the words of the Bill do not cover that, that they shall cover it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I take it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the separation of the accounts is not to be inserted in this Bill, but that after the War it will be considered.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I by no means contended that any profits made in the manufacture of by-products should not go in the reduction of the price of gas. That is what I desire. What I did point out, however, was that these operations were becoming so extensive and complicated that unless separate accounts were kept it would be impossible for any undertaking to know exactly where they were in regard to that particular manufacture. Unless there are separate accounts kept from the gas undertaking, when the gas companies make these other substances,

  1451
  it will be quite impossible for either the gas company or the Government to know how they stand in the matter.
  The necessity for the separation of accounts has come home very much to me just lately. The chemical industry has been made a controlled establishment, especially with regard to productions such as sulphuric acid, and many large companies are making those very chemical substances that the Government control. There is no separation of accounts in those large chemical operations of the purely gas operations of a gas undertaking. It has been impossible to treat them in the same way, so that we have to-day a large number of private traders making certain things similar to what gas companies are making, and the private traders are controlled, whereas the gas companies are out of control. In the discussion last week it was pointed out that one set of operations are subject to 80 per cent, tax and the other to 60 per cent, tax. That is by the way. The operations are becomining so considerable that it would be extremely useful to every one concerned if a separation of accounts were arrived at and were insisted upon by the Government.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pea.]

  POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Samuel): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill which contains a considerable variety of provisions in detail, all arising out of the present War conditions. I have observed that on the Order Paper there are several Notices of Motion opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. All are directed, I think, to one Clause, whether that appears in the terms of the Motion itself or not. Therefore it is desirable, and I think it would save the time of the House, if at the outset I were to state the reasons which have led the Government to propose Clause 8 in the Bill dealing with the duties of certifying
  1452
  surgeons. Let me make it clear to hon. Members who are interested in this subject, in the first instance that we are not proposing to abolish all the functions of certifying surgeons. They will still have the duty of certifying physical fitness of children and young persons who are seeking work under the Factory and Workshop Act. They will still have the duty of examining all cases with regard to industrial poisoning. They will also have to understake periodical examination of workers in dangerous trades under the special rules relating to dangerous trades. Indeed, the Home Office is continually enlarging the functions of certifying surgeons in this latter respect, and requiring more and more the assistance of certifying surgeons with respect to workers in dangerous trades.
  The only point with which this Clause deals is the duty which has hitherto been performed by certifying surgeons investiting the deaths or injuries caused to workers by certain classes of accidents. With regard to about one-third of the whole number of accidents the law requires that the occupier—that is the person who owns the factory or workshop, or manages it—should report when an accident happens both to the factory inspector and to the certifying surgeon, and then the certifying surgeon has the duty of holding an investigation as to the nature and cause of the death or injury caused by the accident, for which, of course, he is paid a fee, and the fees in the course of the year amount to about £12,500. Now the only duty that the certifying surgeon has to do is to examine the workman who is injured and to say, "Yes, this man has had a finger cut off," or whatever it may be, by a machine of a certain character. He has not got the duty—in fact, he has not the right—of taking any steps whatever with regard to remedying the defects of the machine or securing that it shall be more safe in the future than in the past. He can give no instruction to the factory owner, or say that the machine was not sufficiently guarded and in future must have a more perfect guard. All he can do is to report to the factory inspector that the man had his finger cut off. The factory inspector then has to consider whether he shall examine the machine and give instructions to the occupier. What the Home Office wants to know is not what the nature of the injury is from a medical point of view, but it wants to know how it happened, the cause of the accident,

  1453
  and how it can be prevented in future, and for that purpose we do not require the assistance of a man of medical knowledge, but we require the assistance of a man with mechanical knowledge. That is to say, the factory inspector in all cases has to do the actual work that is required to prevent this accident occurring again, and these reports are found in practice not to save the factory inspector any work at all, but rather to increase the work he has to do, and hinder rather than help.
  The staff of factory inspectors receive about 50,000 reports every year from the certifying surgeons which, in almost all cases, are mere duplications of any reports sent to then by the occupiers. The occupier reports to the factory inspector that such-and-such a man has had his finger cut off. He receives also a report from the certifying surgeon, "I have examined such-and-such a man and find his finger has been cut off by such-and-such a machine." In the view of the Home Office—this view has been held for many years past—those reports in almost all cases are a mere duplication, and are unnecessary. For my part I should not dream of acquiescing in any change of the law which would in any degree weaken the safeguards of the worker, and my hon. Friends who know the keenness of the Home Office chief Inspector of Factories and all his staff to safeguard the interests of the workers, would not imagine for a moment that they would acquiesce in framing a proposal of this kind if in any way it was likely to have that deleterious effect. On the contrary, we must do everything in our power to make industry more and more safe, and I am proud to remember that the very first Bill I introduced as a member of the Government in the Office of Under-Secretary to the Homo Office ten years ago was the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906, which put the whole of this matter on a better footing, and I hope has been instrumental in saving workers from a very large number of accidents.
  Colonel YATE: Would it not, then, be better to strengthen the hands of the doctors in this respect instead of abolishing them?
  Mr. SAMUEL: We do not want doctors; we want factory inspectors. It is not necessary to know that a man has a lesion of the hand or an injury to the leg. From his own point of view to get it cured, it is no doubt important, but these reports of
  1454
  the nature of the injury are really of no value to the Home Office at all. The whole subject was most carefully investigated by an expert Committee which was appointed in 1908. My right hon. Friend, now the Under-Secretary of State for War, was chairman of it, but on his taking office in the Government be was succeeded by my right hon. Friend who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. This Committee consisted of the following gentlemen: Mr. A. M. Carlisle, of Messrs. Harland and Wolffe; Sir William D. Cramp, for many years assistant chief factory inspector; our late Friend and colleague, Mr. Gill, a respected and active member of the Labour party; my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald); Mr. J. B. Tattersall, representing the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners; Mr. J. S. Taylor, of the firm of Taylor and Challen, engineers, Birmingham; Mr. H. Vivian, then a colleague of ours in this House; and Miss Mona Wilson. This Committee was appointed in order to consider the causes of the increase of accidents, and to recommend what additional precautionary measures were in their opinion necessary and desirable. They made a most thorough inquiry and sat for more than two years, and reported unanimously in 1911—there are a number of minority reports, but not touching this point—that these reports from the certifying surgeons were useless, were duplications, and might without disadvantage be abolished.
  Labour organisations, we know, are very ready to make representations to the Government on any matter which affects them. This Bill has been printed now for a number of weeks, and I have received no representations from anybody representing organised labour except a few local branches of the Oldham section of the cotton trade. I have discussed this with a deputation representing the Transport Workers Federation, and they are satisfied with the steps I propose to take. The only opposition which has come to this proposal comes from the doctors themselves. They are a strongly organised profession.. Whenever there is any proposal which touches their interest they are very ready to approach Members of the House of Commons. It is from them that circulars have been received which hon. Members have had, and it is at their instigation, I venture to think, the opposition which has so far revealed itself proceeds. I do not know how at the present time, when there is

  1455
  so great a dearth of doctors, when we need medical men for the services of the War, we can defend requiring a number of medical men all over the country to spend time and energy in sending in 50,000 unnecessary reports. And if it is true that those gentlemen will no longer receive the fees to which they have been accustomed at the present time, when there is so great a demand for medical men, when the medical profession of this country is under-staffed, this is the moment when the change can be made with the least hardship to the men who have hitherto performed this work.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Does this Bill provide for the period of the War only?
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No. This proposal does not stop with the period of the War. There are two things which, I think, ought to be done for the security of the workers against accidents, which are, as we all know, far too frequent in the factories and workshops and other industrial establishments. One is I should like to see a more organised step taken by the Home Office to induce the local branches of trade unions to make representations whenever any of their members have sound reason to believe that dangerous conditions prevail in the places where they work. I should like to see trade unions far more active in this respect, sending into the factory inspectors a much larger number of complaints than they now do, drawing the attention of the factory inspectors to specific cases in which danger arises, so that they may be specially examined. The other step which I think should be taken is to strengthen the medical side of the factory administration. We have now three whole-time medical factory inspectors. Industry is now becoming to a great extent a matter of chemistry, and the factory inspectors ought to be strengthened on this side. When the War is over, I should like to see part of the money which is saved in paying fees for what I regard as useless reports devoted to the appointment of seven whole-time medical factory inspectors instead of three. Probably when the War is over the Treasury may not be averse to allowing the Home Office to spend a part of the savings made during the War upon a much needed strengthening of the factory inspection staff. That is the case for the proposal in this Bill. The Retrenchment Com
  1456
  mittee having had their attention drawn to the report of the Accidents Committee of 1911 strongly and unanimously recommended that these useless fees should no longer be paid. This House urges the Government to economise whenever it is possible, and especially in the direction of reducing the number of useless official: reports. I do not know how any hon. Member of this House can oppose the Government on this matter when they say, on, the authority of the Factory Department of the Home Office, that these reports are useless and can be abolished, and that they are not worth the expenditure which they incur. I do not know how I should be justified, in face of the report of the Retrenchment Committee and the Accidents Committee, in continuing to ask the Treasury for this £12,500 a year in existing circumstances.
  Colonel YATE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the trade unions to report, but would they not be much strengthened if they had the doctors behind them?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I can only repeat that this is not a doctors' question, because in these cases the doctor can tell us nothing but what we knew before.
  Colonel YATE: What are the trade-unions to tell us?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They can say, "Here is a machine which is dangerous." The doctor would not know anything about that. All the doctor does is to report that a man has had an accident, and they write a report to the factory inspector to tell him what he knows already, namely, that the man has had an accident. Clause 7 is a useful Clause dealing with the welfare of workers affecting women employed in factories and workshops. There is a very proper Clause to enable police authorities to pay compensation to persons who have been enlisted to assist the police under war conditions, and who have suffered accidents, and this applies to their representatives in case of death. There is a Clause to enable the Clause that prevails in Scotland for regulating street collections to apply to England. There are a number of other Clauses. I should like to say that I shall not be able to accept on the Committee stage any new Clauses that do not directly relate to the conditions of the War. This is a Bill with a very wide title, and it is possible to put down thirty or forty new Clauses dealing with matters exceedingly desirable in themselves, but

  1457
  under the circumstances in which legislation is carried on at this time I must ask hon. Members to direct their attention only to matters which directly arise from and relate to war conditions.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am unwilling to delay an emergency Bill which I think will command the consent and the support of the House, but this is an omnibus Bill. The Clauses are entirely separate, and it is necessary to raise important points. It is necessary now to give notice of this opposition and discuss the matter, although it may not be necessary to go to a Division. I am afraid that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have not persuaded me that the proposal which he now makes is in any way justified. I am quite sure that the Retrenchment Committee examined this question and made their recommendations in good faith, and I would be the last to attempt to oppose or to raise unnecessary objections against any serious proposal for retrenchment which they may have made. But really when we come to consider retrenchment we must, in the first place, have some sense of proportion. A great deal more is involved in this than the right hon. Gentleman was willing to admit in his speech. What is the saving which is proposed? It is £ 12,500 a year spread over 2,000 certifying surgeons. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the only objection raised was that put forward by the certifying surgeons themselves. I think that was rather an unfair insinuation, and it certainly is not the only motive which makes me rise to oppose the suggestion. Amongst 2,000 surgeons this small sum of £12,500 cannot be an object of such extreme covetousness that they would organise an opposition from one end of the country to the other. I speak upon information which has been given to me when I say that there are only about 100 surgeons who have anything like considerable pay out of this £12,500, and out of the 2,000 surgeons the vast majority, amounting to something like 1,900, get nothing but a mere pittance when they are called in to perform an examination. If it is not necessary these surgeons need not be called in. They are not wholly salaried officers, but they get a certain pay for doing a certain work. I have another objection to this proposal being brought in under the cover of an emergency retrenchment Bill. I do not think it is fair in a retrenchment Bill to raise a question which has long been one
  1458
  of dispute fought over and over again, and put it in a Bill of this sort to be passed in an emergency on the strong suggestion that any opposition to it is interrupting the public good and interfering with the action of the Retrenchment Committee. I do not think it is far in a Bill of that sort to try to settle a question which has been long fought over, and which has been tried as an experiment before and has failed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had the support of the Committee of 1911. On two previous occasions in the year 1901, and again in 1905, legislation was attempted with precisely the same object and failed, and was withdrawn by the Government of the day, owing to the opposition raised, not by the certifying surgeons, but by the representatives of the working classes. With regard to the Committee of 1911, the right hon. Gentleman read a list of those who-composed it, and I observe that there was not a single representative of the medical profession upon it whose experience and' knowledge on the subject might have been valuable. Not only was there no skilled medical knowledge on the Committee of 1911, upon whose unanimous fiat the right hon. Gentleman rests so much, but I understand that not a single medical witness was called before the Committee.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, yes!
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am informed that the surgeons were not asked to give evidence and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that information is corrects The connection of the certifying surgeons with accidents in the factories has existed ever since the Factory Acts were passed, and although slight modifications in every direction have been repeatedly made since: that time, none of those legislative changes have introduced any change with regard to the security provided by the presence and the reports of certifying surgeons upon accidents. I have shown that so far as the money consideration weighs, it is a very slight one indeed in the case of the certifying surgeons. The fact is that, they consider there is a much more serious objection from a professional point of view. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no intention of ousting the certifying surgeons from a great many of the important duties they perform in connection with factories and factory work. But surely the very fact that they give the certificate as to bodily ability to perform this work, and are constantly in the habit,

  1459
  of visiting the factories, has enabled them to become intimately acquainted not only with the owner and proprietor, but with the working men and the boys and girls themselves, and consequently they know what accidents they are liable to and their habits. Surely that makes it very important for the factories and those employed there that this important part of their work should not be taken away from them, because it gives a wider outlook to their professional practice and makes them closely acquainted with the workers whose interest is entrusted to them.
  It is that wider aspect, that wider range, that deep and closer connection that is kept together between the certifying surgeon, with all his medical knowledge and interest, with that medical knowledge which experience gives, that is important, and it is that point of view that these certifying surgeons feel is the strongest part of their case. With regard to the workers, are we to be told that the whole matter is one of machinery? Are we to have nothing but a mere machine inspector to tell us what is the cause of an accident and its effect upon the life and habits of the workers? Is the certifying surgeon, with his medical knowledge and experience of the habits of these people, with his constant lifelong habit of judging and testing their powers to take part in the work, who knows the pain and suffering that may be endured by those workers, to be dispensed with? It is not for themselves alone. If it were, I should not be speaking against the right hon. Gentleman. It is because I think that these men, like the rest of their profession, have a deep sympathy in their work, and are anxious to do their best for the welfare and the health of those who are entrusted to their care, that they desire that this part of their work should not be put off. They desire that there should be something more than the man who looks after the machinery, the mechanical engineer whose verdict the right hon. Gentleman thinks is quite sufficient. There is surely something we owe to the workmen, and above all at this moment, when we are trying to draw in, and rightly trying to draw in, diluted labour, and when the dangers to the workers are increased. The watchful eye of the certifying surgeon, with his knowledge of how this or that defect in a machine may tell on the human Agent working the machine, is especially necessary when you are diluting factory
  1460
  work by bringing in unskilled labour, and bringing it in, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, not merely for ordinary factory work, but for new and specially dangerous factory work. I presume the munition factories have special dangers of their own. Is it at a time like this that you are going to cut the workers off from the aid and the sympathetic examination they have received from the medically skilled?
  The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the certifying surgeon has one little function. He can see the workmen. That is immensely important. The workman will give him a frank account. He will seek his sympathy. He is accustomed to taking the advice of a medical man who sympathises with his work. He is far more likely to give him a full and free account of the accident than to a mere mechanical inspector. The certifying surgeon has been accustomed to examine these workers personally; he has been accustomed to associating with them, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, he will still carry on that association. It is precisely for those reasons that I wish him to continue seeing the workman, examining into his interests, and hearing his story in order to know how he feels with regard to the work and the conditions. It is precisely that which I think supplies an additional argument for keeping up the connection. I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to believe that however much I may be interested in the certifying surgeon, and however ready I may be, as I am bound to be, to listen to their story, it is not for this trifling amount of money that I raise this question It is because of the additional help given by them and the knowledge and wide range given by their professional work, and still more it is because, according to their evidence, which I thoroughly believe to be sincere and honest, it is in the interests of the workers with whom they have been so long associated, whom they have learned to know, and whose special liabilities they have tried to understand and to avoid, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to the Committee stage of this Bill to withdraw this obnoxious Clause, and not to attempt by a subterfuge to settle a long dispute which Parliament has refused to settle in this direction before under the guise of an Emergency Bill, on the supposition that such a Bill is introduced only because it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the country.
  Mr. TOOTILL: I want to take the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the very kindly and sympathetic reference he made to my predecessor in this House, Mr. Gill. It was very gratifying to hear him referring in such kindly terms to Mr. Gill's work in this House. He referred to the fact that he signed a Report which was submitted to the Home Office, I believe, in 1911. I remember Mr. Gill, along with other Members of this House, and others out of it, going round to visit various factories and workshops throughout Lancashire and Yorkshire. I remember the conversations we had in regard to this particular part of his Parliamentary work. It is very desirable that retrenchment should take place in every direction in which it can be carried out without impairing or endangering the efficiency of any of the Departments of the State, but if it can only be done at the expense of interfering with safeguards for the working people of the country that ought to strengthened rather than weakened, then it is a very dangerous policy. The Home Secretary in 1906 had the pleasure and duty of bringing in a measure to further protect and safeguard the workers of the country. I believe the working people firmly believe that the present Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are their friends. I do not think that they have introduced this Clause with any desire whatever of weakening the position of the workers. I would like to ask the Home Secretary why at a time like this these reports have suddenly become unnecessary. He has pointed out that these reports of the factory surgeon are not now so essential as they have been previously. That was the impression I got from his statement. Then why were they thought necessary when they were first introduced as a part of the duties of the certifying surgeons? Evidently, at one time, they were regarded as more or less necessary officials or they would not have been introduced. May I speak now as one who has spent nearly thirty years of my life as a worker in a cotton factory, and I think that the point I am going to make is one I know something about. Suppose I was putting a strap on a spinning mule, which is done daily in hundreds of cases, and the ladder I had to put up was fixed in a certain position, and that ladder gave way, and I came down to the ground, and I got in my finger or arm or any part of my body what is called a spelk, or small piece of timber
  1462
  saturated with oil or grease or other things, and septic poisoning resulted from that, and the doctor's evidence of that would be required for compensation. It would be required at present for compensation; but when I was working there was no compensation. I have suffered from septic poisoning caused by that means when the doctors were not so very careful as they are now in following up cases of that kind. If compensation is to be paid in a case like that, would the doctor's evidence not be, in the opinion of the Home Office, absolutely essential. I think it would be, and there are numbers of cases of a similar kind which might result in septic poisoning setting in, not just at the moment, but at a later period, and I think that the doctor's report, especially if he is called upon to substantiate the facts contained in that report, are very material indeed.
  I admit it is unfortunate that a strong volume of trade union opinion has not reached the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter. It certainly would have strengthened our hands, those of us who have taken up this case, and I hope the Home Secretary does not think that it is unnecessary opposition, or that it is uncalled-for opposition, and I tell the House candidly that I am not animated at all by any kind of interest in the certifying surgeon, beyond seeing that every class in the community is at any rate entitled to equity and justice in any legislation that comes from this House. I am merely taking it up on those grounds. I admire the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman when he actually admits that what is required is more inspectorate power and I hope that while he is in the position which he occupies at present it may be found possible, and practicable even, to deal with that very important matter in the interests of the workers of the country. These people who are many times depending on the doctor's evidence ought to have the continued privilege of having the advantage of the doctor's guidance in regard to these particular accidents. I want to put another point, as a practical man and a worker in a cotton factory. Suppose, for instance, in the execution of my duties I am a man who is in charge of a mule who has with him a creeler, or little piecer. Such a man cannot always be having his eye on the little piecer, and cannot always follow him about, however anxious he may be to safeguard him,

  1463
  because he feels there is a joint responsibility between the employer and himself, and he feels very anxious indeed for that little boy, who is not altogether capable of knowing exactly where the danger lies, just in the case of unfenced machinery. I believe it is better fenced now than ever in the history of factories and workshops, but it is even yet needed to be further fenced to give protection to those boys who are called creelers, or little piecers. Suppose he is going round and in and in and out of the machinery. I know there is a law that machinery is not to be cleaned, and that no boy is called upon to clean any part of the machinery, whilst it is in motion. But even in that case you cannot always keep the boys out of touching something that is dangerous, and they are entirely unconscious of the real danger until the accident occurs. Then suppose what is called a scrawl-band—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what that is; I dare say he does, having sometimes visited the factories and found out some of those things. Suppose this scrawl-band is not sufficiently and properly guarded and protected. It is a dangerous part of the machinery, especially when it is in motion, and supposing that boy is doing his work and "sweeping under the wheels," as we call it, and he does not know he is so near to it, as I was, and he is taken round, as I was, by the rope and he is caught on the shoulder, and the mark is there still on me. I did not realise the specific danger there was about this scrawl, but I was taken round, and the doctor in certifying stated that it was an extremely dangerous part of the machinery. It was a long time after that before that was fenced as a dangerous part of the machinery.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Had the doctor any power to take any action?
  Mr. TOOTILL: I suppose he could report to the Home Office or the factory inspector, and surely some action would be taken; some action at least ought to be taken. I merely put this point to ask the Home Secretary whether he thinks or does not think it is necessary that these doctors should be continued to carry out their existing duties of their office so that the workmen in the factories may know that they have not only the inspectors to depend upon but they have actually, as a third party, report, or support, the certifying surgeon. I cannot understand for a
  1464
  moment why the Home Secretary desires to accept this 1906 Report as having made it possible to carry out in his Department some form of retrenchment. We do not object to that, provided always that the safeguards and the efficient protection of the workpeople can be maintained at the same time. I do think that the life and limb of the workmen ought to be the primary consideration in this matter, and that when we are talking about legislation in this House, at any rate, some of the strongest motives that animate us ought to be human life, and human safety, and I would go further and say, human honour, as one of the highest ideals we can have in promoting this class of legislation. I was delighted with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself with regard to this particular aspect of the subject, and his desire that further powers should be given for an increased number of inspectors. I hope the time will come when he will be able to carry that into effect.
  An HON. MEMBER: He suggested he would do so after the War.
  Mr. TOOTILL: I hope he will see his way to take the matter up, and I believe he will, and that there will be a great advantage arising from it. I want to assure him that we have no desire to prevent hint from doing that in taking up our present position, and I want to say straight that I am not acting at all from any motive promoted by the certifying surgeons themselves. Who will take up the work of the certifying surgeons? Will it devolve upon the inspectors or upon the employers? We ought to have a specific statement upon that point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us satisfaction upon it, because it will be patent to all Members of the House that it is essential we should have a clear statement on the point. No one is better qualified to give it than the representative of the Home Office himself.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: The Home Secretary has now had the opportunity of listening to two speeches in which very strong arguments have been adduced for retaining the services of these certifying surgeons. I trust that, before this Bill enters upon its Committee stage, he will give very careful consideration to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) and the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill), each

  1465
  approaching this important subject from different points of view, so that he will be willing, at that stage, to assent to the exclusion of this particular Clause from the Bill. I am very desirous indeed that some practical result shall follow from the excellent speeches that have been made. So far they are almost of academic interest, because I do not think that either the hon. Member for Glasgow University or the hon. Member for Bolton is desirous of preventing this Bill from being read a second time. That being so, it seems rather unnecessary to continue the Debate on the Second Reading with regard to this particular Clause. I am very desirous that when we come to the Committee stage we shall be able to show such overwhelming reasons in favour of retaining the services of the certifying surgeons that my right hon. Friend will then assent to the omission of this particular Clause from the Bill. It is a question for the Committee stage and not for the Second Reading; therefore I would prefer to reserve such additional arguments as I might be able to adduce in favour of the retention of the services of the certifying surgeons until we come to the Committee stage, when we shall have the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman to omit this particular Clause from the Bill. For that reason I hope we may take the Second Reading as soon as possible, so that we may have a full Debate later on upon this particular Clause.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I shall be very pleased indeed to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), but I would like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill a little more definitely what his intentions are upon the Committee stage. One point undoubtedly is a strong one for him at present, namely, that the trade unions have made no strong objection to this particular Clause. I am not at all sure that the trade unions were quite aware that this Clause was to be forced through. The workers of the country up to the present have been engaged upon a very big task, and I am not sure whether the fact that we have set aside our party politics for the time being has tended to their enlightenment in other respects. I can promise that, so far as one man is concerned, the trade unions will know what is suggested before the Committee stage is reached. We are entitled to ask
  1466
  this question: This particular authority was created in 1833. A great wave of enthusiasm, very proper enthusiasm, rushed over the country at that time for an improvement in the conditions of the workers in the factories. It is unnecessary to say a single word as to what the conditions were at that time. This authority has been in existence for eighty-three years. Have the trade unions or the workers of the country ever objected to the certifying surgeons? Have they put forward a complaint that these men were performing functions which, in their belief, were unnecessary and ought to be done away with? If any such case as that had been made, we must all admit at once that an overwhelming case would have been made out for the Clause in this Bill. I do not think that has ever taken place, and I shall be very much surprised if it has. If the right hon. Gentleman or his Department had received from any organised body of labour, or even any disorganised body of labour, a suggestion that the work of these people should be done away with and that they were performing functions which were unnecessary and overlapped, then I believe there would be a strong case; but at present, when the dilution of labour is taking place to a degree never before known in the history of the country, when people unacquainted with the work in the mills and factories all over the country are being brought in by the tens of thousainds, there is not only no necessity for doing away with, but I believe there is a necessity for increasing this class of official. Is it suggested that the danger is lessening? I am not at all conversant with the facts in regard to factories.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Hear, hear!
  Mr. WALSH: But I do suggest that it would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman or his Department to prove that accidents were substantially lessening even before the dilution of labour took place. I do know that the plea of the late hon. Member for Bolton was constantly for a great increase in the inspectorate. Has the inspectorate been increased?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
  Mr. WALSH: When?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Every year. The hon. Member is simply arguing for the continuance of what are useless reports, because he thinks the factory inspectorate

  1467
  ought to be increased. I want to increase the factory inspectorate, but that has nothing to do with the certifying surgeons.
  Mr. WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman wants to increase the inspectorate after the War. What becomes of the question of retrenchment? Twelve thousand five hundred pounds during the War is an absolute flea bite. The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that these men are doing harm?
  Mr. SAMUEL: They are doing no good.
  Mr. WALSH: I distinctly say that they are doing good. The vast majority of accidents upon which these people report take place in the cases of boys and females. It is of the very essence of the case that there should be a person quickly upon the job. Is it suggested that the factory inspectors can be quickly upon the job? The very fact of the necessity for increasing the inspectorate gives away the case that they can be quickly upon the scene. The certifying surgeons live well within the immediate localities. They are quickly upon the scene and they have the person who has suffered the accident in hand very quickly. They are able to speak to the conditions under which the accident takes place at once, and with an authority and definiteness that an inspector never can possess. This matter after all affects the lives of the people so directly and so completely that a paltry amount of £12,500 can very well be allowed to go on until the whole matter can be investigated.
  I understand there have been three Committees. There was a Committee in 1905. Was there a single certifying surgeon called to that Committee? There was a Committee again in 1911. Was there a single certifying surgeon called to that Committee? Certainly we had gentlemen before us, who proved to be men of character and men of standard, and what they said to us was that not a single man had been called before the Committee. Have any of the organisations working with the industries to which these certifying surgeons are specially attached been asked to give evidence even before the Retrenchment Committee? If they have and they spoke in favour of the abolition of this functionary, of course I will admit that our case is considerably weakened, but when these men are the first upon the job when accidents happen, when they are the people to make a report
  1468
  of the conditions under which the accident has happened, when dilution of abour is taking place under conditions never known before, when unskilled labour is being brought into these dangerous occupations in a degree that has never been known before, when as a matter of fact it is more than ever necessary to conserve the life and limb of the young worker, male and female, this, forsooth, is the time and these are the conditions under which it is suggested that we ought to save £250 a week. I do not think the game is worth the candle, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should weight his case with an argument such as that. So far as I am concerned, and I hope my trade union colleagues we will see at least that the organised workers know what is going on. It shall not be done in the dark, if it is done at all. If there is a saving, they shall know exactly how it is being made. If the certifying surgeons are to be done away with in so far as this branch of their work is concerned, the organised workers, at least in Lancashire, shall know about it, so that when the Committee stage arrives there will be a body of evidence on the part of the organised workers of my county who will know exactly what is taking place.
  Sir J. YOXALL: There was a great Bill that went through this House called the Children Bill, and to the author of it I make my appeal to withdraw this Clause. I cannot understand how the man who framed and carried through this House the Children Bill can now father to the smallest extent, even in one Clause of the Bill, a proposal which, if carried into effect, would injure the health and endanger the lives of countless children in this country. The number of children employed in factories and workshops in the last eighteen months or two years has grown to an enormous extent. The number of half-timers—not registered perhaps as such, but really acting as such—has grown to an enormous extent, and it is on their behalf that I make my appeal. What happens? Here is a child of twelve years of age. His parents wish him to go into the mill. Something has been said by the Home Secretary about the absence of trade union criticism and opposition to the Bill. I am sorry to say there are one or two trade unions which not only do not oppose the going of these children into the mills at twelve years of age, but support it and defend

  1469
  it. The boy of twelve years of age must go to a certifying surgeon, who says whether or not that boy is fit to do work in that particular mill, and so long as the man he goes to is a man who is daily, or weekly at least, in that kind of mill investigating accidents which arise out of the machinery in it, that certifying surgeon knows whether or not the boy can safely go upon that particular piece of work. There are boys who are very dull. They are more likely to be dull when they come from households which not only permit, but urge them to leave school and go to dangerous labour at the age of twelve. There are some whose eyesight is defective, and some whose hearing is defective. The hon. Member opposite, from his own experience, has related what occurs in regard to scavengers. It is true that machinery must not be in motion when these tiny youngsters are crawling in with brush and shovel, or with their fingers, to make slight alterations or to clear out rubbish or what not from the machine. It is a great machine with all sorts of recesses, and the man watching it, anxious as he may be to fulfil the law, and above all to do no harm to the youngster, if he has to deal with a dull youngster whose eyesight or hearing is not very good may start the machine with the youngster inside it. Who is to certify better than the surgeon, who pays frequent visits to the factory and knows the danger, whether the boy is fit to work there? What is the fountain and origin of this particular Clause? The Home Office for years has been opposed to these certifying surgeons. I hold no brief for them. I have no interest in them whatever, and they probably take no interest in me. But the Home Office is opposed to them because it is the natural tendency of a Government Department to seek to keep everything in their own hands, and to do everything in their power, so far as it can at all be brought within their purview, by persons appointed by themselves, rising in their own hierarchy in the ordinary governmental way. Further inspectors are to be appointed. What then becomes of your saving of £12,500 a year?
  Mr. SAMUEL: After the War.
  Sir J. YOXALL: Then why not wait till after the War before you make a change at all? Will the War last more than another year? There is no answer
  1470
  to that. No one will prophesy. Twelve thousand five hundred pounds saved in one year, and how many children's lives lost or bodies injured! While the great mass of the people is loyal to the Government and desirous to support it through thick and thin while the War is on, there is rising throughout the whole country a storm of indignation and profound distrust, I might almost say contempt, for the typical upper Civil servant who runs these Government machines, and when the War is over a reckoning will take place. The right hon. Gentleman has in the past shown his independence and has risen above that tendency to which most Ministers succumb sooner or later, and it is he, above all men, who, influenced by this bureaucratic influence, brings forward this proposal. The main inception, I suppose, rests with the Retrenchment Committee, another body whose proposals, so far as they refer to children, have been profoundly suspect. The right hon. Gentleman expresses his surprise at the absence of organised opposition to this Bill. If he will promise to-night that the trade unions are made acquainted with what the Bill means, perhaps he will get the opposition, and I will promise him that those of us in this country who are interested in the welfare of children shall make plain what this Bill means. We are interested in the welfare of children after they leave school, and therefore we realise the importance of this question. It is because we believe in fair play for the children, and it is because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman believes in fair play for the children, that I make an appeal to him, as the author of the Childrens' Act, to save the children under this Clause.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I have listened with great interest to the Debate, and I am bound to say that I am surprised at the amount of heat that seems to have developed, and the amount of suspicion under which the Home Office has been brought because of this Section of the Bill. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Yoxall) spoke in rather contemptuous words about the higher branches of the Civil Service. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman, the representative of the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Sir H. Craik) would say about that. I hardly think that the two non. Gentlemen would be able to reconcile

  1471
  their differences upon that matter. We are introducing this proposal because, in the opinion of the Home Office, it is an essential and necessary reform.
  Mr. DENNISS: In war-time?
  Mr. BRACE: In war-time or any time, it is, in the opinion of the Home Office, an essential and a necessary reform. The hon. Gentlemen who have been emphasising the desirability for the protection of the health and lives and limbs of children really need not press that phase of the social problem either upon my right hon. Friend or upon myself. As a matter of fact, this proposal is not intended to interfere with that system of inspection. The health work of the certifying surgeons in connection with the certification of children and young persons and cases of industrial poisoning, and the periodical examination of workers in dangerous trades, will not be interfered with at all. Hon. Members have spoken as if the certifying surgeons were really making an examination of all the accidents that take place in factories, that they are doing work which they alone can do, and that their work is of such vital importance that if it is not continued it will introduce into the working lives of the factory operatives a standard of danger that does not exist at the present time. In 1914 the total number of accidents notified to the inspectors was 159,413, and the number of those which were also notified to the certifying surgeons was 52,563, so that less than one-third of the total accidents in factories were notified to the certifying surgeons.
  Sir J. YOXALL: All the worst?
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. BRACE: The real test is, what does the certifying surgeon do? The certifying surgeon receives a report from the occupier or the employer. I have taken the trouble to go through hundreds of these reports, and we get exactly the same report from the certifying surgeon as we do from the inspector.
  Mr. DENNISS: Then he is as good as the inspector?
  Mr. BRACE: The certifying surgeon acts upon exactly the same report as the inspector.
  Mr. WALSH: The certifying surgeon has been there first.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope my hon. Friend will restrain himself.
  Mr. WALSH: I am restraining myself. The surgeon has been there first in tens of thousands of cases. What is the good of saying they act on the same report?
  Mr. BRACE: The first report is received from the employer. Upon that report the certifying surgeon acts. When the employer sends a report to the certifying surgeon he sends a report at the same time to the factory inspector, and I have examined hundreds of these reports, and I find exactly the same report comes from the certifying surgeon as from the inspector, in the language provided by the employer.
  Mr. DENNISS: What is the use of the inspector?
  Mr. BRACE: There the hon. Gentleman touches the very crux of the problem. It is the inspector who is the technical authority and who is the man capable of advising the employer, and has the right under the Regulations of the Home Office to advise the employer what reform should take place in order to prevent a recurrence of the accident that has been reported.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the inspector bases his report very often not upon any visit he has made himself, but upon the report of the certifying surgeon?
  Mr. BRACE: The report of the inspector is based upon the report sent by the employer.
  Sir H. CRAIK: And the certifying surgeon.
  Mr. BRACE: I assure hon. Gentlemen that when I am telling the House of Commons that in the hundreds of cases that I have examined these reports are exactly in the same language as supplied by the employer, the House of Commons may rely upon it that I am making a statement of fact which can be verified. I think I have some right to be considered by the House not as being unsympathetic to the factory worker. If I thought for one moment that the abolition of the certifying surgeon would introduce danger to the health, life, or limb of the factory worker, neither my right hon. Friend nor myself would be here to ask the House to agree to this proposal. The hon. Member

  1473
  for Ince (Mr. Walsh) presented a very strong statement with his usual eloquence and close reasoning, based upon no sound premise. I would remind him that the mining industry is infinitely more dangerous than the cotton-factory industry, and yet you have no such thing as certifying surgeons connected with the mining industry.
  Mr. WALSH: Yes, you have. You have a vast mass of surgeons within easy reach of every colliery, and as soon as a man gets out of the pit after an accident there is a paper given, to him, and the first thing he does is to go to the surgeon. There you have a certifying surgeon. In my own county there is one society which has 50,000 members, and at every colliery there is this particular system of certification which you are endeavouring to abolish in connection with the factories.
  Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend, I am sure, would not mislead, but he has left an impression on the House in connection with the mining industry that there are scores or hundreds, if not thousands, of certifying surgeons.
  Mr. WALSH: There is a system of certification in connection with every colliery. It is not the factory surgeon at all, but there is a surgeon living within easy reach of every colliery in my county and every other mining county in this Kingdom.
  Mr. BRACE: What my hon. Friend has said is not germane at all to the point which I am making. I am trying to tell the House of Commons that in the mining industry, which is highly dangerous to life and limb, there is no such thing as a certifying surgeon. It is true that in connection with all collieries there are doctors maintained and paid entirely by the workmen themselves. The abolition of the certifying surgeon under this Section will not prevent the continuation of medical men employed and paid by the workmen themselves as now. All that we propose is that the certifying surgeon who is engaged upon a work largely of a duplicating character, who send reports to the Home Office which are not at all helpful in reducing accidents, either fatal or non-fatal, should be dispensed with. Will the House please not confuse the issue? The medical inspection of young persons and inspection for other purposes and the inspection in connection with dangerous trades will continue as heretofore. My hon. Friends
  1474
  below the Gangway will please remember that the last Report issued upon this point recommending the abolition of certifying surgeons was signed by the late Mr. Gill, a very distinguished Labour leader and factory leader, and the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). Does the House of Commons think for one moment that those two distinguished representatives of Labour would have agreed to the unanimous recommendation for the abolition of that principle if they thought that it would have added in the slightest degree to the danger to the workers whom they so powerfully represent?
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: Was it a recommendation for abolition or for reducing the amount of reporting done?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There were two recommendations. This is not carrying out the recommendations of the Report.
  Mr. BRACE: I do not know what my hon. Friend has in mind. There are two ways in which the Committee suggest the system might be altered—the work of certifying surgeons as to accidents might be wholly dispensed with, and the inspector have power to forward the report of a certifying surgeon for information in any case in which he thought it necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If my hon. Friends think that that is a suitable scheme to put in the Bill, my right hon. Friend, I am sure, would be prepared to consider it.
  Mr. DENNISS: What is in the report should be in the Bill.
  Mr. BRACE: If the House of Commons thinks that the Home Office is wrong, the proper way to put the Home Office right is on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: No; on Second Reading.
  Mr. BRACE: The Second Reading of the Bill deals with general principles. If you want to amend any part of the Bill you must wait for the Committee stage.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Every Clause in the Bill is separate.
  Mr. BRACE: The Home Office have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to abolish this system of certifying surgeons. What we want is more factory inspectors with technical knowledge, and if we are to have, as I believe it is desirable to have, a higher standard of medical

  1475
  inspection, the Home Office would prefer to have full-time medical inspectors rather than the system of certifying surgeons as at present exists. We bring down the proposal which we think satisfactory. If we did not think it satisfactory it would not be proposed. Incidentally that proposal will save the nation £12,500 per year. I suppose that the proposal can be none the worse because it is saving that amount, but I hope that the House of Commons will not allow itself to be led to the conclusion that this saving is the dominant factor behind the proposal. It is not. The proposal is made because the Home Office have come to the conclusion, after a most careful survey of the problem, that the certifying surgeons are not essential to the life and health of the factory workers, and it is for that reason that we ask the House of Commons to agree to abolish them so that we may, if you like, introduce a better system. Why should we wait until after the War for this? We think it is fair to abolish certifying surgeons or we should not propose it. We think it an advantage to have more factory inspectors and more full time medical inspectors. In proposing that that reform should wait until after the War we are founding ourselves upon the recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee that it is essential that we should endeavour to avoid the expenditure of money so far as possible while the War lasts. The reason why we ask the House of Commons to agree to this proposal at this particular time is because it is the best of all times to ask for it so far as certifying surgeons are concerned. Twelve thousand five hundred pounds a year is a largish sum. True, it is divided up among a number of men, but an hon. Member says that a few of the certifying surgeons draw a really substantial sum from this class of work. Doctors are very short just now, and if there is any time when the certifying surgeons can face this change in their life with the least inconvenience that time is now.
  An HON.MEMBER: The inspectors will be doctors.
  Mr. BRACE: There will be medical inspectors, it is true, but we hope to add to the inspectorate of the Home Office for factory purposes a number of inspectors with high technical knowledge. If I am asked why we do not propose to increase the inspectorate now, my answer is that this is not a fair time to increase the
  1476
  inspectorate because of the large number of highly intelligent, capable men who are at this moment serving their country in a military capacity, and if you are going to increase the permanent inspectorate of the Home Office now you will cut away the opportunity for these men to enter into these positions. I beg the House to try to appreciate that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself, nor the Home Office, have any thought other than which is for the highest welfare of the factory workers, speaking from their several standpoints. I have been impressed by the point made, that if necessary the inspector should call in a medical man, and in that respect I think my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider the matter upon the Committee stage. Having endeavoured to survey some of the reasons why the opposition should not be pressed, either by a continuation of the discussion or a Division, I would ask the House to give us the Second Reading of the Bill, reserving till the Committee stage further discussion upon this matter.
  Mr. BOYTON: I cannot help thinking that there is a hidden influence, an unseen hand, in the working of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides so ably. And it seems to me that there is this unseen influence and hidden hand in connection with the Retrenchment Committee as well as the Home Office, which seeks to interfere very largely with the privileges of the medical profession. I should have thought that at a time like this the Home Office would not again have attacked the medical profession. One of the recommendations of the Retrenchment Committee was that the fees in connection with the notification of diseases should be substantially reduced, and now, on the top of that wholly unnecessary and unfair action, they come now to say, "We will save £12,500 a year by abolishing certifying surgeons." It seems to me that there is a hidden influence here against the medical profession. I cannot understand why the Retrenchment Committee should make such a dead set at a profession which is doing so much as the medical profession is doing at the present time. Really, I cannot help feeling that there must be a mysterious influence in the Retrenchment Committee that we cannot measure or gauge here. Why on earth, at such a time as this, when in the industries of the country, and in the new war industries which are being set up, which employ

  1477
  hundreds of thousands of young people who have never been in these employments before, should you set up more inspectors and shut out the doctors? I am not able to say what the effect of such a decision will be on the factories, but I have heard enough to-night from those who are acquainted with the subject to say, apart from the injustice which is done to the medical profession, that a very great injustice is being done to the workers of the country.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs began his statement by saying that the proposed abolition of certifying surgeons has been brought forward because it is essential and necessary. I could not help thinking, on that phrase, that it is rather an exaggeration of a proposal to save the country £12,500 a year. Nobody would for one moment suspect the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary of any want of sympathy in this matter, but that does not prevent those who have had some experience of it and have been investigating it, from having a perfect right to express their own opinion. The sympathy of the hon. and the right hon. Gentleman does not prove they are right, because in the matter of sympathy we can perhaps all claim to be their equals. The hon. Gentleman said the passing of children by surgeons would not be interfered with by this Bill. On paper that is so, but the point of importance is that you are taking away from the surgeon the means of getting essential information for that part of his work. The certifying surgeon constantly visits the works, and becomes acquainted with all the machines, and so obtains the knowledge necessary to enable him to decide whether a particular child is bright enough and is in every way fitted to undertake the work to which it is proposed to send him. You may leave on paper the right of the surgeon to answer the question, but if you take away the means of his getting knowledge, you are taking from the child a very real protection. The hon. Gentleman said that these certifying surgeons do not exist in regard to mines, and my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Walsh) replied that there is a system, though not a Government system, yet a highly elaborate and complete system, of certifying surgeons in connection with mines. Mining is an industry which is highly organised from every point of view, and
  1478
  what is done in mining cannot necessarily be done in less organised trades. In mining you have the over-men with statutory obligations, managers with statutory obligations, workmen inspectors, or local inspectors with statutory positions—Government appointments; you have Government inspectors and assistant inspectors, and you have the trade unions. In all the colliery regions you have most elaborate and complete organisation, and because you have that you can get along without certifying surgeons.
  But it does not in the least follow that you can get along in factories and workshops, which have grown up under entirely different conditions, and which for seventy years have had these certifying surgeons upon whom the workers have depended for their safety. The Under-Secretary for the Department also suggested, as a kind of compromise, that the inspector might refer certain cases to the surgeons, and that the surgeons would then report upon them—that is to say, you are asking the inspector to do what he has not the means of doing. He would simply receive the employer's notification of the accident, and whether it was necessary to have a special inquiry in the great majority of cases he would not be the means of knowing. The whole contention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Gentleman representing the Department means that the certifying surgeons are useless. I myself thirty years ago was, for a period, an employer in the North of England, and certainly we did not in the very least regard them as being useless; we regarded them as being a valuable protection for workmen, such as all good employers desire to see. It is said that the reports sent in are merely a repetition of the notice the employer sends in. I think that is not so. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on questions of fact, but I think they are wrong in their facts. I have here a copy of the certifying surgeon's report on accidents—a Government form that he has to fill in. If I look at item No. 6, under the heading "Accidents," he has to say—
  "By what part of the machinery and in what other way it was caused? If by machinery, state whether at the time of the accident the machinery was in motion by mechanical power."
  If I am right, the employer has to say that also; but you then come to (6), and the surgeon has got to say—
  "Whether it was guarded or fenced?"

  1479
  I do not think the employer has to say that. Then it goes on—
  "If so by what means?"
  The employer is not asked to say that. Then it goes on—
  "If it is due to mismanagement of the machinery by a person oilier than the injured person, state whether the person was experienced in the work."
  The employer is not asked to say that. Then it goes on—
  "How many hours he had been on duty prior to the accident?"
  The certifying surgeon has to come as quickly as is possible to ascertain that fact, which the employer is not required to state. The employer could not very well be required to do so, because it might be a case of incriminating himself. I think these things show that the certifying surgeon's report cannot be a mere copy of the employer's notice. If any certifying surgeons send in a mere copy it is because they have not filled in what they are required to do, and I would suggest to the Home Office that, instead of seeking to abolish them, that they should in these particular cases try to make them do what they are required by Act of Parliament to do. An omission of that sort I should imagine must be very rare, because the inspectors, where necessary, keep certifying surgeons up to the mark in this respect. If certifying surgeons send in reports without filling in the necessary particulars they are called upon to do so by the inspector and the report sent back, and they are told that the omission may cause the inspector to make an otherwise unnecessary journey. Under No. 13 the certifying surgeon has to state the nature and extent of the injuries and has to classify the injuries, which the employer has not to do, and he has also to say whether there has been any septic poisoning. On the other side of the page there is a space for further observations by the certifying surgeon and
  'the names of any persons who have given them evidence as to the cause or circumstances of the accident should be included in these observations.
  In investigating accidents attended with septic poisoning it should be ascertained as far as possible whether infection was probably contracted in the works and, if so from what cause, and how far facilities were provided and used for keeping wounds clean—for example, by using an application of suitable simple dressings."
  It is one of the chief parts of the duties in works of certifying surgeons to see that there are about the factory the usual first-aid appliances for the wounded and
  1480
  men with some knowledge how to apply them. The certifying surgeon often reports what is going to be done to prevent similar accidents in future. I think I have shown that it really is not possible that these reports are mere copies of the employer's notices. No doubt in many very simple cases there is very little to add, but the law does not exist for the simple cases that settle themselves, but for a comparatively small percentage, which are difficult and which require these further precautions. It has already been well pointed out that the certifying surgeon is first on the spot after the accident. He is the only man who sees the patient and goes to the patient's bedside in the man's home or, if he is taken to a hospital, to the hospital.
  Mr. WALSH: Or boy or girl either.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: He is the only person who has the legal right of entry to the place to which the patient is removed. Surely that is very important. The case has been argued as if it were altogether a question of mechanical accidents, and we have been asked what do certifying surgeons know about machinery. I think a certifying surgeon who has been for some time engaged in this work gets to know a good deal about machinery. There are as well chemical and electrical accidents, and surely he is well able to form some opinion about a chemical accident. The fact is that the certifying surgeon is a sieve through which all these thousands of accidents pass, and it is on his report that the inspector judges in the great majority of cases whether a visit by him is necessary or not. It is not, I think, denied that in some cases useful service of this kind is performed, and if in a substantial number of cases useful service is rendered under this system, then it ought not to be abolished until we are actually ready to put something better in its place. The inspector does not visit every factory once a year, and I believe that on the average 75 per cent, of the factories and workshops are visited by an inspector once a year. The certifying surgeon is very often there once a week to pass children or to see whether any children are to be passed for work. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to yield to the manifest feeling of the House. It is a remarkable thing that not one single Member thought it necessary to come down to support this change. I appeal to him to withdraw altogether this Clause which proposes to abolish what has

  1481
  been a part of our industrial system and recognised as a useful and an essential part of that system for seventy or eighty years.
  Mr. DENNISS: I have had a great deal of correspondence on this subject from my Constituency which, I suppose, contains more factories than any constituency in the Kingdom and perhaps more complicated machinery. It contains the largest machine works in the world, except Krupp's, and an enormous number of cotton mills. What I object to most is what I call the breach of the truce and that a highly controversial matter between the working classes and the rest of the community should be introduced in time of war. I understood that any highly controversial matter was not to be introduced in time of war in this House in the shape of an emergency Bill. This is an emergency Bill, and can only be excused by the fact that it is necessary to be carried out immediately for some purpose connected with the War. What is that purpose? Economy, we are told. It does not appear to be so. The economy is very mistaken, and the result must be very small, and if the object indeed is economy, if a number of inspectors are appointed to take the places of the certifying surgeons, then what about their salaries and travelling expenses all over the country? The Under-Secretary, in his defence of this portion of the Bill, argued in a circle. He said they did not bring in the Bill to save money, but because the reform was necessary and good in itself. In that case it is not an emergency measure, but is a highly controversial matter, since it seeks to alter a state of things in the middle of a war which has existed for over seventy years, and for that reason I object to it. The Under-Secretary went on to say that they would not have introduced this Bill because they themselves were in favour of it, but because it was a reform which will save money.
  Mr. BRACE: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying we do not want it. My argument was that we did want it.
  Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Gentleman said, first of all, that they wanted it as a necessary reform, not to save money, but because it was good in itself. When there was great opposition indicated he said it was to save money they brought it in and that the Retrenchment Committee had recommended it. Nobody doubts that if it had not been for the Report of the
  1482
  Retrenchment Committee it never would have been introduced. That Committee was there not for reforms, but for economies.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member in favour of economy?
  Mr. DENNISS: Controversial reforms are inadmissible during the War. Every trade union in the country will be up in arms about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] We have heard Labour Members speak. At all events, whatever may be the result of the Division to-night, I put it to the Home Secretary, whose ability and zeal for the public weal we know, that before he perseveres with this Clause in Committee he should see the trade union leaders and get the opinion of the Labour party on this subject, and also that in bare justice he should find out for himself what the certifying surgeons have to do in this matter. Let me give an instance of what occurs. A young person is injured. The doctor sees him. From the nature of the wound he sees that it is caused by some machinery which ought to be fenced. Having been to the factory many times he knows the machinery and he knows that it is not fenced. He cross-examines the young person. He goes to the factory and finds that the machinery is fenced. The employer says, "The accident could not have been caused by unfenced machinery, because the machinery is fenced." "Yes," replies the doctor, "but I know that it was not fenced when I was here last. When was the fencing put up?" No inspector can do that. The Under-Secretary said, "Doctors are short; doctors are wanted; therefore these certifying surgeons should be set free from their work in factories to do the ordinary work of doctors." I interposed and said, "The inspectors you are going to appoint will be doctors; therefore you do not save anything in that way." Then the hon. Member said, "Oh, but we will not increase the inspectors now because we are at war and numbers of them are at the front. It would not be fair to appoint any men at home as inspectors, as those who are at the front ought to have a chance of competing for these appointments."
  Mr. BRACE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. DENNISS: The hon. Gentleman cheers that observation. The logical result is that inspection is to go short. Thirty-three per cent, of the inspectors are at the front. Inspection is already

  1483
  short, and it is at this time that you propose to abolish the certifying surgeons as well. Accidents are more frequent than ever they were, because there are more dangerous trades, especially new and unaccustomed trades. Inexperience is one of the most frequent causes of accident. Fatigue is another. The people are all working at high pressure and often overtime. It is under these circumstances that this proposal is made, and that is the position in which the Bill is going to leave the lives and limbs of the children, young people, women and grown-up men in the factories. The inspectors go to the factory only occasionally, very often a long time after the accident. The doctor is there every week, sometimes every day. He knows every bit of machinery in the place. As we have now a large increase in electrical and chemical work, besides mechanical, his knowledge as a doctor is often more important than his knowledge of machinery. I often go into factories, and I know the machinery in a mill. Any person of average intelligence gets accustomed to the machinery, and knows it as well as any inspector. The inspectors are doctors, too; they are not skilled in mechanical machinery. Representing the sort of constituency that I represent, I am bound to oppose this measure. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us some undertaking, we must press the matter to a Division. Whatever the result of the Division may be, the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult those who know. I feel that he has been misled. There are the Association of Certifying Surgeons and the trade unions: I hope and believe that he will consult them. Having done that, if he insists on going on with the Bill he will, before the Committee stage, be in possession of such evidence as will enable him to form a real and considered judgment in the matter, which I am sure he is not now in a position to do.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I regret that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should have intervened at so early a stage in the Debate, when there were still many points to be put for the consideration of the Government, and especially that he should have ended his speech after about one and a half hours' Debate on this important subject with the request to the House that it should debate it no more. I shall have to disregard the appeal of my hon. Friend, and I am
  1484
  sure he will forgive me for not being able to accept his somewhat pontifical request. The view I take is that we ought not to be guided in this change by any question of economy. We ought to consider solely the people for whose benefit this protection was originally introduced and exists to-day. If any change is to be made it should surely be one based upon the considered judgment of the Committee which inquired into the matter. I was very much surprised when the Under-Secretary quoted the late Mr. Gill and the hon. Member for Leicester as having approved this proposal. In the same connection I must express my regret that a wholly inadequate and partially inaccurate statement is made in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill. That Memorandum, after stating that the Committee on Retrenchment had made this recommendation, goes on to say that the Committee on Accidents in Factories had previously in 1911 made a similar recommendation. That statement is inaccurate. It is a very partial statement of the truth, and being a partial statement of the truth is wholly misleading. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise that that Memorandum is misleading, because the Committee on Accidents did no such thing. They made two proposals. The first was the proposal embodied in the Bill. They went on to make a second proposal as follows:
  "The occupier may report to the inspector only, and the inspector has power to forward reports to the certifying surgeons for investigation in any case in which he thinks such investigation desirable.
  They go further than that. My hon. Friend has challenged the reading of that, but he will see that it tends to destroy his previous statement. He ended his extract much too soon, because the Committee come down in favour of the second proposal. They go on to say:
  "That the second proposal has the advantage—"
  that is, an advantage over the proposal which the Government have proposed—
  "has the advantage that it would not relieve the occupier wholly from the liability of investigation by the surgeon, and that it would enable the inspectors to indicate to the surgeon any particular points within his field of inquiry upon which the inspector requires further information."
  Much more important than that is the passage that precedes both of these recommendations in the Report of the Committee, for they only suggest that some part of the work should be dispensed with. They go on to say:
  "In scattered districts, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's

  1485
  report is still useful, and it may be useful ill investigations of poisoning which come within the definition of accidents, where medical opinion on the cause of the accidents is needed, such, for example, as cases of gassing by carbon monoxide."
  I accept fully, and every Member of this House accepts fully, the statement of the Home Secretary and of the Under-Secretary that they desire to do nothing at all to interfere with the welfare of the people in factories, but I think that the Government takes a very serious responsibility when it brings forward a proposal, which is not the proposal that was made by the Departmental Committee of Inquiry, a Committee in part at least of experts, and which, while sweeping away the system of certifying surgeons, does not replace the work that they did, even in those exceptional cases where it is particularly necessary. It is for this reason that I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter, and will not press this Clause in its present form. I understand from the interjection that he made that he will be willing to accept the second proposal of the Committee. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me if I am right and that he would be willing—
  Mr. SAMUELmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication that his mind is not finally made up, and that the criticisms which he has heard tonight will be duly considered, it will be a very great relief to us.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has disposed entirely of the statement in the Memorandum of this Bill that Clause 8 is based on the Departmental Committee's Report. Obviously, whoever was responsible for the drafting of the Memorandum of this Bill, was not very accurately informed as to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which is claimed as the basis for it. Then may I turn to the other part of the Memorandum dealing with this Clause, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, when he makes his statement later, which member of the Retrenchment Committee is qualified to speak with any authority on the work of the certifying surgeons? In endeavouring to recall the names, I am bound to say I fail to recall the name of one member of the Retrenchment Committee whose evidence would
  1486
  carry very great weight in the matter of the suggested police work of the certifying surgeon.
  An HON. MEMBER: Chiozza Money!
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am not sure that hon. Member is an authority on the internal working of factories or as to the necessity for the retention of the certifying surgeon.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Member for Derby!
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: He is acquainted with railway matters, but not with textile industries. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary who has just interrupted me was never less happy than in his defence of this Bill. We have heard him from below the Gangway make some very fine speeches indeed. I never heard him to worse effect than in attempting to de fend this Bill. I felt quite sure his heart was not in it. All his colleagues are against him, and the House as a whole is against the Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I understand the hon. Member for Glasgow is with the Government in this Bill. He is one of the faithful few. I do not know whether the Whips have been busy in the House while we have been fighting with the Front Bench. The Under-Secretary for State suggested that the miners had a system by which they paid for themselves, and my hon. Friend opposite cheers that statement. Does he wish to suggest that the cost of the maintenance of the certifying surgeons should be thrown upon the workers in the textile industry? Is that, the point of his interruption? What about the half-timers who are defended by the work of the certifying surgeons? It would appear to me that the hon. Member should take an early opportunity—
  Mr. S. WALSH: The half-timers have no union.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: My hon. Friend informs me that the half-timers have no union. I hope my hon. Friend will take a very early opportunity of studying in detail the Report from which he quoted. He said 159,413 cases of accident had taken place, and that 52,563 of them had been investigated by the certifying surgeon at a cost of £12,500—an average of four investigations for every twenty shillings. That surely is worth maintenance? I propose to give the House one or two particulars

  1487
  of these accidents. My right hon. Friend will perhaps be surprised to learn that the great number of them occurred in the cases of children between thirteen and eighteen years of gae. There were 96 fatal accidents to boys and 8 fatal accidents to girls in that category. There was the loss of the right hand or arm to 20 boys, and 6 girls, the loss of the left hand or arm to 11 boys and 4 girls, the loss of part of the right hand in the case of 434 boys, and 139 girls, and the loss of the part of the left hand in the case of 384 boys and 106 girls. There were minor injuries to 7,094 boys, and 2,315 girls. In the case of children—and for these I make a special appeal—between twelve and fourteen years of age, the certifying surgeons investigated the cases of 1,597 boys and 58 girls. Surely a total such as that suggests the need of retaining the work of the certifying surgeon! It is contended by the right hon. Gentleman—I believe he makes this a main part of his case—that the reports of the employers and the certifying surgeons are in so many cases identical. Why? For the simple reason that the employer knows that his report will be followed by that of a man with technical knowledge. That is the safeguard. Does my right hon. Friend assume that with the withdrawal of the certifying surgeons that the reports of the employers on these cases would be as they are to-day? He may assume this; I do not. The fact that the certifying surgeon is there to come later is a guarantee that you get a faithful report from the employers in these eases. It is the first check. It seems to me that the hon. Member for Oldham was not quite accurate when he talked about this being a controversial measure. There is no controversy as between the House.' It is a matter of very small controversy between the House as a whole and one of the Members for Glasgow and two hon. Members on the Front Bench.
  Mr. DENNISS: Between the House and the individual Minister.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: And the reason is this: Members think it worth while to come down to an important thing like this affecting the health and well-being of thousands of children. The sense of the House is against the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary. It appears, therefore, to me if the right hon. Gentleman is going to do the right thing on this
  1488
  occasion, he will make an outspoken pronouncement that this Section of the Bill will not be proceeded with In this time of war we have a right to ask it, and it seems to me that, with inspectors not to be appointed until the cessation of war, to do away with the certifying surgeons is a real injustice to the children particularly, and to all persons who work in factories and workshops. I, therefore, join my appeal to that already so powerfully uttered, that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he will not proceed with this Section of the Bill.
  Mr. WING: I have listened to the whole of this discussion, and certainly it has been one-sided. The general tenour of it would lead one to believe that there was only one Clause in the Bill. It is a Bill containing very many useful Clauses, but the inference you might draw from some of the preceding speeches would really indicate that the medical profession is exceptionally well represented here tonight. I only desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Bill, because it includes very many useful projects. It touches the policeman, and makes safe his pension. It does something to relieve those who meet with accidents in assisting the police in their duty, and it also deals with a matter, to which I have called the right hon. Gentleman's attention in times past, namely, that those students who have been at the various universities, studying metallurgy and mining, and have answered the patriotic call and left the country, in order to defend it, should not suffer by their patriotism. That will be welcome to a very large number of students who have been exceedingly anxious as to their position on returning from the seat of war. Personally, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill, and the many useful projects contained in it.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I may be allowed, by the leave of the House, although I have exhausted my right of speech, to say a very few words on this discussion. The character of the Debate this evening shows what is the fate of any Minister who ventures to suggest an economy. Continually we are being told that the Government is extravagant; that there is a great deal of unnecessary reporting; that officialism is too widely extended. The Government is appealed to in all the organs of the Press, and whenever there is a Debate in the House of Commons about economy in general—about economy

  1489
  with a big "E"—the Government is urged to overhaul its expenditure and see in what manner it can save the nation's money. It does so. It goes through all the various Departments and sees particulars in which money can be saved which, in the opinion of the Government, is now spent wastefully. The moment any Minister comes to the House of Commons and suggests any particular economy with a small "e," instantly some vested interest is affected. Wires are pulled, Members are circularised, individuals are urged to speak, and the impression is given that the whole House is in favour of the continuance of this expenditure. That is the position here. Of course, it is to no one's interest to get up and support the Government, and if any hon. Friend is interested in many Clauses of the Bill, and fears possibly the whole Bill may be dropped, he does support the Government. But no one has any interest in a particular economy. The view may be taken that it is only a small point costing £12,500, and why not go on wasting your money on unnecessary Reports? I consider it to be the duty of a Minister, in presenting Estimates to the House, to assure himself that the money is necessary and that the expenditure is justified on its merits, and when my attention is called to a particular expenditure which I cannot justify, which my expert advisers tell me does not result in a return which is worth the money, my duty is to go to the House of Commons and say so.
  It is of immense importance to safeguard the life and limb of the worker. We must not lessen any safeguard that exists. I am absolutely the last man in this House to propose any measure which would increase risks and lessen safeguards. If hon. Members could only see certifying surgeons' reports as I have seen whole stacks of them, they would take a different view. These reports, with few exceptions, are mere repetitions of the reports already sent in by the occupiers. They are perfectly valueless, and the Factory Department of the Home Office would not come down and say that those reports could be abolished if they had any real value in them. The hon. Member for Nottingham in a very powerful speech represented this as being a vagary, or the report of a body of bureaucrats. The Committee of 1908 did not consist of bureaucrats. I should not have made this proposal if it had come on their authority alone, and if it had not
  1490
  been the result of a prolonged and careful investigation of a Committee of an expert character. This Committee consisted of three Labour Members, amongst others, who signed a unanimous report. This is what the Committee says:
  "The Committee consider, however, that the time has come when much of this work could be dispensed with. They have come to this conclusion quite apart from any consideration of the efficiency with which the work is done. In the larger centres of population and industry the inspectorate is now so closely in touch with, the factories that investigation of accidents by the certifying surgeon has become, in most cases, superfluous. The inspector can judge from the occupier's report whether the accident should be investigated by him and the report which he receives from the certifying surgeon seldom adds anything which it is necessary for him to know. Nor does it generally dispense with the need of a visit by the inspector. If the occupier's report is not sufficiently full when first sent, the inspector returns it for further details: and if it shows either that an investigation is required, or that instructions must be given for the prevention of danger in the future, the inspector is seldom saved a visit by the fact that the certifying surgeon has visited, since the surgeon is not, generally speaking, an expert in accident risks, and has no power to give instructions to occupiers. It is only occasionally that the certifying surgeon's report contains details not given by the occupier of such a kind as to save the inspector a visit."
  Hon. Members have suggested that we propose this to the House out of sheer wantonness, and out of the desire to destroy an efficient and a valuable system of inspection. Here is the Report, signed by three Labour Members of this House, by two or three representatives of factory departments, and by Miss Mona Wilson, all experts, saying that those reports are useless.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Often useless.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Are as a rule useless. I have since discussed this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald), and with Mrs. Tennant, who was for many years the chief woman factory inspector, who has done so much in this direction, and she expressed the view that these reports were useless, and that there was no necessity to continue this expenditure.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does not that Committee go on to suggest the retention of a part of the certifying surgeons' work?
  Mr. SAMUEL: We are retaining all the work of the certifying surgeon with regard to fitness for dangerous trades and industrial poisoning. This Committee recommends that the work of certifying surgeons as to accidents might be dispensed with, and they also recommend that the certifying surgeon might still be used in special cases, and I think there is something to

  1491
  be said for that. I was greatly impressed by what the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) said as to the desirability of having special reports from the medical men where it is not a case of An accident caused by some piece of negligence, but where it is a case of septic poisoning or gassing or a case arising from some deleterious chemical substance which comes under the definition of accidents. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I had contemplated arranging for medical reports on those cases. I have been very much impressed by the tone of the Debate this evening, but I feel sure that much of what hon. Members have said has been said under a misapprehension, and if they were to see these reports they would know that they really have not the value which they attach to them. We have examined large numbers of them, and we have not made this proposal without seeing that the great majority of them are useless and a waste of money, and I cannot conscientiously ask the House to vote money which I know is wasted. I will, however, give further consideration to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. A. Williams), and other hon. Members, and I will put down an Amendment which I think will meet their views, and which I hope will meet the views of some other hon. Members, while at the same time eliminating this wasteful expenditure, and which will enable us to continue the work of the certifying surgeons in cases where it is useful to the Factory Department and for the protection of the life and
  1492
  limb of the workers. In view of all this, and in view of the fact that the Bill contains a variety of most useful Clauses which the whole House wishes to pass into law, I hope that hon. Members will reserve their judgment until the Committee stage and allow the Second Beading of this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and confirmed.

  NATIONAL INSUEANCE (PART II.—MUNITION WORKERS [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of contributions towards the: cost of benefits conferred by any Act of the present Session to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance to certain trades and employments in connection with the present War, and of any excess in the payments out of the Unemployment Fund over the receipts of that fund under such Act. (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEB, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That I this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Ten o'clock.