Commons Sitting of 6 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberdare and Aberaman Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Hornsey Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented, of Seventh Report of the Commissioners appointed to inventory the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Wales and Monmouthshire, and to specify those which seem worthy of preservation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving Particulars of Cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarters ended 30th June, 30th September, and 31st December, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Fifteenth Annual General Report of the Department for the year 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for the year 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure under the Act for the year 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONTRABAND (HERRINGS).
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the desirability of declaring herrings as contraband in order to prevent the passage of quantities of such fish through Holland to our enemies, especially such as are not caught in Dutch waters, or if he will consider if this would be more easily accomplished by extending the application of the Iceland split-cod arrangement with Denmark to include herrings and thus place Holland in the same position as the above-named?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Herrings are contraband; I am unaware of the Iceland split-cod arrangement to which the hon. Member refers, but the importance of depriving the enemy of fish supplies is thoroughly recognised and is receiving careful attention.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

    PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether on the 25th ultimo a resolution was passed by the Queenstown (County Cork) Council that they strongly protested against the acceptance of the proposals of the Minister of Munitions as constituting a betrayal of the cause of their country, for which the Irish race and its leaders had

    1635
    laboured and made sacrifices since the union; whether their protest has been conveyed to those at present negotiating a settlement of the Home Rule question on the basis of a partition of Ireland; (2) whether at a specially convened meeting of the Cork County Council, held on the 23rd ultimo, a resolution was passed protesting against the exclusion of part of Ulster from the Government of Ireland Act as unjustifiable, and only to be accepted provided the exclusion was of a temporary nature, with satisfactory fiscal provisions, and accompanied by a complete amnesty for all republican prisoners, immediate suspension of martial law, and a promise that the excluded counties be allowed no executive of their own; whether he will bring to the notice of the Cabinet this considered resolution of an official Nationalist body; (3) whether, in addition to those who had previously registered their protest, the following local authorities have expressed their disapproval of the proposed settlement of the Home Rule question: Fermanagh County Council; Castlebar, Cootehill, Bandon, Claremorris, Newry, Pembroke, Wexford, Monaghan, Milford, Listowel, Kinsale, Mullingar, Ida, Queens-town, Belmullet, and Rathkeale urban and district councils; Kenmare, Bantry, Kin-sale, Athy, Dungarvan, Cavan, Killarney, Portumna, Clonmel, Listowel, Baillie-borough, Borrisokane, and Westport boards of guardians; and the Limerick and Sligo trade and labour councils; if so, whether he will bring this fact to the knowledge of the Government; and (4) whether between 5th and 29th June more than thirty branches of the United Irish League from all parts of the country passed resolutions hostile to the proposals for a settlement of the Irish question on the lines recently formulated by the Minister of Munitions; and whether any of these resolutions have reached him and been conveyed by him to the Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The resolutions referred to have not yet been received.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he will be able to make a statement to-day, or, if not, will he say how soon, on the progress of the negotiations for a new Irish Government?
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Ulster Unionist Council, before coming to its decision thereon, were assured that the proposals of the Minister of Munitions had the unanimous approval of the Government; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Irish Nationalist Directory and to the resolution passed that the proposals of the Minister of Munitions should be accepted as the best means of carrying on the fight for a united self-governing Ireland; and, in view of this, does he still intend to go on with the proposals?
    Mr. MACMASTERasked what proposals have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the Irish leaders with a view to a settlement of the Irish; question in the interest of all concerned; and what progress has been made in connection therewith?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope to make a statement with regard to these matters on Monday next.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before my right hon. Friend makes his statement, will he consult the Liberal party with regard to the settlement?
    Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the Cabinet were unanimous about these proposals? Has he really forgotten that, too, already?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I never made any statement of the kind.
    Sir E. CARSON: As Question No. 56 affects me personally, may I say that no such statement was made to the Ulster Council?
    Mr. MACMASTER: Altogether apart from the proposals that were made to the Irish leaders, and the prospective statement which we are to hear, are there not other people in the United Kingdom apart from the two Irish leaders who are interested in knowing what proposals were submitted to the leaders?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall make the statement on Monday.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of suspects arrested in 1867 and in 1881–2,

    1637
    under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and the number of Irishmen now in gaol without trial under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: From such inquiries as it has been possible to make in the short interval since the hon. and learned Member gave notice of this question, it appears that 955 persons were arrested and detained without trial under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881, during the years 1881 and 1882. Under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Acts, 17th February and 10th August, 1866, and 26th February, 1867, and subsequent dates in the years 1867 and 1868, numerous arrests were made throughout Ireland in connection with the Fenian movement and rebellion, and according to returns presented to Parliament on the 7th May, 1867, 961 persons were arrested under these Acts from 1st February, 1866, to 1st March, 1867. I presume the last part of the question relates to the persons interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulation. The number of these is about 1,800, but very few of them are now in prison, nearly all having been moved to the internment camp at Frongoch.
    Mr. HEALY: How many were arrested altogether; was it not 3,000?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Rather over 3,000 were arrested at the time of the rebellion, but about 1,200 were released by the military authorities.
    Mr. HEALY: After the most cruel treatment.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary if Irish untried prisoners in England are debarred from getting from gaolers, under the Habeas Corpus Act, copies of the warrants under which they are held?
    Mr. SAMUEL: These prisoners are interned in pursuance of Orders made under Defence of the Realm Regulation 14B, The authority for the Order and the grounds of internment are stated both in the Order, and in the notice of it which is served upon each man.
    Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, which is whether the prisoners arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act are entitled under the Habeas Corpus Act to a copy of the warrant in accordance with the Statute?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have said that they all received one.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I want to know are they entitled to the protection of the Habeas Corpus Act?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it is not a matter of fact upon which the hon. and learned Member is inquiring but a matter of law, of course the Home Secretary is not in a position to answer.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to ask him whether, if a prisoner applies under the Habeas Corpus Act for a copy of the warrant under which he is interned, the gaoler will give him one?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If he can show there is reason to believe that he has lost the copy which has already been furnished to him. I have repeatedly told the hon. and learned Member that each man, when interned, receives a copy of the Home Secretary's order for his internment.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Are not these prisoners arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether the food supplied to the Irish prisoners at Frongoch is wholly insufficient for the healthy young countrymen; that in the south camp sleep is rendered impossible by defective ventilation, the heat of a boiler, and the constant noise of a dynamo, and that some of the prisoners could remedy these defects if permitted; that the sanitary arrangements are dangerous; that the visits allowed are too few and of too short duration, and impose needless expense on relatives coming from Ireland; that, without interfering with visits of relatives, persons appointed by committees formed for supplying comforts should be allowed to enter all the camps once a week and to ascertain the needs of all the prisoners; that the promise to admit all Irish newspapers is not yet redeemed; and, now that these prisoners are relieving the Government of much expense, whether these grievances will be redressed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have taken steps to keep myself informed as to the conditions at Frongoch. The hon. Member's allegation with regard to the supply of food is quite unfounded. The diet is identical with that supplied to military and naval prisoners of war and is amply sufficient

    1639
    to keep the prisoners in good health. The dormitory in the South Camp to which reference is made was formerly occupied by German prisoners, when it accommodated about double the present number of men. I have had this dormitory specially examined, and am informed that it is quite suitable for sleeping accommodation. The sanitary arrangements are reported to me to be excellent. With the existing staff it is impossible to increase the number of visitors or extend the time for their visits. I regret that I cannot alter the present arrangements in this respect, nor can I give authority for the visits of representatives of committees. Irish news papers are allowed in the camp. Careful consideration is given to all reasonable requests which may be made to the commandant by the representatives selected by the prisoners.
    Mr. GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the daily ration for these prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will send it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. FIELD: Is it a fact that the American Ambassador in London entered into communication with the Government, stating that that particular prison was not fit for German prisoners, and that Irish prisoners were sent there afterwards?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, with pleasure.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary if Mr. Ernest Blyth, who was deported to Abingdon and was living there quietly during the rebellion, has been interned in Brixton Prison by his order, and has been kept in solitary confinement since 10th May; why, if Frongoch Camp has been found suitable for untried Irishmen, has Mr. Blyth been isolated in Brixton Gaol; and what offence is he accused of and the date thereof?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Westmeath.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the conditions of internment of Irish Sinn Fein prisoners in this country, many of them known to be innocent, are unneces-
    1640
    sarily harsh; whether their friends, after travelling from Ireland to some remote and inaccessible camp in this country, are only allowed fifteen minutes' interview at long intervals and in the presence of warders; and, if so, whether these military restrictions can now be relaxed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The conditions in which these persons are interned have been carefully devised so as to avoid all unnecessary harshness. I regret that I cannot, owing to the exigencies of staff, increase the facilities for visits from friends.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary whether he was aware, when he stated that no untried Irish prisoners were kept in solitary confinement, of the case of Conor Deere, of Goolds Cross, kept isolated in Wakefield Prison by War Office Order of 29th May, although this man had no connection with the rebellion; and will he investigate the treatment meted out to other innocent men in Knutsford Prison, such as Dr. Dundon and Frank Healy, barrister-at-law?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the military authorities that these persons were not kept in solitary confinement. They were allowed to exercise out of doors from the first; and, after a few days, as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made, they were placed in association with other prisoners of the same class and allowed to receive visitors.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Home Secretary if interned alien enemies' visits are limited to a quarter of an hour, as in the case of the Irish subjects of His Majesty unaccused of crime; is any internment camp for Germans so inconveniently situated for visitors as Frongoch; and why was it not selected for alien enemies instead of for Irishmen?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. Visits to interned alien enemies are limited to a quarter of an hour. Several internment camps for Germans are, I should say, at least as inconveniently situated for visitors as Frongoch, while those in the Isle of Man, which contain over two-thirds of the whole number of interned enemy subjects, are certainly much more so. Frongoch was used for a long time for German prisoners.
    Mr. HEALY: Why was not Frongoch good enough for Germans?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is not a question of its not being good enough. The War

    1641
    Office made arrangements which enabled that camp to be allocated for the internment of Irish prisoners.
    Mr. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ventilation of that particular place where the Irish prisoners are kept is most unhealthy and unsatisfactory?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not my information.
    Mr. HEALY: Had the United States officer who visited Frongoch Prison anything to say to the fact that this prison was no longer considered suitable to Germans?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not that I am aware of, but I will make inquiry. I did not know there was any report.
    Mr. CREAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no sidelights in the place where they are kept?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question. It is a question of site.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will grant power to the Advisory Committee dealing with Irish prisoners to reopen and examine the evidence and adjudicate on the cases of all the Irish prisoners who were tried by court-martial and sentenced to terms of imprisonment from six months to life sentences?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot adopt this suggestion.
    Mr. BYRNE: Have the Government anything to fear from holding an impartial inquiry?
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will give a day to discuss the arrest and the detention without trial of the Irish prisoners; and if he can say when they are likely to be released?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not aware of any general desire for such a discussion. With regard to the last part of the question, the decisions of the Advisory Committee will be forwarded to the Home Secretary as soon as possible.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that three months is sufficient time for considering the case of these five ladies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that they have already been very carefully considered.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the victims of pneumonia among the Irish prisoners of war at Wakefield belonged to the party imprisoned at Kilmainham, three in each cell, with no bed or bedding, not even a plank, nothing to lie or sit upon except one blanket on the flagged floor, from Thursday, 27th April till Friday, 5th May; whether they were brought on 5th May to Richmond Barracks, and a party of about 360 prisoners lined up in the barrack square and kept standing there in heavy rain without overcoats, many without any coats or boots, as they had been dragged from their homes at dead of night, and were wet through before the guard was ready to start; whether they were then marched to North Wall and put on board an un-cleaned cattle boat for Holyhead, and crammed into an inadequate train for Wakefield; whether in consequence of this treatment in wet clothes many were ill, but received no medical attention; on what dates the sickness of those who have died was first admitted; on what dates they died; whether a priest was allowed to attend them; and whether inquests were held?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Only one case of pneumonia occurred amongst the Irish prisoners at Wakefield. A priest was present with the man during his illness and an inquest was held. Arrangements were made for the presence of his mother and sister at the funeral. As regards the rest of the question, I can only repeat what I have previously stated, that the prisoners whilst in Dublin were treated with every consideration consistent with the conditions existing at the time, but it is not possible entirely to eliminate hardship when a considerable number of prisoners have to be provided for hurriedly.
    Major NEWMAN: Are those who fought for the Irish Republic now recognised as prisoners of war?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise. It is only put to irritate.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has inquired into the state of health of

    1643
    Alexander Skedd, at present in Barlinnie prison; and whether he is being fed on bread and water?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have previously stated on more than one occasion, I cannot undertake to make inquiries into the particulars as to whereabouts, conduct or treatment of individual soldiers, unless there be valid cause to fear that there has been any irregularity in the action of the military authorities. As no cause to fear anything of the kind is disclosed in this question I see no reason to call for a report.
    Mr. HOGGE: As the name of the soldier is given in the question, and the reason of my asking is given in the question, and as the right hon. Gentleman sees no reason to make any inquiry, as suggested in the question, I will raise the subject on the Adjournment.

    LADY PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary when the Irish lady prisoners are likely to be released?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The cases of these ladies are now under the consideration of the Advisory Committee. I have not yet received any recommendation, but I have no doubt they will deal with these cases as speedily as they can.
    Mr. BYRNE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the recommendations?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say definitely. The Committee is responsible for its own procedure. I hope I shall receive recommendations in this case very soon.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ladies are already three months in confinement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

    GAELIC LEAGUE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, seeing that the objects of the Gaelic League have always been such non-political objects as the revival of the Irish language, literature, music, and industries, and that it has done excellent work in all these departments and has never been accused of illegality, whether he concurs in the use now being made of political disturbance to destroy this league and defeat those objects by arresting and keeping in internment its principal officers, Messrs. Sean T. O'Kelly, Padraig O'Maile,
    1644
    and Peadar O'Hourihane; whether the evidence on which the latter was about to be tried comprised that of Head-constable Hennessy, representing Mr. O'Hourihane as at a certain place at a specified time, and that of Constable Lyons, representing Mr. O'Hourihane as at a different and distant place at the same time; whether, in consequence of inability to sustain any charge, the court-martial to which Mr. O'Hourihane has been summoned had to be abandoned; and, there being now no charge against any of these gentlemen, whether he will by releasing them avoid the odium of destroying the Gaelic League and its work?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The cases of the prisoners referred to are under the consideration of the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Prime Minister under what provision of martial law did the Cork county inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, prohibit at the annual Mallow show, held last week on the festival of St. Peter and St. Paul, the competition amongst children in the local schools in Gaelic speaking, singing, and dancing; is he aware that the suppression of this attraction caused much financial loss to the managers of the show by robbing it of a most popular feature; had the suppression any connection with the attendance of a military band at the show; was the county inspector authorised by Sir John Maxwell to take this action; and, if not, as this is the same official who forbade the Gaelic dances at the Coach-ford show, will he be rebuked and ordered to pay compensation for the less he has caused?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that a Gaelic feis, advertised to be held in conjunction with Mallow Agricultural Show, was withdrawn from the programme by the committee on receipt of an intimation from the county inspector that he would not allow it to be held. The authority for this action was a proclamation of General Sir John Maxwell, of the 11th May. The feis was not confined to children, and the step was taken with a view to preventing demonstrations which the county inspector had reason to think might take place. I have no information to the effect that the action of the county inspector caused any financial loss to the show. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. HEALY: So the Government approve of the action of the police in putting a stop to these innocent amusements?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no reason to think that the action taken was unnecessary.

    MR. HARREL.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he is still unwilling to make amends to Mr. Harrel for his dismissal from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police in Dublin by the late Chief Secretary, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on the rebellion in Ireland, from which it appears that the dismissal of Mr. Harrel was one of the events which led to the rebellion, the chief responsibility for which is attributed to the late Chief Secretary, who dismissed him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answers I gave my hon. Friend on the 27th June on this matter.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the decision known to the House as soon as possible?
    Mr. HEALY: Was not Mr. Harrel given as compensation a very important and lucrative post in the Admiralty?
    Sir E. CARSON: That is only a temporary post.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was this gentleman dismissed owing to the finding of the Royal Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His conduct was censored.

    MARTIAL LAW.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of good feeling between the two countries, he will consider the advisability of putting an end to martial law in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on the 26th June.

    CONDITION OF WOUNDED.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the result of his inquiry with reference to Messrs. Lemass and Manning, left lying wounded in a courtyard in the Custom House, Dublin, for three days of the insurrection,
    1646
    thereby complicating their neglected wounds with other sickness; whether they have died or are recovering; and what the intention of the Government is with regard to them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether the facts are as stated. Inquiries are being made, and in the meantime I must regard the hon. Gentleman's suggestions as merely allegations.

    FUNERALS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of funerals from Dublin to Glasnevin, after the suppression of the insurrection, which even the nearest relatives were not allowed to accompany, with the official reason for this prevention; the number of coffins burst open on the way by the military and police, with the official reason for this desecration; whether anything was found in any of the coffins to justify this interference; and, in view of the Irish feeling that the dead should be inviolable, will he say who was responsible for what was regarded as a violation of the dead and an outrage on the living?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 16th May. I cannot state the number of such funerals. As I have said, the purpose of opening coffins was identification.
    Mr. GINNELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the particulars asked for in the question, so that I may not repeat the question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information in my possession.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not propose to inquire? I will repeat this question.

    PROPERTY OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities administering martial law in Ireland have yet allowed any civil investigation of the picking of pockets of prisoners and of the persons shot and buried surreptitiously, and of the looting done in houses under pretext of searching them; whether property so acquired, including table linen and ladies' dresses used to carry smaller articles, is deemed to belong to the individual soldier taking it; whether the property so taken from the houses of Madame O'Rahilly and

    1647
    Countess Plunkett has yet been restored; and whether the soldiers who took the property are being detained in Dublin for a public civil inquiry into such matters?
    Mr. TENNANT: Inquiry will be made, but in the meantime I must not be taken as accepting as correct the allegations contained in the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will it be an inquiry by a civil authority as distinguished from a military authority?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. All our investigations are made by the military authorities.
    Mr. GINNELL: The accused persons!

    ERNEST CAVANAGH.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether, pending the production of evidence on the part of the friends of Ernest Cavanagh, he will have inquiries instituted in Dublin so that the circumstances in which this young man met his death while unarmed and peaceful on 25th April may be ascertained as completely as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain two or three points, one being that this young man was unarmed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of those points on the Paper.

    MACLEAN PUBLISHING COMPANY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a printed document sent by post from the Maclean Publishing Company to every Peer and Member of the House of Commons; whether this document by its accusations against members of the Cabinet is calculated to create disaffection and prejudice recruiting among disloyal subjects of His Majesty; whether this document was passed by the Censor; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have seen the printed slip referred to, but I do not think it necessary to take any action.

    ALIENS' IDENTITY BOOKS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet considered the question of discriminating in the matter of identity books issued to registered aliens between neutral aliens and allied aliens; and if he will now provide a special form of identity book for issue to aliens of allied nationality who may be personally known to the authorities as completely trustworthy?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension as to the nature of an identity book. The very object of the book is to discriminate by the description it contains between one person and another. The alien of allied nationality is shown by the contents of his book to be of that nationality, and provision is made in the book for the insertion of all useful particulars.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the system prevailing at present distinguished gentlemen who are perfectly trustworthy have received very undesirable treatment; and has his attention been called to the treatment of M. Alexandre Livenntaal, who was arrested at Brighton and taken to Lewes?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think that gentleman was a British subject.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS (PAY).
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a number of women hands employed at a certain Government-controlled factory in the Woolwich area recently left this factory and, without disclosing their previous service, were enrolled at Woolwich Arsenal in various capacities; and that, a complaint having been received by the Ministry of Munitions, these hands were traced and discharged from the Arsenal; whether he is aware that a number of these hands were subsequently enrolled under assumed names; whether he is aware that such desertion and subsequent re-entry was due to the rate of pay at the one place being much smaller than at the other for exactly similar work; and whether, in view of the hardship suffered by some of these dismissed hands and in view of many other similar instances, steps can be taken to standardise

    1649
    the rates of pay on both piece and day work as between the Arsenal and controlled firms in the Woolwich area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The answer to the first and second parts of this question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the third and fourth parts. I do not think the suggestion made in the last part of the question would be practicable, or, if practicable, would achieve the object which the hon. Member has in view, since differences of earnings in this case are due not so much to differences in rates of pay as to differences in the hours worked. There are also other differences of conditions.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions what is the basis for fixing the day-work rating of women hands at Wool-wich Arsenal on entry for those whose ages range from sixteen years to twenty-one years, respectively, at date of entry?
    Dr. ADDISON: The day-work ratings of women and girls at entry are as follows:—

    Over eighteen years of age, £l a week;

    From seventeen to eighteen years of age, 15s. to 17s. 6d. a week;

    From fifteen to seventeen years of age,10s. to 15s. a week.

    Mr. INGLEBY: Are those payments adhered to irrespective of ability?
    Dr. ADDISON: Persons who are there being employed received the rate. If they are not worth being employed they are dismissed.
    Mr. INGLEBY: If they have conspicuous ability?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is nothing to prevent a person getting more.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that the day-work rating of a woman of twenty-five on entry is 20s. per forty-eight hours, and for a man of the same age 31s. or more; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that both may be working on the same class of piece work at the same rate of remuneration and doing the same amount of work, the actual wage earned by the woman is substantially less than that of the man, owing to the overtime bonus in each case being calculated on the day-work rating; and whether he will cause an equitable adjustment to be made, so that the rates of pay for overtime on piece-work may be the same in both cases?
    Dr. ADDISON: The basing of overtime allowances upon the day-work rates is in accordance with the Order made by the Minister of Munitions under Section 6 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, relative to the employment and remuneration of women on work which, before the War was not recognised as women's work. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this Order, which embodies the recommendations of the Munitions Labour Supply Committee generally known as Circular L 2.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the rate of pay at Woolwich Arsenal is based largely, especially in day-work and occupation ratings, on the age of the worker, irrespective of his ability, so that two-men, one just under and one just over twenty-one years, doing similar work in the same factory and in all respects equal in resulting values, receive substantially different rates and amounts of pay; and whether this was the ground in the C.F. 5 factory for shop No. 16,421 receiving an increase and subsequent reduction in his rating, and for the recovery, by reduction of part of his subsequent weekly earnings, of the sum of £12 17s. 6d.?
    Dr. ADDISON: In the case of male employés full adult rate of day-work pay is not usually given until the employé has reached the age of twenty-one, and, in the case of tradesmen, has also attained full proficiency in his trade. "Occupation rate," being in lieu of piece-work, does not depend upon age, but upon the class of work. In the case in C.F. 5 referred to, the facts are as stated in the question, the man having misrepresented his age for the purpose of obtaining an increased rating.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked whether a large percentage of staff clerks, shop managers, assistant managers, and principal and assistant foremen now employed at Woolwich Arsenal are of military age; if so, whether there would be any difficulty in replacing them by men of non-military age; and how many of these men of military age have been engaged between 4th August and 31st December, 1915, and from 1st January, 1916, to the present time?
    Dr. ADDISON: Two hundred and twenty members of the managing staff, as defined in the question, being 34 per cent, of the total members, are men of military age. Of these fifty-nine were engaged between 4th August and 31st December,

    1651
    1915, and nine since 1st January, 1916. The question of replacing men of military age by women or men unfit for military service at Woolwich has been and is being fully considered. There would, however, be very considerable difficulty in doing so in the case of the officers in question.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the rates of pay to writers on entry in the wages and other departments of the Arsenal were until recently below that of ordinary labourers in the Arsenal; whether, under existing rates of remuneration, such writers, before receiving pay for normal overtime, must work six hours per week without any remuneration; if so, what justification there is for this arrangement; whether the war bonus granted to the labourers and other grades of workmen in the Arsenal has been refused to these writers; whether he is aware that six months ago or thereabouts the secretary of the National Union of Clerks requested that this matter might be referred to arbitration, and that although repeated efforts have been made to obtain a hearing in this matter they have so far met with no success; and whether he will arrange for the reference to take place without further delay?
    Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, the rates of pay of the male writers in the Royal Ordnance factories are fixed to cover a weekly attendance up to forty-eight hours if required, after which overtime pay at the rate of time and a half is allowed. The lowest weekly rate at present paid to these writers is 31s. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on 29th June by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the varying rates of pay in the different Departments of Woolwich Arsenal have, for a long time past, caused and are still causing a condition of unrest among the hands; and whether, with a view to a substantial increase in the output, he will take steps to remove the cause of the unrest?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have no information to suggest that there are unreasonable variations in the rates of pay or unrest arising therefrom in Woolwich, and will
    1652
    be glad to consider any information on the subject which the hon. Member can supply.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: whether there has been a substantial increase in the output?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member will know that that involves a careful analysis. There has been a very large increase of output, but I do not think I can give an absolute answer.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (WOMEN WORKERS).
    Mr. INGLEBYasked whether, in view of the drop in the output of munitions owing to the Easter holidays, an explanation can be furnished for the temporary suspension from Tuesday, 9th May, to Friday, 12th May, of some hundreds of women hands in the new Q.F.C.F. 4 factory at Woolwich Arsenal, notwithstanding that the factory was actually completed and ready for work prior to the Tuesday; and whether the said hands were paid for their attendance on Monday, 8th May, although no work was actually done?
    Dr. ADDISON: About 250 workpeople were brought in on Monday, 8th May, for preparatory work, with a view to starting output as soon as possible in this new factory. It was found, however, that the presence of contractor's workmen interfered with the carrying out of the danger building precautions, and the workpeople were therefore suspended from midday Tuesday, the 9th, until the following Friday morning. They were, of course, paid for the time of their attendance.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions whether the proposals of the Central Control Board to purchase licensed houses, breweries, etc., can be postponed until such a time that the electors of the United Kingdom are allowed to vote and express their opinions as to whether they consent that public moneys shall be utilised for such undertakings?
    Dr. ADDISON: A postponement of these proposals for the period suggested by the hon. Member would be totally inconsistent with the purpose for which the Control Board was established under the I authority of the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. FABER: Before the State becomes brewer and publican, will the opinion of Parliament be taken?
    Dr. ADDISON: All I can say is that the Board is empowered to do these things by Act of Parliament.
    Mr. WATT: When this Board was first appointed was it intended that they should purchase public - houses and breweries?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what was intended, but I know that powers were conferred on the Board by Act of Parliament.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate and see what was said as to the intention?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not think I need do that. What we are acting under is what is contained in the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that better beer is supplied in these public-houses?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand that we are not to attach any importance to statements made by Cabinet Ministers when Bills are proceeding through this House?
    Dr. ADDISON: No doubt we attach great importance to them. This Board is operating under an Act of Parliament, and their operations are governed by Act of Parliament and not by what is said in the House.

    LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE."
    Mr. PETOasked the Home Secretary whether the sub-manager of the Russian Bank for Foreign Trade in London is Mr. Alexander Szilagyi, who is an unnaturalised Hungarian and has been six years in London; whether Mr. Szilagyi holds the procuration of the bank; whether another employé is a man named G. Schneider, who is an unnaturalised German, and whether the documents relating to shipments of munitions of war to Russia passed through his hands; whether, subsequent to the loss of His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" and the death of Lord Kitchener, this man was
    1654
    removed to another department of the bank; whether a third employé of the bank is a brother of Mr. Szilagyi; and whether he proposes to take any steps in this matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The facts with regard to the employment of the three persons referred to are as stated. The two Hungarians have been exempted from internment, and Schneider from repatriation, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. In the case of the former strong representations were made by the Russian Embassy as to their being indispensable to the bank, while Schneider was exempted in consideration of a bond given by the bank, and in view of the facts that he has resided here for over twenty-five years, has an English wife, and was favourably reported on. I am informed by the bank that in the course of his work Schneider may have handled documents relating to certain shipments to Russia of articles required for the production of munitions, but that there is no connection between this circumstance and the recent change in his work, and there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the handling of these documents by Schneider had or could have had any connection with the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire."

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to resolutions passed unanimously by various public bodies in county Clare, including the county council, expressing the hope that the salaries of national teachers would be paid monthly and that a war bonus should be granted to the teachers; and whether, in view of the fact that while prices have gone up in regard to all requirements of life the salaries have remained at their former low level, he will take steps to have effect given to the resolutions of these public bodies acquainted with local conditions?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that resolutions have been passed in the sense referred to, but regret that I am not able to add anything to the replies given on the 1st March last by the late Chief Secretary to questions on this subject by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford.
    Sir E. CARSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever looked into the question of paying these national teachers monthly?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I have inquired into the question, but there are great financial difficulties in making a change which would involve making twelve monthly payments in one year. At present the Treasury cannot see their way.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to entertain a very reasonable proposition on the part of the teachers, namely, to grant the concession simply for the current three months?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that would satisfy the teachers.
    Mr. LYNCH: If it would satisfy them, would he consider that very reasonable proposition?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understand various attempts have been made to come to an agreement with the representatives of the teachers, but not, so far, successfully. If the hon. Member will send me any communication he is in a position to make on behalf of the teachers, I assure him it will be considered.

    REAFFORESTATION (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now prepared to finance the replanting of trees in Scotland where the woods have been purchased by the Government?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The question of the steps to be taken to preserve and increase the timber supply of this country is under the consideration of the Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet.
    Mr. WATT: Have not the Treasury already given their sanction for replanting in Ireland?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Reconstruction Committee of the Cabinet dealing with this matter itself or through another body?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It is not dealing with the matter itself, but is conducting inquiries through another organisation.

    FERRY SERVICE (CAITHNESS AND ORKNEY).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General (1) if, in considering a revision of the mail contract between Caithness and Orkney, he will take into consideration the fact that soldiers and sailors on leave for a few days will be practically debarred from visiting their homes; and (2) if he is aware that the services of the ferry boat between Caithness and Orkney have been shortened approximately by one-half, that prior to the War the service occupied between forty and fifty hours weekly, and that the present curtailed service will only occupy about eighteen hours weekly; and will he say whether the North of Scotland Company are demanding in respect of the eighteen hours' service the same subsidy received for the service occupying between forty and fifty?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): The question of the remuneration to be paid to the shipping company for the reduced mail service between the mainland and Orkney and the various suggestions of the hon. Member are under my careful consideration, and I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member in regard to the matter before any final decision is taken.
    Mr. WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very sympathetic attitude of the Admiralty towards this question, and will he take them into his counsel?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes. I shall be very glad to do so.

    WAR CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in many post offices, particularly in London, delay and inconvenience are caused by the present method of conducting war certificate business; and if he will consider whether any special arrangements can be made whereby the sale of such certificates can be carried on with due regard to the convenience of the purchasers and the officials and without interference with the ordinary work of such offices?
    Mr. PEASE: As I explained in my speech on the Post Office Estimates last Monday, the arrangements for the sale of War Savings Certificates at present in

    1657
    operation are, generally speaking, the best possible having regard to the depleted condition of the staff and the very varied nature of the business transacted at post-office counters. It is not practicable, owing to considerations of space and staff, to assign the War Savings Certificate business to particular officers as their sole duty.

    GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if it will be possible to reduce the premiums of air-raid reinsurance?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): As stated, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Blackburn on 24th May, the aircraft insurance scheme, which came into operation in July last, has at present money in hand, but that position may change at any moment. It is not proposed to increase the rates, but it would not be wise to reduce them.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the War Risks Insurance Committee do not allow those who are insured the usual month, which is allowed by other insurance companies, to renew their premiums?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of the question; it does not arise out of this.

    AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a quantity of quarters of beef was marketed this week by the American beef companies; if he will say whether this was imported from our colonies in Canada; whether he is aware that this beef was slaughtered at St. Johns on the 6th February last, slaughtering certificate taken from quarter of beef pur1 chased in Smithfield on Tuesday this week attached, and was therefore lying held up in a cold store seven or eight days' voyage from Liverpool during the whole period which prices were being screwed up in this country; and whether he will explain who was to blame for a state of affairs like this?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Small quantities of frozen and chilled meat are from time to time brought from Canada and the United States to the United Kingdom. They are imported and sold on private account, and I am not acquainted with the circumstances in which they are bought. I am unable to say whether the retention of the meat to which my hon. Friend refers in cold store in Canada was due to a shortage of insulated tonnage or to the motive which he suggests. The Board of Trade have for some time been anxious to resume their purchases of full cargoes of Canadian beef, but the prices at which tenders have been made have not been satisfactory.
    Mr. THORNE: If I hand the right hon. Gentleman this slaughter ticket, will he consider the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes.

    BRITISH DYES.
    Mr. HOLTasked whether the plant of the British manufacturers of dyes is now being so used as to secure the maximum output of dyes or whether any part of it is being diverted to the production of other articles, such as munitions of war; and, if so, to what extent the output of dyes is less than the maximum of which the plant is capable?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It has been found necessary to utilise part of the plant of some of the makers of dye-stuffs for the manufacture of explosives, and the output of the remaining dye-making plant in existence has been adversely affected by the shortage of materials. It is not possible for me to give the exact data asked for by my hon. Friend, but he will be glad to learn that the production of dye-stuffs in this country has made very substantial progress since the commencement of the War.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why a firm named Grime Nattalis, of 38, Deans-gate, Manchester, is still being allowed to do business and compete with British firms, in view of the fact that it is entirely German, that the manager is a German, by name Muller, and that the firm is still making money and having their name and business kept before the public till the War is over?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am asking the Advisory Committee to consider the case

    1659
    referred to and advise the Board of Trade whether an order should be made requiring the business to be wound up.

    WAR RISKS (INSURANCE CLUBS).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the registration of a new company known as the Excess Values (Liverpool and London) War Risks Insurance Association, Limited; whether this company is to be regarded as part and parcel of the Government scheme of insurance of merchant vessels against war risks, or whether, seeing that it proposes to cover every description of marine loss or risk, it is a form of private enterprise of leading shipowners in connection with the Government scheme; and, if otherwise, will he state the exact reasons for the formation of this new company?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The association referred to was formed with the full knowledge and consent of the Board of Trade for the purpose of insuring against war risks values in excess of those covered by the Government insurance scheme. It is not part of the Government scheme, but is worked in connection with it. The other War Risks Clubs have for a long time had arrangements for insuring these excess values on a mutual basis.

    CANADIAN TIMBERMEN.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say how many Canadian timber fellers are working in this country; whether they are employed by the Government or are their services available to private owners of timber; whether the Government is prepared to buy timber from private owners; and, if so, what class of timber?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The Canadian timbermen constitute a military unit—the 224th Canadian (Forestry) Battalion. There are 1,600 officers and men in this country. They are employed solely upon Government work, and their services cannot be made available for private persons. Offers of timber by private owners should be made to the Home-grown Timber Committee, 4,
    1660
    The Sanctuary, Westminster, who are prepared to consider the purchase of large lots of 40,000 or 50,000 cubic feet and upwards of either softwoods or hardwoods. The Committee are also prepared to purchase converted timber from private owners in smaller lots.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable dissatisfaction prevails among the Canadian, timber fellers at Virginia Water owing to-the terms they have received?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have not heard of that. It rather surprises me. I will look into it at once.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RELIEF FIIOM RATES.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Boards whether, seeing no relief from rates is granted to business men who have been, called to the Army in respect to their business premises where they have been, unable to close their premises and remove their stock prior to their joining the Colours, he will take steps to see that relief from rates is granted in such cases where these men have been unable to remove their stock; or will he communicate with the local authorities giving them a discretionary pow7er in these cases to forego the rates on such premises if they think fit to do so?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Rates form one of the obligations in respect of which relief may be claimed from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Committee, and I think this is the proper way of dealing with cases such as those to which the hon. Baronet refers. My right hon. Friend has no power to direct or authorise local authorities to forego the demand for rates.

    CIVIL SEKVANTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, considering that the Military Service Act is now in force, His Majesty's Government will reconsider the decision come to at the commencement of the War under which all Civil servants who joined the Army were to lose nothing by doing so, so that men of military age in Government Departments may now be

    1661
    enabled to join the Army on the same terms as other men and at less expense to the State?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think it would be equitable to reconsider the decision at the present time.
    Colonel YATE: Will nothing be done to facilitate the Civil servants of the State being permitted to join the Colours? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that nothing will do the permanent Civil servants more good than a time in the trenches?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have not yet met any Civil servants who are reluctant to go. On the contrary, most Civil servants are clamouring to be allowed to go, and all Civil servants are allowed to go who can be spared from their work. The system to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was inaugurated at the beginning of the War, and was followed by a large number of private employers. It would be most unjust to abolish it.
    Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole system has been altered?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that there are others besides himself who want to ask questions.

    OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the nature of the orders that have been given to the effect that in future no attempt is to be made to enforce obedience by means of physical violence; whether any Regulation has been issued on the subject; and whether commanding officers have been warned that when a man represents that his disobedience to orders is due to a conscientious objection to military service he must forthwith be brought before a district court-martial for trial?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member does not possibly realise, although I stated it, that in reply to his question of the 4th July I read the report of the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Western Command, and that the last paragraph of the report contained a statement as to the orders which had been issued by him. The nature of the orders seems to me perfectly clear. The Regulations in regard to the powers of a Commanding Officer in disposing summarily of offences under the Army Act will be found in paragraph 487
    1662
    of the King's Regulations, and the hon. Member will see that an offence which, falls within Section 9 (1) of the Army Act cannot be summarily disposed of by a Commanding Officer. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, Commanding Officers have not been so warned, as the suggestion introduced by the hon. Member is not contemplated by Section 46 (8) of the Army Act, and it is therefore not possible to give effect thereto. But the effect desired can be produced by the soldier himself exercising his statutory right of demanding a court-martial under-Section 46 (8) of the Army Act.
    Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that the reply given the other day applies only to the particular case, and that it is still open to officers of other regiments to-enforce obedience by physical violence?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, no!
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will arrangements be made for similar instructions to be issued—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are many questions still to be got through.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the result of his inquiries into the-treatment of Frank Ward, a conscientious objector to military service, at Chelmsford Barracks; and whether any steps have been taken to deal with his case under the-Army Order X., of 25th May, 1916?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. I have now received a report. The allegation that he has been subjected to ill-treatment at the Chelmsford Detention Barrack is unfounded. Neither he nor any man has-been bound with ropes and dragged along the ground. On one occasion Ward refused to drill and, flinging himself upon the parade ground, declined to stand up or move. He was consequently removed, but no violence was used As regards the allegation that he had to be moved to hospital in consequence of his ill-treatment, I am informed that the only hospital treatment that Ward has received was for a blistered heel caused by an ill-fitting boot. Ward has made no complaint either to the Commandant on his daily inspection or to the detention barrack weekly visitor. Conscientious objectors are not treated at this detention barrack differently from any other soldiers. If they break the rules

    1663
    or disobey orders they are necessarily admonished or punished, but the punishments inflicted are in strict accordance with the King's Regulations. I think this is another case where my hon. Friend's warm heart has triumphed over his cool head, or he would not have been led into describing as persecution action which was perfectly proper.

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department has made any arrangement whereby time-expired soldiers, who under the last Military Service Act, will be required to re-enlist, will be given posts as drill instructors or in the Army Pay Corps where they have the necessary training; and, if so, will he say how these men are expected to set about applying for such posts?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Instructions on this point, which are too voluminous to be read out in this House and possibly not of sufficient general interest.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if on re-enlistment time-expired men are entitled to a bounty; and, if so, what; and whether they are also entitled to a month's furlough in addition to the same rank as on retirement?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refe6r my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentford on the 27th June as regards bounty and furlough. As regards rank these men will be given the substantive rank which they held on discharge.

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the men of the National Reserve who joined up at the outbreak of war for one year, or for a second year if the War still continued, will, on the termination of their two years' service, if not yet forty-one years of age, be kept on and come under the same conditions as the regular soldier, and be entitled to a bounty and furlough on completing their two years' service at the Front?
    Mr. FORSTER: I much regret that I am not yet in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question. I will write to him shortly.

    ROAD AUTHORITIES (FINANCE).
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board ' what is the amount of money now in the hands of the Road Board, other than the sum advanced on loan to road authorities; and will he cause money from the fund to be handed over to road authorities for the repair of damage caused by military traffic consequent on the War?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The amount in the Board's hands is a6bout £3,800,000, but this sum does not represent the free balance now available for new schemes, as substantial Grants out of it have already been promised to local authorities. In so far as payments are due from public funds in respect of military damage to roads, they will be made from Army funds, and not from the Road Improvement Fund, and such payments have already been sanctioned to the extent of £770,000.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the sanction of Parliament is required for any alterations contemplated in the system of distributing prize money and that the Bill will have to be of a restrospective character covering the past twenty-two months of the War, he can now state when the Bill will be introduced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. It is impossible to name a date. The preparation of the Bill is being pressed forward with all dispatch, but the points involved are numerous and intricate and require very careful consideration. Of course, all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that legislative authority is secured in good time for executive action without delay when the proper time arrives.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that great injustice is being inflicted on the Royal Navy by delay with this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot admit that. If the House wished to revert to the old system of paying the prize money to the actual captor there would be no prejudice as regards private bounty. I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that one payment has been made and that others are in progress.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will care be taken that this Prize Money Bill is introduced at a period of the Session which will enable us adequately to discuss it?
    Sir E. CARSON: Were we not promised this Bill more than a year ago?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think that that is very likely. The promise, I believe, was that it would be done as soon as possible, but no one knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman that with the new proposal and the conditions of modern warfare the matter is very involved.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet even appointed a Committee to inquire into this complicated question, and, if not, will he do so at once?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question just asked is to some extent an answer to the points that have been raised. We have all been at work discussing these various points that have arisen.
    Sir E. CARSON: Was the matter gone into before the old system was abolished?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
    Sir E. CARSON: That is two years ago.

    DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Government have come to a decision as to the further extension of the life of this Parliament; and (2) whether he is able to make his promised announcement with regard to the registration of electors; and whether the Government have come to a decision as to the exercise of the franchise by qualified electors at present abroad with the Forces?
    Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister if he proposes to give a day for the discussion of the Motion, relating to Parliamentary Registration and Franchise, on the Order Book standing in the name of the Member for Dublin University?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot yet make a statement on this matter, but it is engaging the attention of the Cabinet. I hope to announce the decision of the Cabinet in the course of a few days, and will then, if it is desired, give an early opportunity for the discussion of the matter.

    GRAIN PRODUCTS (EXPORT).
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any of the by-products of wheat or of any other grain are now allowed to be exported from Great Britain or Ireland?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a marked copy of the Proclamation of the 10th May, from which he will see as regards each by-product whether its export is totally prohibited or allowed to British possessions or Allied countries. The details are too long to give in an answer. Licences to export to prohibited destinations may be given, but this is done only in very exceptional cases.

    WAR LOAN COUPONS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chanceller of the Exchequer whether arrangements have now been made whereby War Loan coupons can be cashed on presentation at any bank office in Scotland without commission, charge, or delay?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that the Scottish bankers have informed me that in future they will make no charge for the collection of coupons on bonds of British Government war issues. As regards delay, it is essential that coupons should be submitted to examination before being cashed, and this necessarily involves an interval of a few days between presentation and encashment. Holders would benefit themselves and help the authorities responsible for cashing coupons if they would make a point of presenting the coupons a few days before the date on which they actually fall due.

    ADMIRALTY ORDERS (COMMISSION).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a representation recently made to the Ministry of Munitions to the effect that a commission agent in London holding a contract with manufacturers entitling him to a commission on ordinary London orders had received, or was about to receive, between £5,000 and* £10,000 of commission in respect of Admiralty orders for war purposes; whether

    1667
    in this case it is immat he principals whether this com paid or not, they being a contr shment; whether any power vested in either the Treasury or the Ministry of Munitions to limit the extent to which the taxpayer can be accidentally saddled with commissions of this kind on goods bought with public money for the public service in connection with the War; whether these principals are liable for both munitions levy and Excess Duty; whether the agent is under liability for Excess Duty in respect of this windfall; and, if not, on what ground such exemption is granted?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Ministry of Munitions became aware in November last of a case of the kind indicated in the question. Under Rule 4 of the Munitions (Limitation of Profits) Rules, 1915, only proper expenses are allowed for the purpose of calculating excess profits, and the owners of the controlled establishment in question were warned that it was very doubtful if such a payment as that referred to would be allowed. I may add that contracts made by the Ministry of Munitions now include a stringent provision requiring the disclosure of any commissions proposed to be paid in connection with contracts or subcontracts on pain of cancellation of the contract. Under the Finance Bill, controlled establishments will, in effect, be liable for the munitions levy or Excess Profits Duty, whichever is the greater. As to the last part of the question, I am informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that under Section 39 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, an excess profit received by an agent in the circumstances suggested would be chargeable with Excess Profits Duty.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any truth in the statement that the Government are being sued in this matter?

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great difficulty experienced by many people in the country who hold stocks in the names of stockbrokers and bankers in getting back from his Department the Income Tax payments deducted at
    1668
    the source on the dividends of such stocks; whether he is aware that such dividends seldom since the War pay interest on the loans against them, and that there is therefore no profit on 4e stock on which Income Tax is exigible; and whether he will facilitate repayment in such cases?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that every effort is being made to accelerate the repayment of Income Tax authorised by law.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Why should Members of Parliament have preference for their constituents who bring cases for these repayments?
    Mr. McKENNA: Anybody who brings forward a special case will have the matter inquired into at once.
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an annual allowance paid to an officer for the loss of a limb which loss decreases his earning power is, for the purposes of Income Tax, earned?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative.

    GERMAN PRISONERS.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any representatives of British philanthropic societies are officially allowed to visit or supply food and comforts to German prisoner camps in Great Britain; and will he give the names of such societies and their representatives, the amount of money, and the approximate cash value of food supplied by them during the past twelve months?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certain members of the "Emergency Committee for the assistance of Germans, Austrians and Hungarians in distress, "which is "convened by the Religious Society of Friends," have been permitted to visit internment camps in this country. Mrs. Anna Braithwaite Thomas and Mr. W. Hanbury Aggs are respectively the hon. secretary and treasurer of this committee. With the exception of some seeds, which it is hoped will produce vegetables, no food or money for its purchase is supplied by this committee to any internment camp.
    Mr. G. FABER: Are not the civilian camps visited by philanthropic institutions?
    Mr. TENNANT: I dare say that is so; I do not know.
    Mr. MALCOLM: May I ask why there is no mention of the case of Dr. Markel, who monthly supplies money from the German Red Cross to the prisoners?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that no money is allowed: that is my information.

    PURCHASES AND SALES OF WOOL.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, anent the Order prohibiting purchases and sales of this season's wool clip, whether it is to be enforced against small parcels varying from two or three pounds to forty or fifty pounds, such as are sent direct to manufacturers by small farmers, crofters, and shepherds in the county of Roxburgh, the West of Scotland, Lewis, and the Orkney and Shetland Islands to be exchanged at manufacturing charges into cloth, wearing apparel, blankets, yarn, bed-covers, horse-rugs, and other things required by such persons in their domestic life; whether the Director of Army Contracts has received representations from an eminent firm of woollen manufacturers in the Scottish borderland that if the Order is applied to this special business in small, rough, and mixed lots the exchangers will be put to inconvenience and loss6, and the manufacturers, after spending large sums in advertisements and circulars stating terms and prices, may be forced to close their establishments, which are now doing good business in many areas and have done so for' above 100 years; and whether, for the encouragement of thrift and the carrying on of this exchange business, the War Office will receive a representative of the firm and consider proposals whereby the aims of the Department may be attained without dislocating present arrangements?
    Mr. FORSTER: Representations have already been received from a Scottish firm with reference to small parcels of wool, and inquiry is now being made as to the possibility of allowing such parcels to be bought by manufacturers for the purposes mentioned. In any such arrangement it will, of course, be necessary to secure effective control of prices in order to avoid preferential treatment of
    1670
    farmers in any one district. The Department is quite prepared to consider any proposals for dealing with exceptional cases, such as those to which reference is made.
    Major WHELERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a certain amount of the 1916 clip of wool was sold, before the Government announcement of the proposed purchase of the 1916 clip, at prices considerably above the prices of the 1914 clip with 30 per cent, added; and whether he will therefore increase the War Office price to a figure nearer to the actual market value of the wool?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have arranged to receive a representative deputation in regard to the question of price, and I think I had better defer answering questions on the subject till the deputation has been received.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Have the Government the intention of getting wool at certain prices and selling it at a profit?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will answer that on another question.
    Major WHELERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of the War Office not requiring the full 1916 clip of wool, they will sell the wool at higher prices than the price at which they purchased it from the farmer?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is not the intention of the Department to dispose of any wool likely to be suitable for military purposes until it is quite satisfied that the wool will not be required for the purposes of the British or Allied Armies. It is impossible to determine definitely the best method of disposing of any surplus that may not be required by the Department until the quantity and nature of such surplus has been ascertained.

    EUPHRATES LINE.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give any information as regards the Forces on the Euphrates line and the neighbouring deserts; and whether there has been a rising of the Arab population around Babylon and Kerbela against the domination of the Turks, partly caused by the Turks pillaging the shrine at Kerbela, which the Shia Mahomedans regard as holy?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is, of course, undesirable to make public any information regarding the strength or dispositions of the British troops on the Euphrates line, or the intentions of our command in that quarter. Reports have been received that owing to local dissatisfaction with Turkish actions disturbances broke out at Kerbela about 22nd April and continued until 14th May, when a Turkish force sent from Bagdad attacked the inhabitants. The attack, however, failed, and the Turks were compelled to retire in the direction of Bagdad. During the fighting on 14th May the Turks are reported to have bombarded and seriously damaged the sacred domes of Kerbela. No report has been received of any rising of the Arabs near Babylon. Some irregular marauders have recently given us trouble both north and south of the Hamar Lake. These have been dealt with effectively, as announced in War Office communiqués issued to the Press on 16th June and 30th June.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (BANDS).
    Mr. WATSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the recent Army Order of 18th June will be modified so as to allow third-line units of the Territorial Force to retain their bands, including pipe bands, on condition that no bandsman of military age and fit for general service is employed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot at present add anything to my reply to a similar question on this subject put by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on Monday last, and to the hon. Member for the Melton Division yesterday.

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRAINED MASSEURS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the members of the National Association of Trained Masseurs have made application for appointment as masseurs in military hospitals, and that although their qualifications are as good as those of persons who have been appointed their applications have been refused; and whether he will state why the War Office refuses to avail itself of these fully trained masseurs?
    Mr. TENNANT: Appointments of masseurs in military hospitals are made without reference to the institute or asso-
    1672
    ciation to which the individual applicant may happen to belong. They are selected by an advisory committee consisting of masseurs, matrons, and medical men. Certain qualifications have been laid down which candidates must possess before appointment. Each candidate is reported on individually and no candidate is rejected if possessed of the necessary qualifications.
    Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that forty members of this association applied for appointments and were all refused, and that quite a number of the applicants were trained hospital nurses in addition to the qualifications as members of the association?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman gives me the particulars I will inquire.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (BOUNTY PAYMENTS).
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if time-expired Territorials who re-engage for active service are entitled to a bounty payment, whether serving at Home or abroad, similar to that paid to men of the Regular Army; if so, when did the concession come in force; and what is the amount they are entitled to receive?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the concession came into force on the 20th June last, the date of the special Army Order, but it applies retrospectively. As regards the last part, the amount of the bounty is £15.

    DEMOBILISATION.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of having lists prepared of attested men enlisted into the Army who, prior to their attestation, were engaged in businesses and other occupations, and whose enlistment has occasioned hardship to the men and their families, so that when peace is declared these men, so far as is practicable, can first be discharged from the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: This proposal has been considered, but the preparation of such a list is regarded as impracticable.

    CHELSEA COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the full number of the Chelsea Commissioners; the average attendance at the Thursday sederunts of the full committee; and the remuneration of the three Commissioners who are paid?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Commissioners should number twenty-four, but there are two vacancies at present. The average attendance is seven or eight. The remuneration of the three Commissioners who are paid is as follows: Surgeon-General Sir W. L. Gubbins, £600 a year; Major-General E. T. Dickson, £300 a year; Lieutenant-Colonel H. P. Hancox, £300 a year.

    1st LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS (CHARLES CADDEN).
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Charles Cadden, No. 5849, 1st Lancashire Fusiliers, was discharged from the Army on 11th March physically unfit, and that he is unable to resume his work; whether he is aware that this man was not given on discharge either insurance or medical card, which he did not receive for three months, thereby losing considerable benefit; whether he is aware that he has two sons in the Army and live other children under sixteen, and that the separation allowance was stopped immediately on his discharge; and, seeing that this disabled soldier, his wife, and family have been left for weeks without resources, whether the separation allowances can be continued until the pension and other arrangements in connection with sick, wounded, and broken soldiers are completed?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this case and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

    CANTEEN BUILDINGS (INSURANCE).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Government insist on canteen buildings situated in barracks being insured against air raids; whether these canteens are often situate in buildings which include other regimental institutes and whether, as a consequence, the whole
    1674
    block has to be insured; whether the insurance of this Government property is made in fact with the Government; itself through agents who are paid a 10 per cent, commission; whether the premiums are deducted from the canteen rebates, and therefore taken out of the pockets of the men; and, if so, whether this arrangement has been made following the first recommendation of the New Army Canteen Committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the case of any lease of War Department property the liability for insurances is placed upon the lessee. This general principle applies to canteens, and canteen tenants are compelled by the terms of their agreement to insure the premises which they occupy against fire, enemy aircraft, and bombardment. If a canteen forms part only of a building, only the part which is occupied for canteen purposes is required to be insured by the tenant. Tenants in fulfilling their obligation to insure against damages from aircraft no doubt avail themselves of the facilities for insurance offered by the Government. The premiums are deducted from rebate. The form of agreement imposing upon tenants the liability to insure is that which was in use under the late Board of Control. The policy of allowing deduction from rebate was also instituted by the late Board of Control. The Army Canteen Committee have so far made no alteration in the rules with regard to insurance which they found in existence when they took over the administration of canteens, but they have had the whole matter under consideration.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the 10 per cent, mentioned in the question actually paid?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think that is so.

    International Arbitration (Sweden).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the subjects which are to be referred to an International Arbitration Court after the War under the agreement with Sweden; and whether the Government have fully considered the danger of any reference of our Prize Court decisions to revision by an International Arbitration Court?
    Sir E. GREY: The discussions with the Swedish Government on this subject are not yet terminated, and there are obvious

    1675
    objections to making a statement as to the terms of an understanding before it is finally settled. It is hoped to lay the correspondence on the subject before Parliament shortly. Meanwhile I would remind the hon. Member that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question of arbitration on issues raised in the Prize Court was clearly indicated in the Note addressed to the United States Ambassador at this Court on 31st July, 1915, the text of which has already been laid before Parliament.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will not anything in the nature of setting up an International Prize Court be a violation of municipal law and have to come before Parliament?
    Sir E. GREY: I do not think it has to come before Parliament in order to refer questions to arbitration.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Must not any revision of the decisions of the Prize Court under municipal law obviously come before Parliament?
    Sir E. GREY: I imagine that it is open to His Majesty's Government at any time to make friendly settlements of questions with other countries. If the hon. Member has a legal point to raise and will put a question upon the Paper, I will have it looked into by the competent authorities.

    Indian Labourers (Imprisonment).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether imprisonment of Indian labourers has been abolished in the Fiji Colony; and whether any similar action is being taken by the Governments of Jamaica, British Guiana, Trinidad, or any other colonies?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Imprisonment as a punishment for offences against the laws relating to Indian immigration has been abolished in Fiji, and the Governors of the three West Indian Colonies have under consideration a similar amendment of the laws of their Colonies.

    Tiermanagh Farm, West Clare.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Congested Districts Board intends to carry into effect the eviction notice served against Cornelius Killeen, at the Tiermanagh farm,
    1676
    Kelly-Kenny estate. West Clare; whether account will be taken of public opinion in the neighbourhood of the fact that Cornelius Killeen is considered to have been entitled to a holding on the farm, and also of the fact that the suit is at the instance of a farmer, John McMahon, who-has extensive holdings elsewhere and who has no claim on this farm, apart from having been favoured by the Board; whether the whole transaction will be revised and regard be held to the intentions of the Land Act of 1909; and (2> whether he will obtain from the Congested Districts Board an explanation of the proceedings in reference to the Tiermanagh farm, on the Kelly-Kenny estate, West Clare; whether it was by virtue of the provisions of the Land Act of 1909, which was intended to relieve congestion, that the congests of the district have been deprived of the benefit of the division of the land, while a farmer, John McMahon, who has extensive holdings in another district, has been given a large block of the Tiermanagh farm; and whether these proceedings will be reversed and the purposes of the Act carried out?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Congested Districts Board, after careful consideration, decided to migrate Mr. John McMahon to Doolough Lodge and 63 acres of land in Tiermanagh on condition that he surrendered for the relief of congestion his two holdings situate in seven detached parcels intermixed with other holdings in Drummin and an agreement to carry out this arrangement has been entered into between Mr. McMahon and the Board. The Board intend to utilise the holdings surrendered by McMahon, together with about 130 acres of untenanted lands in their hands on the Kelly-Kenny Estate, for the enlargement of small holdings on the estate in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acts. Cornelius Killeen occupied Doolough Lodge under a caretaker's agreement and held some of the untenanted lands on the estate under a grazing agreement. This grazing agreement expired some months ago, and as Killeen refused to give up possession of the lodge, legal proceedings to obtain possession were taken and possession has now been obtained. The Congested Districts Board carefully considered Killeen's application for Doolough Lodge with land attached before entering into the above-mentioned agreement with John McMahon. The arrangements made with McMahon will not be altered.
    Mr. LYNCH: In view of the fact that the opinion is held locally that these proceedings run directly counter to the provisions of the Land Act of 1909, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether any means exist of revising the decision of the Board in order to prevent local trouble?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If it is the case that the proceedings contravene the Statute legal proceedings could, no doubt, be taken to upset them.
    Mr. LYNCH: If they contravene the spirit of the Statute, if not exactly the letter of the law, will he take proceedings?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is not the opinion of the Congested Districts Board, which is charged with the administration.

    BILL PRESENTED.
    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (COPYRIGHT) BILL,—"to make provision with respect to Copyrights which would, had a state of war not existed, have vested in enemies," presented by Mr. PUETYMAN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
    Sir W. ESSEX: On a point of Order. Can the title not be made a little more clear?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can raise that point when the Bill is produced and circulated.

    ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS. BILL [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    HORNSEY GAS BILL [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
    That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case of Lecky's Divorce Bill [Lords,] as desired by this House, and request that the same may be returned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Prime Minister said to-day that he would make a further statement as to the course, of business for next week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do so now?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Small Holding Colonies Bill, and further stages of some of the other Bills on the Paper.
  On Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill.
  On Wednesday, the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
  As to Thursday's business I shall make a statement in the beginning of next week.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: On Monday will it be possible to have a general discussion on any statement the right hon. Gentleman makes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should think not.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business will be taken to-day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Orders from No. 1 down to and including No. 7, and No. 12—

  [1. Output of Beer (Restriction) Bill;— As amended, to be considered.

  2. National Insurance (Part II.—Munition Workers) [Expenses];—Report.

  3. National Insurance (Part II.—Munition Workers) Bill;—Committee.

  4. Gas (Standard of Calorific Power) Bill;—Committee.

  5. Police, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill;—Committee.

  6. Royal Marines Bill;—Committee.

  7. Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Bill;—Committee.

  12. Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) — [Expenses]; — Committee.]
  Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend says there will be no discussion on Monday on his statement, how is he to ascertain the opinion of his own Liberal party?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think I know the opinion of the Liberal party.
  Ordered, "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."— [The Prime Minister]

  OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Standard Barrelage.)
    (1) The maximum barrelage shall be-determined by the Commissioners in the case 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 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 in the circumstances of the brewery taking place after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the standard barrelage as ascertained under the foregoing provisions 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;

    reduced in each case by fifteen per cent:
    Provided that if a brewer gives notice to the Commissioners before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen that he desires that the foregoing provisions of this Section should be applied

    1687
    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., those provisions shall be applied to his brewery with those substitutions, subject to the power of His Majesty by Order in Council to withdraw this privilege as from a subsequent date to be fixed by the Order in Council or to substitute any higher percentages pro rata 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) 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.
    (4) 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 bands brewed during the previous quarters to which the Act applies is less than the aggregate standard barrelage for those quarters.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) (a) leave out the words, "thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first clay of March, nineteen hundred and sixteen"; with corresponding Amendments in remainder of Sub-section. — [Mr. Pretyman.]
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move to leave out the word "thirty" ["thirty per cent, for fifteen per cent."], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
    1688
    On the Committee stage I called attention to the fact that the basis now agreed upon with regard to the standard period for the reduction in the output of beer inflicts grave hardship on the small brewers in various parts of the country. Their position as compared with that of the large brewers who have taken very extensive contracts for the supply of can teens, and who are to reduce their out put by only 15 per cent., seems to me to be very anomalous. The main object of the Bill is to get a substantial and agreed reduction in the output of beer. The whole output of these small country brewers, whose customers in many cases have left them owing to the movement of population in connection with the War, is a very small fraction of the total out put of beer in the country. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in the Committee stage that the reduction first agreed upon was 28 per cent, upon the 1914 standard. I am informed by the small brewers that that was agreed to with a good deal of reluctance, but they accepted the statement that it was necessary in the national interest. They subsequently found that, owing to representations by, the brewers who had a very large share of the canteen contracts that the troops could not be supplied with beer to a reasonable extent if 1914 were taken as the standard, because these large can teen contracts could not then be executed, the period was altered to 1915. To show the position of these small brewers I will give one typical case in which the reduction in the output in 1915 as compared with 1914 is 24 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman insists on his 30 per cent., the only option for that small brewery, which is working almost at a loss owing to the diminution of its output, will be either to make a further reduction of 15 per cent, on the 1915 standard—I am speaking of the Bill before the period was altered to March, 1916—
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): It is practically the same total.
    Mr. PETO: Yes. This small brewery will either have to add 15 per cent, to the already ascertained reduction of 24 per cent., making 39 per cent., or to take the 1914 standard and make a reduction of 30 per cent, on that. Instead of having to make a reduction of 15 per cent., as in the case of the larger breweries, the

    1689
    only option before this small brewery will be to make a reduction of 30 per cent, or 39 per cent., according to the period they adopt. This particular brewery during the spring of this year obtained a share of the canteen contracts, but it will be perfectly impossible for them to supply any canteen beer at all if they have to reduce their output by either 39 per cent, or 30 per cent. The effect of the Bill as it stands will therefore be to throw the small share of the canteen contracts obtained by the small breweries into the hands of the large breweries, and thus create a practical monopoly, which may affect both the price and the quality of the beer supplied to the troops. I do not think that that is a desirable effect to produce. The hon. Gentleman said that 28 per cent, was originally agreed Upon. I ask him to reduce that 28 per cent, by three instead of increasing it by two. As the Bill stands, the burden upon these small breweries will be such that in many cases they will be unable to pay anything, even to their debenture holders; therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this very moderate proposal.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to second the Amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this very reasonable proposal. By the Bill as drawn he cannot reduce below 30 per cent., but he can always increase. If he accepts the Amendment and then finds he does not get the total reduction desired, he can always, by Order in Council, put on an extra 5 per cent, increase. If the Bill goes through as it stands his hands will be tied. He may get a greater reduction and still be unable to give relief to the small brewers. As this measure is going through practically by consent, and everyone is endeavouring to assist the Government by all the means in his power, it is very necessary that the Government should be as just as possible, and see that no harm is done to the small brewers, who are the least able to help themselves in times like the present.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have every sympathy with the spirit of the suggestion made by my hon. Friends, but I think they have omitted to note that the standard on which the Bill was based was the 1915 standard. That has now been altered. The standard is not the 1914 standard at all. The 1914 standard is merely an alternative put in for the very
    1690
    reason advanced by my hon. Friends, namely, to remove the extreme hardship caused to the small brewers. The reason why we could not adopt the 1914 standard as a whole was that it is not a question of the brewers only; it is a question of the consumers also; and we were obliged, as I explained in Committee, to take a standard which approximated as nearly as possible to the present distribution of population. If we had taken the 1914 standard, we should have been forcing beer to be brewed according to the old distribution of population, and it would all have had to be conveyed by rail — thereby adding to the congestion on the railways — to the munitions centres and the places; where there are assemblages of troops. It was absolutely necessary to fix that standard. It was then pointed out that this was a hardship to the small brewers. To meet this case we have given them the alternative percentage. We are quite aware whichever way it is looked at that the brewer will suffer some diminution of his trade. It is, however, quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment, for we should lose our reduction—
    Mr. PETO: A very small fraction!
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I know! It is "the-very small one" argument that is constantly put forward. But we have definitely, in the national interests, to bring the manufacture and consumption of beer to 26,000,000 barrels, and we cannot depart from that. Everybody has been treated on that basis, and it is quite impossible for us to depart from it. I gave no sort of suggestion to my hon. Friend that I should accept this Amendment, or consider it, nor had I any notice that my hon. Friend proposed to move it again on Report. It is not down on the Paper. Therefore, I really think the point was completely answered in Committee. My hon. Friend must not think that the Government have not got full sympathy with the small brewer. It was for that reason we inserted this provision giving him the alternative, and I do not think it is very gracious having given the alternative to minimise the hardship—or quite fair—to-found on it further demands which would completely alter the whole basis of the-Bill.
    Amendment negatived.

    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 or for premises substituted for those premises.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen," and insert instead thereof the words, "date of the passing of this Act."— [Mr. Pretyman.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Supply of Beer to Free Licensed Houses.)
    (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 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.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "quantities and gravities of the," and insert instead thereof the words "number of bulk barrels of each description of."
    Sir F. LOWE: I should like to ask whether the hon. and gallant Member would consent to some form of appeal in these cases. It is quite impossible for the licence holder to take for granted the accuracy of the certificate, because it expressly says, in the Definition Clause at the end, that the standard barrel means a barrel of the original gravity of 1,055. Therefore, unless the gravity is stated, it will be impossible for the licence holder to take for a certainty the accuracy of the certificate. If there should be any dispute I think the licence holder would be very glad to have some right of appeal, and I would ask whether, under the present circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not see to
    1692
    allow an appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, who have, I presume, all the particulars as to gravity, and so on. They are, therefore, the suitable people to which to make this appeal. I suggest it might be wise to allow that appeal only on the ground of dispute as to the accuracy of the certificate.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have great sympathy with the suggestion put forward. I have very carefully considerd it, as it has already been made to me. I am afraid, however, I cannot adopt it because, in the first place, the Commissioners of Excise are purely a taxing authority, and have no judicial functions. They would very much object to having any judicial functions placed upon them. In the second place, I do not think it is necessary. What will happen will be that the customer, the free buyer, will have two things: he will, first of all, have the number of bulk barrels of each description of beer in the words that I now propose to insert—that is to say, to leave out "quantities and gravities," and to insert "number of bulk barrels of each description." In Committee I undertook to consider whether words of that character could be substituted for those already in the Bill, and after going into the matter very carefully, I came to the conclusion that the words I propose could be substituted, because it would create very great technical difficulties if every brewer in every case where there was a question of the certificate had to furnish these gravities. Therefore, it seemed to be sufficient to ask that they should give the number of bulk barrels of each description, with the certificate showing the standard number supplied. Every customer will be able roughly, in his mind, to apply the one to the other, and see whether they tally. If he thinks they do not tally, it will be open for him to go to the brewer and to say so, and ask him to try and explain the discrepancy. If he cannot explain the discrepancy, then it will be open to the customer to seek his remedy in the Courts, and to show there that the certificate does not show the number of standard barrels as compared with the number of bulk barrels. It will then rest with the brewer to make good his claim that the certificate he has given really does accurately correspond with the number of bulk barrels with which he has supplied his customer. Under these circumstances I do not think

    1693
    that the Amendment is either necessary or desirable. I think, as the Bill stands, it will meet the requirements of the case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Colonel GRETTON: I will detain the House only for a very few moments. The principle of this Bill, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, is not a sound one. There are other ways in which the importation of foreign materials might be minimised. You might resort to the principle of prohibition. That has been done, in fact, in the case of hops. It has not been very satisfactory. It might have been decided to limit the use of foreign imported materials in the mash-tubs of the brewer. This would have led to no great difficulty, for these mash-tubs are under constant observation by the Excise officers, and records are kept of what is being used. The Government have not seen fit to do that. There are two things which will most certainly happen as the result of this Bill. One is that no more than 26,000,000 standard barrels of beer will be brewed in the United Kingdom during the year, or the corresponding period during which this Bill remains in force. The second is that the revenue will lose an amount, approximately, of £4,000,000. These are two certain results.
    The result which is not certain, and for which this Bill does not fairly and adequately provide, is the limitation of the importation of foreign materials. It goes upon an assumption, and I am going to ask the Government, or the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he can give a pledge that, if the Government find later that the Bill is not carrying out the limitation they require, and preventing materials coming into this country, and if they revert to some other system, that this Bill thereupon shall be repealed and not remain in force concurrently with another system. Given the vicious and inadequate principle of this Bill, the Government have met the objections to it most fairly. It will undoubtedly inflict a great deal of hardship, but the trade generally has not, I think, complained that they should suffer some hardship on account of the War. The attitude of these persons has been reasonable, and I think, on the whole, helpful to the Government. So far as I am personally concerned, I wish to thank the
    1694
    hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very courteous and adequate way in which he has endeavoured to meet the objections and smooth the asperities and hardships of the Bill. It is a much better Bill than when it was introduced into the House. Some of its defects have been removed and others lessened during the process of examination by this House. I do not move the rejection of the Bill. I only desire to make these few remarks, and especially to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider the request that I have made that this Bill should be repealed if any other system of limitation of brewing material has to be resorted to.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I wish to take the opportunity of expressing my thanks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for the manner in which he has met us and the brewing interest generally in these negotiations. I congratulate him upon the extraordinary facility with which he dealt with a question of a most technical character, and in connection with a business which he, to start with, certainly did not know anything about. He has shown a marvellous adaptability in this matter. We have seen that before in this House, but I do not think I have ever before seen that facility more marked than in this particular case, in which also the hon. and gallant Gentleman has surpassed himself. He knows now almost as much about the business as the hon. Member beside me (Colonel Gretton). I agree that this measure is an unfortunate necessity. Nobody, I think, likes the principle of this Bill, but in the present circumstances it was thought to be the better way, or the best way, of restricting the import of these foreign materials, and I can only hope it will be successful. I think it should be. I do not see any reason why it should not be. I hope there will be no need for further tinkering, or further methods of any kind adopted in connection with this matter. I cannot conceive it possible, if this method fails, that it will be kept in being longer than necessary for it to be replaced.
    Sir F. LOWE: As one who took considerable part in the discussion in Committee on this Bill, I should like to join in the expression of thanks which has been accorded to the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill for the straight and fair way in which he has

    1695
    met us throughout the Committee stage. I, like my hon. Friend below me, knew nothing about the technicalities of gravities and so forth; I am, therefore, able to appreciate to a very considerable extent the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made himself familiar with this subject. I was asked to take some part in the discussion by the holders of free licences, and I think they have a special reason to congratulate themselves upon the very large concessions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made to them. In some particulars, though he did accept some Amendments which I brought forward on their behalf, it was like remodelling the whole Bill. I quite agree with my hon. Friend below me that the whole Bill has been remodelled, and that it has been very much improved. While on the one hand the object of the Bill has not been in any way interfered with, I think that the machinery has been made satisfactory.
    Mr. DENNISS:I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having extended to clubs the same privileges that he has given to free licences. Though the scheme, to our great surprise, was altered at the last moment, and although I really have not had time to get the opinions of the clubs upon it, I have no doubt in my own mind that the scheme will work. The only thing I regret is that all those who put down Amendments on the basis of the original Clauses of the Bill, were led into a trap, and prevented from considering these Clauses owing to the alterations decided upon at a late hour.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must thank my hon. Friends very much indeed for the very kind way in which they have helped me throughout the passage of this Bill. I have been the pupil of the hon. Baronet and he the instructor in all the technicalities of this Bill, and I have to thank him very much for all the help and the information he has given. As I said to the House, I believe on Second Reading, the sole object of this Bill is to restrict imports. This appeared to be the only way in which that could be effectively done, and, when that was done, the only object the Government had was to carry it out with the least possible injury to any of the interests concerned. It was not until
    1696
    the Bill was printed that the different-interests concerned really realised how it affected them. During the whole passage of this Bill I have found but one feeling, namely, that whatever we suffer by it, we have to accept it as part of the national necessity. But accepting that freely, we do desire that those interested shall be met with the least possible injury to themselves. The passage of the Bill through' the House, I think, has been marked with nothing but unanimity as regards the principle, and we have only had to deal with alterations in detail, on which I have to be very grateful for the information I have received.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II. —MUNITION WORKERS)— [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise 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 into that fund under such Act."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "contributions" ["contributions towards the cost of"], to insert the words "not exceeding two million pounds."
  I made a few remarks yesterday, when we were in Committee on this Resolution, to the effect that I object on principle to voting an absolutely unlimited and unnamed sum of money. Even though the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade made a very courteous and full reply, and although I had the opportunity and pleasure of reading it again this morning, I still feel that I was right, and that the tradition of this House in dealing with Votes of money ought to be, if possible, observed here, and that we ought to say, in voting a new amount under a new Act, how far in the first instance the Board of Trade should go. I would set that sum at the amount I

  1697
  suggested yesterday, £2,000,000. Admitting, as the hon. Gentleman did yesterday, that he had not the faintest notion of what the cost is going to be, I say £2,000,000 for a project of which you have not the faintest notion is quite enough to begin with, and should go a considerable way. After that, if it is going into many more millions, let the hon. Gentleman come to the House and give some sort of idea of the success or prospects of a scheme like this, and I believe the House would readily accede to a further sum of money being voted. I therefore venture, under the circumstances, to move this Amendment.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment. I did not have the same privilege my hon. Friend had yesterday of hearing the discussion in the House, but I join with him, and I hope the House will join with us, in insisting that some sum of money shall be put into this Resolution. I cannot myself understand the ways of the Treasury with regard to these sums of money. When a sum of money is to be devoted to a particular purpose they exhibit a tremendous parsimony, and put in a fixed figure, as they have done, for instance, with regard to the Statutory Committee and pensions for soldiers, when they put in £1,000,000. When they come to this question they give those who are in charge of this scheme an entirely free financial hand. This scheme is to provide for an unemployment which may not arise, and as to which we are told, and have been told for a long time now, that the Government are taking steps to prevent it arising. A Committee was appointed the other day to look after after-war problems, and to provide that after the War as little dislocation of employment shall arise as possible. If we are going to give a free hand in money, surely it is an admission in advance of failure to do anything with regard to unemployment after the War. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have, first of all, to get the War finished. We have to beat the Germans before this problem will arise. There cannot be any problem of this kind until that fact has been accomplished, and to vote an unlimited sum of State money for a purpose which is not defined is against every good financial tradition of this House. I am very glad to see the financial leader of the House present on the Front Bench opposite. [Sir F. Banbury indicated Sir G. Reid.] No; that is a mistake which my right hon.
  1698
  Friend makes. We prefer in this House to deal in absolutely home-made financial goods, and that is why we look to him as the leader on this occasion, and I hope he will support this effort on the part of those of us who are left in the House of Commons on a fine afternoon, when it is deserted by every Minister of responsibility, to see that the public purse is looked after. Not even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has attended this afternoon to give any guidance with regard to the spending of money—the Minister who objects to the spending of money in every other Department. Neither he nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. With the natural contempt in which they hold this House and public opinion, they show they can spend money when they like; but I hope this afternoon, even if we go to a Division, we will let them see that we shall put in a fixed sum, so that they cannot carry the country into another wasteful extravagance.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On very many occasions in times past I have moved Resolutions of this kind, and on one occasion I carried such a Resolution against the Government. Those were in times when there was not the necessity which exists now for care in finance. We are told everyhere that economy is necessary at the present moment, and large sums of money have been spent by the Government in putting up large posters requesting us to exercise economy. We were also told this afternoon by the representative of the Munitions Department, in answer to a supplementary question which I raised myself, that it did not matter what Ministers said in the House, and that the only thing was what was in the Act of Parliament. After that statement, it is no use paying the slightest attention to what Ministers say as to what they are going to spend. We must only look at the Resolution or the Act of Parliament, because that is the only thing we now know, on the authority of the most extravagant Department existing at the present time—namely, the Munitions Department—that all they regard is the Act of Parliament. Under those circumstances, I think it is most necessary that we should put a limit in this Resolution. I do not know whether £2,000,000 is the right sum, but I should think that £2,000,000 would be sufficient, because, after all, it could always be increased next April, and it is not likely to come

  1699
  into effect very much before next April, even if it comes into effect before April at all. Therefore, I think that £2,000,000 is probably quite a sufficient sum to put in, but if my hon. Friend who is at the present moment leading the House states that £2,000,000 is not sufficient, and that he requires £2,500,000, or some slight increase on that sum, I should be quite willing to support him. But I do think, in all seriousness, that some limit should be put into this Resolution. I do not think that we should give to the Government, or any Government at any time, but especially at this time, what is equivalent to a blank cheque. There can be no reason why that should be done. Surely the Department in question has considered what this is going to cost, at any rate for a certain time, and if they have considered that they should come down to this House, which, more than ever now that the House of Lords has no control over finance, should exercise that function for which we were originally appointed, namely, to safeguard the public purse. I shall have pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend.
  Mr. D. MASON: I am very sorry to be in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and also that I cannot support the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I yield to no one in my desire for economy, but I do think, with all respect, that they are imagining a trouble here which really does not exist, because we must, as the right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday, provide for the solvency of this fund. The unemployment insurance, which, I understand, in this case will be extended to munition workers —a body of men who, I think we will all agree, have undoubtedly given their best to the State, many sacrificing health by working night and day for many months past to supply munitions of war, without which we would not have been able to congratulate ourselves on the recent advance. The Bill, I understand, provides for a levy of 1½d. from the State, 2½d. from the employé, and 2½d. from the employer. That in itself does away with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a blank cheque. You must, of course, if you incur a liability, provide for that liability, and without this Resolution you will not be able to get your Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I am not opposing the Bill, but I say in this Resolution we ought to have an amount. We ought not to pledge the credit of the country to an unlimited extent. If a sum of £2,000,000 is not enough, then put in £3,000,000, but some amount ought to be in.
  Mr. MASON: We do not authorise an unlimited amount. The Bill is based upon certain Regulations, and you cannot exceed those Regulations, but you must provide for the solvency of the Regulations^ and this Motion is to do that. In the original Act ample provision is made for the guarding of this blank cheque of which the right hon. Gentleman is so afraid. The Government cannot use an unlimited amount of money and distribute it gratuitously all over the land. They have to abide by the Act of Parliament which provides for a certain benefit for a workman who has paid his levy, and this Resolution is to enable Parliament to get money out of the Consolidated Fund to guarantee the solvency of that particular benefit. The right hon. Gentleman showed yesterday that he is utterly unable to state what the amount of money is. He is not aware of the amount of unemployment there will be. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) seems to think there will be no unemployment. I hope he is right.
  Mr. HOGGE: Not till the War is finished.
  Mr. MASON: This Bill is to enable us, and I congratulate the Government on their foresight, to take time by the fore lock. We all hope that this will not be a long War, and that it will c6me to a satisfactory conclusion at an early date. This is to make provision for peace. There is not a very long period to insure. The levy cannot accumulate very large sums, assuming the War comes to a satisfactory conclusion at the end of the autumn of this year. This Resolution is to enable the Government to guarantee the solvency of their scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary lucidly explained this matter yester-day, and he cannot in the nature of things state what amount he will require, but there must be some provision to guarantee the solvency of the fund. With regard to the extension of the Act—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are not now discussing: the Act.
  Mr. MASON: Then I will wait until the Committee stage, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will adhere to the original Resolution.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: There seems to be some misapprehension in regard to this proposal. It has been stated that there is no limit to the expenditure; but there is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is evidently under the impression that the Government could go on spending money under this Bill, but it is nothing of the kind. This is really an Act which extends the provisions of the existing Unemployment Act (Part II.) to new classes of workmen under which the contributions of the Government are definitely fixed. During the currency of the Act the Government must spend a certain amount, and their contribution takes two forms. First of all, there is the amount which they actually contribute to the Insurance Fund itself. Secondly, their contribution, I believe, is roughly about l⅔d. It is one-third of two 2½d. The workman contributes l½d., the employer 2½d., and the State l⅔d. The State receives part of this back again for cost of administration, but it spends more on administration than it gets back. I wish to let the right hon. Gentleman know the liability. He is quite right in saying that an unlimited liability ought not to be put in a Statute, but I am trying to show what the liability of the State is during the currency of the Act. For every workman who insures the State pays 1⅔d. a week and a little bit more for the cost of that administration, and that is a definite figure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Resolution reads:
  "to authorise 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."
  Would it not be possible under that provision to alter the benefits and to increase them?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, it is possible under the Act. If my right hon. Friend looks at Clause 2 he will see that we do give power to the Board of Trade to add more men and more trades and include other classes in the provisions of the Act, but still the limitation remains. I could give a rough statement, as I did
  1702
  yesterday, to the effect that the number of workmen we anticipate will be brought under this Bill is about 1,500,000, and it would be easy to calculate on that basis in respect of whom there would be contributions the amount, and it would come to a certain sum in a certain time, but it is impossible to say exactly what the number is, and the insertion of a limit would not affect the liability of Parliament by one farthing. Parliament is entering into a bargain with each indivdual workman, and the State assumes the liability under that contract. It would be wrong, and I think illegal in the widest sense, for the House to accept a liability under a contract and then limit its own liability by inserting the total figure which might absolve it from the liability into which it has entered. Whether the number be great or few who come in under the original provisions, or a number increased by subsequent additions authorised by Parliament when the Act was passed, Parliament is liable to pay to these men every farthing due under the contract it makes, and in respect of which those men make contributions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can you not under the new Bill you will introduce increase the benefits?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No, Sir. This Bill distinctly gives us power to add to the number of persons who may be insured, but no power to alter the benefits. The right hon. Gentleman would have a strong case if we were taking power to increase the benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1 he will see that it provides:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance (including the provisions as to contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament), as amended by the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1914, and the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1915 (which provisions as so amended are hereinafter referred to as the principal Act)."
  It is perfectly clear from that what is proposed. I think my right hon. Friend's point in the abstract is perfectly good, but it does not really apply to this Bill. My right hon. Friend has put his case in a businesslike way, and I hope I have given him a businesslike explanation. By Section 3 Parliament undertakes to make good at the expiry of the time specified

  1703
  the definite liability to which I have referred when the temporary insurance scheme comes to an end, if it is not by a subsequent Act made permanent, which is an entirely separate matter. It might be that before this Act expires there might be a general wish that the scheme might be made permanent and grafted on to the existing scheme; but that is a perfectly open matter. If that does not happen, and if the Bill remains in its present form and conies to and end when the Act expires, there may be a deficiency, and if there is, it will have to be made good by Parliament. This Act for financial reasons has to be grafted on to the existing Insurance Act. Some workmen will be doing part of their time under the old Act and part under the new Act. They may go from one workshop to another, and one of those workshops may be under the old Act and another under the new Act, and it is impossible to have separate stamps and contributions.
  We intend to keep the two separate on the general accounts, by having different forms of books. It is intended to keep the two accounts, not between the individual workman and the State, but as between the two accounts and the State. Under the present insurance scheme there is a reserve fund, a joint fund of the employers and employed, amounting to about £6,500,000, and obviously it would be grossly unfair that the new contributors should be entitled to make good any deficits which there may be on this temporary scheme out of the savings of the old scheme. Therefore the conditions on which we ask under this Bill those who are already insured under the existing scheme to accept this temporary scheme is that any general deficiency on the general account in the temporary scheme will be made good by Parliament, and will not be a burden on the permanent insurance scheme. There will be that further liability, but it is a definite one, and it cannot be a penny more or less than the actual deficiency when it is ascertained. There is no question of the expenditure of money in war-time, because the Act does not end until three years after the termination of the present War, or five years after the commencement of this Act. Therefore the liability is definite and not indefinite. I am quite sure the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has done right in raising this general question as a safeguard, but I claim that we are not guilty on this occasion.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II.— MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CLAUSES 1 (Extension of Unemployment Insurance to Certain Trades in Connection with the Present War), 2 (Power to Extend to Other Trades and Employment), 3 (Limitation of the Time During which Liabilities and Rights Continue), and 4 (Iterations Between Principal Act and this Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916, and the National Insurance Act, 1911, so far as it relates to unemployment insurance, and National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1914, the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1915, and this Act may be cited together as the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1916.

  (2) This Act shall come into operation on the fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and sixteen, or such later date, not being later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seventeen, as the Board of Trade may direct.

  Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "fourth day of September," and to insert instead thereof the words "second day of October."
  The reason I want to move this Amendment is that the latter date will be more convenient to organised workers. Most of the workmen's organisations make up their financial statements, either quarterly or half-yearly, and if the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment, it would be much more convenient, and I do not think it would make any difference to the Government.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made, but if he looks at the Bill he will see that we have power to alter the date of bringing it in, and I hope that he will be content. We shall be happy to consult him about it, but we are anxious to bring

  1705
  in the Bill at the earliest possible moment. I am quite aware that under this Bill and Clause 105 of the original Act arrangements will have to be made by organised labour for bringing the Act into operation, and it is quite obvious that we cannot work the Act satisfactorily until those arrangements have been made, but we are very anxious to get the contributions started at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. THORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. THORNE and Mr. TOOTILLhad given notice of the following new Clause and Schedule:

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of Bates by Employers.)
  Subject to the provisions of this Act every workman insured under this Act and the employer of any such workman shall be liable to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of Bates by Employers.)

    SCHEDULE.
    The following shall be the rates of contribution for workmen insured under this Act:

    To be paid by the employer

    2½d. a week.

    To be paid by the workman

    2½d. a week.

    In the case of workmen of the age of twenty-one or upwards whose remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by their employer, and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day, the following shall be the rates of contributions:
    Where the rate of remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. per working day:

    To be paid by the employer

    3½d. per week.

    To be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament

    1½d. per week.

    Where the rate of remuneration exceeds 3s. 6d. but does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day:

    To be paid by the employer

    3d. per week.

    To be paid by the workman

    1d. per week.

    To be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament

    1d. per week.

    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's new Clause, with the Schedule attached to it, involves a charge beyond the Money Resolution authorised in Committee.
    Mr. THORNE: I think there must be some mistake. I do not think the Amendment standing in my name will involve an extra charge upon the Treasury. It is quite true that it will involve an extra charge upon employers, but I think it will be found that the charge on the Treasury will be the same if my Amendment is accepted as is proposed under the Bill. In those circumstances I suggest that the Amendment is in order.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it does involve an extra charge. I have examined it along with the original Bill, and it seems to me inevitable that it must mean an increased charge. The hon. Member will notice that the Money Resolution is strictly confined to the scale of contributions in the original Bill, and merely brings in an additional number of trades and persons. Therefore, we must not go beyond that in our discussion of the Bill.
    Mr. THORNE: The hon. Gentleman has just stated that the Treasury charge at the outside is only going to be lid. My Amendment does not propose that it should be more than l½d., and it therefore appears to me to be in accordance with the Resolution.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the original Bill, he will find there that the Treasury liability is not to exceed one-third of the other contributions, and this alteration in the scale would involve an additional charge upon the Treasury.
    Schedules (1 and 2) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. D. MASON: Anyone who looks ahead must recognise that the future is very uncertain indeed, and I am sure that any provision made for munition workers will receive the unanimous support of this House. I should like to put in a plea as to whether some provision could not also be made for employers. In a great many industries, as, for instance, the motor industry in the city which I have the honour to represent, employers have forfeited and lost the goodwill of their businesses in

    1707
    their desire to serve the State. It is no doubt a proper and right thing that employers should contribute this increased tax because they have made large profits the same as employés have received large wages, but at the same time they will feel it, and I would ask the hon. Member to bear in mind whether some compensation could not be given to them for loss of goodwill in converting their premises into munition factories. We shall, unquestionably, after the War have to face a large amount of unemployment among munition workers. An enormous number of men and women have been pressed into the service, to secure supplies of munitions, and in many cases they have worked night and day, sacrificing their health to increase the output. A great number of them when the War comes to an end will be thrown out of employment. This Bill, I understand, will affect something like 1,500,000 employés in the country. We hope that in a short time there will be sufficient accumulated to meet the liability, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in asking Parliament to give him powers to ensure the solvency of the position. I hope he will use this Act to the utmost to meet the demands that will be made upon it, that the relief will be prompt, and that the terms of the Act will be stretched to its utmost elasticity, so as to provide for the very great hardships which we are bound to see at the termination of the War. Many of us dread the position in which the great mass of munition workers will be placed at the termination of the War, and if the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that he will bear in mind the question of compensating employers who have lost the goodwill of their businesses and the extension of this Act to its utmost limits to meet the liabilities of the working classes, he would have the sympathetic support of everybody in this House.
    Mr. THORNE: If the members of the Labour party had known that we should not have any chance of putting forward the suggestion embodied in the proposed new Schedule upon the Paper, I think there would have been some little discussion on the Second Heading of the Bill. I do not know any Bill which has passed through Committee more rapidly. It passed in about two seconds, without any discussion at all. Had we known, some of us would have urged the advisability of making some alteration with regard to lower-paid workers. There are a tremen-
    1708
    dous number of women at Coventry, Birmingham, and in other parts of the country who are not receiving more than 2d. per hour. We were going to suggest that it is quite impossible for them to pay the contribution which the Government is calling upon them to pay. Of course, if the Government are prepared to consider the advisability of increasing their wages we shall not have the slightest objection.
    I can quite understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason) about unemployment, because I should say without hesitation that when hostilities terminate Coventry, Birmingham, and such places will be hit harder than other industrial centres of the country. It will simply mean that the munition workers of Coventry, Birmingham, and other places will be thrown on the streets at once. The Government are well advised in bringing forward this measure, because it will certainly give some little financial relief to at least 1,500,000 men and women who are now working on munitions. They will get at least 7s. per week, if they have paid in accordance with the original Act, plus what they will get from their organisation. It would be very advisable that men and women now outside the pale of trades unions should get inside the pale at the earliest opportunity, because then they will get 10s., if not more—7s. from the State and 3s. from their organisation. In some cases the 7s. is made up to as much as 20s. per week. I quite admit that the Act is limited and that they can only get fifteen weeks' unemployment pay in one year, but one would hope that before the fifteen weeks were over some other means of employment might be found. I do not think the Government are in a position to know the number of people who will be insured in the trades to which the Act is now extended, but the amounts payable are limited, because the Government are only bound to pay, at the outside, 1½d. for every member insured. Many of us are very thankful to the Government for bringing in this Bill, but we should have been more thankful if they could have exempted from payment the lower-paid women workers.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BARNES: I should like to add my word of commendation to that of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne). I regard this Bill as a step—it is true it is a small one—in the direction of what might be called the preparation for peace. I hope the preparation for peace will be

    1709
    a great deal more complete than was the preparation for war. The preparation for peace will have to be a good deal more (Comprehensive than anything touched upon in this Bill, but, in so far as the Bill does deal with one of the difficulties that will confront us when the War is over, or before the War is over, it is a step in the right direction. I would join with my hon. Friend in expressing the ardent hope that no vested interest, either of workmen or of employers, will be allowed to stand in the way of the demobilisation of this Army as soon as possible. There may be something to be said for the gradual demobilisation of the fighting Army. I hope that will be done gradually, so that the labour market will not be flooded by a lot of men coming from France, for whom no provision adequate to their number can be made. But with regard to the industrial army I hope, as soon as they have ceased making shells, or whatever they may be engaged upon—that will be before the end of the War; it will be when we know that no great demand for shells is coming —they will be turned adrift, no matter what it may involve, and that they will be demobilised in some way or other as soon as possible for the industrial reconstruction that must take place. There must necessarily be a period before that industrial reconstruction takes place. I take it that this Bill is to make provision for that period. The only word of criticism I would desire to offer is that the Bill is too small. I do not know whether it will be possible to exact more money. I rather differ from my hon. Friend who entertains fears with regard to the ability of anybody now working in munition factories to pay 2½d. per week. If it is a fact that there are some women—and I accept my hon. Friend's statement that there are —either working in munition factories or doing anything directly or indirectly for the Government in the prosecution of this War—if there are, I say, some women who cannot pay 2½d. per week, the remedy is to increase their wages and thus put them in a position to pay it. My point is that the Bill is not big enough. The War perhaps may be over in a few months. We all hope it may be. Suppose the services -of these people are required for another five months only; that is not an exaggerated hope. If they are only required for that length of time—and they will be wanted only so long as, in the opinion of the military authorities, it is necessary to keep on
    1710
    making shells and ammunition—the provision made by this Bill is for only one month after, and but a meagre amount on unemployed benefit is ensured. With ail due respect for those who will have to undertake the work of social reconstruction after this War, I say that work is not going to be completed in one month or even in a few months, and, therefore, I should have liked to have seen the Bill much bigger.
    I should have liked to have seen it exacting not less, but more money. I should have liked to have seen it exact a good deal more money, so that the amount of benefit to be derived from it could have been spread over more than one month— so that it could have been spread over a sufficient period to allow breathing time to provide other employment for those no longer required in the munition industries. In regard to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry Mr. Mason), I should like to emphasise what has been said about the effect which may be produced not only in Coventry, but in my own Constituency and at Woolwich, and at places like that. I shudder to think what the effect may be at Coventry, Birmingham, Newcastle, and many other places. Towns have actually been built up on the shell-making industry during the last year or two. These occupations will go, they will go suddenly, and one must not forget in this connection the position of the employer. I hope I am sufficiently broad-minded to include employers with other classes of the community who have done their bit towards winning this War. We are going to win it. If employers have suffered by surrendering their businesses so that their factories may be used for the making of munitions, then I suggest one ought not to stand in the way of their getting what compensation they are entitled to. I rather think, however, that that is going outside the scope of this Bill, which follows the structure of the original Bill, and which provides only for 2½d. being exacted from the workman, 2½d. from the employer, and 1½d. from the State. The hon. Member for Coventry may have a good case, but obviously his point is one which cannot be dealt with in this particular Bill. I am in favour of this measure. I regret it was not introduced long ago, so that we might have had a greater period of preparation. But late in the day though it may be I hope it will go through, and, if any Amendments are introduced, I trust

    1711
    they will be in the direction of increasing rather than lessening the amount of money to be raised.
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I have no reason to oppose this Bill, but I rise to point out that the duty it imposes upon employers, and especially upon controlled firms, is very onerous indeed. For instance, the exaction of the odd halfpenny increases the difficulty of calculation.
    Mr. THORNE: That can be remedied by the employer paying 3d. and the workman 2d. in alternate weeks.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Yes, in some cases there has been that mutual arrangement. But what I want to point out is that this Bill does impose a good deal of work upon the management of big industries at a time when it is very difficult to get it done. I can assure the House that firms working on munitions are simply smothered with Government forms and requests for detailed information, and this Bill puts an extra duty upon one at the very moment when it is most difficult to conduct business really effectively because of these continually increasing demands.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to acknowledge the very friendly spirit in which this Bill has been received, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gangway, as well as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) for the kindness with which they have heflped the Government in considering the details of this Bill. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), I think there is a good deal of force in his contention. I wish, as he wishes, that we had brought in this Bill earlier. I do not think I could possibly use language more appropriate to the conditions which will probably apply to labour at the end of this War than he has done. So far as the contributions are concerned, I am bound to say I share his feeling. I wish they were higher. I should have liked to have seen larger provision made by means of the weekly amount, and spread over a longer time when the labour crisis comes. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this temporary Bill must follow exactly on the same lines as the original Bill to which it is to be attached. It would be quite impossible to have two insurances of a different character running together, and if my hon.
    1712
    Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) will look at the Bill from that point of view he will find an answer to his criticisms. We are obliged to adhere to the old Bill because we have to graft this measure on to it. I certainly will take into consideration what my hon. Friend has said as to the possibility of removing the defects he has pointed out, but obviously that will have to be done by a separate Bill dealing with the question of insurance as a whole.
    I do not think we need offer any excuse because we are making provision for what may occur when peace comes. We did not expect war and we were not prepared for it. For that we were not to blame. But we do expect peace, and we should be blameable if we made no preparation for it. There is one advantage, and I think it is really a great advantage—it has not yet been mentioned by any of the speakers—which is likely to arise from this Bill. The hon. Member for West Ham expressed a hope that when the end of the War came there would not be any long delay in the return of civil labour to its old work and surroundings. But it is very important before that change takes place there should be some form of registration, and that form will be provided for by this Bill. If it should prove necessary to take any general action of a relief character in the crisis which may follow the conclusion of peace—I trust it will not be necessary—it is to be hoped there will not be such an immediate redistribution of labour as would involve the scattering to the four winds of those who are now engaged in munition works—then, I say, I attach almost as much value to this provision for registration as to the Bill itself.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house pointed out just now a growing evil in connection with the trouble of administering these national schemes. The trouble is enormous, and the more you extend the area to which the scheme applies, although it may be much better from the national point of view, you are largely adding to the work of administration, and therefore we ought, by looking ahead, to do whatever we can to diminish the work and cost of administration. That is, to my mind, as important as providing the actual relief. These are the two main objects for which this Bill has been introduced. The Board of Trade are very grateful to the House, and to both employers and employed, for their attitude in regard to these measures. It is satisfactory to know that since this

    1713
    Bill has been before the House no single employer has raised a word of objection against the additional burden which will be imposed upon him by it, and the fact that we find both employers and employed are working together for the making of every possible preparation against trouble at the end of the War, shows there is less intolerance on either side than sometimes would appear to exist. If we can do anything to strengthen that feeling it will be an advantage for which we shall have cause to be thankful.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Substitute Standard of Calorific Power for Standard of Illuminating Power.)
  (1) Where by virtue of any Act or Order confirmed by Act of Parliament regulating the
  undertaking of any company, authority, or person authorised to supply gas in any area in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the undertakers), the gas supplied by the undertakers is required to be of a prescribed illuminating power, and the undertakers are liable to penalties in the case of the illuminating power of the gas provided by them being less than, or being less by a prescribed extent than such proscribed illuminating power, then on application being made by the undertakers the appropriate Government Department may, if they think it expedient, and subject to such conditions, if any, as they consider proper, by order—

  (a) substitute for the prescribed standard of illuminating power a prescribed standard of calorific power;

  (b) exempt the undertakers from penalties in respect of a deficiency in illuminating power and substitute for the provisions imposing such penalties provisions imposing penalties in the case of deficiency in calorific power; and

  (c) substitute for the provisions as to testing for illuminating power provisions as to testing for calorific power;

  1714
  and on the making of such an Order the special Act or Order regulating the undertaking shall have effect as amended by the Order.
  (2) 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.
  (3) Before making an Order under this Section the appropriate Government Department shall require the undertakers to give public notice in such manner as the Department may consider best adapted for informing persons affected of the application for an Order under this Section, and of the calorific standard proposed to be adopted, and as to the manner in which and time within which objections may be made, and shall consider any objections which may be duly made, and shall where they think it expedient to do so hold an inquiry, and the costs (if any) incurred by the Department in connection with the inquiry shall be borne by the undertakers.
  (4) For the purposes of this Section' "the appropriate Government Department" means—

  (a) in cases where the undertakers are a local authority, the Local Govern ment Board or the Secretary for Scotland, or the Local Government Board for Ireland, as the case may be; and

  (b) in any other case the Board of Trade.

  Mr. KING: May I begin by making an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who will, if he falls in with what I have to say, facilitate business. On the Second Reading this Bill was very warmly approved. Personally, I welcome it very much. The criticism which I directed to it, which was enforced by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) whose experience and authority in this matter are much greater than mine, was that in' lowering the calorific power of gas and in encouraging gas undertakers to take up chemicals you were going to give the consumers of gas a cheaper article without any assurance that a lower price would be charged, and, on the other hand, that you were encouraging gas companies to go in for a chemical business which they did not understand and which might

  1715
  not be profitable, but very much the reverse. The Amendments which I have put down—I confess they were hurriedly put together; we have only had two days 'to consider them—are directed with that object.
  The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member is not moving the first two Amendments on the Paper?
  Mr. KING: I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will not move to report Progress, and, if possible, bring up Amendments to attain my object, in which case, so far as I am concerned, I will let the Bill go through unopposed at eleven o'clock. I do not know whether I can have a reply to that appeal.
  The CHAIRMAN: We must have something before the Committee. At present we are in the air.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "and" ["deficiency in calorific power; and"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know whether I should be in order in replying to the hon. Member on that.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so.
  Mr. KING: May I appeal to you, Mr. Whitley, in the interests of business, to allow me to go on? I will certainly, on the subsequent Amendments, stick most strictly to the Bill, but if a little latitude can be allowed so that the hon. Gentleman can answer my appeal, I think we shall get on faster.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the first Amendment which the hon. Member has moved is a purely drafting one, is it not?
  Mr. KING: It does raise the point whether any Order which may be made will contain each of the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). Will it be possible to make an Order which will contain only one or two of them?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No.
  Mr. KING: It will contain all three.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.
  Mr. KING: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "In any Order made under this Section, which is made having special regard to the production of benzol and toluol, conditions may be imposed on the undertakers that they shall show by their accounts the relative cost of their production of gas and of benzol and toluol, and to preserve the rights of the consumers to a supply of gas at a cost commensurate with the cost of the production of the gas supplied."
  May I appeal to the hon. Member either to put off this Bill or to give an assurance that if we allow it to go through at once that he will consider our point of view, and will not only consult the gas undertakers—I know they are against separate accounts and any safeguard we should propose for the consumers—but also those who represent the consumers. I know there are technical and plausible difficulties in the way of the proposals I am making for separate accounts. I know the one object is to get as large a supply of chemicals at once as is possible. Will he consult not only with gas undertakers and the Ministry of Munitions, but also with some definite authoritative people who can speak for consumers and trades, such as the chemical trade? I think that is a fair offer to make. If he will do that, I will not press the Amendment.
  Sir W. PEARCE: May I add one word before the hon. Gentleman replies to the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King). The production of benzol and toluol is likely to continue after the War. The war conditions which have necessitated the Government increasing the production of these substances justly encourages gas works to embark upon chemical operations. For many years past their chemical operations have increased in magnitude. It is no good disguising the fact that this Clause will accentuate the position. The whole of the war conditions are accentuating it. I know one gas company in particular—I will not mention its name—which has already under consideration whether the production of benzol should not be carried on for the production of aniline, and the production of toluol should not be carried on for the production of tri-nitro-toluol. The time has come when there should be a separation of accounts. If these operations^ are highly profitable, they will

  1717
  strengthen the position of the gas companies. If they are not so profitable as the gas company managers think they will be, they will lead to the other result. All I am asking is that the Board of Trade should acknowledge the necessity of separate accounts being kept for these two distinct operations. Gas companies were established originally for the production of gas for domestic purposes only. What I am asking the Board of Trade to do now—they do not do it under this Bill— is that they shall secure by yearly audit that the cost and results of the two sets of operations should be known to everybody—not only to the gas companies, but "to the public and the House of Commons.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to meet my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. King) if I could, but I think that when I have stated exactly how the matter stands he will not press his appeal. Since he raised the matter two days ago I have gone into it very carefully, not only with those working gas undertakings or with the Munitions Department, but also with those officials at the Board of Trade whose special duty it is to protect the consumer, who have no interest whatever in supporting the gas undertakings, and who look at the matter purely from a national point of view. My hon. Friend has the very laudable desire that the consumer shall not suffer. I think I express his views correctly when I say that he wishes the consumer to get the full reduction in the price of gas where the undertakers, whether they be a gas company or a local authority who are making gas, obtain an additional profit through the secondary undertakings such as the manufacture of toluol and benzol. I do not think my hon. Friend understands the sliding-scale system.
  Mr. KING: Certainly I do!
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Does he realise that if any profit is made in the production of these by-products, under the sliding scale, for every £l which goes to increase dividends, anything from £4, £o or £6, has to go in the direct reduction of the price to the consumer?
  Mr. KING: Of course I understand that perfectly. I am thinking of what will happen if there is a loss upon the chemical side. That will prevent the dividend being raised. The dividend not being capable of being raised the price of gas will remain higher under the sliding scale. What
  1718
  I am really afraid of is the loss that may possibly ensue upon these chemical undertakings, not the profit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hardly think the gas company would incur a loss as a result of this undertaking. It is hardly likely that the gas company will undertake secondary operations and incur a loss upon them. I admit it might happen, but I do not think a loss will involve an increased dividend, even under the sliding scale. My hon. Friend's point that under the sliding scale a loss on this might result in higher prices to the consumer is a good one. He is perfectly right in that. It might; but I do not think it is at all a likely contingency. He is perfectly correct in attaching importance to it. I understand that that is also the point of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce).
  Sir W. PEARCE: My point is that unless the accounts are separated it is impossible to tell whether there is any profit—if so, how much profit—or whether there is a loss?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I can only say that I have gone into the matter very carefully, and, so far as I am at present advised, I do not see how it is possible to keep separate accounts. It is not practicable. I do not understand gas undertakings, but I do understand farming, and the analogy between them is really complete. I say, without hesitation, that it is impossible to separate exactly the cost of production of any single item on a farm. It must be a question of valuation and nothing else. Both in a gas works and on a farm you have separate production. In the one case of wheat and grain and in the other of gas and toluol. When you are trying to distribute either cost or profit or loss between either of those items, you have to value what passes from one form of production to the other. Whether the one will show a loss and the other a profit will depend upon what value you choose to put upon those items. Therefore it is not and cannot be an exact calculation. The only real test of whether or not a farm pays is the bank book. I have found that from practical experience, extending over a good many years. Exactly the same thing will apply to a gas undertaking. If we were to try to differentiate and even to do it as fairly as possible, I say as a practical man that any real difference upon which legislation could be founded would

  1719
  be impossible. I am convinced of that after having looked into the matter very carefully. Therefore although I should like to meet my hon. Friend I feel we could not get any further because there we are down to bedrock. I will, however, undertake that if either he or the hon. Member for Limehouse is able to send me any facts or particulars which will disprove what I am at present convinced is not disprovable, we will consider them at the Board of Trade. This is not a universal Bill in which such a change as that suggested could properly be made. It would not be a change applying to all gasworks, because all gasworks will not be under the calorific test. If my hon. Friends will send me particulars showing how separate accounts could be kept, I will undertake to consider them. On the information at present before me I cannot see how it could be done, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to insert any such provision in this Bill. However desirable it may be from the point of view they have put, I do not think it is practicable. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his objection to our taking the Committee stage of the Bill now.
  Mr. KING: I recognise the very fair and patient spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has replied to me. I am convinced still that I am right, because the hon. Gentleman has chosen surely the one instance—farms—in which it is notorious that no accounts are ever kept. Why, for instance, until just recently have farmers never had Income Tax on the same basis as all the other people in the country? Simply because they have no accounts on which you could base their income at all, because it was felt that it was quite impossible to teach the farmer how to keep accounts. Does not the Board of Trade at present insist that all railway undertakings shall present accounts on certain lines showing what their profits and expenditure, and so on, are in various directions? Are they not all arranged on certain schedules which the Board of Trade imposes? Is it inconceivable that similar schedules should not be imposed on gas undertakings? That is the sort of thing we want.
  Sir W. PEARCE: I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly realised how large the chemical undertakings of some of the largess gas companies are. What he has said about farming in some degree may be
  1720
  applied to the small gasworks, but there are gasworks to-day of a larger size which have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in chemical plant, and which are extending their operations. When it comes to converting benzol into nitro-benzol, and then aniline, these are very large chemical works. Anyone who goes to the Gas Light and Coke Company's works will see an enormous chemical plant which is absolutely distinct from the gas undertaking, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say the Department considers this kind of account cannot be kept separate. It is often necessary to-separate the cost of half a dozen articles which you are making in the same factory, and it is not difficult to do, and you are obliged to do it unless you want to find yourself in the workhouse, and you may be making a heavy loss on a particular operation without knowing anything about it. The success of these operations has been questioned very much. I have heard it said, and I do not think it can be disproved, that in certain cases where chemical operations have been conducted, less money is put into the pool in the reduction of the price of gas to consumers. What I am asking is to have this question cleared up. It is a large and a growing question, and it is going to be one of great magnitude. I believe it is in the interests of the gas companies themselves that it should be done, but I am sure it is in the interest of the general public, and I am sure it is in the interest of the chemical industry, a certain portion of which feels now that chemical operations are being conducted by gas works, which really are of no profit to the gas company and yet set up a competition which it is impossible to meet. If it is to the public advantage for the gas companies to continue this operation everyone will submit, especially in war time, but I feel very strongly that it is high time that these accounts, especially when chemical operations are carried on on such an extensive scale, should be separated from gas accounts, and I am convinced from the instances I have in mind that it is quite feasible. The hon. Gentleman has been very kind, and is prepared to reconsider the case if proof can be given him, and I ask him to consider the particulars of two of the London gas companies, the Gas Light and Coke Company and the South Metropolitan, and he will find that their chemical operations are really of enormous magnitude. When

  1721
  he realises their size I hope he will come to my opinion, that it is full time the accounts were kept separate and that the financial result is known.
  Sir D. GODDARD: There are very few cases where gas companies are manufacturing these chemicals that my hon. Friend has mentioned. In London it is only the very largest companies which could do it at all. In the cases he has mentioned there might be some reason for having a working account made out, but I think he will find that where gas companies are producing these chemicals in that way they keep separate accounts. But that is not at all what the Bill proposes. The Bill is not dealing with these details. It is simply a process in the gas making by which certain things may be produced which are not now produced. It is simply an extension of the washing of gas in a certain way so that these toluols and products of that kind can come out and be utilised for the nation at present. Out of the large number of gas companies or gasworks in the country you could count on your hand, or certainly on your two hands, the number which go in for more extensive operations than are proposed in this Bill, and you could no more give a detailed account of the cost of washing gas in order to produce toluol and benzol than you could do it for producing tar or any other products which are produced in the ordinary processes of gas manufacture. It should be remembered, too, that even now almost all gas companies produce sulphate of ammonia, but they are not required under any Act or power of the Board of Trade to render specially separate accounts of the cost of making it. They may lose or they may gain on it, and the gas consumers and shareholders are, no doubt, affected in that way; but they cannot produce separate accounts, and I do not see for the life of me, though I am acquainted with the processes, how you could segregate those processes from the general processes of a gas works and say it costs so much or you lose so much. It is not practicable to do it. If there were powers to carry those processes much further into detail, as the hon. Member has indicated, and to manufacture aniline and other things, it might become a question. But that is really going into a different industry altogether. It is done, but it is only done in very few cases. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can point out more than two or three gas under-
  1722
  takings which produce these minute details. I do not think they can fairly come within the meaning of this Bill. Gas accounts could not be divided up as between the cost of making gas, the cost of making tar and the cost of making these distillations from which the other products will be obtained.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) In any Order made under this Section, due regard shall be had to the interests of the consumers of gas for domestic and trade purposes; and a maximum price to such consumers may be fixed by the Order, which the appropriate Government Department from time to time may vary, having regard to the cost of gas production and other material circumstances."
  This Amendment is directed to the same point, but in another form. I will simply ask: Are you going, in the Orders that you are going to make enabling gas undertakings to reduce the standard of gas for enumerating purposes, to protect consumers directly in any way? [An HON. MEMBER: "The sliding scale."] You do it by no other means than the sliding scale, and the sliding scale only comes into operation when you have an alteration of dividend. What will happen if this Bill comes into force, is that the company will reduce its standard of gas very much, and there is still a great number of people, especially in the poorer quarters of any town, in small rooms who will suffer very severely by having a much duller light and a very great deal more of abominable gas air, and you will be charging them just the same price as before. You have nothing in the Bill to protect the consumer as consumer, and especially the poor consumer. The only protection comes in when you alter the dividend, and with the increased cost of coal and all the labour difficulties and all the rest of it, an increase of dividend is most unlikely. I must therefore appeal most strongly for some consideration of this point of view. In the Bill as it stands there is nothing whatever to protect the consumer, and that is why I move this Amendment.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: My hon. Friend appears to have quite insufficiently equipped himself with knowledge of the

  1723
  subject. He does not appear to understand the meaning, the effect or the scope of the sliding scale, which is in the constitution of practically every gas company's Act of Parliament. The sliding scale may be described in this way. No gas company subject to it can increase its dividend unless it reduces the price, and reduction of price must necessarily be the forerunner of an increased dividend. Gas companies are just as desirous of giving good dividends to the shareholders as any other company, and if the dividend of the shareholder is absolutely dependent, as it is, upon cheapness of gas the protection which the hon. Member desires for poor consumers is already secured. The object of this Bill is a national object. I have personal knowledge of the grave difficulties which existed at the outbreak of the War in obtaining explosives. The Government had to refer to gas companies, as well as to other manufacturers, and to ask them to modify their manufacture in such a way as to increase the cost and reduce the possibility of profits for national purposes. The gas companies responded. They acted, on the whole, most patriotically, and the result has been what we now witness in France and what we read of—an unlimited supply of explosives. Anything in the direction indicated by the Amendment, which would interfere with the gas companies in that patriotic endeavour, is something which is to be deprecated and opposed. If the Amendment were carried, it would tie the hands of gas companies and reduce their power of national service and would add a grave injustice to them, which, after all, is a secondary consideration as compared with the national consideration. Every con of coal which is burnt in the ordinary way is burnt as a national loss, from the point of view of explosives. Every ton of coal which is carbonised and turned into gas is at the same time serving for illumination, serving for heating, and serving for a national purpose in regard to explosives. I do appeal to the Committee to do nothing, and to entertain no suggestion which would have the effect of increasing the direct consumption of coal by ordinary burning, and of reducing the use of coal through the medium of gas for the purpose of manufacture and heating, for which it is now available, whilst at the same time it is being used for the urgent national service with which the Committee is familiar. I will not detain the House with technicalities, though
  1724
  there are many, which, if added, would have helped to strengthen my argument. I hope for the general easons I have given the Committee will reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend, if, after he has heard the explanation, he does not see that it would be wise and patriotic to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. BRUNNER: The remarks just made by the hon. Member (Sir F. Flannery) seem to me to be quite irrelevant to this proposal of the hon. Member for North Somerset. They may have been absolutely correct, but they have nothing to to do with this Amendment. The Amendment says that due regard shall be had to the interests of the consumers of gas. It is quite obvious that if the lighting power of the gas is reduced, the poor customers will be very badly hit.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Why?
  Mr. BRUNNER: Because they will get less light.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Not if they use incandescent burners.
  Mr. BRUNNER: That is exactly the point I am coming to. Some years age there was a Bill before this House, which I think was the Crystal Palace Gas Company's Bill. It was brought in for the purpose of getting power for gas companies to have a standard of calorific value instead of a standard of lighting value; but a Committee of this House had not the courage at that time to grant powers for the substitution of calorific value for lighting value. In that Bill the gas company proposed to supply incandescent burners and mantles free to the consumers, and I suggest to the Government that in any Order they make under this Bill they should suggest that to the gas companies. With the profits that this Bill will give them they would be well able to afford that. The poor consumer will then be benefited by this Bill. If that provision is not made he will have to go to great expense to put in incandescent burners, because the gas which will be supplied by the companies when this Bill is passed will net be fit for burning in the ordinary flat-flame burners.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I think he will see that the Bill covers the point he has raised. The point he made was that, owing to the cost of coal, and for other obvious reasons, the profits might

  1725
  easily be swallowed up, so that there could be no increase of dividend possible, and, therefore, there would be no fall in the price of gas. If he follows that argument out he must see that if that were so, in the absence of this Bill, this increased cost would involve a reduction in dividend and an increase in price. That must follow. Therefore, it comes to the same thing. In all cases where the advantage which this Bill gives to a gas company enables that company to increase its dividend, that will automatically carry a decrease in the price of gas. Where, on the other hand, it does not enable the company to increase its dividend, it must merely have the effect of preventing a decrease of dividend. Therefore, it will prevent a rise in price. It is to the advantage of the consumer automatically. Where a sliding scale is in operation it must operate to the advantage of the consumer in a larger proportion than to the gas company. Out of every pound which is gained in profit by this change, something like from one-fifth to one-seventh goes in dividend, and the remainder goes towards decreasing the price. So that of the actual sum earned a much larger proportion will go to the consumer than to the gas company. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point. I think it is a complete answer. If there should be any case where what I have said does not apply we have power, in making these Orders, to see that the consumer gets fair treatment in proportion to any advantage which the gas company gets, and I think that is really all that that the hon. Member desires.
  As to the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Brunner), I hardly think that we can enforce any such condition as the one he suggested. The proportion of gas which is now used in the flat-flame burner for illuminating purposes is, I believe, less than 5 per cent. It may be true that it is only used in very poor dwellings, but I am not quite sure that it is even used there in any large proportion. I think it is more often used in underground passages, and in places where it is not thought worth while replacing the burners. If that burner is used in inhabited rooms, it is clearly greatly to the advantage of the consumers that it should be replaced as soon as possible. If the quality of the gas is reduced there will be all the more reason for replacing those burners as quickly as possible by incandescent burners, which
  1726
  involve less consumption of gas, and which will mean so much more economy to the consumer instead of being a source of loss. I think the hon. Member will see that when the first Bill was introduced for this purpose it was an experiment which the gas company was anxious to induce the House of Commons to accept. It was a new invention of very great importance, but the House of Commons did not know at that time and the company had to offer some inducement to the House to give it a trial. The House not being convinced, and not having knowledge of the fact that the consumer would benefit as much as the gas company, did not accept it. We know better now. We know that it is just as much in the interests of the consumer as of the company that incandescent burners should be used. If we are to make it a condition, as suggested by the hon. Member, that the gas company should supply incandescent burners to dwelling-houses, we shall only be giving the landlord of the house—perhaps the landlord of slum property—a subsidy, which I do not think the House would feel in the least inclined to do, thereby imposing a burden upon the gas company. I think, considering the matter fairly on its merits, and'; quite accepting the principle which both hon. Members have in view, that the consumer should have full advantage of any saving that this change will effect, I hope that the hon. Member (Mr. King) will agree to withdraw his Amendment and' allow the Bill to go through.
  Mr. KING: I do not think the argument is quite complete, yet the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed' is so sympathetic that I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. King) has handed in a manuscript Amendment which seems to me to be rather outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. KING: It deals with the point which has been raised—namely, provision in cases of poor persons of incandescent burners. I do not think I will move it.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill
  Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

POLICE, ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Retention by Ex-constables of Pensions whilst Employed for the Purposes of the War.)
  (1) Where for purposes connected with the present War a constable in receipt of a pension under the Police Act, 1890, has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, enlisted or entered or been granted a commission in any of His Majesty's Forces, or obtained employment under the Admiralty or Army Council or the Ministry of Munitions, or entered or reentered the service of any police force, Sub-section (2) of Section thirteen of the Police Act, 1890 (which relates to the suspension of pension in cases of appointments to new offices) shall not and shall be deemed never to have applied except to such extent as the police authority may otherwise determine.
  (2) This Section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of references to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, for the references to the Police Act, 1890.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "not" ["shall not"], to insert the word "apply." I think it is clear that this Amendment is necessary in order to supply an obvious misprint.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Samuel): The hon. Member has a large number of Amendments on the Paper, and I am very glad that I am able to accept this one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Retention by Ex-constables of Pensions whilst Employed for the Purposes of the War.)

    CLAUSE 2.—(Payments to Constables Serving in the Naval and Military Forces.)
    (1) Where before the passing of this Act a police authority has resolved, promised, sanctioned or agreed to make to any constable serving in His Majesty's Forces for the purposes of the present War, payments in excess of the amounts authorised by the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, 1914 and 1915, any such excess payments up to the date of the passing of this Act, or such later date as may be determined by the Secretary of State, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made, and the Secretary of State may, if
    1728
    he thinks fit, sanction the continuance of such excess payments after such date as aforesaid, and shall do so in any case where it appears to him that the constable joined His Majesty's Forces in reliance on such resolution, promise, sanction, or agreement, and that the amount of the excess is not unreasonable.
    (2) This Section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of a reference to the Secretary for Scotland for the reference to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. WILES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "unreasonable," to insert the words "In the case of any constable who dies whilst employed on naval or military service the police authority shall have power to return to any of his dependants, as defined in Section 1 of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, the rateable deductions which have been made from his pay towards pension."
    I cannot help thinking that in the pressure under which the Home Office is working at present this point must have been overlooked. I know the Home Secretary will agree with me that the police have been most patriotic. Probably no body has enlisted in the Army and the Navy more enthusiastically than the police; but it is found that with regard to young men with families and dependants who have enlisted, and in several cases lately have lost their lives, the local authorities have been unable to compensate the dependants under the Act of Parliament which regulates the payments to police. It has been found in Sheffield and Hull, where constables who have enlisted have lost their lives, that although the corporations are most anxious to compensate the dependants of these men who lost their lives in the service of their country, they were unable to do so. This is rather strange, because deductions are made from the police pay regularly towards pensions. If a constable resigns, he is able to get a part of what is known as the surrender value of the payments which have been made, and if he changes from one police force to another he is also able to get the surrender value or deduction in his payments. That is so arranged, I think, in Section 15 of the Police Act, 1890, which says that on the resignation or removal of a constable, by virtue of Section 21 he may be compensated. It seems to me that this is a most reasonable proposal, and a necessary one for the provision of some help for the dependants of policemen who have joined the Army or Navy and lost their

    1729
    lives. I do not know whether this Subsection is the proper place in which to insert my Amendment, but if the Home Secretary suggests any other place I should be only too glad to fall in with that suggestion. Whether the money is to be paid in a lump sum, or in any other way, is a matter for consideration. I do press upon the Home Secretary the necessity of making this addition to the Bill, and I cannot help thinking that he will agree with the proposal.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that members of the police force generally throughout the country have shown the utmost readiness to volunteer to serve the country in the War; in fact, the difficulty has been to hold them back from serving, and police-constables have rather criticised the need of preventing them recruiting than raised any objection to the call of duty that has been made upon them. Of course if a police constable enlists with the permission of his authority and is unfortunately killed in the War and is not yet qualified to receive a police pension, his dependants will receive from Army funds the same pension that the dependants of any other soldier will receive who is killed in the War; but it is urged by the hon. Member that, in addition to that, some local authorities would desire to return to the dependants the contributions which the man had made during his police service in the nature of insurance premiums. That, of course, could not be done if death took place in the ordinary police service of the country, because the contributions are assessed more or less on an insurance basis, and with some regard to the risk that is being incurred. But it is true to say that this is a special and exceptional risk, which was not contemplated when the Police Act was drawn up, and perhaps for that reason it may require special and more generous consideration. If a policeman resigns from the force his contributions are repaid to him, but if he enlists for the War and is killed, the contributions are not repaid to his dependants. I think that the hon. Member has made out a strong case for permitting a local authority who so desire—the matter must rest on the option of the local authority who are the parties financially interested in the matter—to repay the money in cases such as those. I would therefore recommend the Committee to accept the hon. Member's Amendment with a further
    1730
    Amendment to make clear the purpose which he has really in view. As drafted, his Amendment would appear to make it permissible to the local authority, where a pension has been earned and where a pension is to be paid to the widow or dependant, in addition to that to give back the contributions under the insurance scheme under which the pension is payable. He has not got that in mind at all. He has in mind the case where no pension or allowance is payable. Therefore I would propose as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "service," to insert the words "in respect of whom no pension or gratuity is payable from the Police Fund."
    Sir J. SPEAR: I wish to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a simple measure of justice. The police constables have shown their patriotism by leaving snug employment to fight for their country, and their dependants ought to be cared for. The local authority should have power to give to the dependants of the deceased constable the contributions which he has made to the Pension Fund. I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right view, that this fund is really in the nature of deferred pay, and that therefore the dependants are not only entitled to the Grant from the State, but that in addition the local authority should have power to give them the amount of money which the constable has contributed to the Pension Fund.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should have made it clear to the Committee that if a pension would be payable if the man had died in the course of duty in the Police Force we have already enacted by previous emergency legislation that the police pension) shall be payable if he had lost his life in the service of the country. This Amendment only deals with the case where the pension has not yet matured.
    Mr. WILES: I shall be glad to accept that Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, to add at the end of Clause 2 the following Sub-section: "For the purposes of Section 1 of the Police Emergency Provisions Act, 1915, every police constable who en listed in His Majesty's Forces prior to the

    1731
    passing of the above Act and who resigned from the Police Force for the purpose of so enlisting, shall be considered to have joined His Majesty's Forces with the consent of the chief officer of the force to which he belonged."
    I have spoken to the Home Secretary about this Sub-section, which affects one of my Constituents. The addition which I propose is only justice to those men who have left the Police Force and joined the Service. Most of them have done this from patriotic motives, hardly realising that they left to enlist without permission. Their patriotism has induced them to give up in many cases soft jobs, and I would be very glad if the Home Secretary could do something to assist these men. It is not a very large matter, but it is one which would be specially appreciated in the Police Force. No words which I may say would, I suppose, induce the Home Secretary to alter his opinion, if he has decided to refuse to do anything in the matter; but the amount involved is very small. There are very few cases, but they are very deserving cases. The men acted entirely through patriotism, and they are entitled to be considered.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I cannot agree with the hon. Member that a policeman's ordinary sphere is to be regarded as what he terms a "soft job." There are many cases indeed in which a policeman's life is not a happy one, and although the risks of warfare are still greater, even in ordinary times they render their services to the public at very great risk to themselves. But I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment. The Committee I think will agree that it is really wrong in principle. In order to maintain the Police Force at all we had to lay down a rule that a man must not enlist without the permission of the police authority. If it were not so, the eagerness to enlist would have led to an undue depletion of the Police Force, and would have made it impossible to assure the safety of the inhabitants of this country. There are many others as well as policemen who have been refused permission to enlist on the ground that the services which they are rendering in their civilian occupations are indispensable. A policeman who nevertheless does enlist must expect to incur the penalties of a breach of this rule that has been laid down. There is a case to which some attention has been
    1732
    drawn, and I have no doubt that it is the case to which the hon. Member refers, of a man who applied twice for permission to enlist, and on both occasions was refused. Ultimately he resigned his service in the Police Force in order to enlist, but was told distinctly, with no possibility of doubt about it, that if he did enlist without the permission of a superior officer he must be regarded as having left the Police Force. In those circumstances it is impossible to regard all that as never having happened at all, and to treat the man who has enlisted in defiance of orders of his superior authority exactly in the same way as the man who has received permission. If such an Amendment as this were inserted, it would mean that I would be impossible to refuse permission to enlist, and it would make no difference whether permission were given or refused to great numbers of policemen and others who wished to join the Army.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: I was not aware that this constable had been warned that if he did enlist he would have to consider himself as having retired from the service, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Police Authority to Pension Persons Injured whilst Assisting Police.)
    (1) Where a police authority has accepted the offer of any person to assist the police in the execution of any of their duties connected with the present War, and such person is incapacitated by an injury received by him whilst rendering such assistance under the supervision or in accordance with the directions of the police authority, or dies from the effect of any injury so received without his own default, the police authority may grant to him or his wife and children a pension or pensions and allowances, at the same rates as under the Police Act, 1890, would have been payable had such person been a constable who had completed not more than five years' service and was drawing pay at the rate of five shillings a day, and all such pensions and allowances shall be I paid out of the Police Fund.
    (2) This Section shall apply to Scotland with the substitution of a reference to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, for the reference to the Police Act, 1890.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Before the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) moves the Amendment which he has on the Paper, I wish, on a point of Order, to call attention to the fact that this is a Bill "relating to the police and certain other enactments with the administration of which the Secretary of State for the Home Department is concerned." The hon. Member's Amendment relates to fire brigades, which are largely bodies that are not under the Home Office, and are not managed by the police authorities. There are cases in which by arrangement town councils and police authorities take over the duties of fire brigades, and the watch committees take over the duty of looking after fires. In some cases the firemen are enrolled as constables of the Police Force, but this is not the case as a rule, and over a very great part of the country the fire brigades have nothing to do with the police authorities. The hon. Member, by his Amendment, seeks to make police authorities liable to make payment to fire brigades which axe not under those authorities.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: On the point of Order, Sir. The object of my moving to insert the words "or where any person duly authorised by a local authority to extinguish fires is engaged in the execution of any duties connected with the present War," is to prevent the exclusion of firemen from the benefits of this Clause. The people who benefit by the Clause are those over whom the police authority have accepted an offer of service. A fireman, having the right to go to a fire to give his assistance in putting out the fire, does not require his offer to be accepted by the police to render assistance, and, therefore, by the mere fact that he happens to be a fireman, he does not obtain the benefit from the Clause which any other class would get. My Amendment would have the effect of including the firemen, who would, otherwise, get no benefits under this Clause.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If firemen are in the police, they would come under the Clause like anybody else; if they were enlisted for that purpose by the police they would come under the Clause. If they were not, I see no more reason why they should be included in this Bill than the school teacher who may suffer an accident while engaged in teaching in school.
    Mr. J. MASON: I may state that it has been held by the Court that firemen do
    1734
    not derive benefit from the Workmen's Compensation Act if they are injured by any occurrence arising out of acts of war. It has been held that if any injury arises to members of fire brigades through acts of war, then the local authorities cannot be held liable, and, therefore, if a fireman, going to a fire to assist the police, were to be killed by a bomb, he would not be able to get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, according to the Bill, would derive no benefit from this Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the point of Order. After hearing both views I am clearly of opinion that the Amendment is not in order.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "wife" ["or to his wife"], and to insert instead thereof the word "widow."
    This Amendment comes before that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset, and really effects the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in view.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of 51 and 52 Vict, c. 41, s. 24 (1) (i) and(j).)
    In paragraphs (i) and (j) of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1888, which relate to transfers and payments charged on the Exchequer Contribution Account in respect of the pay and clothing of the police, the expression "pay of the police" shall be deemed to include the pay of any women who may be employed by a police authority to perform any of the duties of the police and are required to devote the whole of their time to such employment.
    Mr. PERKINS: I beg to move, after the word "pay" ["include the pay"], to insert the words "pension and compensation."
    The object of the Amendment is to enable the local authorities who engage the services of women police to assist men police in the discharge of certain special duties for which women are constantly now employed by those authorities, to pay to the women not merely their ordinary pay, perhaps 28s. or 30s. a week, but to award pension and compensation in the same way as policemen are entitled,

    1735
    under certain circumstances, to pension and compensation. I need not weary the Committee by dwelling on the value of the services now being rendered to municipalities by women policemen, but it should not be imagined by those who have not studied the subject that women police are being appointed to take the place of men: in other words, they are not appointed to perform duties where great physical strength is required—to arrest drunkards, or stop motor cars, or anything which would require the exertion of physical strength. The work of these women police is particularly valuable in connection with women and children, or in cases connected with the prevention of crime against children, and in cases connected with the administration of the laws which affect women and children. These women, I must say, are without exception all very well trained, and highly educated women are taking up police work in a very serious fashion. They feel, and I must say I entirely agree with them, that 28s. or 30s. a week is not enough to induce them to take up the work of the police seriously, unless they are safeguarded by some simple arrangement which would enable them to get pension, or, if they become the subject of compensation, as policemen sometimes do become the subject of compensation in the discharge of their duties, then that they should be allowed to claim compensation as a natural right. I am not quite certain whether the Amendment is in the proper place, but I have another on the Paper later which will perhaps make the matter clearer.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The movement to appoint women police is a very new one, and is yet only in its elemental stage, and a very small number have been appointed in many localities. None can render more useful service than these women police in certain capacities. They cannot, of course, perform all the duties of the police constable, or most of the duties of the police constable, which need physical force, and a great deal of it is necessary. They can, however, perform useful functions in connection with the supervision of women and children, and some local authorities have tentatively employed them for that purpose. For a long time the authorities have employed women for several purposes without their being in uniform and without their having to perform duties on the streets. I should be
    1736
    very unwilling to do anything that would frighten the local authorities in regard to the appointment of women police. The Police Pension Fund is a very heavy burden already. Actually it involves an enormous expenditure, in addition to the contributions made by the constables themselves; and I am rather afraid that if the proposal were made that every woman employed in the police force—and she might be employed only for a short time—should be qualified for pension the same as a man, the local authorities, who-are already rather difficult to move, many of them, in different localities, would be greatly prejudiced against the employment of women in the Police Force, and we might have that prejudice strengthened by a proposal like that now under consideration. The police authorities have not been consulted on the subject at all, and the hon. Member has only now handed in his Amendment in manuscript. I should be rather chary myself of imposing an additional burden on the local authorities-without consultation with them. In the-initiation of such a movement we must proceed carefully and warily and recognise that criticisms against it must be gradually overcome, and that we ought not to put too much on the local authorities. I am glad to assure them that they are not to be penalised, and that the Grant from the Exchequer is purely an advantage to them and to encourage them to employ women police. This Amendment would really hold back the cause in which the hon. Member is interested, in addition to which it is in a form which is unacceptable, because the Section to which it applies has nothing to do with compensation or pension and only deals with the pay of the police.
    Mr. KING: I am sorry that this proposal cannot be carried through now, but I think the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the Amendment may be regarded as entirely satisfactory. There is one aspect of this women-police question which I think ought not to be forgotten. If women police are to be successful and are to become a definite institution, as I hope they will, it must largely depend upon the successful engagement of the women who first become members of the Police Force, for it will be they who will set the standard. If you do not offer these women pension and compensation in the first instance, when you are just embarking on this development, you will not get the best kind of women, because

    1737
    those who join without pension and compensation will be stigmatised as inferior and on a different level and will be unfairly treated. I look upon it as essential to the success of this development of our police that at a very early date this reform should be carried through. I very much welcome the way in which the Home Secretary treated this Amendment, and I hope that at a very early date he will proceed to carry through this idea.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and the expression 'clothing of the police' shall be deemed to include equipment of special constables."
    The object of this Amendment is quite obvious. It is to secure that the clothing of special constables shall be paid for by the police authorities in such a way as to obtain a share of the Exchequer fund. The watch committees in our large cities provide for the safety of the public to a large extent at present through special constables. The number of constables has been greatly reduced because of their having become soldiers, and that has caused the increase of special constables. I think it is only fair to see that the equipment of special constables should be provided in such a way that they can get the Exchequer contribution towards them.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is opening up a very wide question, namely, that of the Exchequer contribution. I am afraid that if we were to accept this we would have many other matters in regard to which the local authorities think they should receive Exchequer contributions. When we were proposing to overhaul the relations between the Exchequer and the local authorities we proposed to make some changes in respect to the Exchequer contribution, but the War intervened. I cannot accept an Amendment which would interfere with the principle which is universally adopted in connection with this matter, and I am afraid this question must remain over with others until we come to revise the Exchequer contributions generally.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PERKINS: I wish to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and such women shall be included under the j provisions of the Police Act, 1890."
    1738
    This is a corollary to an Amendment we were discussing just now. It is true my first Amendment was out of order, or, rather, was impracticable, because it came in the wrong place. No such criticism, I think, can be applied to this Amendment. The point raised is one of fairness or unfairness. If women undertake certain risk and perform certain duties hitherto carried out by men—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I did not quite apprehend until the hon. Member began to explain what the effect of this Amendment is. I think it is to introduce the question of compensation which he put forward in an Amendment just now. That Amendment was negatived by the Committee, and therefore he has taken a decision on the point and cannot reopen it.
    Mr. PERKINS: On the point of Order The suggestion I made in the first Amendment was that the local authorities should be allowed to pay under the Local Government Act. I have amended that now, and suggest that the compensation should be paid under the Police Act, which introduces a different condition.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not want to limit what the hon. Member desires to say, but I would submit that, although the form is different, the substance is just the same. If the hon. Member is allowed to make his speech, I should have to make exactly the same speech as I made on the previous Amendment, with the exception of the last sentence, in which I pointed out that the previous Amendment was wrong in point of form.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so, and that it is the same point.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Regulation of Street Collections.)
    A police authority may make regulations with respect to the places where and the conditions under which persons may be permitted in any street or public place, within the police area to collect money or sell articles for the benefit of charitable or other purposes, and any person who-acts in contravention of any such regulation shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings or in the case of a second or subsequent offence not exceeding five pounds.
    Provided that—

    (a) regulations made under this Section shall not come into operation until they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State, and published for such time and in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct; and

    (b) regulations made under this Section shall not apply to the selling of articles in any street or public place when the articles are sold in the ordinary course of trade, and for the purpose of earning a livelihood, and no representation is made by or on behalf of the seller that any part of the proceeds of sale will be devoted to any charitable purpose.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "of" ["of any such regulation"], to insert the words "or fails to comply with." This is really a drafting Amendment which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept.
    Mr. SAMUEL: This Amendment is not necessary, and, indeed, it is undesirable. The Clause as it stands makes it an offence to act in contravention of any such regulation. Anyone who fails to comply with the regulations must necessarily also act in contravention, and therefore the words are not necessary. Furthermore, the Bill as drafted corresponds exactly with the wording of an Act which was passed recently applying to Scotland, and if you put different words in this Bill it might give rise to the impression that the words in the Scottish Act were insufficient and were wrong, and, secondly, it is conceivable that litigation might ensue in consequence.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the following new Sub-section:
    "(2) This section shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:

    (a) references to the Secretary of State shall be construed as references to the Lord Lieutenant; and

    (b) references to a police authority shall as respects streets and public places within the Dublin Metropolitan Police district be construed as references to the Chief Commissioner of Police for that district; and as respects streets and public places not within that district, be construed as references to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary."

    This Amendment is with the object of applying the Clause to Ireland. The Irish authorities represented to me that they would consider this Clause most useful.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the Amendment last added, to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(2) In this Sectiona—

    (a) the expression 'street' includes any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and

    (b) the expression 'public place' includes any public park, garden, or sea beach."

    Mr. SAMUEL: I am prepared to accept the first part of the Amendment, including paragraph (a).
    Mr. KING: This Amendment is really based upon the Children Act of 1908, with which the name of the right hon. Gentleman is so honourably connected. I understand that the second part to which he takes exception is equally based on that Act.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Amendment is really taken from the Public Health Act, which was put into the Children Act, if I remember rightly. The street definition which the hon. Member gives is an improvement and makes quite clear what is intended, but I am advised that the definition of "public place" is unnecessary on account of decisions of the Court, which have held that a public place means any place, whether private property or not, to which the public for the time being have access.
    Mr. KING: I quite accept the explanation.
    Question, "That the words ' (2) In this Section (a) the expression "street" includes any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether the provisions with regard to street collections are only for the duration of the War or are to be permanent?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is intended it should be a permanent provision. It is found to be exceedingly useful, and similar considerations will apply to the future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, no doubt with the approval of the hon. Member, has made this a permanent provision with regard to Scotland, and why should we be behind?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Extent of Part I.)
    This Part of this Act shall not apply to Ireland, nor, except where otherwise expressly provided, to Scotland.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "to Ireland, nor," and at the end insert the words "or Ireland."—[Mr. Samuel.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    PART II.—FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.

      CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions for Securing Welfare of Workers in Factories and Workshops.)
      (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the process carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require special provision to be made at the factory or workshop for securing the welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in relation to the matters to which this Section applies, he may by Order require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may be specified in the Order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the requirements of the Order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
      (2) The following shall be the matters to which this Section applies:—
      Arrangements for preparing or heating, and taking, meals; the supply of drinking water; the supply of protective clothing; ambulance and first aid arrangements; the supply and use of seats in workrooms; facilities for washing; accommodation for clothing; arrangements for supervision of workers.
      (3) Orders may—

      (a) be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for factories or work shops of any class or group or description;

      1742

      (b) be made contingent in respect of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained;

      (c) provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of the arrangements, accommodation or other facilities for which provision is made, in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers.

      (4) If, in the case of any Order proposed to be made for a particular factory or workshop, the occupier, or, in the case of an Order for factories or workshops of a particular class or group or description, the majority of the occupiers of factories or workshops of that class or group or description, dispute the reasonableness of the requirements in the proposed Order or any of them, the objection shall be referred for settlement to a referee selected in accordance with rules made under this Section, but the Secretary of State may so refer any objection though not made by a majority of the occupiers if he thinks desirable.
      (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Order, the occupier of a factory or workshop shall not make any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by him to any workman or receive any payment from any workman in respect of any provision made in pursuance of an Order under this Section, and if he makes any such deduction or receives any such payment, he shall be guilty of an offence against the Truck Act, 1831, and shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section nine of that Act as if the offence were an offence mentioned in that Section.
      (6) The Secretary of State may make rules as to the time within which and the manner in which notice of objection to any Order may be made, and as to the selection of, and the procedure before, a referee and the cost of the proceedings before a referee (including the remuneration of the referee).
      (7) Any Order made under this Section may be revoked at any time in whole or in part by the Secretary of State, without prejudice to the making of a further Order.
      (8) This Section shall not apply to domestic factories or workshops.
      (9) The Secretary of State may by a Special Order made in accordance with the provisions of Section one hundred and twenty-six of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extend the matters to which this Section applies to matters other than those mentioned in this Section.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers."
      I must apologise to the Committee for the fact that this Amendment does not appear on the Paper, but I only discovered this afternoon the very serious matter to which I am going to direct attention. In addition to the Amendment I have mentioned, I propose in Subsection (5) subsequently to move the omission of the words, "save as otherwise expressly provided in the Order." This Clause, with which I think the whole Committee will have the utmost sympathy, gives the Secretary of State power by Order to insist on certain necessary arrangements being carried out for the benefit of the workmen. For instance, the employer, if need be, shall be compelled to supply drinking water, protective clothing, ambulance and first-aid arrangements, the supply and use of seats, facilities for washing, and other matters like that. When the Bill was read a second time and when I looked over its contents it did not strike me that it was contemplated that the cost or any part of the cost of these essential things for the welfare of the workpeople should be charged to the workpeople themselves. I feel sure I shall have the sympathy of the Committee in resisting any proposal that the cost of these arrangements, which should properly be met by the management of factories and workshops, should be charged to, or deducted from, the wages of the workpeople. The Bill as drawn does contemplate that. I do not mean to say that the Home Secretary proposes to make no Order unless the employers are allowed to deduct the cost from the workpeople, but the beginning of Sub-section (5) states, "save as otherwise expressly provided in the Order the occupier of a factory or workshop shall not make any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by him to any workman, etc." Thus the Bill does give power
      1744
      to the Secretary of State in making an Order to provide in that Order that a certain sum may be deducted from the wages of the employed person b3' reason of the improvements which are to be carried out.
      I think the Committee will agree that the whole of the arrangements to be carried out under this Clause are arrangements which most properly fall upon the employer. It is inconceivable that we can contemplate certain elementary things not being carried out in factories and workshops because the employers do not get the power to charge the cost or portion of the cost to their workpeople. I would respectfully represent to the Home Secretary that a provision of this kind is contrary to the spirit of all recent social legislation, and that it would go a long way towards making this Clause of the Act a nullity. The very fact that such a provision existed with Parliamentary sanction would prevent a large number of desirable arrangements being insisted upon. The workpeople would very properly object to any deductions being made from the wages, and employers, on the other hand, would object, when Parliamentary sanction had been given to the proposal, to their being compelled to carry out these arrangements unless they had power to make deductions from wages. The Amendment which I move, therefore, and which is the first of two Amendments, will simply have this effect, that it will no longer be possible under this Bill to make any deductions from the wages of the workpeople by reason of any of the welfare arrangements which are authorised by the Section. I beg to move this first Amendment, and I shall afterwards move to leave out words at the beginning of Sub-section (5), so that that Sub-section would begin: "The occupier of a factory or workshop shall not make any deduction."
      Mr. SAMUEL: I regard this Clause as by far the most important of the Bill, and it is somewhat surprising how little public attention has been directed to it. It has in it the seeds of immense possibilities in the future in making our factories and workshops more civilised places for people to work in. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Home Secretary to make Orders, by the approved process, for securing proper arrangements for meals, the supply of drinking water, protective clothing, ambulance, and first-aid arrange-

      1745
      ments, among other things already provided by the best employers who really care for the welfare of their workpeople. It is not intended that any contribution should be made by the workpeople in the vast majority of these cases, and no Order would include any such provision. There may, however, be cases—for example, the provision of baths—where it would be quite proper that the workpeople should pay for the baths. Indeed, Parliament has already passed an Act relating to mines which provides for the equipment of baths for the use of miners when they leave the pits, and Parliament has enacted that the miners shall pay their proportion in respect of the cost of providing these baths.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman refers the maximum amount which may be required from the workpeople is clearly stated.
      Mr. SAMUEL: We cannot do that in this case, because it is impossible to foresee the various matters to which this Clause might be applied. Similarly, the canteens provided might grow into something in the nature of workmen's clubs. It is very possible that that might be so. If the hon. Gentleman's first Amendment were accepted we should then be placed in this position: that it would be illegal to make an Order which provided for workpeople paying part of the costs of the club; and it would be unjust to place on the employer the entire cost and not to provide that the workpeople should pay part of the cost in such a case. The result would be that no Order would be made, and the hon. Gentleman's purpose would be entirely defeated, for so far from making the wording of this Clause wider, it would be restricted, and the Home Secretary would find himself unable to make Orders in many cases in which he would desire to do so because Parliament had prevented him from doing anything which would enable any sum to be taken from the workpeople. The Clause provides for ascertaining the views of the workers in all such cases, and for ascertaining their views in any such arrangement where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers. I trust that with this explanation, and this distinct assurance that with regard to all the main matters of the Clause there is no intention of putting any of the cost on the workers, the Clause will be allowed to remain as it stands.
      Sir R. COOPER: I do not feel at all happy at leaving this Clause as it stands. The Government are virtually asking us to give them a blank cheque in regard to Regulations which are in contravention of everything we have understood as the Truck Acts. If there is one thing in the industrial districts of this country for which the workpeople do fight, will fight, and are right in fighting for, it is against any attempt to interfere with the principles of the Truck Act. If the Government say to the House that there are certain directions in which workpeople may desire to make a contribution for arrangements which it is undesirable to ask the employer to provide, I would support them at once in doing so. I notice, however, that these arrangements, if I understand this Clause correctly, are expressly referred to in the second Sub-section, and in every one of those cases I maintain it is the duty of the employer to provide them in every case where the Home Office, or other Government Department calls upon them to do so. I have had a good deal of experience in these matters, for I have to provide proper clothing and baths for my workpeople, and it has never occurred to me to deduct anything, or to ask them to pay anything. The employer has to provide the necessary arrangements for the comfort of his workpeople. If the Government want to go outside that for clubs, and that sort of thing, then I think it should be confined to the arrangements the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind in making his remarks, in which I support him, and in which I am sure many Members would support him if only they knew to what they were contributing in giving their support. I do not at all like it, and I hope the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment will persist in it. I am not prepared to give the Government a blank cheque in these cases, and I shall support the Amendment.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am very glad to hear the strong expression of opinion contained in the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Cooper). He is a Member who has taken an active interest in the welfare of his own workers, of whom he has a considerable number, and I entirely associate myself with him in saying that for the general amenities concerned in the employment of men the onus of that provision and maintenance should be a direct charge on the industry and not on the workers associated with that industry.

      1747
      I support the Amendment for another reason. Sub-section (c) says that Orders may—
      "provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of the arrangements, accommodation, or other facilities for which provision is made in any case where a portion of the cost is contributed by the workers."
      That is to say, that in the majority of cases where there is no contribution no Order will be made to associate the workers in the supervision of their own accommodation. I regard that as a grave omission in the Bill. I would not suggest immediately that it should be mandatory on the Home Office to make an Order so that there shall be compulsory association of the workpeople in the management—I desire that but I doubt whether we have got to that stage—but I do desire to see in cases where there is that accommodation made that the representatives of the workpeople shall have a direct means of representation for stating their views to the management as to whether, say, the accommodation is ample, and whether it meets their view. It is not sufficient, in my view, to give the workers the opportunity to have their views on accommodation in factories conveyed to the employer, say, by Memorandum, or by a word to a foreman, or the like. Rather would I sec the power placed in the hands of the Home Office of making an Order which, even in cases where there is no contribution by the workers, would in the selected cases allow that in such and such an industry, although there was no contribution by the workers, they should have a say in the character of the accommodation. As I read the Amendment I do not believe it will accomplish what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. What it will accomplish, in my view, will be to place in his hands the power to make an Order in factories where there is a contribution by the workers to the cost of this accommodation made for their s benefit. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to take to himself the powers which this Amendment gives him to make an Order not only in cases where the workers are charged for some of the cost, but to issue an Order in other cases where it appears desirable in the interests of the workers and, with his concurrence, that their views should be heard in the direct management of these amenities.
      Mr. JARDINE: The Mover of this Amendment stated that he had only observed this danger this afternoon, and I think that if he had left it until to-morrow he would have found that there really was no danger, because it is very clear indeed in the Bill that the workers will not be asked to contribute anything under the very desirable powers that the Home Secretary is taking under this Bill. It is the most profitable thing that an employer can do to provide all this various accommodation upon the provision of which the Home Secretary is taking power to insist, and while it will tend generally to the health and happiness of the people, and will do a good deal more for the rising generation, it will be more of an advantage to the employer than to anyone else. Although I am sure this will impose a cost on employers, I am equally certain that employers as a body will welcome it. When the last speaker wishes—I am sure he does not wish, but when he suggests—that not only should an employer have to make this provision which he ought to make, but that he should also make it a serious, or shall I say a breeding, ground for trouble between himself and his workpeople, then I think employers will have the right to object to these admirable Clauses. I strongly urge the Home Secretary not to go beyond the Bill as it is. Compel the employer to make his people happy, to make them comfortable, and to give them even more than is really necessary for their health; but do not make trouble between the employer and the employed by setting up compulsory committees to interfere with him in that great and good work he will cheerfully undertake when the Home Secretary puts him into the way of making it. On that account I would ask the Home Secretary not to interfere with this. If I might give him a word of advice on the latter Clause, as there appears to be very considerable suspicion regarding it—as to whether it might be advisable to ask the men to contribute. If there is any trouble about it, as I do not think it is of much value—I suggest that he should leave it out.
      Mr. T. WILSON: The Home Secretary is treading on extremely dangerous ground when he introduces legislation which even suggests that any compulsory stoppage of wages should be made in connection with the matters referred to. Take the building trade, with which I am associated. I

      1749
      do not quite agree with the hon. Member opposite that employers as a body agree to provide—
      Mr. JARDINE: They ought to.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. WILSON: I have known strikes taking place for the purpose of making employers provide hot water for breakfast and dinners. That, however, by the way. I can produce working rules in connection with the building trade in which provision is made for messrooms and the provision of hot water, and also that the workmen should be allowed a shilling per week where hot water is not supplied. The right hon. Gentleman is going to reverse that order of things. He is going to take power to say that the workmen must contribute something towards the provision of hot water for himself. The right hon. Gentleman referred to canteens. It is very nice listening to these benevolent speeches made as to the employers providing canteens for the comfort and welfare of the workmen. Has the right hon. Gentleman recognised, when he is going to compel the workmen to contribute towards canteens or matters of that sort, and has he considered, that quite a number of workmen live so close to works that there is no necessity for them to contribute towards canteens? I say without hesitation he is seeking trouble if he is going to introduce legislation which will give the employers the power suggested, or by an Act of Parliament is going to make the workmen contribute towards this, that, or the other thing. I would suggest that he should withdraw this Clause for the present and bring it up on Report, amended. I am quite certain that he has not taken the opinion of organised labour in connection with this matter. So far as I am concerned, I am going to support the Amendment, if the hon. Member who moved it feels that he should carry it to a Division.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am quite at one with hon. Members who have spoken in the desire that workpeople should not be called upon to pay for things which it is the duty of every good employer—even of every employer—to provide. My hon. Friend who has spoken last has perhaps omitted to observe that no contribution can be required from workpeople except under an Order of the Home Secretary applied to the specific matter. I am afraid my hon. Friend does not place so much trust in the Home Secretary as one would desire to see.
      Mr. T. WILSON: I put no trust in him at all!
      Mr. SAMUEL: I can assure my hon. Friend that this power will not be used improperly, and I cannot believe it will be so used by any successor of mine. When I was drafting this Clause—which I have put into the Bill not at the request of any Labour organisation, but entirely of my own volition, and because I thought it was a desirable thing—I recognised that there might be the danger that if this power were inserted employers would say when the Home Secretary proposed to make any Order of the sort, "Oh, yes, we will agree to this, but we must have a Clause requiring a contribution by the workpeople, and only on that condition will we agree." I recognised that danger, but I felt quite convinced that the danger was remote, and that the Home Office would not hesitate to oppose a proceeding on those lines. Still, my hon. Friends—several of great experience of industrial conditions—evidently do see a real danger in the Clause as now drafted, and, of course, I must necessarily take their view into account. I shall be glad to adopt the suggestion by my hon. Friend who spoke last, and reconsider this between now and Report, and bring it up amended, either to omit this provision altogether in regard to contributions—which I still think will import several dangers of an opposite kind—or else make it quite clear that this provision does not extend to the main body of the Clause, and is only to be put into operation when the workpeople themselves desire that it should be.
      Mr. J. W. WILSON: In the reconsideration of this Clause, I think really the whole of paragraph (c) will require to go out. It might be misinterpreted, and might be an obstacle really to what we want to see done, though I cannot conceive that any employer would abuse the provision in paragraph (c).
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very much obliged indeed. I am sure the whole Committee deeply appreciates the spirit in which the Home Secretary has met our criticisms, and on the understanding that he has just given, I shall gladly, in a moment, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I wanted to say that with regard to paragraph (c) that if the Home Secretary decides to omit the last two-lines it would still be a great gain if the rest of the paragraph were left in. It is not mandatory. It gives an option to the

      1751
      Home Secretary concerning certain things to associate the workpeople with the employer. It is only an option. It is governed by the word "may." Therefore it would be very easy to give the Home Secretary the power to make the Order, which he would only make if it was agreeable to both parties, and to associate the employers and employed in certain welfare arrangements. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. KING: I should like to make one remark upon this Clause, or rather upon the Memorandum. The paragraph in the Memorandum to which I refer contains what seems to me to be a very remarkable confession. The paragraph relating to Clause 7 says—and I suppose that if the Home Secretary drafted the Clause he also drafted the Amendment:
      "The Home Office is endeavouring to secure good conditions of work in the different processes and industries, and can sometimes use as a lever the relaxation of some of the provisions of the Factory Acts."
      I suppose the Factory Acts are Acts of Parliament? They are obligatory upon the Home Office as much as upon employers of workpeople! What right has the Home Secretary to say that in order to get this or that from the employers he is going to relax Acts of Parliament? That apparently is the meaning of what he has been doing for some time past. That is why a Clause like this, which gives indefinite powers to the Secretary of State, excites some suspicion in my mind. The right hon. Gentleman admits that he brings it forward and that he has been relaxing Acts of Parliament, which I do not believe he has any right to relax. He is there to administer, to carry through Acts of Parliament, and not to relax them. When he comes forward and asks for large, wide, and indefinite powers of this sort I feel it is time to make some sort of protest and to say that Acts of Parliament are meant to be carried out, and that the Home Secretary is paid, and the Home Office exists, in order to carry them out. I do not like it to go forward to employers that we will relax Acts of Parliament.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member seems to think that he has discovered a mis-
      1752
      demeanour on the part of the Home Office. I assure him it is not so. This paragraph in the Memorandum deals simply with war conditions. It points out that as men are being called up, women are being introduced to take their place, and the Home Office is endeavouring to secure good conditions of work, and can sometimes use as a lever the relaxation of some of the provisions of the Factory Acts. This refers to the relaxations permitted by the Acts themselves. In certain cases of emergency, as all hon. Members who know the Acts know, they allow that special Orders may be made, permitting the employment of women during certain hours, and so forth, which are not the usual conditions of employment. During the War great pressure of labour prevails in many industries. It has been found necessary to make the concession of this emergency provision, and to allow this relaxation for which the Statute provides. Frequently, as the hon. Member states, we have allowed this relaxation, and according to him, we have been doing illegally. The Government allows the relaxation of industrial conditions from war necessity. Sometimes we go to the employers and say, "If you will make such-and-such an arrangement, then we will give you the Order for which you ask." Whether that may or may not be legal procedure, the hon. Member may possibly question, though I should not admit for a moment that it was illegal. Certainly, the relaxations are legal, and are provided for in the Statute.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 8.—(Abolition of Investigations of Accidents by Certifying Surgeons.)
      (1) After the expiration of one month from the passing of this Act it shall cease to be the duty of certifying surgeons to investigate the nature and cause of death or injury caused by accidents in factories and workshops or in premises to which the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, relating to accidents, are applied, or to send to the inspector of the district reports thereof:
      Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect Sub-section (3) of Section; seventy-three of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, relating to the investigation by certifying surgeons of diseases occurring in factories and workshops.
      (2) As from the same date the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided also that it shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances or due to any other special cause specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring medical investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of injury to which this provision is to apply and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him. The certifying surgeon shall have, for the purpose of the investigation in any such case, the same powers, and shall be entitled to receive the same fee as he would if the case had been a ease to which Section seventy-three applies."
      As a matter of fact, it might be, perhaps, more, convenient for the whole Clause to be moved out first. I think perhaps, though, that the best course would be for me merely to move this Amendment formally, because it follows upon the promise I gave on the Second Reading.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to move to leave out the words "specified in instructions of the Secretary of State as requiring medical investigation, and the Secretary of State shall issue instructions defining the causes of the injury to which this provision is to apply, and requiring the inspector of the district to refer to the certifying surgeon all such cases reported to him," in order to insert instead thereof the words "on which he may consider it necessary to report in discharge of his duties."
      I agree with the Home Secretary that it might have been more advisable to deal at once with the omission of the Clause. I think we should thank the Home Secretary for having considered the strong objection made to this Clause on the Second Reading of the Bill, and for having endeavoured, as far as he thought he could, to meet the objections which we then raised. It is not often, I take it, that a Minister meets with such objections to a particular Clause as those that were raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was therefore, of course, the more incumbent
      1754
      upon him in bowing to the views of the House, as he expressed himself willing to do, to introduce some sort of Amendment, but I think that everyone who is interested in this matter will agree that the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary is not generous enough, and does not meet the objections fully of those opposed to the original Clause. Whereas I am, of course, willing to accept such concessions as he makes in the Amendment that is put upon the Paper, I can only do so provided that the Amendment is so widened as to meet the views of my hon. Friends who think that this Clause ought to be entirely rejected. I might say that I thought the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) on Tuesday last were so strong that it was unnecessary to add much to what he had said, and since I have been sitting here he has placed in my hand a telegram which he has received from Leeds in the last few hours, and which, if I may be allowed, I will read:
      "Card and Blowing Room Society representing 60,000 member?. We strongly protest against abolition, of certifying surgeons in cotton mills. Their services to our members ate invaluable.—Signed, President and Secretary."
      That is a very strong opinion, coming from those who have had the benefit of the services of these certifying surgeons, and I want the Home Secretary to realise that, unless the duties of the certifying surgeons are considerably extended beyond what is proposed in his Amendment, it will be necessary, I am afraid, to vote against the Clause when we come to consider it. I cannot help thinking—I may be wrong— that this Clause 8 was inserted in this Bill under a distinct misapprehension. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Lanark, and I do not wish to repeat the arguments he used, but I must be allowed' to point to the words of the Memorandum to this Bill:
      "This Clause carries into effect a recommendation contained in paragraph 27 of the Report of the Committee on Retrenchment in Public Expenditure. The Committee on Accidents in Factories had previously in 1911 made a similar recommendation."
      I looked into the Report of the Committee on Accidents, but I could not find that they made any such recommendation as is there stated. The Retrenchment Committee certainly made a recommendation to these effect:
      "The Committee on Accidents in Factories recommended that legislation should be obtained to enable them (certifying surgeons) to be dispensed with, and Weconcur in this proposal."

      1755
      But the Committee of Accidents never recommended anything of the kind, and, therefore, as I have said, the whole of this Clause rests upon a series of misapprehensions. It is pointed out, first in the Memorandum, and secondly in the Retrenchment Committee's Report, that the proposal was contained in the Report of the Accidents Committee, whereas they never really recommended anything of the kind. They were very strongly in favour of certifying surgeons continuing to be employed in certain cases, not only as regards the certifying of children, but also in the case of accidents. I have looked most carefully through the Report of the Committee, and they say:
      "In scattered districts, however, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's report is still useful."
      And, the Report states, it may be useful in other cases. There are two ways in which the Committee suggests the present system might be amended, and they prefer the second proposal, which would continue to enable certifying surgeons to investigate in particular cases in which their investigation would still be desirable. There are many other references in this Report to the value of the reports which are presented by certifying surgeons. It is quite true they point out that in some cases the reports duplicate those of the inspectors, but, at the same time, they indicate that in many cases the reports are useful and desirable.
      I want to make a point which I do not think has been made previously. This Report on accidents contains at least two sets of recommendations. One of them refers to the position and duties of inspectors, and the other refers to certain changes that might be made in the duties of certifying surgeons. But it is important to remember that the recommendations on these two heads ought to be taken together The one depends upon the other, and it is strongly recommended in this Report that the qualifications of the inspectors ought to be very much better than they are, or were at that time; and if you are to lighten the duties of the certifying surgeon it follows that you should improve the qualifications of the inspector. But what does this Bill do? It refers entirely to the duties of the certifying surgeons, but makes no reference whatever to the qualifications of inspectors. It was only
      1756
      yesterday that I put a question to the Home Secretary on this very point. I asked whether any steps were being taken to carry out the recommendations in this Report as to the examination to be passed by applicants for inspectorships, and the Under-Secretary stated:
      "The revision of the scheme of examination and conditions of nomination were being considered, in consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, at the outbreak of war, and has had to be suspended for the time being."
      If the recommendations in this Report with reference to the qualifications of inspectors, on whom are to be thrown some of the duties previously carried out by the certifying surgeons, are to be suspended until the end of the War, why is it that the recommendations with regard to the certifying surgeons have not also been suspended? I do not know that any reason has been advanced why the consideration of the whole of this question should not be postponed until after the War. Anyone who reads this Report of the Accidents Committee will see how interdependent are these recommendations with regard to certifying surgeons and the recommendations with regard to inspectors. Let me quote one or two instances:
      "In order to facilitate and improve the work of certifying surgeons, steps might be taken to bring the certifying surgeons into closer touch with the inspectors."
      And they suggested that conferences should take place at certain times. What do they say about inspectors? They propose, first of all, that the conditions of nomination of inspectors should be altered, and state:
      "We attach the highest importance to practical knowledge and experience of factory and workshop, and therefore desire to see nomination limited to the following classes."
      Those Clauses include those whose records in scientific work fit them for the duties. They go on to say:
      "We think it important that no one should be nominated who has not been personally interviewed by the Secretary of State, or by some one specially selected for that purpose."
      I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered it his duty personally to interview all candidates for nomination before they are allowed to pass their examination. Then the Committee propose considerable alterations in the examination for inspectors, which will give to the inspectors some amount of that scientific knowledge which at the present moment is only possessed by the certifying surgeons. It is the certifying surgeons alone who possess the scientific

      1757
      knowledge necessary to enable them to judge questions relating to mechanical, physical, or chemical processes. It is quite true that if you have a class of inspectors who are required to show they possess also some scientific knowledge, it might then be possible to alter, to some extent, the duties of the certifying surgeons; but, at the present moment, would it be believed that the examination which the inspectors are required to pass is an examination in history, geography, and a variety of other literary subjects, but that they are not required to pass any examination in any one single branch of science? In these circumstances I think it would be disastrous in the interests of the workpeople engaged in those factories that the report should depend on the report of the inspector alone, without having been considered by the certifying surgeon at the same time.
      May I just deal with the Amendment, as proposed by the Home Secretary? The right hon. Gentleman leaves the first Subsection of the Clause as it is, and proposes to add a new proviso. The Amendment indicates that it is to be left to the Secretary of State to specify by particular instructions the conditions under which the certifying surgeon may at any time interfere or make a report on a case. Surely it would be most unwise to leave that power in the hands of the Home Secretary by means of instructions. It would take away all the initiative of the certifying surgeon, and all the advantage of any experience which as a scientific man going into a factory he would be able to exercise. It would destroy all the advantages which his scientific education gave him. What I want to do is to remove from the Secretary of State these duties which he proposes to undertake, and to throw them upon the certifying surgeons. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment. I propose to enlarge the functions to be discharged by the certifying surgeon so as to enable him to make to the inspector any report which he considers necessary in the discharge of his ordinary duties. If these words are inserted I believe that all we have been contending for will be granted, but unless these words or words similar are inserted the Amendment as it stands limits and defines precisely the particular cases in which the certifying surgeon may make any report at all. It destroys the surgeon's interest in his work, and prevents him, as a profes-
      1758
      sional man, from making any such report as he thinks necessary. The Home Secretary says that it is desirable to make this change with a view to the saving of a certain amount of money. Let me point out that in answer to an interruption of mine he distinctly said that this is not an emergency Bill, and if passed it will be a permanent law. Therefore it is not merely intended to effect economy during the time of war.
      What is the economy to be effected? I have always noticed that when any small Amendment of this kind is to be effected the first victims singled out are always surgeons or medical men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Anyone would think that they are the last persons in the world who have rendered any service to the country in this War, whereas, as a matter of fact, no class of His Majesty's subjects has been more self-sacrificing than the doctors. I have always found that Ministers show most enthusiasm for economy when they are dealing with the small fees which surgeons and physicians receive. A few days ago the fee for certifying infectious diseases was reduced from 2s. 6d. to 1s., the meanest proposal ever introduced into this House. There is a slight discrepancy between the statement made in the Retrenchment Committee's Report and in the Report of the Accidents Committee. The Retrenchment Committee say that this proposal will effect a saving of £12,500, but the Accidents Committee say that the sum total of all these fees amounts to something between £9,000 and £10,000. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to explain this discrepancy.
      Mr. SAMUEL: That is five years ago.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: The Home Secretary has not told us by how much this £10,000 will be reduced by the increased duties we are now going to throw upon the certifying surgeons. Let us suppose that the amount under this Amendment is £5,000. It means that you are going to deprive the working people in the factories all over the country of the services of these surgeons for the paltry sum of £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I ask is it really worth while to carry out an Amendment of that kind when there is the possibility of sacrificing the lives and limbs of a large number of persons? Even if it were only a matter of insurance it would be worth while to continue this expenditure. If you were spending this £5,000 for a few cases in which the reports

      1759
      differ from the reports of the employers, surely it would be worth while. You cannot say how serious those accidents may be, although it is true that the reports of the certifying surgeons do not materially differ from the reports of the employers in many cases, and the fact that the employer knows these surgeons will issue reports is one of the principal reasons why these reports coincide. Here you are going to remove all that advantage and check upon the statements of employers and render it more possible that accidents may occur for the mere saving of £5,000 or £6,000 a year. I believe there are 2,000 certifying surgeons and £6,000 or £5,000 a year to be saved by this proposal, but I ask whether it is really worth while to' insert this particular Clause in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman knows how it is opposed by the workmen, and also by medical men, not on account of the very small fees which they may receive, but because in so many cases they know the vast amount of good they are doing. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman either to insert the words I have proposed in the Amendment or to consent to omit altogether this Clause from the Bill.
      Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the Home Secretary will shorten the discussion on the Committee stage by withdrawing his Amendment and afterwards withdrawing the Clause. Personally, I am quite open-minded on the question of certifying surgeons, but there are a considerable number of people in my Constituency who are affected by the proposed amendment of the law. I was not aware until the last two or three weeks that there was such a strong feeling in favour of retaining the services of the certifying surgeon. It may be a sentimental feeling, but these people do think that their interests are safeguarded by the fact that we have certifying surgeons appointed under an Act of Parliament. The fact that we have 2,000 of these men in the United Kingdom whose services we may call upon, and who can be called upon to investigate and report upon cases of accidents, inspires confidence in the minds of the working people. I do not wish to say a single word with reference to the composition of the Ketrenchment Committee, but as far as this Committee is concerned they never took the question of organised labour into consideration in regard to these surgeons. The people most directly affected by the abolition of the certifying surgeons have not had an
      1760
      opportunity of considering how this proposal will affect them. They believe it is going to affect them adversely. In view of the fact that in two months' time the Labour parliament will meet, and this question will come up, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause for the present. There is also a feeling that the Government is endeavouring to slip through legislation in TS war-time which is not altogether in the interests of the working classes. In the interests of Parliament itself we say that legislation of this kind should not be pushed forward now, and I suggest that the economy which it is alleged will be effected by the Retrenchment Committee if their proposal is carried is simply "bosh." I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and also reject the Clause later on.
      Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I would suggest that the wording of the Amendment might be slightly altered. I understand the Amendment is that:
      "It shall continue to be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon cases of injury specified in the instructions of the Secretary of State, or due to any other special cause which in the discharge of his duties he considers necessary."
      I submit that it would be better if instead of the last sentence the Clause read—
      "or due to any other special cause which in his judgment requires such a report."
      That is a mere matter of wording. I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. I should very much prefer omitting the Clause altogether, but the Amendment to the Amendment is certainly an improvement, because, as it stands, you must have an accident due to one of the specified classes in the Amendment, or the specified instructions to be issued by the Home Office as requiring medical investigation. Surely it is very much better to leave it to the discretion of the certifying surgeon as to what cases require a medical report. I was very much struck by the observation which fell from my hon. Friend in regard to the provisions made for qualifying the inspectors to deal with duties which previously have fallen upon the certifying surgeons. You cannot deal with one by itself without doing harm to the workers, and preventing a report which would call

      1761
      attention to features in the working of the factory which might be an advantage to the workers. Why should that safeguard be abolished? The saving is not a very large one which it is proposed to effect, and it surely is a desirable thing that you should have a report from the medical point of view as well as from the point of view of the inspectors. Of course, if you have inspectors qualified by scientific knowledge to discharge those duties which are now discharged by the inspectors jointly with the certifying surgeons, the evil may be mitigated, but it is very undesirable to abolish the reports of the certifying surgeons.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Debate has covered generally the question of certifying surgeons' reports, and, if I may say so, quite properly, because the hon. Member's Amendment is, in effect, one for the omission of the Clause. Obviously, if you insert an Amendment to say that certifying surgeons shall report whenever they think it desirable to report and the surgeon gets a fee for every report that he makes, it is equivalent to saying that the reporting shall be continued as now. It is, perhaps, somewhat remarkable that the Amendment to this Clause which is supposed to be injurious to the working classes should have been moved the other evening by the representative of one university, who, no doubt, has a number of doctors among his constituents, and that the Amendment to-day should have been moved by a Member of another university and should just have been supported in a speech by the Member for a third university. It does lead me a little bit to suspect that behind the scenes there must have been acting the very powerful organisation of the doctors which we know is always ready to take active steps whenever their interests are in any way affected. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment, the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus), quoted various portions of the Report of the Committee to show that the Memorandum on the face of the Bill, which states that Committees have made certain recommendations, was quite inaccurate. I read the other night an extract from the Report of the Committee which sat for two years and examined this matter most thoroughly. They point out that this portion of the work which it is now proposed to abolish is superfluous and that the reports, in effect, are duplicates. They ended by making two alternative recom-
      1762
      mendations. One recommendation was that the work of the certifying surgeons as to accidents might be wholly dispensed with. That does not show very warm approval of the work, or that they held the view that a continuance of the reports was necessary. That was the proposal which we put into the Bill. The alternative which they suggested was that the occupier might report to the inspector only, and the inspector might have power to forward the report to the certifying surgeon for investigation in any case in which he thought investigation desirable. They then point out, with regard to certain classes of cases, that it may be desirable still to have reports from certifying surgeons. In consequence of what was said in the House the other evening, I have put down an Amendment which proceeds on the lines of the second alternative, but the Committee undoubtedly were of opinion that the work of the certifying surgeons, in the main, was superfluous, and might be dispensed with without disadvantage.
      Sir P. MAGNUSmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. SAMUEL: No; that was quite a separate recommendation.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It is in the same Report.
      Mr. SAMUEL: No doubt certain minor alterations may have to be made in the qualifications of future inspectors when normal conditions return, but the hon. Member is merely drawing a red herring across the track when he tries to suggest—the Committee do not say so—that their recommendations were conditional on the adoption of other recommendations, which in any case would not take effect until the next generation of factory inspectors came to be appointed. It was said the other night that the Committee did not hear the certifying surgeons themselves. That was inaccurate. The Report, which I have now examined, says that they did hear the certifying surgeons. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) also suggested that the Amendment I have put down has cut down the economy which was in prospect so much that it is really not worth while proceeding. He said that, after all, there would only be some £6,000 or £7,000 economy left. Why he should assume that the reports, which it is still proposed should

      1763
      be made under the Amendment I have put down, will involve the payment of £5,000 fees I cannot imagine. He has not the smallest basis for any such estimate. It is the merest surmise. The amount is just as likely to be £500, and, since it is only a limited class of accidents to which it will apply it is not likely to approach anything like the large sum that the hon. Member has suggested. The most remarkable statement in his speech was that the doctor alone had the scientific knowledge necessary to deal with questions of machinery, and so forth. The factory inspectors have spent all their lives in inspecting machinery, and have the most detailed and expert knowledge of the best means of safeguarding the lives and limbs of the workers. To suggest that the man who has had the training of a surgeon is the only one who can go into the workshops and say what kinds of safeguards are necessary is really—well, I will not complete my sentence, because it might not be as respectful to the hon. Member as I should desire—is really an argument which cannot commend itself to the Committee.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: At a meeting held in this House not long ago we were told that accidents are mechanical, electrical, or chemical. A medical man has a knowledge of each. Very few others have. The majority of the inspectors have not.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know who told the hon. Member that, but it is certainly not so. All the factory inspectors, as every Labour Member in this House is aware, are experts in mechanical safety appliances, and the suggestion that the certifying surgeon is a greater expert will not, I am sure, command the assent of any of the practical men I see on my right. I have in my hand some factory certifying surgeons' reports. Here and there you may find one of some little value, but this is the kind of report which we receive. I take any one in the bunch. Here is a man whose usual employment was that of a machine hand:
      'Precise occupation at the time of accident, turning a billet. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight. Nature and extent, foreign body, left conjunction."
      I do not know what that means.
      "How caused, lathe in motion by electric power. A dip of steel flew from the tool. Further observations, none."
      I have another one here:
      "Usual employment, labourer. Precise occupation at the time of the accident, removing cloth from side of connecting rod. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight
      1764
      How caused, hydraulic press engine in motion. His hand was caught between moving connecting rod and base of engine. Nature and extent of injuries, contused wound, first, second and third fingers of right hand. Other observations, none."
      "Usual employment, machine hand. Precise occupation at the time of the accident, grinding a tool. Injuries—fatal, severe or slight—slight. Nature and extent, foreign body, right conjunction. How caused, emery wheel in motion by electric power. Some grit flew from revolving wheel. Other observations, none."
      I will not weary the Committee by reading any more of these reports, but there are 50,000 of them, which the House pays for every year out of public money. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much!"] £ 1,500. In the opinion of the experts of the Department the vast majority of the reports are absolutely useless; they are a mere repetition verbatim of the report which the factory inspector already receives from the employer, and cannot justify Parliament incurring the expenditure of this money. In the Debate, the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill), who is not here to-day, possibly because he has been converted on the subject—I do not know—instanced the value of these reports to himself. He had an accident in his youth when he was at work. He fell from a ladder and got a splinter in his arm. As a matter of fact, that comes in a class of accidents not reported upon by the certifying surgeons. Already two-thirds of the accidents are not reported upon by the certifying surgeons, and in all recent legislation extended the scope of the Acts Parliament has deliberately excluded these reports, because it knows how useless they are. Two-thirds of the accidents are at present excluded, and the accident which the hon. Member suffered in his early days does not support his case because it was not one which would be reportable. The hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh) gave one or two instances. He said that the workers attached importance to these reports because they might be of use in Workmen's Compensation cases. These reports are confidential.
      Mr. S. WALSH: I did not say that at all; I never mentioned the Workmen's Compensation Act in connection with the matter. I said that the reports made by the surgeons at the collieries in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act set up a very similar system of certification.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member was instancing the colliery surgeon as a very valuable official, with whose work he was acquainted, and he said this was a similar

      1765
      matter, arguing that because the colliery surgeon was so valuable the work of the certifying surgeons of the factories ought to be continued. If he did not mean that, I do not know why he brought in the colliery doctor at all. Some other Member specifically said that these reports might be of use to workmen in connection with compensation cases. The reports are confidential, and so far as we know the workman, in workmen's compensation cases, always relies on the evidence, not of the certifying surgeon, but of his own doctor who treats him. The certifying surgeon does not treat the workman at all, and that is why his case is entirely different from that of the colliery doctor. The colliery doctor does treat the workman, and he therefore is of use. The certifying surgeon does not treat the workman. He is not the man who examines him and diagnoses his case. His work is to see the workman and to send him one of these reports, which as a rule is entirely useless. The certifying doctor has no power to take any action. He cannot say that a guard is needed here and require the employer to provide it.
      Mr. J. PARKER: He does it regularly.
      Mr. SAMUEL: He almost invariably reports to the factory inspector, and it is the duty of the factory inspector to attend to these matters. The hon. Member for the University of London quoted a telegram just received from an organisation—I think the Oldham Card and Blowing Rooms Association—which was sent, I imagine, in answer to a communication possibly from the hon. Member for the Ince Division. I do not know what the hon. Member put into his telegram to which this was the reply, but evidently the official of the union who sent the reply entirely misunderstood the proposal in the Bill, for the reply said:
      "We strongly protest against the abolition of certifying surgeons in cetton mills."
      And it pointed out the immense value of certifying surgeons to them. We do not propose the abolition of the certifying surgeon. The certifying surgeon will still continue to perform his most useful function of examining all young persons and children who are to enter the mill.
      Mr. WALSH: In order to put the right hon. Gentleman quite right, and to show that no telegram at all has been sent, I will hand him, if he will accept it, exactly what has been sent to the gentleman who
      1766
      has sent me the telegram, and the right hon. Gentleman can see for himself whether the statement is correct.
      Mr. SAMUEL: This (exhibiting document) is the letter which has elicited the telegram. I am afraid I have not got time to read it through in the course of my speech to the House, and I will not make the hon. Member's speech for him by reading his letter. The fact remains that it is obvious from the reply which was sent. That trade union thought that the certifying surgeons were being abolished, and it was naturally alarmed at that prospect, knowing how useful they are, especially in cotton mills.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It distinctly said, "So far as the report on accidents is concerned."
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Another fact of importance is that the late Member for Oldham (Mr. Gill), for whom when he was alive and a Member of this House we all of us had such very high regard, was a member of this very Committee and signed the Report which recommended the abolition of certifying surgeons' reports with respect to accidents in general. Let me say that my attention has been drawn to the fact by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) that the Amendment as we have put it down on the Paper does not quite cover the whole of the ground suggested by the Committee as ground which might still be left to the certifying surgeons. They recommended that in certain cases of outlying factories the certifying surgeons should still be left to inspect. You cannot state in an Act of Parliament all the cases in which it might be necessary to use this power of inspection. But I shall propose, with the assent of the Committee, if they agree to my Amendment in general, to add at the end of the first sentence these words—
      "It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the district inspector of factories, in pursuance of any general or special instructions from the Secretary of State, may refer to him for that purpose."
      And then, acting on the spirit of the recommendation of the Committee, we shall issue general or special instructions in order to carry out the object which they have in view.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to keep an open mind on this point, because his words do not carry out the whole recommendation of the Committee. I have ventured to hand in a manuscript Amendment which I think he will agree more adequately covers their recommendation.
      Mr. SAMUEL: We will not enter into that now; we can deal with it when we come to discuss my hon. Friend's Amendment. But I am willing to extend the scope of the Amendment on the Paper in order to cover the cases of outlying factories to which the Committee referred. Let me say finally this seems to me to be the right moment to carry out this change, if ever it is to be carried out, because there is a great demand for doctors throughout the country, and I cannot understand why the Committee should insist on doctors who are urgently needed for other purposes continuing the spend their time in making duplicate reports. If the doctors do suffer a certain loss of fees it will be easy for them, in existing circumstances, to increase their other practice.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: It is not a question of fees at all.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Let me appeal to the House of Commons again as I did the other night. When you have a case in which the Factory Department declares the expenditure on the great body of these reports is a waste of money, and when you have that view endorsed by an expert Committee appointed to consider the whole question, a Committee on which there are three Labour Members—a Committee which unanimously reports to the same effect, and when you have an urgent desire expressed that the Government should, in every possible direction, economise on expenditure which is not really necessary, I fail to understand how this Committee can insist on the Government continuing to spend this money.
      Mr. DENNISS: I am not satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary. I want nothing less than the rejection of the whole Clause. I do not stand here as the representative of any vested interest. I have not been urged to speak on this matter by the certifying surgeons. I stand here representing a very great industrial Constituency, ready to speak on behalf of the operatives as well as on behalf of the employers, and that is
      1768
      a fact which I think the Home Secretary himself should take very seriously into his consideration. If it were a question of the vested interests of the certifying surgeons only, after what the Home Secretary has said, I should not have spoken at all. I think it was a mistake for him, and I think he will regret having made the reflection that these certifying surgeons report because they get fees. He little knows what the certifying surgeons do, in Oldham, at any rate, to my knowledge. These operatives are their patients, and they do these things not for the fee, because it only amounts to a few pounds a year, but because of the great interest they have in the men by whose fees they are supported. These operatives are their patients in the ordinary way, and as it is to their interest—they are very anxious, that these reports should be continued. It is a slur on them—it is a slur on the whole medical profession for the right hon. Gentleman to have suggested that it is a professional organisation which is at the root of the opposition to this proposal. They have taken up the cudgels because they have greater ability for doing so than the Operatives' Associations.
      I would ask the Home Secretary whether he has received and read a joint memorial, dated the 25th May this year, from the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners' Associations, from the whole of the operatives of Oldham in the cotton trade, the Oldham Co-operative Cotton Spinners' Association, the Oldham Card and Blowing Room Association, the Oldham District Reelers' and Winders' Association — in fact, the representatives of the whole cotton, spinning, and manufacturing industry in the Parliamentary Borough of Oldham, and the surrounding districts including Failsworth,. Middleton, Middleton Junction, and Lees. It embraces 20,000,000 spindles, 17,000 looms, and approximately 60,000 cotton workers. That petition has been utterly disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman. We have never had a word from him about it. I suppose he has not read it. It is signed on behalf of the Oldham Master Cotton Spinners Association, by the secretary, Mr. Cliff. It is also signed by the secretaries of the other associations. It represents the views of 60,000 operatives and of all the employers. It is for them I am now urging the Home Secretary to drop this Clause. May I just read two paragraphs from this memorial signed by persons who are the persons affected which

      1769
      absolutely contradict the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has so ably laid before the Committee? They read:
      "We are strongly of opinion—"
      This is, of course, the master and the men—
      "that the discontinuance of these investigations and reports will be prejudicial to the public interest, a retrograde step detrimental to the interests of the workers, And, from a financial standpoint, false economy.
      In the Oldham district during the year 1914, 2,528 accidents were reported to the inspectors and certifying surgeons combined, of which number 1,598 were reportable to the certifying surgeons, 17 of which were fatal accidents. The certifying surgeon in his investigations is in a much better position as a medical practitioner for obtaining a more complete, confidential and altogether more accurate report of the conditions and circumstances surrounding an accident and how it really happened than is a factory inspector, more particularly in regard to accidents to females. He has also more influence with employers in securing the adoption by them of suggestions and devices for the prevention of accidents, Therefore, in our opinion, it is highly essential that the reports should not be dispensed with. The factory inspectors do not investigate all cases of accident, and the certifying surgeons' reports in a large measure guide the inspector as to whether a visit to the mill where the accident occurred is necessary. It sometimes happens that serious accidents are reported as slight, £>roof of which can be produced from cases recently reported in this area if such proof is necessary, and in all probability were it not for the investigation of the certifying surgeons, these accidents would not be reported and would be passed over without further inquiry."
      That petition went to the Home Secretary on the 25th May. From the whole of his speech one would have thought that this was purely a matter in which the certifying surgeons only were interested, and that the operatives and masters cared nothing about it. I hope to lift the Debate to another plane, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, in the national interests, and in the interests of industry in this country, see that it is necessary that this Clause should be struck out. Take the Oldham district alone. It has an area of eighty-one square miles. There are 2,343 factories and workshops in it. I have given the Committee the particulars about the cotton industry, but in the same district there are the biggest machine works in the world, and there are other large machine works. The place, in fact, is full of machine works. One thousand five hundred and ninety-eight accidents were reported by the certifying surgeons in 1914. I have not the figures for 1915. There were seventeen fatal accidents. There is only one local factory inspector for the whole of this huge district! What number of inspectors will the right hon. Gentleman require for this district if the certifying surgeons are to be abolished? Where would the economy come in if he had to pay the salaries of these additional
      1770
      inspectors? Taking Oldham as an instance, I say the salaries of the inspectors necessary for that district would far exceed the total amount of fees that the certifying surgeons have ever got or are ever likely to get.
      It would have been thought when the Home Secretary proposed to abolish the certifying surgeon he was going to increase the number of inspectors to take the place of the certifying surgeons. But last night, on the Second Beading of this Bill, we heard that nothing of the kind is going to take place. What the right hon. Gentleman is going to do is to leave the operatives at the mercy entirely of the employers during the War. He will leave Oldham, which has a very large number of certifying surgeons—so large a number that the amount of fees received by them is very small—he will leave Oldham, in which 1,598 accidents occurred during the last year for which we have the figures, with but one local inspector! I need scarcely point out to the right hon. Gentleman that is a most grave industrial danger, and I would earnestly appeal to the Under-Secretary (Mr. Brace) not to leave Oldham in that state. I have taken Oldham as a typical instance, but the same arguments apply to the rest of the country. This is one of the most controversial questions it is possible to introduce in time of war, and it ought never to be introduced as an emergency measure. It is to the detriment of industry. I have proved it. The recommendation of the Committee on Retrenchment was limited to matters which were not detrimental to industry, and, therefore, this recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee to do away with the services of the certifying surgeons would not come within the scope of the authority of that Committee. It was beyond their scope altogether. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman sees that if it is a detriment to industry, it ought not to have been reported upon by the Retrenchment Committee. The Home Secretary relies upon that Report for his plea of economy, but that which he relies upon turns out to be a broken reed, and the sub-stratum of the Clause in the Bill is entirely swept away. This is a time when we require additional rather than fewer safeguards.
      It is a perfect scandal that, at a time like this, the number of certifying surgeons should be reduced, that the inspectors who were too few before the War, who have been reduced by one-third by

      1771
      their going to the front or into munition works, should not have their places filled up, and that those who work in the industries of the country should be left to the mercy of these few straggling inspectors. Remember that in 1911 there were only 200 inspectors in the whole of the country. Sixty-five went to the War in 1915, and more have gone since. Can the whole of the industries of this country be looked after by this handful of inspectors when the certifying surgeons are abolished? The tight hon. Gentleman knows what are known as occupational conditions, such as long hours, overtime, night work inducing fatigue, which is one of the most frequent causes of accidents, the newly-devised machinery all over the country owing to the War, the lower age of workers, and the lower standard of skill. All these will lead to conditions that will cause more accidents than ever. Accidents have increased since the War begun. At this time it is more necessary than ever to have additional safeguards, yet the principal safeguard, the certifying surgeon, is to be swept away, while inspectors who have been depleted in numbers from 200 to 100, are to be left solely in charge of the lives and limbs of all the workers of the country. I understand that the reasons given for not replacing them are these: First, that the inspectors who have gone to the front ought not to have their places filled. I daresay that is a very-good reason, and that it would not be fair to fill their places in their absence. That is no reason whatever for abolishing certifying surgeons. Secondly, I understand that the Civil Service Commissioners have not made up their minds as to the nature of the examination for future factory inspectors. That may be a very good reason for not appointing more, but it is not a good reason for abolishing these certifying surgeons. The factory inspector has been greatly praised by the right hon. Gentleman. I daresay he deserves it, but he is not a skilled man, and merely passes a literary examination. He is an ordinary Civil servant, and gets his experience only by years of work. Many of the original factory inspectors before they came into the Civil Service had no mechanical knowledge whatever. They passed nothing but a literary examination, and many of them were put in by interest only in the first instance. The Labour Members will agree with me that that is so.
      1772
      What will be the result of this state of things? Thousands of cases will arise which cannot and will never be investigated. The employers' notices, which the right hon. Gentleman says are now so accurate because they correspond with the certifying surgeons' reports, will not be so accurate in the future. The reason why the employers' reports correspond to the certifying seurgeons' reports is that they know the certifying surgeon is going to report, and it is no good not being honest. You will remove that safeguard, which is the greatest safeguard of all, if you abolish the certifying surgeons. You will not longer be able to rely upon the employers' reports, and you will not have sufficient inspectors to make visits to the nearly 200,000 accident cases which occur during the year, of which 52,000 are dealt with by the certifying surgeons. The Home Secretary knows that the injured person himself makes no report, so that the only report we shall get will be the one-sided report of the employer, which will be unchecked. It will be impossible to check it in the circumstances which this Bill will produce. These exceptional circumstances of stress, strain, and inexperience of the workers will give rise to a great deal of injury and suffering to the working classes of the country. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we want. We want a report on every accident as reports are being made now. We shall not have that under the Bill. We want reports based upon personal, impartial investigation, which we shall not have under the Bill. For all practical purposes there will be no personal investigation, and there will be no impartial investigation at all. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely wrong to rely upon the employer's report alone when you have taken away the only safeguard that existed before, namely, the check of the certifying surgeon, who knows the employer, who meets him every day, who knows the operatives, who is in the mill every week and sometimes everyday of the week, and who, so far as the cotton trade is concerned, knows the machinery just as well as the factory inspector. He can tell the cause of the accident by the position of the injury upon the operative. Most of these accidents happen to the hands and the fingers. The certifying surgeon guesses by looking at the finger or the hand which part of the machinery in the cotton mill has, caused the accident.

      1773
      The right hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the cotton trade. Those who are know the different processes in a cotton mill and which fingers are used for them. The Labour Members will bear me out that that is so. The certifying surgeon sees the finger and knows that the accident is due to a particular part of the machinery. He goes to the mill, straight to that particular piece of machinery, and investigates it. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall save money because these reports are merely duplicates of the employers' reports. I have proved that is not so. There is another way in which these certifying surgeons are useful. They protect the workers in a way which no factory inspector can do. Serious accidents are not reported even now, with the fear of the certifying surgeon before their eyes. It is not until the certifying surgeon goes in that new light is thrown upon them. Sometimes an employer keeps the workman in his mill in order that nothing may be said about the accident at all Again, imperfectly fenced machinery, or machinery not fenced at all, is known by the certifying surgeon to be there, and when he sees the injury to the hand or arm of the operative he is able to go to the machinery at once— not weeks afterwards—to see what the state of the machinery is at the time. He makes up his mind if the accident is due to unfenced or imperfectly fenced machinery, and he is able to see whether it is unfenced or imperfectly fenced. If he delays going for a few days, perhaps the employer puts it right. I know a case in which an employer was taxed by the certifying surgeon, who said," This injury must have been caused by that machinery not being fenced." "Go and see, doctor," said the employer, "It has been fenced. There it is." "But it was not fenced the last time I was in the mill," said the certifying surgeon. That is the use of the certifying surgeon. It is perfectly true, as is stated in the petition, that the certifying surgeons cause the employers to carry out their duties as employers by improving the safeguards of their machinery and the working conditions of the place.
      One word in conclusion as to what I consider is the origin of this Clause. I never like to say anything against Departmental officials, but the history of this Clause is so striking that I very regretfully say I think it is a purely Depart-
      1774
      mental move. The certifying surgeon is a stumbling block in the way of a large increase of factory inspectors in the Home Office. They have wanted a large increase in factory inspectors for very many years, and have been trying to get them. They have been to Parliament twice and their Bills have been thrown out. Let me tell the Committee how the matter stands. Clause 35 of the Factory and Workshops (Amendment) Act, 1901, which would have given them these powers, was withdrawn in Committee owing to opposition from all sides of the House. The opposition was very strong indeed. The Accidents in Mines and Factories Bill, 1905, which would have carried this out, was withdrawn owing to its being regarded as a contentious measure. No new arguments have been brought forward since those two Bills have been thrown out, and there is no new argument to-day except economy, and there is no economy in this. The operatives of Oldham say it is a false economy, and my hon. Friend (Sir P. Magnus) has pretty well shown that the amount of money to be saved is very small indeed. Again, the Notification of Accidents Act, 1906, was an actual confirmation of the policy that certifying surgeons were necessary and ought to be retained. That is the latest enactment of Parliament. As late as 1906 they were to be retained, and in those two years I have mentioned attempts to displace them were thrown out. Now they make an excuse of this Report of the Committee on Retrenchment. They smuggle it into a Police Bill, which is a Bill for spending money and not for saving it. That Committee went beyond the scope of its inquiry when it made that recommendation. They make the excuse that it is economy, and only economy. If it is economy, it is a false economy, and an economy against which the whole of Lancashire and most of the country will be up in arms when they get to know the real facts of the case. I wonder how the Committee got hold of this particular recommendation. What did they know about them? Who brought it before them? It looks very much, when one reads the Resolution, as if it came from a Home Office Department, or was engineered so> that they got it under their eyes. Listen for a moment—
      "We understand that the reports of certifying surgeons of accidents, which cost £12,500 per annum, are now of little value."

      1775
      Why "now"? Who gave them to understand? They had not investigated it themselves. Someone told them so. The Home Secretary says they are of little value. They say "now" of little value. That shows they do not understand the question. They have always been of the same value. The Home Office was anxious to get rid of certifying surgeons in order to appoint a large staff of factory inspectors, and they tell them it is because the reports of the certifying surgeons are now of little value and
      "they entail in all serious cases duplication of the reports made by the inspectors."
      They do not. They are the original reports which go to the inspectors, and the inspectors' reports are a duplication. The Retrenchment Committee did not know what they were writing about when they made this recommendation. They are a duplication of the reports made by the employers, because the employer has to be honest, and because he knows that if he does not report honestly the certifying surgeons will report him, and he may as well tell the truth at once. They are a duplication of the employers' reports, but they are never a duplication of the reports of the inspectors. These good people really did not know the foundation of what they were talking about, yet it is on that report that the Home Office brings this in now and asks the House to do away with these men, the doing away of whom will be a serious and grave danger to industry. I protest in the strongest terms against this Clause remaining in the Bill, and I appeal to the Home Secretary to drop it out of the Bill and thereby do a great service to all the people employed in the industries of this country, and I speak on behalf of the masters as well as the men.
      Mr. BOWERMAN: Until I read this Clause in the Bill and listened to the statements from the Front Bench, I had always been under the impression that the operatives looked upon the certifying surgeons as an essential and a necessary protection. I am equally sure that the Home Secretary, in bringing this forward, has no desire to weaken the protection that has been afforded to them. My object in rising is to support the appeal that has been made to the Home Secretary by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Wilson). He asked the Home Secretary to be good enough to consider the desirability of withdrawing it during the War. A telegram has been read
      1776
      from two of the principal officials of the Card Room and Blowing Room Operatives. I think the Home Secretary is satisfied that that was not an inspired telegram. I want to express my regret from this point of view. One of the two gentlemen who sent that telegram is a member of a committee of which I am the secretary, and I regret very much that that committee has not been given the opportunity of considering a drastic proposal of this kind. Had they had that opportunity, I am sure they would have approached the subject in quite an impartial spirit, but with a desire, of course, to preserve what they consider to be the best interests of the operatives. Further than that there is a Labour Parliament meeting in the first week in September, and if this Clause happens to be carried—as I hope it will not—I am sure there will be a very strong discussion upon that point when that congress takes place. I do not know if any words of mine will appeal to the Home Secretary, but I would join with my hon. Friend in appealing to him to withdraw this Clause for the present. Surely there will be other opportunities when, if he so desires, the matter can be brought forward again. Then let it be brought forward in the light of full and free discussion rather than as it has been in a somewhat hurried manner. I strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision and see if he cannot withdraw this new Clause.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I hope hon. Members will allow me to say a few words on this subject. I do not think it would be quite courteous for me to be in the House, seeing that I was chairman of this Committee on Accidents in Factories, and not to say something on this question. I was not asked to come here. I looked in to see if it was necessary to remain, and found this discussion going on. I should like to make two or three points which have occurred to me. First of all, the Committee may remember that this was a Committee which, in the opinion of all people interested in the subject of accidents in factories, made a very large number of useful recommendations in regard to promoting greater safety and diminishing the risk from accidents. I was extremely interested in the two years' work while it was going on. It was a great pleasure to be working intimately with Members like the late Mr. Gill, and others who happily are still with us, and I have been rather

      1777
      gratified when I come across the subsequent history of this Report to hear it referred to in very high terms, such as the Factory Reformers' Bible, and that sort of thing. Therefore, I think it is rather hard on those who have been keen on getting the recommendations of this Report carried out that when one of them is brought before Parliament it is opposed as this recommendation is opposed this evening. It is not very encouraging to the Department, when it is trying to carry out, to the extent to which it does carry out, the other recommendations which we made.
      I think there was no part of our Report on which we were so entirely convinced and unanimous as on the fact that the money spent on certifying surgeons is really a waste of money, and that really it would improve the administration of the Factory Acts if the recommendations we made were carried out. We were not appointed as a Committee to work out economies in the administration of the Home Office or in the administration of the Factory Acts. We were appointed to recommend improvements in the Factory Acts, and we were unanimous in recommending this as being an improvement in the Factory Acts, just as much as any of the other things that we recommended. The Committee, no doubt, have our Report before them, and they will notice that there are several Minority Reports—no less than four—relating to other parts of our recommendations, but this recommendation about certifying surgeons was absolutely unanimous. The representatives of the employers agreed with it, and they were experts, and the representatives of the workers agreed with it, and they were experts. I was the only man on the Committee who was not a real expert, and who had not real expert knowledge and experience of the questions involved. It was not my fault that I was not an expert.
      An HON. MEMBER: Perhaps it was a good thing.
      Mr. ACLAND: It is a good thing to put an outsider on a Committee who is not an interested party, neither an employer nor a person employed, especially if he happens to be capable. At any rate, I have no cause to do anything but congratulate myself on the outcome of the work I was engaged in on that Committee. The important fact is that we were unanimous in our recommendation about certifying surgeons. We went into the question very
      1778
      carefully, and when men like the late Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill), who was extraordinarily conscientious and careful in going into all these matters, was just as keen as any member of the Committee in support of this unanimous recommendation, I think it ought to weigh for something at the present time. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), describing the conditions of Oldham. He says there is only one factory inspector, and in listening to him one would think that the whole work of seeing that the accidents were properly reported upon and the Factory Acts in regard to accidents properly administered rested with the certifying surgeons of Oldham. Therefore, I am bound to say it is rather astonishing to be told that there is only one certifying surgeon in Oldham.
      Mr. DENNISSmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
      Mr. ACLAND: It rather sounded to me from the hon. Member's description as if, owing to the very small number of factory inspectors, it was the certifying surgeons who did all the work in Oldham, and yet there is only one of them who is responsible for the whole town.
      Mr. T. WILSON: One inspector for Oldham?
      Mr. ACLAND: That is true. I make no secret of the fact. There is one inspector and one certifying surgeon, but one would rather gather, in listening to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Denniss) that there were several certifying surgeons there employed in making reports.
      Mr. DENNISS: There are many certifying surgeons—any number of them.
      Mr. ACLAND: There is only one certifying surgeon for Oldham. That is the point I am making.
      Mr. DENNISS: There are many, so far as I know.
      Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry the hon. Member does not know the facts. The fact is that there is only one certifying surgeon for that district.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: Is he a whole-time surgeon or a part-time surgeon?
      Mr. DENNISS: There are several certifying surgeons for Oldham.
      Mr. ACLAND: I have given the facts as they are given to me. If that is so, the

      1779
      work that is done by the certifying surgeon, cannot be so extraordinarily important for the maintenance of the Factory Acts as the hon. Member made out. My point is that this Committee, containing as it did these expert members, went into this matter with extraordinary conscientiousness and with expert knowledge, and it is rather hard when the House appealed, and I think quite rightly appealed, for the carrying out of the other recommendations involving considerable expense, that when there is a recommendation which does not involve expenditure hon. Members should at once be up on their legs to prevent, in every way they possibly can, that particular recommendation being carried out. It is the way of human nature that the moment anyone recommends anything to this House which involves economy there are dozens of people always up against it, and not one solitary person for the economy. Having still tremendously at heart the unanimous recommendations of this Committee, I am sorry that when a particular one is brought forward hon. Members should be against it in this way. It is not a very encouraging thing for the administrators of the Home Office, who, I hope, when the time comes, when it is rather easier to get money than it is in war-time, will do their level best to carry-out the whole of the recommendations of the Committee which involve expenditure, as well as this recommendation, which happens to involve a saving. No case has ever been more carefully considered, and I hope the Committee will give that fact some consideration.
      Mr. WALSH: In the position that we are taking up on this Clause there is not one tinge of a desire to do anything at all to dispirit the Government in any sense whatever. I may have been a Little combatative the other evening, but it was because I felt that it was doubtful, at least, whether the safety of the operatives was not in question by this Clause. If there is any reasonable doubt upon that point at all—and that even the right hon. Gentleman himself has never questioned —that this may possibly result in harm being occasioned to the operatives in the mills and workshops—the poor boy or girl who are the most helpless; if there is doubt at all that one single life or one singe limb may be jeopardised by this Clause, then I submit that it ought to be withdrawn for the time being. The trade unionists had a right to have an
      1780
      opportunity of knowing what was going on. The right hon. Gentleman has been very honourably associated, and in collaboration with many of the leading trade unionists of the country, in legislation during the lest ten or eleven years. Why could there not be the same decent publicity given on this occasion? The Clause is brought in on a Bill entitled "Police, etc., Miscellaneous Provisions Bill." The most astute trade unionists in the world would never conceive that such a Bill as that had any reference to the abolition of the certifying surgeon's duty in reporting accidents in factories. I am the last in the world to charge the right hon. Gentleman with a policy of concealment, but the effect of concealment can be equally disastrous, even if the policy is not intended, and I am as certain as I am of my own existence that the operatives in the mills and workshops of the country have a right to be consulted in a matter of this kind, that there devolves on the Government the obligation to consult them, and that this consultation not having taken place, the moral authority of the Government to proceed with this Clause has disappeared altogether.
      Mr. SAMUEL: They were consulted before this report was issued.
      Mr. WALSH: I am afraid that that is not correct, and I say so with every desire to be fair. The report never even came before the Labour party itself, and when he said that there were three Labour Members on the Committee I suppose that the hon. Member who spoke last did not know that he was making a wrong statement. Mr. Henry Vivian was never a Labour Member. He was and is a very capable man. You put an onus on us when you say there were three Labour Members who agreed to this, and that surely what they agreed to must be right. I am entitled to point out that one man was not and never was a Labour Member. He always received the Liberal Whip. He is a perfectly honourable man, and a most capable man, against whom I have not a word to say. But there were two-Labour Members. One man, a close personal friend of my own, is dead. We cannot cross-examine him. The other, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) has about as much experience of the inside of a mill as I have of the inside of Lambeth Palace, which is nought, and when you talk about expert opinion in such conditions you are really pressing the argument quite unfairly. The hon.

      1781
      Member for Leicester was not and is not an expert upon such points. The other Labour Member, unfortunately, is dead, and the other man was not a Labour Member at all.
      One of the most respected members of the trade union movement, and a man of the highest responsibility, is my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman). If there is a man to whose opinion respect should be paid, it is my right hon. Friend whose appeal we have just heard. He says that his Parliamentary committee, the standing committee and council of the trade union world, of which he is secretary, has never had an opportunity of considering this thing at all. Surely if the folks have any right to be consulted, is it not fair to give an authority such as that a chance of consultation? There are two men's names attached to that telegram, and I say with the greatest possible respect that there are no two men in the whole labour movement more solid and responsible, and no two men whose opinion on trade union matters in textiles carries more respect. One was not long ago the president of the Trade Union Congress, a personal friend of my own, a man of clear vision and careful deliberation. The other I do not know quite so well, though I know him personally. But those two men would not sign their names to that telegram if they did not feel every word of that telegram to be correct. It was not in answer to a telegram. It was a carefully prepared statement, a statement containing no error of fact, in which the first statement is that the proposal of the Home Office is to do away with the certifying surgeon in so far as the reporting of accidents is concerned.
      That is the first paragraph, and they cannot get away from that. Day by day boys and girls are going into dangerous employments, not having been acquainted with such employments before. Day by day dangerous employments are being introduced. Day by day there is a growing and urgent necessity for more careful provision, and it is now, when one-third of the factory inspectors have gone, and when dangerous employments are increasing in a degree never known before, when the sacrifice of life and limb, great and horrible as it is already, ought to be prevented by every means in our power, that this particular subject is brought forward. I cannot
      1782
      understand why the Government should persist. The right hon. Gentleman has no more sincere admirer of his brilliance and talent, and his devoted energy to> the public service than myself. Therefore, when I say that against stupidity even the gods contend in vain, the remark does not apply to him. But Governments collectively can be very stupid, and they are being so on this occasion. Economy!' Well, really, if we do economise, in Heaven's name let us economise on something decent. One of the first stories I remember hearing at a political meeting was that of a coachman who had lost control of the horse, and in his terror he told his master what was happening, and that there was bound to be a smash. "Then, in Heaven's name," said the master, "smash into something cheap." Here we are going to smash into something cheap.
      On the certifying surgeon's report you1 have a minimum fee of 3s., and a maximum fee of 10s., and the 10s. includes the travelling expenses of the man, and he is a man who stands almost always very high in his profession, who must have given long years to study, and a man who-day by day has acquired knowledge of infinite value to the working people; and we are to smash into this poor fellow with his minimum of 3s. and his maximum of 10s., including travelling expenses. If there is a genuine desire to economise, let us, as a whole House, co-operate in this very desirable work of true economy, but do not economise upon this kind of person. He is performing services which undoubtedly are of value, and which, therefore, at least during the period of the War, ought not to be made the subject of contention between us. It is complained that the reports are, in thousands of cases, mere duplications. Really, it ought not to surprise the Home Office if employers and certifying surgeons are indifferently honest. After all, I suppose there is a low working level of common honesty, and if these two people agree, why be so surprised? I would ask the Under-Secretary to the Home Office whether he would do away with all foremen's reports in the mines because in tens of thousands of instances those reports accord with the reports made by workmen-inspectors? Of course they must. There is a low working level of common honesty, and in the vast number of cases the two persons, however nefarious they might be in other regards, agree.

      1783
      The reports are checked, and they are found to agree, but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should really have taken into his mind the value of the cases where they disagree, where the employer had told only a portion of the truth, and the full truth was concealed, and the full truth was brought out by the certifying surgeon's report. That is the kind of thing which, after all, renders these certificates of value, and it is not the case that they are simply limited to a completely technical and rigid line.
      Those reports are presented upon forms provided for them, as the hon. Member for North-West Durham well brought out the night before last. There is a margin left for observation and comment upon the form supplied, and the certifying surgeons gradually increase their experience and information about the children from the very first day they enter the factory. From observation day by day they know the life-history of the workers from childhood, whether boy or girl, and, from the very moment they enter the factory, a poor little half-timer it may be, or a boy or girl a little more advanced in years, they are day by day under the observation of the certifying surgeons, -who know their history, know the pathology of their case, and gradually obtain an intimate knowledge of those with whom they have to deal, a knowledge which is of inestimable value in the conduct of the work done in our mills and workshops. I really would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Clause for the time being. We all know the great work which the right hon. Gentleman has done for our children. For them he has provided the greatest charter ever known; nobody can deny his bond fides; nobody can contest his overpowering claim to be looked upon as the benefactor of children. Then, in this case, if there be any doubt in regard to it, let us resolve that doubt. Let us have full information for the trade unions and the workers, who, after all, do their best to act on a fair and genuine line, and I am sure that no harm would be done by such a suggestion being adopted. Do not let this apple of discord be thrown amongst us, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdrawing this Clause altogether.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I desire to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Clause, if only for the
      1784
      period of the War. I think that the speeches which we have heard from the Labour Benches to-night, and the speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a case of merely trying to save fees, and I do not think that that contention can be possibly maintained any longer. It has been suggested to-night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, as by the Home Secretary, that every economy proposed when it comes here is opposed, although economy in general is approved. I submit the right hon. Gentleman has hardly considered what has really happened since this War began. Economies have been recommended to this House up to millions of pounds, and have been adopted up to millions of pounds, with hardly any objection whatever. Very serious things have been given up in order that we might effect economies. This is a small item, and almost the only one that has been seriously fought in this House—certainly the only one fought at anything like such length as this is being fought. It is not a case of £12,500 being fought for, and I think the Home Office would not have brought it up if that were the only object; it is because there is a desire to sweep away the present institution of factory certifying surgeons and to substitute for it, at a future date, an entirely different system. I do not for one minute admit the contention that this proposal is brought forward really as a matter of economy; it is much more a matter to be considered from the point of view I have suggested.
      The contention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was not consistent with what the Home Secretary said in regard to the usefulness or otherwise of the reports. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture spoke of the money as being wasted money; he said that with absolutely no qualification. The Home Secretary, on the other hand, admitted that in a certain proportion of cases those reports were useful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince has shown that you cannot expect them to be useful in every case—in more than a certain proportion of cases. The whole object is obtained if the factory surgeons act as a sieve to sift out those cases which are of

      1785
      such importance as to require the attention of the inspector. To use the argument of the Home Secretary, one might say that in the vast majority of cases the inspector is a purely useless expense; the report goes to the inspector, and the inspector does practically nothing with it because nothing is required to be done, it being purely a bonâ-fide small accident. Are we to say that the money spent on the inspectors is to be saved because, in the vast majority of cases, the reports which they give are of no use? And the same observation applies to the certifying surgeons.
      We are told that it is war time, that doctors are so scarce that we should save their time, and they would be able to get plenty of other work to do. No doubt they would get plenty of other work, but I submit that it would not save a great deal of their time, because a large part of this work of examining into accidents is done at the time when they are visiting the works for other purposes, such as examining children and examinations as to dangerous trades. It would, therefore, be misleading to suppose that it would save a very large amount of time for the ordinary medical work of the country. I am perfectly certain if this abolition is forced through at the present time it will create among a certain class a very undesirable amount of suspicion and will do a vast deal of harm in this time of war. Therefore I do suggest that the matter should be withdrawn now and that an inquiry should be held at the end of the War as to whether the present system is useful or if it could be improved upon by any better system. I do not for a moment suggest that it could be cheaper or nearly as cheap, but it might be better. I am quite prepared to support the abolition of certifying surgeons when you are ready to put something better in their place. Before that takes place there ought to be a very complete inquiry. The certifying surgeons ought not only to be brought there, but to be distinctly told that it is proposed to abolish their certificates and to ask them for their views with regard to the matter. The trade unionists of the country ought to be distinctly told that it is proposed to abolish the certifying surgeons and to be asked their views on the subject. Then I think we should be able to arrive at a conclusion which would be accepted by all classes. If this is forced through now it
      1786
      will, I think, create a great deal of suspicion and bad feeling which will wholly outweigh any saving in money.
      Mr. WARDLE: I would appeal to the Home Secretary, in view of the opposition to-night and to the fact that this Bill was only brought in the other day, and as there has been no real opportunity for the trade unionists and districts concerned to consider the matter, and especially since the title of the Bill did not lead anybody to suppose that it contained a Clause of this character, to reconsider the position, and under those circumstances I think ho will not lose anything by the delay. I am sorry to take that view. I do not want to throw any doubt upon the Report, and the probabilities are that if the whole of the facts were considered by the tribunals concerned and the districts concerned they might well agree that this was a desirable reform which ought to be carried out. It is clear now from this discussion that having a Clause of this character in this Bill will lend itself to suggestion, false suggestion it may be, and suspicion, and there is no more corroding influence in our social life than the breeding of suspicion in a matter of this kind. For these reasons I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Clause.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I wish I could respond to the appeal of my hon. Friends, especially coming from those benches. I have listened with great attention to all that they have said. This matter has been most thoroughly inquired into. The suggested inquiry was held—it covered a period of two years—into all these matters. The Committee which held the inquiry was a most representative and authoritative one. In addition to the Labour Members mentioned, there was Miss Mona Wilson, Deputy-Chief Inspector of Factories. The whole matter was discussed minutely. I have consulted others since, and they are all unanimous that when they examined this matter there was no question at all that the case was perfectly clear these reports are useless and a sheer waste of money. I cannot conscientiously and consistently with my duties to the House of Commons and the country, although the saving is a small one, recede from the position which I have taken up. It would be easier, infinitely easier for me, either not to have put this Clause in the Bill or when I found it was opposed to withdraw it on the ground of that opposition. By doing so I should have saved many hours'

      1787
      debate and a great deal of trouble in every direction, but, as I said before, I think a Minister's duty, when he recommends Estimates to the House, is to satisfy himself that the thing is really required, especally at this time. I have satisfied myself, after most careful inquiry, that this matter is not required, and that it is sheer waste of expenditure, and I cannot come down to the House of Commns and ask the House to continue that expenditure. Therefore, the matter now having been debated for several hours, I trust that the Committee will be ready to arrive at a decision.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was an intervention in defence of the Committee of which he was chairman. I cannot help saying that be has either not read the Bill or else has forgotten the Report of that Committee, because this Clause does not carry out the recommendations of that Committee to which he referred. The Home Secretary, I know, realises that the opposition to this Clause is not based on any opposition to him, to the Government, or to the Home Office, but is solely on the merits of the case. I submit to both right hon. Gentleman that to-day again we have not had a correct description of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1911. That Committee sat as judges between the Home Office and the interests of the general public. If, therefore, we are going now to abolish the work of the certifying surgeons as regards reporting upon accidents, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry this Clause by the machinery of the Government, it becomes very necessary that we should adopt all the qualifications and safeguards which were suggested in the Report of that Committee. No member of the Government who has spoken has called attention to the fact that the Committee, so far from giving an unqualified opinion as to the uselessness of the whole of these Reports, said:
      "It is clear that many of them (certifying surgeons) bring to this work much interest and enthusiasm."
      That statement does not quite harmonise with the production of half a dozen reports out of 50,000, and the reading of extracts from them. The extracts that were read seemed to be useful and scientific, and all that could be desired, having regard to the nature of the accidents with which those particular reports dealt. The point
      1788
      I want to ask the Home Secretary to give us an assurance about is this: The Commitee contemplated the continuance of the work of the certifying surgeons in certain respects. They made the proposal in the Bill, but they made another proposal as well, to which they gave greater emphasis, and that was that the occupier may report to the inspector and that the inspector was to have the power to specially report to the certifying surgeon for investigation in any case in which he thought such investigation desirable. They went further than that, and this is a point in which I want his assurance. They said:
      "In scattered district, and perhaps as regards some small factories in the larger centres, the surgeon's report is still useful, and it may he useful in those cases of poisoning which come within the definition of accidents where medical opinion on the subject of the accident is needed, such, for example, as cases of gassing by carbon monoxide."
      The right hon. Gentleman has put on the Paper an Amendment which partially carries out that suggestion of the Committee.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In order to be fair to hon. Members I should warn them that, the discussion having been so general, when we come to the Amendments the Debate will have to be confined within very strict limits.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In his speech the Home Secretary read a further Amendment which he proposed to move. If the Division to-night is in favour of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments are adopted, will those Amendments give him power as Secretary of State to see that the factories in these scattered districts and the small factories in populous districts, to which the Committee's Report referred, are still subject to reports by the certifying surgeons?
      Mr. SAMUEL: They will give that power.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is some satisfaction to me at least to feel that if this Clause is not to be struck out we shall have, as far as possible, the modification suggested by the Committee introduced by means of these Amendments. But I still feel that a better plan would be to provide that the Secretary of State may, by special Order, direct that the Factories and Workshops Acts shall continue to apply to any factory or workshop as though this Clause had not been enacted. That appears to me to give power to the Secretary of State to carry out yet more

      1789
      fully the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. That is why, at a later stage, I shall move such an Amendment.
      Mr. D. MASON: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture told us that he had just looked in, wondering whether there was anything important on. He then gave us a very illuminating speech in which, as far as I could gather, he summed up the controversy between the hon. Member opposite {Mr. Denniss) and himself as to the number of certifying surgeons in Oldham.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As we have had a very long Debate, I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the Amendment, and not deal with matters which are really irrelevant.
      Mr. MASON: I agree. It appeared to me to be very irrelevant, and I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact. The Home Secretary stated that the certifying surgeons' reports which came to him were absolutely useless. He then went on to show by his own Amendments that he was convinced, by the Debates which have taken place, that those reports are not quite useless. If those reports are of no use whatever, it is illogical and inconsistent to try to meet the speeches which have been made by putting in these Amendments. The temperate and moderate appeal made by the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) surely ought to have some weight with the right hon. Gentleman. That appeal was ably backed up by the Leader of the Labour party.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that he is now doing nothing but recapitulating in a more or less brief form speeches which have already been made to the Committee.
      Mr. MASON: Really, with all respect, I think I am quite in order in referring to them.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in merely recapitulating speeches which have already been made, and I must remind him of that fact.
      Mr. MASON: The hon. Member for the Ince Division pointed out very pertinently the undesirability of removing the certifying surgeons in the middle of a great war. In my own Constituency, for example, since the War began, the number of people
      1790
      employed in dangerous occupations has largely increased. I am bound to confirm that argument, and I hope to endorse it. I think I am in order in endorsing it.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I have to call the hon. Member's attention to the matter any more, I shall ask him to resume his seat.
      Mr. MASON: Speaking for my Constituents, I think that the point which the hon. Member made is a very valuable one, and I wish, with all respect to you, Sir, to give it some support. I suggest that the Home Secretary should have regard to that argument and give it some consideration. We do not suggest that he should not have some reform, perhaps after the War, but at the present stage it seems to us that he might certainly delay action because of the reasons given by my hon. Friend.
      Sir S. COLLINS: May I make a reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ince Division, whom we are always very delighted to hear, because his arguments are invariably so forcible and telling. I was sorry, when he referred to the Report of the Departmental Committee, to hear him try to draw distinctions as to who were real Labour representatives and who were not. The late Member for Birkenhead, although he was not technically a Labour man, represented a real Labour constituency, and I think he knew what Labour wanted as well as any qualified Labour member belonging to the Labour party. The hon. Member then threw over the late chairman. I was rather surprised to hear him do that. The gentleman referred to may not be a Labour man in the strictest sense of the word, but he has been trusted by his party all through and made their chairman. Therefore I was rather sorry to hear him "let down" so.
      Mr. WALSH: I certainly did not in any sense deny the ability and great capacity of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I gave him, I thought, as great a tribute as I possibly could.
      Sir S. COLLINS: My objection is as to their inability to be judges in these matters.
      Mr. WALSH: I did not say anything of the kind.
      Sir S. COLLINS: Then I do not see where the difference is. We are all agreed.

      1791
      They were representative men, who were able to argue these matters and to look at them from a broad point of view. I ask the Committee to remember the remarks of the Chairman of the Labour party. The hon. Member said that possibly it might be only suspicion. Let us trust the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for the Ince Division gave him a splendid testimonial in regard to his work in the past for the children and the people. I believe that, as the right hon. Gentleman said just now, we have given this a thorough investigation from every point of view. If we support the Committee in this respect I do not think that even Members of the Labour party in the long run will regret it, and they will be able to show their men that they did not do wrong to support the Committee.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "medical" ["as requiring medical investigation"]. This point, compared with what we have been discussing, is a small one.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would like to suggest to the hon. Member that the Debate has lasted hours, and would remind him of what I said some time ago about remarks being strictly limited to the particular Amendment which is moved.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I was going to be very careful on that point, Mr. Maclean. The word "medical" ties the hands of the Secretary of State. He asks us to give powers of that in case of exposure to gas, and in other special cases under specified instructions the Secretary of State may require medical investigation. Under the Clause as proposed the right hon. Gentleman would have power to issue instructions which would enable the surgeon to go and investigate the condition of the man who is ill, but he could not investigate anything in regard to the machinery or apparatus that caused the accident. It is well known that at the present time certifying surgeons' reports are by no means confined to medical matters. By the instructions which I read out two or three nights ago, when "we were discussing this matter, he is especially required to report as to the guarding of machinery. Although it is true, as said to-night, that he has no power to order machinery to be guarded, he has the power and the absolute duty to
      1792
      inquire whether it was granted, and whether the person who was working it was negligent, and various things of that sort. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman needs the wider power which would be given to him if this word "medical" were not in.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Amendment as it stands in really very wide, especially with the additional words which I propose to move. I do not think there can be any great advantage in leaving out the word "medical" unless the hon. Member attaches importance to his Amendment, in which case I accept it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: After the word "investigation" ["as requiring investigation"] add the words, "It shall also be the duty of the certifying surgeon to investigate and report upon any case of injury which the district inspector of a factory in pursuance of any general or special instructions from the Secretary of State may refer to him for that purpose."— [Mr. Samuel.]
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "Provided also that the Secretary of State may by special Order direct that the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, shall continue to apply to any factory or workshop as though this Section had not been enacted."
      This Amendment would, I think, adequately carry out one of the suggestions of the Departmental Committee, and enable certain classes of factories in populous districts and certain factories in scattered districts to forward their reports in the ordinary course to the certifying surgeon for the certifying surgeon's report thereupon.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The addition of these words means saying the same thing twice over. We have just put in an Amendment; that the Secretary of Stats may issue instructions to enable the inspection to continue as before. The drafting Amendment already inserted is really preferable to that of the hon. Member.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: If the Home Secretary thinks the point is already covered by his own Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Words proposed there inserted.
      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      CLAUSES 9 (Construction of Part II.), 10 (Power to Relax Qualifications as to Practical Experience in Mining where Candidates for Certificates have served in the Navy or Army), and 11 (Transfer to Board of Control of Certain Powers of Lunacy Commissioners) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Explanation of 4 and 5 Geo. V., c. 58, s. 3.)
    It is hereby declared that where imprisonment is ordered by any justice in respect of the non-payment of any rate the imprisonment shall, for the purposes of Section three of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to reduction of imprisonment on part payment of sums adjudged to be paid), be deemed to be imprisonment imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of the non-payment of a sum of money adjudged to be paid by that Court.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause, in order subsequently to insert a new Clause which is to the same effect, but is differently drafted.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Police, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 23.

    Division No. 32.]

    AYES.

    [9.31 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Brace, William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Rowlands, James

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Stanier, Captain Beville

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Field, William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    NOES.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Goldstone, Frank

    Wardle, George J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, Lewis

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    King, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Penneather, De Fonblanque

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Finney, Samuel

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Sir Philip Magnus and Mr. Stephen

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Walsh.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert as a new Subsection:
    "(2) The Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911, and Part II. of this Act may be jointly cited as the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1916."
    Does not the Home Secretary think that the Amendment would, at any rate, strengthen and improve the Clause? It is in that sense that I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I appreciate the hon. Member's intention, but I am advised that the Amendment is not necessary. Clause 9 of the Bill covers this point. It says:
    "This part of this Act shall be construed as one with the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1911."
    It would not be artistic, so to speak, to say that a Police (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should be cited as one of the Factory and Workshop Acts.
    Mr. KING: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 4 and 5 Geo. V., c. 58, s. 3.)
    Section three of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (which relates to the reduction of imprisonment imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in respect of non-payment of sums of money) shall apply in all cases, whether or not the sum of money is adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and accordingly in that Section the words "adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction" shall be repealed, and for the words "the sum adjudged to be paid" there shall be substituted the words "the sum in respect of non-payment of which the imprisonment is imposed."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    The following stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. KING:
    "After Clause 5, insert the following Clause:
    In this Part of this Act the expression 'police authority'—

    (a) as respects the City of London means the Commissioner of the City Police;

    (b) as respects other areas in England and Wales means the police authority for the purposes of the Police Act, 1890;

    (c) as respects areas in Scotland means the police authority for the purposes of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890."

    Mr. KING: I am informed that this Clause is not necessary.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the remaining Clauses in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. King), they are all outside the scope of the Bill, and the same remark applies to all the other new Clauses on the Paper.
    Schedule (Enactments Repealed) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): For the convenience of hon. Members, may I say that on Tuesday, instead of the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, the business will be Supply, and we shall take the Local Government Board Vote.
Mr. KING: May I ask why the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Expenses Resolution is not being taken, as promised by the Prime Minister?
Mr. GULLAND: Because the Minister in charge is not here, and I thought perhaps the hon. Member would desire to ask him some questions.

LOSS OF H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
Sir RICHARD COOPER: I asked a Question of the Prime Minister yesterday as to whether he would give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Paper relating to the loss of His Majesty's ship "Hampshire," and he gave a reply which was not only extremely unsatisfactory, as I shall be able to indicate to the House, but a reply that was not strictly in accordance with the facts. It is very well known to hon. Members of this House and the Government that not only is there a great deal of public feeling with regard to the extraordinary meagre reports that have been issued in the Press with regard to the circumstances attending the loss of the "Hampshire," but I believe I am correct in saying that the feeling of hon. Members of this House is demonstrated by the unusually large number of signatures that have been given to a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). It 52does seem

1797
to me that, apart from any other consideration, in view of the feeling that there is amongst the public, and amongst hon. Members of this House, the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government ought to accede to the request that I made, and ought to give the House a day for discussing the Motion and allowing hon. Members to put forward and urge the reasons why they think there ought to be a public inquiry of some kind into the loss of the "Hampshire."
It seems to me that the Government is apt to forget that the loss of a vessel like that is a matter which in this case cannot be said to have anything to do with the disposition of the naval units connected with the War. It might, to all intents and purposes, have been a private steamer, but, as a matter of fact, it is a very rich possession of the country paid for by the taxpayer. If the Government can show that any further public inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire" would really have a prejudicial effect upon our operations in the War, I am sure I and every hon. Member would support them if we believed that to be true. But, as that is not true, there is no reason why, under the circumstances, there should not be the usual court martial upon the loss of that vessel. I think there is a little misunderstanding as to what the First Lord of the Admiralty did say at the latter part of last year with regard to the policy which he on behalf of the Admiralty, proposed to follow during the War. On the 10th November last the First Lord of the Admiralty said:
"The tradition of the Navy is, as my hon. Friend suggests, that whenever a ship is lost, a court-martial should be held on the survivors. We desire to adhere to the spirit of that as far as the public interests and the conditions of modern naval warfare will allow."
That: is a perfectly proper and intelligible view for any Minister to take, and if the right hon. Gentleman himself is prepared to state in this House, in view of the state of public feeling, that the Government are convinced that it is contrary to the interests of this country and the prosecution of the War, to do what I suggest, for my part, and I am sure on the part of other hon. Members, we would be ready to accept such an assertion. However certain one feels that such an investigation would not have any effect upon the prosecution of the War, if any Minister of the Crown assured the House and the country that there was some element of danger in having a further inquiry, everyone of us would be satisfied without putting any further
1798
question. I am not going into the details, but I have felt a little aggrieved at the answers which I and other hon. Members have received with regard to the loss of the "Hampshire," because those answers have been so very evasive. I have got a number of them here, and they all indicate one of two things, either an unwillingness, which may or may not have good reasons at the back of it, to tell this House and the public a few of the simple facts on questions which are most concerning their minds; or else if it is not an unwillingness, it shows a lack of knowledge of the real circumstances attending the loss of this boat and the circumstances which were presumably dealt with at the inquiry held some time ago. There are many disquieting rumours going round, and they are getting worse, and there is great anxiety as to whether the real facts with regard to the loss of this vessel have been properly inquired into and determined; and it is because I believe myself that there is good and fair reason, because the public have this feeling of anxiety, that I feel it my duty to raise this question here to-night. We have been officially informed, on the strength of the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, that the "Hampshire" struck a mine. If that is so, I cannot understand what information of value could be given to the enemy, or how our operations in the War could be prejudiced by, at any rate, a brief statement of the evidence or the facts which leave no doubt in the mind of the Commander-in-Chief and the Admiralty that the "Hampshire" actually did strike a mine.
I have asked a question as to whether the sea was swept, and I have been refused any information. I think the right hon. Gentleman did say that it is clearly impossible, in the naval interests, to make any statements about the precautions taken by the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet for the protection of the ships in his command. Nobody asked for any such information. I asked whether the sea was swept for mines at the particular spot where the "Hampshire" went down. That ship is so detached from ships in military operations that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is justified in defending himself in this way, and I think he might tell us whether the seas were swept or not. The House knows quite well how extremely difficult it is for any Member of this House to get really dependable information. The survivors of the "Hampshire" did not agree in their own minds that the

1799
ship was destroyed by striking a mine which would be floating about in the sea, and that view is certainly not accepted by a very large number of the public. The first thing that created a deep interest in my mind with regard to the loss of this boat was this. The boat was lost on Monday, 5th June, at eight o'clock. At about two on Tuesday the information was made public through the Press, and before that evening had closed the Press were given information which showed that it had been determined to have a memorial service at St. Paul's in memory of Lord Kitchener. That was before the War Office could reasonably know whether Lord Kitchener had at that time met his death or whether he might not have been saved. Why that precipitous haste to have a memorial service at St. Paul's? What did the authorities know on the evening of Tuesday, 6th June, which made them certain beyond doubt that Lord Kitchener could not possibly have been saved? So far as we and the public are concerned, we have no direct evidence even now that Lord Kitchener is dead, though let me say that I do not for one moment suggest or myself hold the view that he is alive. I say, however, that it is not quite so foolish as some people might think to point out that there is no direct evidence that Lord Kitchener is dead. Yet that memorial service at St. Paul's had been arranged, by the authorities within some four or five hours of the public being made aware of the fact that the vessel had been lost.
10.0 P.M.
I turn to another point that has created some anxiety. There was one very distinguished public servant, Colonel Fitz-Gerald, whose body was recovered. His relatives were allowed to receive his body for burial. An enormous number of bodies were recovered. Why was this one distinguished officer's body allowed to be returned to his family and buried at Eastbourne and no opportunity given for ether bodies to be brought home and buried in the family vault or wherever the relatives might desire? The matter is worse than that, because in some cases where the body was recovered on Tuesday, 6th June, the relatives were not informed that the body had been recovered until 24th or 25th June. The Admiralty presumably knew on the 6th or 7th. Why did they take nearly three weeks before they notified the relatives of the deceased officers on the
1800
"Hampshire" that the bodies had been recovered? It is one of those things that prompt questions when one's mind is a little perplexed as to what has been going on. The Admiralty even now have in their possession letters and articles of every description that were taken off the bodies of officers and members of the crew on 6th and 7th June. They have not yet returned them to the relatives. I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another point. To my mind it is one of the most disturbing facts in connection with this deplorable tragedy. At two o'clock on Tuesday, 6th June, the public were first informed of the loss of this boat. That evening the Admiralty posted separately typewritten letters to the supposed widows of officers and members of the crew of the boat. I do not know how they did it. I cannot understand how they could do it in the time. Numbers of letters, separately typewritten, were on the evening of 6th June posted to the relatives of officers and members of the crew notifying the supposed widow that her husband had been lost, when they could not know, and did not know, as I can prove. They properly expressed their deep regret at the intelligence, and offered profound sympathy. A form of application for a widow's pension was enclosed. This was all done before they knew whether the man was dead or not. It was sent to women whose husbands were not dead and whose husbands have been saved. I cannot conceive a more brutally callous thing that any Government Department could do. But leaving that aside, how was it that the Admiralty were so certain before Tuesday evening had passed? What did they know which the public are not being told to-day about the loss of that boat? How were they so certain that every member of the crew was dead and beyond call that they were justified in sending this deplorable letter to women whom they regarded as widows and who they were sure in their minds were widows? In some cases they were not widows. In one, at any rate, I can give to the right hon. Gentleman, she was not a widow, because on Thursday she received a telegram from her husband saying that he had been rescued. That was one inexplicable event in connection with this tragedy.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. First of all, is it a fact that in some cases either the

1801
clothing or the bodies showed signs of burning by acid? People who saw the bodies when they were recovered declare that was so, and I want the right hon. Gentleman, if he will, either to tell us it is true or, if it is false, to deny it. I am not quite sure about the laws of Scotland, but I think I am right in suggesting that in England, at any rate, any bodies washed ashore under any circumstances must have an inquest held upon them. I think I am right in saying, however, that there was no coroner's inquest held upon the bodies that were recovered from the "Hampshire." I want to ask another serious question—whether one of the survivors is at present under arrest in the care of the Admiralty? If so, is that man under arrest for an offence in connection with the loss of the "Hampshire"? Many people are asking whether the ship was or was not a fit boat to go to sea. Was it a fit boat for the Admiralty to charge with the commission of taking Lord Kitchener and his staff to Russia? Am I wrong in suggesting that some very curious events happened in connection with the "Hampshire," known to the Admiralty, in the months of December, 1915, and January and February, 1916? Have the Admiralty any reason to believe that there has been some member, or that there have been some members, of the crew of the "Hampshire" during these three months who on more than one occasion have committed acts to show that there were dangerous elements aboard? I do not want to go into details, and I do not think it wise to say too much—
Dr. MACNAMARA: Go on.
Sir R.COOPER: I shall be very pleased. I do not think there can be any harm actually. I will ask whether it is a fact that in either January or February the "Hampshire" went for gun trials in the North Sea, and that the guns on one side of the vessel could not be fired? A wire had been maliciously cut, and I believe some form of inquiry was held in connection with that. Another instance I can give is that while the ship was in the neighbourhood of Belfast, I am informed, two members of the crew were found to be unsafe, and I believe I am right in saying that strict measures were taken in dealing with them. But about the end of January, or the first week in February, a member of the crew of the "Hampshire" had leave, and there is one case at any rate which I can substantiate up to the
1802
hilt, where this man, who I believe was only nineteen, and named Northover, told his parents and friends when he said "Good-bye" to them that he never expected to come back because there was something wrong with the ship. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to trace that name, if I am correct in giving it, and he will be able to ascertain whether there is proper foundation for the statement that I have just made. We have had a few, very few indeed, reports in the papers—I mean unofficial reports in some of the papers. For instance, in the "Weekly Scotsman" there was a report of an Aberdeen trawler, named "Effort" being close by. I want to know whether there has been any inquiry—the Prime Minister was so satisfied when he replied to me in the House that there was no necessity for any inquiry—and whether any members of the crew of the trawler "Effort" were at that inquiry. Then there is the supposed Dutch vessel, in another case of which we read, which was close to the "Hampshire" when she went down. If that is not true, then the House ought to be assured of that by the Government. If it is, has the Admiralty got to the bottom of why the vessel was there? Were members of the crew of that supposed Dutch vessel present as witnesses at the inquiry which was held? Then, again, was any evidence taken at that inquiry of any people who were on the shore? Was the evidence of any witnesses from the destroyers that were sent out, taken?
Speaking of the destroyers leads me to another statement, and that is that on one of the rafts which got away from one of the ships a searchlight was thrown. I do not know where that searchlight came from. It may have been from one of the destroyers, and it is quite conceivable that the destroyers were there that they might see the rafts, but that it might be impossible to make any attempt to do anything for the men on them, who might be making for the shore, and, as it is an extremely dangerous coast, the destroyers might have had to keep off. I do not make any suggestion that if it was a searchlight from one of the destroyers those vessels could have made any attempt to rescue the large number of men from the raft; but I do lead to this suggestion, that it appears to me that the naval authorities at Stromness, when they knew of the loss of the vessel at 8.35 that night, and when, if it is correct, as I am informed, a searchlight was thrown on one

1803
of the rafts with the men on it—did the naval authorities at Stromness take all reasonable and adequate precautions for the sending out of rescue parties all round this coast to help the men who had got off on the rafts, and were trying to make for this very rocky coast. These twelve survivors we have had enormous difficulty in getting ashore at all, I am informed, and only two were able to get ashore, and they were many hours before they could find any adequate help, either to assist them or their colleagues on that raft, let alone search parties, which I think should have been sent out, if they were not, by the naval authorities who might have done something to rescue some of the men on other rafts, or more men from that raft that did reach the shore.
There is one other point, and I am extremely glad that the Home Secretary is here to-night, because last week I made a statement in the House that the Press Bureau had issued three instructions to the Press. I will take only the most important to-night. The third was that the Press Bureau instructed the Press not to report or to refer to the fact that Lord Kitchener would embark on the "Hampshire" at a point four miles north of Stromness. The right hon. Gentleman later, when he spoke, said he had caused a message to be sent to the Press Bureau, and that he was happy to inform the House that my statement was absolutely false. I must plead ignorance in not appreciating the distinction between the Press Bureau and the Press Censor. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying—which I did not know at the time—that the Press Bureau had not given any such instructions to the Press. I have had the matter further looked into, and I find it was not the Press Bureau but the Press Censor. I allege again to-night that the Press Censor did—
Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know whom the hon. Member means. The censorship is conducted at the Press Bureau.
Sir R. COOPER: I am extremely glad to know that, because I have not been able to make clear what is the difference between the Press Censor and the Press Bureau. So I take it, from what the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Press Bureau includes the Press Censor, more or less, and that it comes under his jurisdiction. In that case, the denial that the
1804
right hon. Gentleman gave me a week ago to-night clearly referred to the Press Censor. I have had the matter looked into, and I am assured on evidence which neither he nor I can dispute that the instruction did come, and that it is on the files of the leading papers to-night.
Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Gentleman must produce his evidence because, not only did I receive information from the Press Bureau that nothing of the sort was done, but as the "Times" did not publish the statement the Press Bureau wrote to the "Times," and they next day inserted that specific statement. I have seen it, not merely on the telephone message, but in writing.
Sir R. COOPER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has accurately what the "Times" said. The "Times," last Saturday, on its middle page, said, I think, that "they had been asked to state"—they did not say they had their own authority for stating it—that they had been asked, I do not know by whom, and they did not say by whom. I saw it, because my attention was drawn to it. I do not know who had given them the instruction, and it made no particular impression on my mind. But I do say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am assured by a person who has seen and knows these instructions, a person whom I have seen since, and who swears to me as solemnly as any man can, that he did see the instruction on the file—and that it is there now, unless it has been removed since—of one of the leading papers in London. Let me say that if the right hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong in that information—
Mr. SAMUEL: I do.
Sir R. COOPER: I must accept that now. Of course, if I am wrong—it is very hard for me to believe it, but I must accept that statement, it is obviously dangerous for any Member of this House to make a statement like that that has no foundation. Therefore, on the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gives me, that it is not true, I am at any rate not so lacking in faith in him, and other members of the Government, as not to apologise and to withdraw it. It is a matter of great importance to me, but I apologise and withdraw it. Having dealt with that there is another important matter to which I must refer. There are a very large number of question which hon. Members will probably

1805
think might be raised, but it is extraordinary that two German papers, the "Berliner Tageblatt" and the "Leipziger Nachrichten," should both have stated, I think I am right in saying, on that day that they knew that Lord Kitchener was dead. They had his obituary, and they said they had anticipated his death, because they knew he was going to Russia, insinuating, although they did not say so, that they knew before he left this country that he was going to perish. That is the obvious insinuation. We all know quite well that the Germans, if it suited their purpose, would say anything. The only impression this makes upon my mind is that I cannot conceive any possible purpose the German papers had to serve in making such a statement as that. It could do them no good; it could not deceive their own people. It is a curious fact that they had it the next day, or the second day, with a long history of Lord Kitchener's life. They evidently had it all ready. I cannot conceive what purpose they could serve by stating that they knew he was going to perish. The Admiralty, at any rate, are getting wise in time, because immediately after the loss of the "Hampshire" they suddenly issued new and very much more stringent instructions with regard to the freedom of people going to and from the Orkney and Shetland Islands. On the 7th October, the Wednesday, they announced by the following Order:
"The Admiralty are of opinion that, in view of the public safety and the defence of the Realm, it is desirable to impose restrictions on persons proceeding to or from ports of the Orkney Islands—"
There is more of it. Nobody is going to read that without connecting it with the event of the "Hampshire."
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: What date was that?
Sir R. COOPER: The 7th June.
Mr. WILLIAMS: You said October.
Sir R. COOPER: I meant June. It was a day or two days after they knew of the loss of the "Hampshire." It is impossible to read the Order of that date without the suggestion coming to anybody's mind that the loss of the "Hampshire" had shown them that their own precautions were not strong enough. What for? Preventing spying; nothing else. It is a very logical conclusion. To what other conclusion can we come? That is the conclusion I draw, and the conclusion a great many other people draw.
1806
These are all the points I am going to raise to-night. Take any one of them alone, or take any two of them alone, it might not be sufficient to establish a case for a further public inquiry into the loss of this boat. I submit that, taking the points I have mentioned—there are many other points, including that of the destroyers returning, and points that have occurred to hon. Members and to the public—taking all these points together, it is impossible to resist the feeling that the whole of the facts relating to the loss of that boat are not known, and that the public have a full right to know more accurately and to be informed really of what is known of what did take place, what is the evidence of those who were called, and what led the Admiralty to the certainty that the "Hampshire" struck a mine. I would ask hon. Members of this House to picture for a moment what would have happened supposing, for the sake of argument, that instead of Lord Kitchener it had been the Prime Minister himself who had been on board. Does anybody believe that this House would have been content to leave this matter where it is, that it would not have insisted upon a public inquiry and on knowing more about the circumstances in which a leading Member of this House had lost his life? I am certain that every Member would. I am certain I would, and I am certain that everybody on this side would. Why should we not do the same for Lord Kitchener? It does drive one to the conclusion that, in the opinion of the Government, Lord Kitchener's death is not worth even a public inquiry or court-martial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw!"] I know hon. Members do not like such a statement as that, but here is the nation losing—I do not want to exaggerate—at least one of its greatest men. If you ignore some of the serious things I have put forward, and if you look only at the reports which have been published, there are circumstances which, in the average mind, make people say, "I do not understand this," or, "I do not understand that." That is what people are saying and feeling. People want a public inquiry into it. You have the evidence of the Order-book that a large number of Members of the House feel that justice has not been done in the information which has been given, and I want to appeal once more to the right hon Gentleman that he will represent to the Government and to the Prime

1807
Minister himself that, taking one thing and another, it would be in the public interest, if only to remove the rumours which are going about the country.—[Interruption.]—They are going. They are being hinted at in the Press, and there is more than one largely read journal at present threatening to expose them all. They are doing it. I have no connection with them, but they are doing it. I see them and they are brought to my notice. If these papers are wrong and men like myself, who stand here and ask these questions and make certain suggestions, are wrong, it is in the interest of the country and it is the duty of the Government to prove to the people that we are wrong and to satisfy history and satisfy the people who are coming after us that the circumstances under which Lord Kitchener met his death and the "Hampshire" was lost are justifiably credited to the striking of a mine, which the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet has stated in his official report is, in his judgment, the cause of the tragedy.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon Baronet is obviously quite sincere and convinced of the truth of the statements which have been submitted to him and by him repeated to this House, and it is possible that after my reply he may remain of the same mind. His sincerity is beyond doubt.
Sir R. COOPER: I want to be convinced.
Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can do is to hope that I can carry conviction to him in the statement that I have to make. He has complained of lack of information. Let me remind him that the first communiqué was on 6th June, apart from the publication of the names of the twelve survivors; the second was on 10th June, and the third, which was a full summary of the report of the inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire," was published on 15th June. I do not know what more could have been done and I stated to him on 22nd June that a Committee of Inquiry would be held by order of the Commander-in-Chief immediately the survivors could be got together. I stated in reply to a question on 27th June that the inquiry was held at a naval base under the presidency of a captain of the Royal Navy. It was, of course, a full and careful inquiry, each survivor being examined. The Court found, as was stated
1808
in the communiqué issued by the Press Bureau on the 15th, that the vessel struck a mine, and the hon. Baronet knows that a communiqué of 15th June summarised the report of the circumstances which followed the striking of the mine.
Sir R. COOPER: On the 12th it was published in the London papers.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Then the hon. Baronet complains that the Prime Minister has replied to him to the effect that he will not hold a further inquiry. That is the answer which was given yesterday. All I can add to that is that I cannot see what useful purpose could possibly be served by collecting the survivors together and taking them away from their proper duties in order to repeat, in effect, the proceedings to which I have already referred, and to which the Prime Minister has referred the hon. Baronet. As regards the alleged conflict of view amongst the survivors as to the cause of the sinking of the ship—an allegation twice repeated by the hon. Member—there is no such conflict. I have read the evidence. It is quite true that some of them would not venture an opinion, which is quite natural, but all who did stated that their opinion was that it was due to a mine. It is not true to say that there is any conflict of evidence. That is the judgment arrived at by the Court, and concurred in by the Commander-in-Chief and Board of Admiralty.
There are one or two other points on which the hon. Baronet desires a reply. He says that Colonel Fitzgerald's body was brought to Eastbourne, but that the bodies of the poor unfortunate sailors were not taken to their homes for burial. I will certainly inquire whether there was anything different from the usual proceeding. So far as I know the usual proceeding would be followed, that where any request is preferred the body shall be transferred to a place of burial near the home of the deceased person. I have not the faintest reason to suppose that any differentiation of any kind applied to this case. The same remark is true as regards the effects. The hon. Baronet says that the effects have not been sent home yet. That may very well be, but there is no sinister reason why they should not have been sent home. The explanation may be that the Department which deals with these matters is simply doing its work in its ordinary way, and will send the effects home in the ordinary

1809
way. If the hon. Baronet says they are being held back for some reason or other, I am entirely unable to see what he is trying to suggest.
Sir R. COOPER: The Admiralty have had them in their possession for one month. Why do they want to hold them for a month, when these effects mean so much to the widows and relatives of these men?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree. It is our policy to send home the effects of deceased sailors as soon as we can. I want the hon. Baronet to understand that there is no sinister reason why they should not be sent home as quickly as possible. I will look into the matter. It may very well be that there may be administrative necessities which would take a month. The hon. Baronet also complains that we issued notices on the night of the 6th June. That was a day after.
Sir R. COOPER: It was not a day after the Admiralty knew.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Notices were posted to the effect that those who had lost relatives would receive whatever financial consideration was due to them. That was on the night of the day after the occurrence. The only thing that strikes me is that the Department acted with such despatch in this case. Of course, it is desirable that we should get into touch with the relatives as soon as possible, and the hon. Baronet would be the first to complain if we did not do so. I have no knowledge of the precise moment when the notice to the relatives was posted as to what was due to them in the way of pension and so on, but I will make inquiry. My hon. Friend says that some of the bodies showed traces of burning. I have never heard of that, but I will make inquiries. I do not know whether the suggestion is that there must have been some foul play on the ship, but at any rate, if he wants to know whether we can say if any of the clothing was burned and why, I will inquire. My hon. Friend asks whether one of the survivors is now under arrest by the Admiralty, and apparently he suggests some reason or other in connection with this tragic event. Is that what the hon. Baronet means?
Sir R. COOPER: I ask a question.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I really wish that my hon. Friend would give me something to go on, and I will promise to do my level best for all I am worth to get at the facts. But here is a survivor, we are told, under arrest. I do not know; I hope that it is not so. I hope that he has not been misbehaving himself. Does the hon. Member suggest that this man is under arrest because of something in connection with this tragic event? Because otherwise it has nothing to do with the case at all, even if he is under arrest. But I will inquire. I want to clear up the point. Then the hon. Member made a series of statements about discipline on this particular ship during some earlier period. Again I know nothing about that, but I will inquire. He even mentioned a particular name. Is the suggestion that there was some evil influence in connection with this particular ship?
Sir R. COOPER: Yes.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I will make inquiry about the matter. Then my hon. Friend says, "Has it not been said in the papers that there was a Dutch trawler about?" Certainly I saw it in the papers myself, and I went back to the office and asked if anything was known about it, and nothing was known. Then my hon. Friend asked about the destroyers. I inquired about that, because a question was asked me about them before. They were detached on account of the very heavy seas. The destroyers and patrol vessels were sent out afterwards, because in an emergency no matter what occurs they would try to save life, but I do not see how it can be said that the destroyers could in any way assist an inquiry into the cause of the disaster. The hon. Member asks why were the people not satisfied upon the matter some time before. I would remind him, if he takes such an interest in the matter, that when he complains that nothing was sent out, he should have read what was sent out. He should have read the communication which was sent out on the 10th June. Of course he read it, but he has forgotten it. On the 10th June the information was sent out that destroyers and vessels were immediately dispatched, and search parties were sent out to work along the coast. You cannot overlook important matters of that kind, that destroyers and vessels were dispatched and that search parties were sent out to work along the coast. I hope I have dealt with the whole of the points.

1811
I have inquired before as to suggestions made by the hon. Baronet, and he knows that.
Sir R. COOPER: I did not get much of an answer.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not suppose that I can shake the hon. Member's belief that there has been some espionage in connection with this. I think he may finally dismiss that from his mind, though I do not suppose I can bring conviction to his mind. There are times in which it is our duty to overlook no possibility, no matter how remote, and to resist no suggestion however obviously fantastic, and all I can say is that those responsible are doing everything possible in the direction of care and discipline, and doing it unceasingly and unrestingly.
Commander BELLAIRS: I endeavoured to persuade my hon. Friend not to raise this question on the Adjournment. I think this House is an unsatisfactory tribunal to try grave charges, and I think that some of the charges that have been made are very vague. We have a Motion for inquiry which raises our case on quite different lines. I will take the charge to which the hon. Member referred as to the record of Lord Kitchener's life having been prepared beforehand. I remember that eight or nine years ago I was asked to write the obituary notice for filing of a distinguished Admiral who is still living, and I hope will do so to a very ripe old age. The twenty-eight members who have put down a Motion rest their case on the broad lines, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that it has been the invariable rule, without a single exception, extending over two centuries up to the year 1907, to have a court-martial whenever a ship is lost, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the previous First Lord of the Admiralty was justified in the House of Lords on the ground that there were precedents for not holding courts-martial in sixteen cases between 1815 and 1841. I obtained the names of these ships which constituted precedents, and I submitted my proofs in sixteen separate questions that in each case there was a court-martial except where there were no survivors to bring before a Court. I think the Admiralty have accepted my researches as accurate, and I am glad that the Secretary of the Admiralty agrees that that is so. I think a Court of Inquiry is nothing like so satis-
1812
factory a tribunal as a court-martial. You have a court of inquiry about an anchor or about a Whitehead torpedo, and in the case of the "Hampshire" you had a Court of Inquiry. Surely the Admiralty would not class the "Hampshire" and, most of all, Lord Kitchener, in the same category as a piece of iron. If you had held a court-martial it could have been held in secret, but we would have known that the case had been properly tried, since the members of the Court, as well as the witnesses are on oath, and tradition makes them a very independent body. I think one of the reasons why the Admiralty of late have taken a dislike to courts-martial is that courts-martial have been known to bring in verdicts blaming the Admiralty. There was a court-martial in the case of H.M.S. "Captain" on the few surviving men, which blamed the Admiralty, and there was another, of which the Member for Portsmouth was a member, in the case of the loss of the "Cobra," which also blamed the Admiralty. I do not think the Admiralty liked that and that that is one of the reasons why they are extremely anxious to get rid of courts-martial. So invariable has been this habit of holding courts-martial in the case of every ship lost that the Order for a court-martial bore the words "Pursuant to the custom of the Navy to inquire into the loss of the said ship." When this question was raised by the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, now Secretary of State for the Colonies, said, speaking on behalf of his colleagues, they regretted the facts that courts-martial were not being held to inquire into the loss of each ship, and that that was a bad departure. I presume he spoke for the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty, as one of his followers. He said he spoke on behalf of all his colleagues. His words were:
"I have discussed it with my colleagues, and we all feel—I am speaking of my colleagues on this side of the House—that, so far as we can judge, this is a bad departure. We would like to see a reversion to the older practice. Having said that, we can say and do no more."
That is my opinion. I am not prepared to listen to all the yarns brought to me. One hears all sorts of yarns. Recently there has been a column in the newspapers about His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" and the Battle of Jutland. Some of us know that the "Hampshire" was never in the Battle of Jutland: yet there was a column account by a bluejacket stating what had taken place on board

1813
His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" at the Battle of Jutland. If you tell me you have not time to hold these courts-martial I will quote Sir Michael Culme-Seymour:
"There were plenty of courts-martial in the old wars, and there is no difficulty whatever in holding them now."
I believe it is a common occurrence to-day to have courts-martial in disciplinary cases now. I make no charge against the Navy in regard to the "Hampshire," because I know nothing about it. I plead for a court-martial. Least of all would I make any charge or raise this question—and I am very sorry it has been raised on the Adjournment—on an evening when dispatches are being published of a victory which has won imperishable fame for our Navy from the highest to the lowest.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Eleven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

MONDAY.
Harichandna, Chandra Sikhar.—Petition of Chandra Sikhar Harichandna, for redress of grievances.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War.—Petition from Kilmarnock, for prohibition.

TUESDAY.
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.