Commons Sitting of 13 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],
As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.
Hornsey Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

DECLARATION OF LONDON (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 22, 1916).
Copy presented of Note addressed by His Majesty's Government to Neutral Representatives in London respecting the withdrawal of the Declaration of London Orders in Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1915, Vol. L., Part II., Return of Produce of Crops in England and Wales, with Summaries for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, numbered D.I.P. 365, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew and an infected area for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Ferndale Gas Bill [Lords].
Colchester Gas Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official or other communications that have passed since last April between the American and the British Governments with reference to Irish affairs will be submitted to Parliament before the introduction of any Bill relating to the government of Ireland?
      The UNDER—SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): No such communications have passed.

      ARRESTS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received any account of the arrest of Dr. Dundon on returning to Ireland from his honey-moon after the insurrection, and therefore unconnected with that event, and his deportation and detention since; why in the circumstances security for appearance, if required, was not taken from a gentleman of his class occupying a public position; how soon will he be released or tried; and what tribunal is to deal with claims for reparation in cases of mistaken arrest and discharge without trial?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Dr. Dundon's case is under consideration by the Advisory Committee, who will consider any evidence he may offer on the point mentioned. The case was not one in which security could be taken, and I cannot entertain any question of compensation.

      BOY PRISONER.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he will have inquiries made into the case of the boy William Derrington, aged sixteen and a half years, at present in Wormwood Scrubbs undergoing a sentence of twelve months' hard labour; if he is aware that this boy was only a member of the rank and file of the Irish Volunteers; and if, having regard to his age, he will order his discharge?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked me to answer this question. This youth was taken amongst other per-sons when the Mendicity Institute was assaulted by a party of troops on the 26th of April. There was heavy firing from this building, and a number of casualties among the troops resulted. Derrington's age was taken into account by the Court, and a much lighter sentence was passed on him than on the other prisoners, and the sentence awarded was subsequently reduced by the General Officer Commanding-in—Chief in Ireland. The sentence will be brought forward for review at a later date.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if the imprisonment of a boy of sixteen years is calculated not to eliminate the Sinn Feiners but to increase them?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question on which the hon. Member can make up his own mind.

      GARRISONING IRELAND.
      Major HUNTasked whether the naval and military authorities have given or can give an assurance to the Government that fewer soldiers and fewer ships will be required to garrison and guard Ireland after Home Rule has been set up there during the War?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Such an assurance has not been asked for, and obviously cannot be given.

      IRISH TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION (CLERK'S DEATH).
      Mr. LYNCHasked whether an inquiry will be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances in which Ernest Cavanagh met his death on 25th April on the steps of Liberty Hall, Dublin; and, if so, whether the statements of his relatives will be tested, to the effect that Ernest Cavanagh was never a member of any organisation which advocated physical force, that he was absent on a holiday during four days preceding the rising, that having been employed as a clerk in the State insurance section of the Irish Trans-port Workers' Union he had gone, on Tuesday, 25th April, to Liberty Hall to ascertain whether the staff was still there, that he was shot and killed while alone and unarmed, that the shots came from the Customs House near by, and that no warning was given?
      Mr. SAMUEL: My information is that Ernest Cavanagh was accidentally shot by a member of the Citizen Army, and I do not propose to institute an inquiry in the matter.
      Mr. LYNCH: What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement, which is greatly at variance with the evidence otherwise available? Will the right hon. Gentleman lay even that evidence before Members of the House?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There was a police inquiry in Dublin into the circumstances, and the result of it I have told the House.
      Mr. LYNCH: May Members of this House, and particularly Irish Members, have access to that evidence?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I would like notice of that.

      NEWSPAPERS FOR PRISONERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why, notwithstanding the promise that Irish newspapers would be allowed to reach Irish prisoners at Frongoch, "An Claideam Soluis," the "Irish Nation," and the "Irish Independent," sent to prisoners there, have not yet reached them?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Sanction has been given to the prisoners at Frongoch receiving the "Irish Independent" and certain other Irish papers, and they are regularly delivered. I am informed that the prisoners have been notified by the Commandant that, should any other Irish papers be desired in addition to these already in circulation in the camp, application should be made to him who will give it consideration. I am further in-formed that, so far, no such requests have been made.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the papers mentioned on the Order Paper be admitted if sent by post, and why have they not' been admitted so far, seeing that they have not been suppressed?
      Mr. SAMUEL: It depends upon the character of the papers whether they pass the Censor, or not.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is not the character of them verified by the fact that they are allowed to be published?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I wish that were so.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Complaints have been made by some interned prisoners that there is an average delay of from five to ten days from the time the papers are published to the time of delivery to these men?
      Mr. SAMUEL: That does not arise out of this question. Postal arrangements have been very much improved now that representations have been made.

      MARTIAL LAW.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister the object of continuing martial law in Ireland at a moment when good will is so necessary; and how soon the country may look for the re-establishment of civil justice there?
      Mr. FARRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to still continue martial law for all Ireland, including areas where no disturbance of any kind took place; and whether, in view of the necessity of restoring a civil Executive at the earliest opportunity, he will remove martial law from all districts in which no disturbance took place immediately?
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in addition to the reports of the military authorities, he receives communications from civilians competent to judge as to the effect of the continuance of martial law in Ireland; and whether, if it be made clear that martial law is extending the area of unrest and disaffection and increasing the spirit of resistance to the Government, he will take steps immediately to put an end to martial law?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will answer these three questions together
      Mr. LYNCH: I beg to postpone my question as it is a matter affecting policy that can only be answered by the Prime Minister.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Then I will answer the other two questions. Such action, for the maintenance of order, as the Government has been obliged to take has been taken under Statutory authority or the ordinary law. The Government are as anxious as my hon. Friend that the necessity for any exceptional action should cease.
      Sir W. BYLES: Is their any statutory authority for military absolutism when peace has been restored after a rebellion?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by military absolutism. The action taken by the military authorities in Ireland at the present time is taken under the Defence of the Realm Act and not under the ordinary law.

    BRITISH AND RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any request has been made to the Russian Government that British subjects of a military age in Russia should be returned to this country in order that they may serve in the British Army?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord inform me why it is proposed to deport-beginning to-morrow—Russian subjects in order to take their place in the Army of Russia?
    Lord R. CECIL: This matter was dealt with very exhaustively by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I have nothing to add to what he said.
    Mr. KING: I must press for a reply. Why, in spite of the pledge that these men were to be allowed to go before the tribunal, are the Foreign Office allowing these men to be deported to-morrow?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to the Home Office.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether a Russian subject who on 20th June was granted a permit to go to Russia at his own expense on 5th July had that permit withdrawn, and was told that he was to be sent forcibly at public expense in order to serve in the Army; whether this gentleman is medically unfit for military service; whether this action embodies the considered policy of the Foreign Office and the Allied Governments; and (2) whether a Russian Jewish subject on applying for a permit to return to Russia was told that he must go as an Army defaulter at the British Government's expense, and on the Russian gentleman stating that he had heart disease and would pay for the journey at his own expense rather than suffer the hardships of forcible deportation to Arch-angel he was informed that this did not matter; whether it is intended to deport

    509
    all Russian Jews to Russia whether medically unfit or not; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to correct a wrong impression to which official action has already given sanction?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Without further particulars the case or cases referred to by the hon. Member cannot be traced. If he will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. KING: Why is it that the man to whom this refers is to be deported to-morrow although he has intimated that he wishes to appear before a tribunal as promised by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No such case is known at the Department. We do not know to whom the hon. Member refers, but if he sends the name I will inquire.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentle-man mean to deny that the man is to be deported to-morrow without appearing before a tribunal?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know anything about the case, but if the hon. Member gives me the name, I will inquire.
    Mr. KING: Why is it that the man to whom this refers has had, late last night, a notice that he is to be deported to-morrow?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give the name.
    Mr. KING: I will give the name of the man either in public or immediately to the right hon. Gentleman, but I will only do so on the assurance that the man will not be deported to-morrow.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for making bargains.
    Mr. KING: I wish to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has considered the financial expenditure involved in the Home Office proposal to de-port Russian subjects to Russia, presumably that they may there serve in the Army; and whether, in view of the need of Russia being for munitions and money rather than for untrained men, he will state what action the Treasury is taking on this question?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): It would be
    510
    outside the province of the Treasury to interfere with the exercise of his discretion by the Secretary of State in the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

    ECONOMIC CONFERENCE IN PARIS.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps have been taken by our Allies, or any of them, to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the recent Economic Conference in Paris?
    Lord R. CECIL: So far as I am aware, none of the Allied Powers have yet introduced legislative measures to give effect to the recommendations of the Economic Conference at Paris. The resolutions passed at the Conference have been confirmed by the French Government.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask the Noble Lord, in view of the great importance of this matter, and the great interest taken in it, whether, where effective legislative provisions are made, we shall be informed in this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: I shall be very glad indeed to meet my hon. Friend in any way. I am not quite sure what it is he desires, but perhaps he will be good enough' to communicate with me privately.

    BELGIUM (IMPORTS OF LARD AND FOODSTUFFS).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can state the amount of lard imported into Belgium in 1913 and the amount imported by the Neutrals' Relief Commission during the six months ending 30th June, 1916; (2) whether he can state the monthly importation, in tons, of lard into Belgium by the Neutrals' Relief Commission up to 30th June, 1916; and (3) whether he can state the monthly importation, in tons, of foodstuffs into Belgium by the Neutrals' Relief Commission up to 30th June, 1916?
    Lord R. CECIL: As these questions involve detailed statistics up to a very recent period, I will, if the House will allow me, have them inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. [See Written Answers, 18th July, 1916.]
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the answer to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT be a specific answer to the questions I have put?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will do my best.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope it will be better than last time.

    SIR FRANCIS OPPENHEIMER.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secre-for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact Sir Francis Oppenheimer, our Commercial Attaché at The Hague, is the son of a German, and was born and educated at Frankfort, in Germany, and that his mother lives in Germany, and that the British Minister at The Hague refers everything connected with British trade in Holland to him, he can see his way to appointing a British-born and British-bred subject in his place during the War?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division yesterday, but I must not be taken to admit the accuracy of the statement contained in the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the question is not correct?
    Lord R. CECIL: Some of the statements in the question are not correct.

    RUSSO-JAPANESE TREATY.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and other Governments, particularly those of Russia and Japan, with regard to the new Russo—Japanese Treaty; and whether Papers on the subject will be presented to the House at an early date?
    Lord R. CECIL: The terms of the Treaty were communicated to His Majesty's Government confidentially by the Japanese Government before publication, and His Majesty's Government thereupon expressed to both the Japanese and Russian Governments their great satisfaction on its conclusion. Otherwise no communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Governments concerned, and it does not therefore seem necessary to lay any Papers on the Table.

    BRITISH PRISONERS AT RUHLEBEN.

      REPLY OF GERMAN GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply to his last proposal to the German Government on the question of the treatment of British civilian prisoners at Ruhleben; and whether he can add anything to his last public statement with reference to this matter?
      Lord R. CECIL: The substance of the German reply which we have received is as follows:
      The German Government categorically repudiate the charge made by us, that they do not recognise their obligations as to the supply of food to British prisoners of war, as also the assertion that less food is supplied to civilian than to military prisoners, the rations furnished to all prisoners of war being identical. The Report recently made by Dr. Taylor will be carefully verified, and the result communicated in due course. In this latter connection it is remarked that on the occasion of his visits to the camp kitchen Dr. Taylor frequently ex-pressed to the officer in charge his appreciation of the' quality of the food.
      The German Government state that they have, at our request, sanctioned the dispatch to the captain of the camp at Ruhleben of collective consignments of food for those prisoners who receive no direct parcels, on the condition that those consignments shall not contain a pre-dominance of such commodities as are only obtainable to a limited extent by the German people themselves in consequence of the British blockade.
      If, on grounds of reprisal, we should in any way reduce the rations now supplied to German prisoners of war in this country, the German Government propose not only to withdraw the permission for collective parcels, but also to prohibit the receipt of individual parcels, the camp ration being then ordered so as to correspond with the measures taken by us.
      The German Government declare them-selves as not averse to the proposal which we communicated to them for the release of all British civilian prisoners of war, but they consider that this could not take place on the basis of the release of a similar number of German prisoners by us, as such an exchange would encounter

      513
      insuperable difficulties in regard to the selection of those prisoners who are to benefit by it.
      A further communication from us on the subject will now be awaited.
      It is a little difficult to be quite sure what that last paragraph means. It appears to me that we should release all German prisoners in exchange for British civilian prisoners.
      To this Note His Majesty's Government propose to reply that they cannot accept the proposal to repatriate all the Germans interned in this country in exchange for the British civilians interned in Germany, since that would be to send back some 26,000 Germans in exchange for only 4,000 British. They have already proposed to the German Government that all civilians on both sides over fifty should be repatriated, and also all those over forty-five who are unfit for service in the field with the exception of certain persons to be retained for military reasons. This proposal they will once more press upon the German Government, with the addition that persons so retained shall not exceed twenty on each side. They further propose that the remaining British civilians and an equal number of German civilians shall be interned in a neutral country.
      Sir W. BYLES: May we take it that the policy of reprisals is abandoned?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; the House must not arrive at any such conclusion. The Government hold themselves perfectly free to retaliate if that proves to be the only way of obtaining justice for our prisoners.
      Mr. BUTCHER: What is the number of British civilian prisoners in Germany as compared with the number of interned Germans in this country?
      Lord R. CECIL: There are about 4,000 interned British civilians, and 26,000 interned Germans.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Is it not a fact that about 600 of the 4,000 interned in Germany are prepared to accept German nationality at the end of the War and that they would not be counted in the 4,000?
      Lord R. CECIL: I cannot pledge myself to the absolute figures, but I think the hon.
      514
      Member is substantially right. There are a certain number of prisoners at Ruhleben who have intimated in some form or other that they would be prepared to accept German nationality.
      Sir C. HENRY: What is the number of Germans over military age among the 26,000 interned?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am not able to give that figure; I must have notice.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. S. M. P. Wijetileke, a notary public practising at Matale, Ceylon, is one of the persons whom he alleges to be illiterate and not responsible for his statutory declaration made before a magistrate on the 7th November last with reference to illegalities practised upon him by order of the officer commanding the military at Matale; and, if he is literate and responsible, as his profession implies, what reparation has been made to him?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have no information about Mr. Wijetileke, and I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

    CROWN COLONIES, WEST AFRICA
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the event of any of the Crown Colonies of West Africa or occupied territories there being handed over to a Foreign Power, he will undertake that one of the conditions of such transfer will be a guarantee that the rate of duty at present imposed on all imported spirits shall be maintained?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the circumstances referred to in the question should arise, the desirability of preventing the lowering of import duties on spirits will not be lost sight of.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is there any intention to cede any Colonies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no heard of no such proposal.

    ROYAL PARKS (REFRESHMENT STALLS).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the First Commissioner of Works, whether the refreshment stalls in the parks are under any supervision as to the nature and quality of the food sold, especially to children, and as to the amount of money spent at these stalls in food which, if not positively injurious, is at least not nutritious; and whether any steps will be taken to check the wasteful expenditure which is to be observed at some of these stalls?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): These stalls in the Royal Parks are under the supervision of officers of my Department who investigate any complaints as to the quality or service of the food supplied by the contractors. I am not prepared to make inquiries as to the amount of money expended by individual members of the public who must be considered to be the best judges of their needs, and as to whether they are receiving value for the money they can afford to pay.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman as rather absurd that this waste of money should go on while on the other side of the street there are suggestions for reducing expenditure?
    Mr. HARCOURT: There is a great deal of very undesirable waste everywhere.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Liquor Control Board have exempted their managers at Annan from the provisions of the Licensing Acts under the power given them to do so by Section 9 of the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations, 1915; and, if not, whether the managers can be prosecuted for offences against the Licensing Acts?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The Central Control Board have not exempted their managers at Annan from the statutory provisions referred to, and those managers can consequently be prosecuted for offences against the Licensing Acts.

      TRIBUNAL DECISIONS (SMOKING).
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the inconsistency of decisions of the local munitions tribunals in Glasgow on the subject of smoking by the men while engaged on munitions; whether he is aware that one of the tribunals awarded three riveters £3 each for compensation for wrongful dismissal for smoking in working hours, whereas two other Courts refused to grant the men any compensation in similar circumstances; and will he instruct the tribunals how his Department wishes them to act in these cases?
      Dr. ADDISON: The attention of the Minister of Munitions has been called to a case in which the Glasgow local munitions tribunal awarded £3 each to three riveters for compensation in respect of dismissal due to smoking and idling during working hours. This decision was given at a rehearing after an appeal. I have no information showing inconsistent decisions were given by the Glasgow munitions tribunal, and in any case my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that there is more than one tribunal for the Glasgow district. The munitions tribunals are independent Courts of Law, and the Minister of Munitions has no power to issue to them instructions as to the decisions they shall give.

      WORKERS DISCHARGED.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether during the last month a number of joiners over military age have been discharged from a munition works in Nottinghamshire; whether Mr. F. Waterson, recently discharged from the Royal Engineers as unfit for further war service, was also discharged, while at the same time single and married men of military age have been retained; whether two young men of military age were recently started as joiners who are by trade butchers; and will he give the reasons why men over military age are not given the preference, especially those who have served their country?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am causing inquiries to be made into the points raised in the hon. Member's question, and will inform him of the result.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to other

      517
      Departments with regard to discharging men under the circumstances suggested in the question?
      Dr. ADDISON: I do not know yet what the circumstances are, so that I do not know what the instructions will be.

      POSTPONEMENT OF HOLIDAYS.
      Mr. CROOKS: May I be allowed to put a question, of which I have given private notice to the Prime Minister in the hope that, in his absence, somebody will be able to answer it—whether his attention has been directed to proposals for a further postponement of holidays for munition workers, whether the question has received his consideration, and, if so, is he in a position to make any statement thereon?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister had hoped to be here in time to answer that question, but he will take another opportunity in the course of the day of making a statement.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that, under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, the Dublin Port and Docks Board properties shall be exempted from its provisions, as already granted in favour of commons, parks, and recreation grounds?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This matter will be dealt with by a Government Amendment to the Bill, of which notice has been given.

    CATTLE-DRIVING (ROSCOMMON).
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he has received official information as to recent collisions between the police and civilians in county Galway; have any members of the police force been seriously injured in attempting to carry out their duty; and have any arrests been made?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of any collisions in county Galway, but if I may assume the hon. and gallant Member to refer to the adjoining county of Roscommon, it is the fact that on the 4th instant cattle-driving at two places brought about
    518
    collisions with the police in the course of which seventeen constables received in-juries, one of whom was seriously injured. No arrests were made at the time, but proceedings will in due course be instituted in certain cases. A strong force of police has been ordered to the spot, and military support, if it should be required, is available locally.

    INTERNED ALIENS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of complaints of the conduct at public restaurants of interned aliens when released on parole on short leave of absence; whether he will state the Regulations under which leave of absence is granted to aliens interned at the Alexandra Palace; and whether the commandant of the camp will impress on those to whom leave of absence is given the propriety of care in their conversation when frequenting on parole places of public entertainment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No such complaints have reached me, nor, I am informed, have the Metropolitan Police heard of any. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me any specific facts I will have inquiry made.
    Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what the arrangements are for letting these men out on parole?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Alexandra Palace is under the control of the War Office, and not under my control.

    LAND QUESTION (COUNTY GALWAY).
    Mr. REDDYasked the Home Secretary whether J. D. Ayres Mather, of Delanes, Nairn, is at present at Falty Moor, Ballinasloe; whether he is under forty, and whether he has been asked to serve in the Army; whether he is aware that since Mather came to the district he has created disturbance and trouble by altering the user of land which existed during the past seventy years; and whether at the present time, when sons of tenants affected are at the front, the Government will refuse police assistance to him in his policy?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, and as to the third part I have no information. I understand that Mr. Mather, having lost a farm elsewhere this year,

    519
    required for his own use meadow lands at Cloonaburren, which had previously been let to local farmers, and that since the 1st June his cattle have been driven off his lands on three occasions by riotous crowds in defiance of the police. I am not aware that there are sons of the tenants affected at the front. As stated in reply to a previous question, the necessary police arrangements have been made locally.
    Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man Mather has 4,000 acres of land, of which these poor tenants have been in possession for the last seventy years, and under those circumstances I ask why are the grievances of the Irish farmers located differently from those of the Welsh miners, and will he send a copy of his answer to the Connaught soldiers?

    PASSPORT WITHDRAWAL.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Miss French Mullen is still left without her luggage, which was detained at Southampton; and if he will state whether Miss Mullen will be compensated for her loss and inconvenience caused by the withdrawal of her passport?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If Miss Mullen is with-out her luggage the remedy is in her own hands. She might have brought it with her when she came to London, and may now obtain it, I have no doubt, by applying to the railway authorities at Southampton. The case is not one in which I could recommend the grant of any compensation.

    BARON EMILE D'ERLANGER.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that Mr. Emile d'Erlanger, born of German parents, is now a naturalised British subject, he will say whether this gentleman is entitled to all the privileges of a British citizen and at the same time to retain his German title of baron; whether, at the time he became a naturalised British subject, he notified the Home Office of his intention to retain his German title; and whether he is aware that Mr. Emile d'Erlanger, under the title of Baron Emile d'Erlanger, has raised
    520
    money from the British public for his companies, the said money being employed in the case of the Forestal Land and Timber Company to promote German interests?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The use by a British subject of a foreign title which is not officially recognised, is a matter in which the Home Office cannot intervene. I have no information as to the last paragraph of the question.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to under-stand that a German can be naturalised and has a right to use a German title which he has not given up?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understand this gentleman was not a German, but was of French nationality. With regard to the use of the title, the title is not officially recognised.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he definitely stated that this gentleman was born of German parents in an answer he gave two days ago?
    Mr. SAMUEL: He is not of German nationality.

    NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Louis Benjamin, of the firm of Benjamin Brothers, Bermondsey Street; is he aware that this man has a brother registered as an alien, and has himself served in the German Army, and used to go over to Germany to do his training before the War, and that he changed his Christian name when allowed to be naturalised in December, 1914, although expressing himself in favour of Germany at the beginning of the War; and whether, under these circumstances, he could see his way to have this man of German origin interned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; I am well acquainted with this case. A naturalised British subject can be interned only if that course is necessary for securing the public safety or the defence of the realm. There is no information before me indicating any such necessity in this case
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is an extremely undesirable person; and if I bring evidence to show that he was very much in favour of the Germans at the beginning

    521
    of the War, will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly; I shall be very grateful to the hon. Member.

    FIRMS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
    Mr. WATTasked how many firms in Scotland have been wound up on account of enemy origin or association since the passing of the recent Act of Parliament?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Under Section1 of the Act of January last, relating to businesses carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects Orders have been made by the Board of Trade for the winding-up of two firms in Scotland. Notice of these Orders appeared in the "Edinburgh Gazette," of the 14th April and the 4th July.

    POST OFFICE (SALE OF STATIONERY).
    Major WHELERasked the Post-master-General whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Stationers' Association to the effect that, while the association recognises that the sale of letter-cards and post-cards at face value is a convenience and a boon to the public, they are of opinion that, in the interests of national economy, the sale of such articles should be limited to single packets to each purchaser, and that firms and corporations should no longer be permitted to purchase these in large quantities for business use; that the stamped envelopes and other articles sold by the Post Office should no longer be supplied at present prices, many of them under cost, but issued at a price commensurate with the increases in the cost of material caused by the limitation of imports by the Government; and what, if any, steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): My attention has been drawn to the resolution. I have the matter under consideration, and will acquaint the hon. Member with my decision.

    PRICES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention
    522
    has been called to the prices of coal and food in Ireland; if he is aware that coal is now 3s. 6d. per bag to the poor; if he can state whether the prices are being caused by the rates charged by shipping rings for transit; and if he will take steps to limit the prices of coal and food in Ire-land, where the wages paid to workers are much less than those paid to workers in Great Britain?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Tuesday to a similar question, asked by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin. I propose to direct the attention of the Committee on Prices to these questions.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of allotting some of the captured German ships to the Irish trade?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I did not catch the question; perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of it.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increase in the price of coal and food in Ireland; if he will take steps to increase the old age pensions to 7s. 6d.; and if he is aware that such a proposal would have the support of almost every Member of the House?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; I am aware that Ireland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, is suffering from the increased cost of living. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Prime Minister gave him on the 26th June.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the steps he proposes taking to regulate the price of coal; and whether he will consider the desirability of substituting the average prices of each quality of coal for the standard instead of the corresponding price?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The question of limiting the price of export and bunker coal is receiving careful consideration, but I am not in a position yet to make a definite statement. In the event of any amendment of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act being found necessary, my hon. Friend's suggestion regarding standard price will be borne in mind.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make his statement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Very shortly.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Next Tuesday?

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked how many interned alien enemies in this country are now being employed on any national or remunerative work; and why all able-bodied interned alien enemies should not be employed on some work of a public character instead of remaining idle in their various camps?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am afraid I have not the answer to this question with me, but the number is about 4,000 employed in useful and remunerative work other than fatigue duties in the camps. Other schemes are under consideration now by means of which it is hoped to employ a considerably larger number of these interned persons.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not the difficulty to get local people to employ them?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    [The following is the reply which the Home Secretary had prepared: Over 3,000 of the interned civilians are employed on work which is to the public advantage, without counting those engaged in per-forming ordinary camp fatigues. As regards the second part of the question, only a few kinds of industrial work can be carried on profitably inside the camps; and it is difficult to provide the guards necessary for the employment of numerous parties in labouring or agricultural work outside; but fresh schemes are under consideration, and I hope that the numbers in useful employment will be increased.]

    NAVAL RECRUITING OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether they are contemplating removing the recruiting office from Johnstone Terrace, Edinburgh, to a more prominent position elsewhere?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend's representations as to the desirableness of transferring this-recruiting office have been very carefully considered, and we are of opinion that the present office satisfies all our requirements.

    BOARD OF CONTROL.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister if he will state when he pro-poses to introduce legislation to reduce the number of Commissioners forming the Board of Control, as recommended last May in the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member no doubt refers to a recommendation in the Report of the Committee on Public Retrenchment.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. SAMUEL: My information is that it is in the Report of the Committee on Public Retrenchment. However the recommendation is the same. The proposal would involve extensive alterations both in the law and in administration which cannot be undertaken at present, especially as one of the Commissioners is serving with the forces, and two are almost wholly engaged in work connected with the War. An immediate reduction would not in any case be practicable, and was not recommended by the Committee: a reduction could only be brought into effect as vacancies occur.
    Mr. ASHLEY: There is some misunderstanding. I will put the question down again.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would it not be a good opportunity to put off some of the extreme teetotalers on the Board?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This is not the Board of Control.
    Sir J. D. REES: It is the Board of Control.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Board of Control is the body which has the care of lunatics and mentally deficients.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend's question refers to the Board of Liquor Control?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member wished to refer to that Board he ought to have referred to it as the Central Control Board.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the lunatics are not interned?

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it was with Government sanction martial law and the Defence of the Realm Act were recently used to pre-vent a meeting in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, for the purpose of opposing the partition of Ireland and to facilitate a meeting in St. Mary's Hall, Belfast, in promotion of partition; whether it was with Government sanction Mr. Stuart, an official in the office of the Irish Insurance Commissioners, spent the fortnight preceding the latter meeting motoring in Ulster canvas-sing people to attend that meeting in support of partition, and paying by cheques signed Joseph Devlin; whether the money so drawn upon was supplied by the Government or any State Department; whether he is aware that another insurance official, Mr. Skeffington, of Dungannon, got himself appointed to oppose partition in St. Mary's Hall, when there supported partition, and subsequently explained that if he had done otherwise the Member for West Belfast would have got him deprived of his means of living; on what principle insurance officials in Ireland are allowed to interfere and be used in controversial politics against the wish of the public; and, seeing that the project for the partition of Ireland has none but this manufactured support, that no elected statutory body in Ireland has asked it, and that the people of all classes so far as allowed have pro-tested against it, whether that project will be withdrawn?
      Mr. LUNDON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask, on a point of Order, whether the hon. Member for North—West Meath is entitled to make use of the Order Paper of this House in order to make unscrupulous and anonymous attacks upon an hon. Member of this House? The statements contained in this question would not be made either in the public Press or on the platform, for the simple reason that the hon. Member would be brought to book. Is it fair that state-
      526
      ments which could not be made outside the House should be made inside for the purpose of attacking an hon. Member? The last part of the question refers to Mr. Skeffington, of Dungannon, who is supposed to be an insurance official. He is a solicitor, and has no connection what-ever with the Insurance Commission. I have a telegram from him in which he says that the whole story is a hoax as far as he is concerned.
      Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member's question, I have constantly deprecated references to and attacks upon other hon. Members in questions, and I shall continue to do so as far as I can. But I am afraid that I have little or no influence with the hon. Member who has put this question on the Paper. With regard to attacks upon those who are not members of the House, all I can say is that, in my opinion, for an hon. Member to make use of the privileges which this House gives him in order to attack innocent people outside, is one of the most despicable proceedings imaginable.
      Mr. GINNELL: The reason why this question has caused irritation is that it is true. I beg to ask Question 46.
      Mr. SAMUEL: As regards the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Cork City on 26th June. As regards the latter part of the question, Mr. Stewart, who is a temporary clerk in the service of the National Health Insurance Commission, Ireland, denies specifically the truth of the allegations contained in the question, and there is no officer of the name of Skeffington in the employment of the Irish Commission.
      Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that a meeting announced to be held in the Ulster Hall was pre-vented by the military and the police, to my personal knowledge, for I went there? Does he claim to know more about cheques in Tyrone than the people of Tyrone?
      HON. MEMBERS: Do not answer!
      Mr. SAMUEL: With regard to the first part of the question, it is the case that a meeting was prohibited, as was stated by the Prime Minister on the 26th June. The meeting was of a character which was regarded as connected with the rebellious movement which came to a head some little time ago. With regard to the cheques, I have no knowledge.
      Mr. GIN NELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question—whether the partition proposals based upon manufactured opinion will be withdrawn?
      HON. MEMBERS: Do not answer!
      Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question that does not call for any reply.
      Major NEWMANasked whether it is still the intention of the Government to defer the final settlement of the government of Ireland, including the continuance of the exclusion of any part of Ireland from the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act of 1912, or subsequent amending Acts, to an Imperial Conference, to be summoned after the conclusion of hostilities?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister can add nothing to his public statements on this subject.
      Colonel YATEasked whether the acceptance by both the Unionist and Nationalist parties in Ireland of the application to Ireland of the Military Ser-vice Act will be one of the conditions embodied in the proposed Home Rule Act Amending Bill?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I can make no further statement on this matter until the introduction of the Bill to give effect to the Government's proposals.
      Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is not this pledge of sincerity on the part of all parties in Ireland necessary and essential to any settlement? Without equal co-operation on the part of Ireland, what becomes of the bond of common sacrifices and glories—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That question is one more for argument in debate.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Prime Minister is not able to be here to-day?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that he has important matters of public business to attend to for the moment; he will be here shortly, when the business is disposed of.
      Mr. GINNELL: He has gone to the Dardanelles.

    DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (PAPERS).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to
    528
    inform the House of the reason for the delay in the publication of the Dardanelles Papers, in regard to which a definite pledge has been given to the House; whether the Papers in question were fully examined before such pledge was given and all necessary authorities consulted; and whether he can now undertake that the publication will take place before the House adjourns for the summer Recess?
    Sir E. CARSONasked how soon the Papers relating to the operations in the Dardanelles, promised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, will be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister will make a full statement on this matter and the Mesopotamian question on Tuesday next.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the statement? What we really want is opportunity for discussion in the House, and we never get it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall put the representations of my right hon. Friend to the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure that if the House desire to discuss the statement they will get an opportunity of doing so.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman's position exactly the same as it was six weeks ago when he said that the Dardanelles Papers could now be published with perfect security to the public interest, as the book was now closed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I know, my position is exactly the same as it was then.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Then we may take it that Papers are to be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If I could give that answer it would not be necessary to postpone the statement till Tuesday.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that Papers cannot be published? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"]
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are we to have any Papers relating to Mesopotamia before the Prime Minister makes his statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in regard to these Papers that the Prime Minister has said he will make his statement on Tuesday.

    WALES (WATER POWER).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to inquire into and report upon the water power of Wales, with a view to its utilisation for the production of electrical energy for agriculture and other industries; and, if not, in view of the importance of increasing the productive capacity of the country, whether he will cause the matter to be investigated?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I understand that a power and traction company possessing statutory powers for the supply of electricity obtains energy by utilising water power in North Wales, but I am not aware of any general inquiry into the matter.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      RAILWAY COMPANIES.
      Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that railway companies are further punishing men by refusing to employ them after they have served sentences for offences under the Military Service Act; and, having regard to the definite assurances given that the Government would not countenance any form of industrial compulsion, he will take steps, as the president of the Railway Executive, to protect the men from dual punishment?
      Mr. HARCOURT: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I shall be happy to look into the matter.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will make inquiries concerning the action of the Burley-in-Whafedale Tribunal in allowing Messrs. William Fison, Limited, to make the selection of one weaving overlooker to be refused among four married men who applied for exemption, with the result that the firm in question decided to refuse exemption to a man of thirty-eight years of age with six children, whilst of the remaining three who were given exemption one man, twenty-seven years of age, had no children, another,
      530
      forty years of age, had only one child, and the third, twenty-nine years of age, had only two children?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend is making inquiry into the subject.
      Mr. DIXONasked what remedy a married man belonging to a certified occupation, namely, a wholesale fish salesman and fish curer, has when the local tribunal refuses him a certificate of exemption from military service and leave to appeal?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: An applicant has an unrestricted right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal. Appeal from the Appeal Tribunal to the Central Tribunal can be made only by leave of the former, and their decision granting or refusing leave is final.

      DISCHARGED FROM COLOURS.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a Reservist called to the Colours on the outbreak of war, who has now been discharged from the Army, and whose principal and usual occupation prior to the War was that of a coal miner employed underground, is liable to be again recalled for military service if, after his discharge from the Army, he returned to the occupation of a miner underground and is now engaged in this same occupation; and will he say what steps a miner who comes under this category should take when he receives notice to rejoin the Army, seeing that all underground miners are exempt?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Under Section 3 (1) of the last Military Service Act men of military age who have been discharged from naval or military service on the termination of their period of service become liable to serve again. Applications for exemption can be made in respect of these men as well as other men. In the case of miners the application should be made to the Colliery Recruiting Court.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of his answer when he says, "Applications for exemption can be made in respect of these men as well as other men?" Do they start in the same position as other men

      531
      when they come before the tribunal, and were they prejudiced in any way because they have been in the Reserve?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: Certainly they are not prejudiced. We are now in communication with the Home Office, and a further communication will be sent.

      CIVIL LIABILITIES.
      Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Military Services Committee who are dealing with civil liabilities in the case of men who have joined up and who can claim either by themselves or by their representatives that such claims may go back to August, 1914; will he say whether, if such a man is purchasing a house or has a mortgage on the same, he can to-day claim a grant towards monthly or quarterly payments, but if such a man were killed in January, 1916, his executors do not get the benefit from the Military Services Committee, though he had the same liability as the man living to-day, who can date back; whether he is aware that these defaults of payment will be to the detriment of his widow and family; and, seeing that if the man were killed after putting in his claim his claim holds good, will he take steps to ensure that this principle holds good for his widow?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The scheme administered by the Military Service (Civil Liabilites) Committee applies to men who joined the forces on or after the 4th August, 1914, or are members of the Territorial Force. The assistance granted will generally date from the commencement of the operation of the scheme—that is from the 25th May last—though in exceptional cases a grant may be made in respect of arrears. If a man who has received a grant is killed, the grant may be continued for a period not exceeding twenty-six weeks after his death. The widow of a man who is killed is entitled to a pension, and if, owing to exceptional circumstances, the pension is inadequate, it may be supplemented by the Statutory Committee.

      CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION.
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. E. Guillaume, who applied on medical grounds for exemption before the Weybridge Tribunal, and was granted it by
      532
      the tribunal; whether his examination before the Army medical board lasted less than two minutes, after which he was passed for general service; whether he had a medical certificate from the local military examiner stating that he was suffering from internal poisoning; whether the military representative stated to the tribunal that he would suggest that he should be allowed to go into the Army, and that if he was unfit he would soon crack up; and whether any steps are being taken to secure that medical boards and military representatives should pay more attention to medical evidence submitted on behalf of applicants in the interests both of the Army and of the men concerned?
      Mr. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Arthur S. Donkin, of Park View, Whit by Bay, who, on the 18th of October last was arrested by men of the West Yorkshire Regiment without any provocation, and after being subjected to indignities and insults was kept under military guard until the following morning when he was released by their colonel who admitted that there was not the slightest justification for the arrest; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps to punish the persons responsible for such arrest and to compensate Mr. Donkin for the treatment to which he was subjected?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give instructions to the recruiting officer, at Gosport, who is named Major Organ, that under the Military Service Act a man cannot be called to the Colours so long as his appeal to the tribunal is undecided, seeing that Major Organ, wrote to Mr. B. R. S. Spaull, on 22nd June, saying that he must join the Army, although he had an appeal to the Central Tribunal undecided?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made about the matters dealt with in these questions, and, with the permission of the hon. Gentlemen, the Under—Secretary of State will send them the results of the inquiries by letter.
      Mr. HARVEY: Might I ask for an answer to the general part of my question, namely, Whether any steps are being taken to secure that medical boards and military representatives should pay more attention to medical evidence submitted

      533
      on behalf of applicants both in the interests of the Army and of the men concerned?
      Mr. FORSTER: My Noble Friend will give an answer to that question if the hon. Member wishes.
      Mr. HARVEY: I will repeat that part of it.

      TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether Territorials of the l/6th Devon Regiment, who have served for nearly two years on the station of Lahore and in the campaign in Mesopotamia, and are now time-expired, though retained in the Army under the Military Service Act, can be returned home and employed on military duty here?
      Mr. FORSTER: I regret that military exigencies do not admit of this proposal being carried out, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the good service these men have given and are giving is fully appreciated.
      Sir J. JARDINE: Has any arrangement been made for bringing from Mesopotamia Territorials or Regulars who have fallen sick there after months of service?
      Mr. FORSTER: I trust my hon. Friend will give me notice of that.

      BADGES FOR WOUNDED.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to granting to those men who have served in the Army during the present War and on account of wounds or illness contracted during this period have been discharged some distinctive badge by which their services would be recognised?
      Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided to issue such a badge and the design has been approved, but the conditions under which the badge is to be awarded are under consideration and have not yet been settled.
      Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at the same time as to the manner in which they should be obtained?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether men invalided home suffering from shell-shock, rheumatism, pneumonia, or trench fever will receive the same recognition in the way of gold stripes as men actually wounded?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of Army Order1 of the 6th of July last. This Army Order gives particulars of the distinction in dress authorised for officers and soldiers who have been wounded, but there is no badge contemplated for those who have been sent home on account of sickness.
      Sir C. KINLOCH—COOKE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by "sickness," shell-shock, rheumatism, pneumonia, or trench fever?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know about shell-shock, but the others obviously are sickness.
      Sir C. HENRY: Why is a distinction made between a man wounded and one who becomes incapacitated through sick-ness?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think there is a very material difference.
      Sir C. KINLOCH—COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is at the pre-sent moment in London a man who fought in six engagements, and has only been sent home with trench fever? Is that man to have no recognition?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid it does not depend on the gallantry of the individual but on the bad luck of being wounded.

      HOME PATROLLING DUTIES.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are any men of military age engaged in work connected with patrolling of railway bridges, public works, and internment camps; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of employing returned soldiers not fit for active service in these duties so as to release more men for service abroad?
      Mr. FORSTER: I find that all men of military age who were also fit for general service in the Royal Defence Corps and supernumerary Territorial Force companies have already been withdrawn. The recruitment of these units, to which are assigned the duties enumerated in the question, is maintained by the enlistment of men over military age.

      MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any

      535
      statement as to the position of men who receive notices to re-appear for medical examination under Section 3, paragraph (2), of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. FORSTER: The position of a man who has offered himself for enlistment and been rejected since the 14th August, 1915, is as follows:—

      (a) Should the Army Council so decide he will be liable to be re-examined after 30th September.

      (b) If so, a notice will be sent to him before 1st September.

      (c) It will be open to him to apply to the tribunals for exemption between the 1st and 30th September.

      (d) It is open to him to apply for examination by a medical board before the 1st October in order that he may know whether he will be called up.

      Instructions have been issued to recruiting officers to exercise with discretion the power of summoning for re-examination such men. Recruiting officers have further been instructed that the following classes of men are not to be summoned for re-examination:—

      (a) Those who are recorded in the Military Register as having been rejected at the primary military examination.

      (b) Those who are recorded in the Military Register as having been rejected by a medical board.

      (c) hose who voluntarily present themselves for re-examination and are found by the medical board to be unfit for any service.

      (d) Those concerning whom the recruiting officer is satisfied that there is no possible doubt.

      A man who is liable for re-examination is not liable to be called up under the Military Service Acts before the 1st October, 1916, whether or not he presents himself for medical re-examination before that date. It is, however, open to such a man to attest voluntarily at any time up to and including the 31st August, 1916.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Lieutenant Ian Turneur, who was kicked by a mule on the left thigh and the right calf when he was on duty on 7th December last, wrote to his commanding officer, Lieutenant—Colonel Mayne, applying for medical examination and treatment and sick leave on 17th January following,
      536
      and, receiving no reply, again on 22nd January to the same officer; if he is aware that on the 27th January Lieutenant Turneur's second letter was returned to him attached to half a sheet of foolscap containing the following memoranda, namely, a note from Lieutenant—Colonel Mayne to the General Officer Commanding the 35th Division saying that he under-stood all matters referring to this officer were now transferred to the War Office for orders; a note from the General Officer Commanding the 35th Division to the Brigadier—General, Parkhouse Camp, asking for a report on the matter involved, Lieutenant Turneur; a note from the brigade-major to the General Officer Commanding the 35th Division saying that Lieutenant Turneur was injured in the performance of his military duties; and a note from the General Officer Commanding the 35th Division to Lieutenant—Colonel Mayne saying that his note would constitute authority for necessary procedure; if he is aware that Lieutenant Turneur on 27th January forwarded the memoranda above referred to to the War Office, along with an inquiry as to the appointment for medical examination; if he is aware that the War Office now state that there is no evidence that Lieutenant Turneur met with an accident on duty; and whether he will call for the production of the documents mentioned with a view to acknowledging liability for the expense which Lieutenant Turneur has had to bear as the result of an injury which he received in the performance of his military duties?
      Mr. FORSTER: As has been stated be-fore, Lieutenant Turneur relinquished his commission on account of inefficiency only and not on medical grounds. At the time he relinquished his commission the documents set out in the question had not reached the War Office, and they have not reached the War Office since. Subsequent to his relinquishment of his commission a communication was received from Lieu-tenant Turneur himself direct, but in this there was no mention of medical attendance or of compensation. Inquiry shall be made with regard to the memoranda, mentioned.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked what will be the respective positions in regard to the possibility of being exposed to the death penalty in the event of disobedience to military orders in France or elsewhere on active service of two brothers, named

      537
      Whipp, both reared in the same household under precisely similar influence, holding the same views concerning military ser-vice, and both conscientious objectors, one of whom was sent into the Army as a combatant and the other as a non-combatant by the Appeal Tribunal at Manchester, of which Sir William Cobbett is chairman?
      Mr. FORSTER: I can only refer the hon. Member to Section 9 of the Army Act.

      MEDICAL BOARDS.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the Instructions under which medical boards are at present acting?
      Mr. FORSTER: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to recruiting medical boards and travelling medical boards, and not to invaliding medical boards. I am sending him a copy of the Instructions under which recruiting and travelling medical boards are acting.
      Mr. WARDLE: Can that be printed with the Papers?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there would be any objection to that.

    WOOL.
    Mr. DUFFYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wool trade of Ireland at this season of the year, particularly in the wool-producing districts of county Galway, is stopped by the new Regulation issued by the Government; is he aware that the farmers generally depend upon the sale of their wool at this season to meet all the obligations incident to the running of their farms; whether representations have been made to him by the commercial public to the effect that all trade and business is paralysed as a result of the suspension of the wool trade and the consequent non-circulation of money; whether he is aware that a state of apprehension prevails as to the intention of the Government to fix the price of this year's clip at from 30 to 40 per cent, below the prices that ruled last year; and whether, having regard to the urgency of opening this market without delay to the number of people who depend upon it, he will state what course the Government intend to pursue in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I appreciate the urgency of making arrangements to purchase the Irish clip at the earliest opportunity to
    538
    meet the temporary difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. As the result of negotiations with the Irish Department of Agriculture and representatives of the various interests concerned, I hope that arrangements will be made to start purchasing at an early date.
    Mr. DUFFY: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say what he means by "an early date"?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date, but I. hope by the end of the month.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see, when the prices of Irish wool are being regulated by the Irish Board of Agriculture, that they will be on the same scale as, I understand, the arrangement is that has already been given to the English wool growers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. DUFFY: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully realise the importance of this matter as it affects a large class of people in the West of Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope I fully realise its importance.
    Mr. DUFFY: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware of the fact that at this season of the year all classes of people in the West of Ireland, shopkeepers and everyone concerned, depend altogether upon the proceeds from the sale of wool?

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked what amount of money is standing to the credit of the Unemployment Fund under Part II. of the National Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1914?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The amount on 10th July, 1916, was approximately £6,700,000.

    ENEMY TRADING
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, on 4th August, 1914, Wilhelm Strecker, now interned in the Islington Infirmary, held 35,000 shares in the music publishing firm of Augener, Limited, the remaining 1,000 shares being held by Germans resident in Germany, and by a naturalised British subject of German origin; whether he is aware that shortly

    539
    after the outbreak of war Wilhelm Strecker transferred 20,000 of his shares to British nominees, and has he any in-formation that payment for these shares was made by six months' bills-if so, were these bills met on maturity; and whether, seeing this is an attempt to evade the operations of the Trading With the Enemy Act, he will apply the powers of the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, to this firm?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The facts with regard to the shareholding in Augener, Limited, are as stated. Payment for the shares transferred by Wilhelm Strecker was made by promissory notes payable six months after the end of the War, but after investigating the case and seeing the per-sons concerned, the Advisory Committee reported that they were unable to say that the transaction was only colourable. Steps are now being taken to transfer the shares held by German subjects to British subjects and to alter the constitution of the company so that the future control shall be British.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the firm of Benjamin Brothers, of Bermondsey Street; if he is aware that in this firm there are two proprietors, one, Albert Benjamin, a registered alien, and the other, Ludwig Benjamin, was allowed to be naturalised in December, 1914, under the name of Louis Benjamin, and that this man served in the German Army before the War and used to go over to Germany before the War to do his training there, and that his relations, except his brother, are in Germany; and whether, having regard to these facts, he can see his way to having this firm wound up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The business of the firm in question has been inspected by direction of the Board of Trade and a supervisor has been appointed. I am referring the case to the Advisory Committee for their opinion whether the case is within Section1 of the recent Trading With the Enemy Act, under which winding-up orders are made.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that British firms engaged in the same trade are very anxious that these firms should be wound up?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no doubt that that is so. I hope they will be satisfied with the steps I have taken.

    REGISTRATION AND FRANCHISE.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister when he will make his statement about a new registration of voters and as to whether he will include in the register as voters all sailors and soldiers over twenty-one years of age who are serving or who served during the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister made this statement yesterday.
    Major HUNT: When does the right hon. Gentleman say we are going to have it?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It was made yesterday.

    LAND RECLAMATION.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that one-third of the afforestable area of Eng-land and Wales is located in the Principality, that considerable tracts of land suitable for reclamation exists in Wales, that the Welsh people are most anxious both to settle returning Welsh soldiers satisfactorily upon the land, and to substantially increase the present aggregate agricultural product of the soil, he will take steps to constitute forthwith a fully-equipped and adequately endowed Board of Agriculture for Wales competent to take full cognizance of the natural re-sources of the Principality alike in the matters of agricultural development, afforestation, and fisheries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it is not possible to consider this question during the War.

    FURNISHED HOUSES (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department, in assessing profits on the letting of furnished houses in the health resorts throughout the country, while refusing these taxpayers the advantage of the averaging principle on three years' profits, allows them the choice of the previous year's profits for assessment; and, if not, can he arrange that they are given such, in view of the condition of these health resorts since the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: I fear I can add nothing to the very full reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 3rd July.

    INSURANCE POLICIES (TAXATION).
    Mr. WINGasked if taxation of insurance policies, as indicated in the Finance Bill, includes insurance policies contracted previously to 31st March, 1916?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the discussion this after-noon on the Clause standing in my name on the Order Paper.

    TERRITORIAL RESERVE BATTALIONS (OFFICERS' HORSES).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War why only two chargers are now allowed to reserve battalions of the Territorial Force, one for the commanding officer and one for the adjutant; how it is possible for the second-in-command and company officers to superintend, when dismounted, training scattered over a wide area; and, in view of the fact that many of these officers have been wounded or invalided home from abroad, will he take steps to provide horses so that the training of drafts urgently needed may bo properly carried out?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend does not state the Regulation correctly; a horse is allowed to a Regular or Territorial Force reserve battalion for the senior major as well as for the officer commanding and for the adjutant. He is correct in supposing that a horse is not allowed for a company officer. The matter has been fully considered, and as the demand for horses for the fighting units is heavy, and as draft-finding units do not have to carry out any wide spreading operations, it has been decided to revise the horse establishments in the manner stated.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I know of one Territorial officer whose horse has been taken away. Would the hon. Gentleman state how it is possible for a company commander, who has a section of the range five miles away, and is doing company training, to perform his duties without a horse?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is a matter rather for the military authorities than the Financial Secretary.

    BILLETING SCALE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the existing billeting scale lays down, amongst other things, that a licensed victualler shall provide a hot dinner, consisting of1 lb. of meat, 8 oz. of bread, and 8 oz. of potatoes or other vegetables, for 1s. 1d., and a breakfast, consisting of tea, milk, sugar, bread, and a lb. of bacon, for 5d., and that these prices do not pay for the present cost of the articles consumed; and will he have the scale revised?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am looking into this question.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR INBULGARIA.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked whether the War Office has refused to send boots and underclothes to British prisoners of war in Bulgaria; and, if not, what steps have been taken to ensure that these prisoners are kept properly clothed?
    Mr. FORSTER: Although it is essentially the duty of the Bulgarian Government to clothe its prisoners of war properly, the War Office, far from refusing to recognise the needs of British-prisoners in Bulgaria, has been trying for some time past to discover a sure means of dispatch for articles of clothing required. Arrangements were made a short time ago which will, it is hoped, prove satisfactory.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Has the War Office in fact sent out any boots to the prisoners in Bulgaria?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say whether any have been actually dispatched.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentle-man make arrangements to see that they are carried out?
    Mr. FORSTER: Obviously you must make arrangements before they can be carried out.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Has the hon. Gentleman not had some time to make arrangements? Has he not had time to carry them out?
    Mr. FORSTER: The matter is not quite so easy as it might appear, and I can assure my hon. Friend there has been no avoidable delay. We are just as keen to get clothing out to prisoners of war as anyone can be.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: When were these prisoners taken?
    Mr. FORSTER: Presumably the prisoners were taken when the Bulgarian and British Armies were in conflict.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume this was in the operations in November last?
    Mr. FORSTER: Speaking from memory, the only opportunity there has been for the Bulgarian Army to take prisoners was when the Armies were in conflict north of Salonika.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That was in November last.

    ARMY VETERINARY CORPS (LEAVE).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether men of the Army Veterinary Corps who have been many months in the Service without receiving leave are now being sent abroad, and leave is refused to them to visit their families, while jockeys who have recently joined are at once made corporals, and are given leave to ride at Newmarket?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that the facts are as stated in the first part of this question, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case it will be inquired into. No jockey has been promoted on account of his calling, but they have been given promotion in their turn with other men according to their abilities. In one case a jockey has been permitted to fulfil an engagement at the recent New market Meeting. This engagement was entered into prior to the man being posted to the Army Veterinary Corps, and the needs of the Service were not affected thereby. He will proceed abroad in his turn, but no objection is taken by the military authorities to either officers or men riding in races provided it in no way interferes with their military training or drills.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Member state whether this jockey was riding for the Government stable?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was he riding for the Under—Secretary for War?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. JOYNSON—HICKSasked whether, in the case of long-service soldier
    544
    pensioners who rejoined at the commencement of the War, the period of their present service will be counted for an addition to their pensions?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. These men draw their pensions as well as their pay during the War, an arrangement which is more favourable to them than if they dropped their pension and had a small increase to it after the end of the War.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON—HICKSasked how many Regular captains there are in the Royal Army Medical Corps who have served in that rank since the War began; and when the next batch of promotions in this corps may be expected?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are 254 Regular captains in the Royal Army Medical Corps who have held that rank since the War began. It is not proposed to make any permanent promotions in the near future.

    SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
    Mr. JOYNSON—HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the special constabularies have been considerably depleted lately, and that the new order preventing special constables from being members of the Volunteers will deplete them still more; and whether he can see his way to allow men who are willing to do so to remain members of both bodies?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot state to-day that men will be allowed to remain special constables and also Volunteers, but I can inform my hon. Friend that a recommendation to that effect is before, and is being considered by, the Army Council.

    AIR INQUIRY.
    Captain A. H. BURGOYNE(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has been informed that Driver McDonnell, of the Royal Aircraft Factory, was arrested almost immediately on his return from London and is now detained at the recruits depot, South Farnborough; whether he is aware that this man was one of the witnesses who offered to appear before

    545
    the Judicial Committee now sitting under Judge Bailhache; whether he is aware that a complete indemnity against victimisation was given in specific words by General Sir David Henderson and confirmed by the Judicial Committee; and whether, under the circumstances, on the identity of this witness becoming known, he can explain the causes of the arrest, and whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question was only handed to me after I entered the House, and I have, therefore, had no opportunity of investigating the facts of this particular case. I understand, however, that a complete indemnity against victimisation was given by General Sir David Henderson, and I am quite sure that it will be respected.

    National Health insurance (Treasury Committee).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Treasury Committee on National Health Insurance has directed its attention to the parts of the original Act which are inoperative; what evidence is being taken as to the loss to approved societies through bad sanitation, unhealthy employment, and slum housing accommodation, respectively; whether the terms of reference were intended to rule these subjects out from the purview of Sir Gerald Ryan's Committee; when the Government intend to set up a body to fully inquire into the working of the Insurance Acts; (2) if the Treasury Committee on National Health Insurance has considered the question of medical service and the supply of drugs and medicines to insured persons; (3) if the Treasury Committee on Health Insurance has considered the question of sanatorium, benefit for insured consumptives; and (4) if the Treasury Committee has considered the use and necessity of the county and district committees set up under the National Insurance Act, or if it has taken evidence upon the working of the National Commissioners and their relation to the Joint Committee?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will see how far the Committee has taken into consideration the questions to which he refers when its labours are completed, and I think he must be content to await its Reports. The terms of reference will be found in. Cd. 8251. I am unable to say
    546
    what further inquiries, if any, into matters connected with or bearing on the National Insurance Acts may be found necessary at a later date. No such inquiry is contemplated at present.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when those important subjects, in which the public are so interested, have been raised in this precious Committee, the chairman has ruled them out of order on account of the limited reference to the Committee?
    Sir E. CARSON: That is what the Committee is for.
    Mr. BOOTH: What is the use of referring one to the documents?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I am not personally familiar with the proceedings of the Committee.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be simpler, now that the Irish question is settled, to have the Minister for War to settle the insurance matter?

    County Insurance Committees (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that county insurance committees in Ireland have brought to the notice of the Local Government Board the need of provision for patients in an advanced infectious stage of tuberculosis; and if the Government intend to take immediate steps to prevent the spread of infection?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the matter has throughout received the close attention of the Local Government Board, and they issued a circular in April, 1914, recommending the utilisation of existing isolation hospitals for the purpose by means of their transfer to sanitary authorities and their subsequent adaptation for the reception of advanced tuber culous patients. The provision of new local institutions for such cases would involve a very large expenditure on establishment and maintenance.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Halifax Corporation Provisional Order Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Gas) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,—"to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: In the absence of the Prime Minister, may I ask the Secretary for the Colonies what the business will be for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday it is pro-posed to proceed with the Third Beading of the Finance Bill and the Committee stage of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill.
  On Tuesday, Supply—Vote for the Board of Education.
  On Wednesday, the appointment of a Select Committee on Registration and the Committee stage of the Small Holding (Colonies) Bill.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: How soon may we expect the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill to be introduced? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish people are in a state of utter bewilderment as to what the proposals of the Government really are, and that the only way of putting an end to the suspense is to produce the Bill at the earliest date possible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give any date at present as to when the Bill will be introduced.
  Mr. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication whatever as to when it is coming off, if ever; and is there any objection to at least publishing as a White Paper the precise terms submitted to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir Edward Carson)? Surely there cannot be a different version!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There may be a difference of opinion as to the advisability of the last course, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is the intention of the Government to produce the Bill as quickly as possible.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the Government still unanimous on the point?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: In case the Education Vote discussion finishes at an early hour on Tuesday, is the right hon. Gentleman
  564
  prepared to put down the Vote for the salary of the Vice—Chairman of the Statutory Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will not be possible to take that Vote on Tuesday, but another opportunity will be given if the House desires it.
  Ordered, "That the other Government business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Finance Bill, immediately on its being reported to the House, as amended on recommittal, may be considered, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is a Motion to alter the old-established arrangement of the House by which two stages of a Money Bill cannot be taken upon the same day. That is a custom which has existed for many years, and it has a great deal to be said for it, especially at a time when it is impossible to alter any errors that may be made in a Money Bill in another place. This House, having taken upon itself the sole responsibility for Money Bills, should not in my opinion depart from the ancient custom and take two stages on the same day without very great and sufficient reason. I have not heard that any reason has been advanced for this innovation beyond that given by the right hon. Gentle-man last Tuesday that it might be inconvenient for him to wait two or three days for the Finance Bill, as he wanted to get his borrowing powers earlier. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman withdraws his proposal, or supposing the House negatives it, it will only make a difference of one day, and it cannot be said that a difference of one day is going to make any alteration in the borrowing proposals of the Government. I have a very much stronger reason for objecting to this proposal. The proposal is that a custom which has been maintained for something like sixty-one years should be altered, and that the Report stage should be taken immediately after the Committee stage, and the Third Reading on Monday. If that proposal were carried, there would be no further opportunity for consideration. It is a very important Clause. It alters a procedure which has been in existence for

  565
  sixty-three years. The City article of the "Times" this morning drew attention to this fact, and pointed out that it seemed a novel procedure to make an alteration of this far-reaching effect in such a hurried manner. I have here a statement of the right hon. Gentleman of the 28th June. This is from the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date. The hon. Member for Stepney said:
  "It may not be an answer at all that because the insurance companies are satisfied that this proposed Clause would work fairly as between insured persons."
  And the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Clause is prospective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1916, col. 897, Vol. LXXXIII.]
  Therefore, it is only a short time ago that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Clause was prospective, and it was not until Tuesday that anyone knew that the Clause was to be retrospective. On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a Clause which was not on the Paper, which nobody could under-stand, and which proposed to alter the Clause from being prospective to being retrospective. It was not until yesterday, when there was a Debate upon it, that anybody in the country could know that such a Clause was in prospect. Having yesterday for the first time brought down a Clause in direct opposition to his own statement of a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that we should to-day consider it in Committee and on the Report stage, and take the Third Reading on Monday. That course is quite indefensible. We must have time after the Committee stage to-day to consider it further before the Report stage on Monday. I am very glad to see the Prime Minister here. I know he is a stickler, or was up to a day or two ago—well, and is still I hope—for all the ancient usages and customs of the House, and especially those relating to finance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with this proposal. If he does—well, I am only a humble individual, but I shall certainly divide the House if I can only get somebody to support me.
  Sir E. LAMB: I want to support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) so that there should be at least a protest from this side of the House. This Clause has been introduced at very short notice, and after we had been assured on 22nd June and again on 28th June that it would not be retrospective. It is no answer to
  566
  say that Clause is being withdrawn and another substituted which is going to be retrospective. There are many hundreds and thousands of policy holders in the country who are not yet alive to the meaning of this Clause, and I very much regret, especially in view of the hurried way in which this Clause has been introduced, that one stage in practice should really be dropped out, because that is what it comes to, by these two stages, to which the country are entitled to look, being taken on one day.
  4.0 P.M.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX—CHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): For my part I should not, against the general feeling of the House, press for these two stages being taken on the one day, and I can only give the House the reason I ask them to forego on the present occasion a well-established rule. We have borrowing power in this Bill. Owing to the rapid increase in the expenditure the existing borrowing power is almost exhausted, and it really becomes a matter of primary importance that we should get our Finance Bill through as quickly as possible. If I can get the two stages of this Bill to-day, I can get the Third Reading on Monday. Then I can hope to get the Royal Assent on Wednesday. I believe, though I am not quite sure, that I should still have borrowing power until Thursday, but I run a risk, and the question is whether it is worth while running a risk which would be serious for the sake of adhering to a practice, which, however excellent in itself, is not really necessary to be applied on the present occasion. I am asking for the recommital of the Bill in respect to four Clauses. I will deal with the Clause to which reference has been made last With regard to the other three Clauses, I could in each case have introduced these Clauses by Amendments to proposals which were put forward on Report, but they would have been very long verbal Amendments which would have been very difficult for the House to understand and to appreciate or to amend without seeing them in print, and therefore I deliberately adopted what I thought was a far better course and with-drew the Clauses that were then under discussion and introduced new Clauses in the amended form. I could have saved the whole discussion on the recommital in respect to these Clauses if I had adopted the far less convenient but perfectly

  567
  regular practice of amending the existing Clauses upon the Paper. It is therefore only for the convenience of the House
  Sir E.CARSON: There were no Amendments to the Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: One of them is a new Clause which I might have avoided by amending the existing Clauses.
  Sir E.CARSON: The right hon. Gentle-man misunderstands me, he is elaborating these Clauses. There was no Amendment to the other Clause.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will' deal with the point of the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly allow me to make my statement. I am dealing with the Clauses upon which I asked the House to recommit the Bill and to take both stages now. With regard to these Clauses, I could have asked the House to have adopted a course which would have been far more inconvenient, and I could have amended the Clauses on Report. There remains only the other Clause. The whole point in regard to that Clause is that we had already in the Bill passed a Clause in Committee dealing with the matter. I will deal with the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised with regard to my statement on its retrospective character in a moment. That Clause was believed in Committee to be possibly not the best way of meeting an admitted evil, and I undertook with the consent of the Committee, to consult the representatives of the leading insurance companies in order to see if we could get a practical scheme which would meet the evil without being injurious to the parties concerned. After much consultation with the insurance companies, we have devised a scheme which they accept in all particulars except one. Therefore, it is only with regard to one single point, which is quite a narrow issue, that there is any difference outstanding. On that outstanding issue, I repeat, I have a perfectly open mind. I am prepared, after I have made my statement, to accept the view of the House, but I should like to make my case first upon that outstanding point as to whether this Clause should apply to existing contracts of insurance or not. The right hon. Gentleman says that on 28th June, referring to another Clause, quite a different Clause, I stated that that Clause would not apply to existing contracts. That is quite true.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It dealt with insurance.
  Mr. McKENNA: It dealt with insurance; the subject matter of the Clause was the same, but the manner in which it had to be dealt with was the matter of difference. I stated that that Clause did not apply to existing contracts. It was a Clause which in no instance ought to apply to existing contracts. In that Clause we purported to take away some-thing which had already proved to be due to the insured person, and therefore we could not make it apply to existing con-tracts. If we had done so we should have taken something to which he was entitled. It ought to be applicable only to con-tracts made in the future. The present Clause is on an entirely different footing, and there is no similar reason why it should not apply to existing contracts as well as to future contracts. That is quite a simple point. I have a perfectly open mind on the subject, and all that I ask is that the House should hear me upon the point. If the general sense of the House is against me, I am prepared to make it applicable to future contracts only. On that simple point, is there any reason why we should not have, for the public convenience, both the stages on a single day? Nobody will object to that if I accept the Amendment making it apply prospectively only. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] I think not. Is there any ground for refusing the Motion which I now ask for, merely because we have not yet decided whether it is to apply to existing contracts or only to future contracts?
  Sir E. CARSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, with all great respect, has shown any reason whatsoever for breaking through the rules, the ordinary rules, which apply to finance in this House. I really do think it is time the argument should be given up, "Oh, we are so late that if the Government do not get their Bill some great inconvenience will happen." There is plenty of time from day to day to do the important business of this House. On a number of days the House does not sit past seven o'clock in the evening, and I do not see any reason whatsoever shown by the right hon. Gentleman why we should give him the facilities he asks, particularly as he can get his Bill by Thursday, and he has not shown that there will be any difficulty in borrowing up to that day. What

  569
  is the case of the right hon. Gentleman? What argument has he given? He says, with regard to the insurance provision, that there was a Clause with regard to insurance in the original Bill. When that came on in Committee it was found that it was a Clause which was very much objected to or was not workable; at all events, it was one which he did not persist with.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The Clause was not in the original Bill.
  Sir E. CARSON: Yes, I believe it was proposed in Committee and put in. I suppose he had framed that Clause with deliberation. I suppose he had not framed it without seeing some of the people who would be affected by it, with-out taking expert advice and seeing the insurance representatives and others and finding out whether or not it was work-able. But it was found that it was not workable. Then in Committee he agreed to bring in another Clause, and he says that this is an entirely different Clause which he is proposing now. That is our point, that it is absolutely different; the one was not retrospective, as he said, and the other he now proposes is retrospective. What has he done? He has run us almost up to the very last day of the Committee, without the persons concerned having the slightest intimation of this enormous change, because this is an enormous change. We know that the policy holders of the country are not one or two or three or a few wealthy people. Insurance is the main provision made by the vast bulk of people who have smaller or greater incomes in this country, and we had not this Amendment on the Paper until yesterday, and now he says there are special reasons why we should give him the two stages on the one day. I gave the reasons which influenced me in thinking that this is a most unjust Clause as it stands. Let the right hon. Gentleman take away its retrospective action and I am content, so far as I am concerned, and I shall take no more action in the matter. But so far as I consider it, as making it retrospective, I think that we who take that strong view are bound, not only to give no facilities to the right hon. Gentleman, but to take every opportunity we can to try to defeat it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered our arguments or has thought them worthy of consideration since yester-
  570
  day. Has he made his mind up as to whether he is going to make it retrospective or not?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have an open mind.
  Sir E. CARSON: I should have thought he might have made up his mind. I have made up my mind since yesterday, and I cannot conceive that he should have a great deal of difficulty. When he was going to make this far-reaching change and people had not time to consider it, he might have seen that they would put difficulties in the way of giving the two stages of the Bill in one day. In a far-reaching matter of this kind, affecting so many people who will be inconvenienced by this Clause, he really cannot expect us to give him facilities which the Rules of the House do not provide. It is exactly a case in which we ought to get all the time we can to allow people to know what it is which is proposed to be done. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to announce that this Clause is not to be retrospective, so far as I am concerned, if there is a Division on the subject, I shall go into the Lobby against him.
  Mr. McKENNA: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which may meet both points? Would the House agree to let me take the Report stage on Monday? and also the Third Reading on Monday? I can give my reasons, and that will give time to consider this Clause, and the only outstanding question. Sup-posing I do not agree to apply this Clause only to future contracts, hon. Members would then have an opportunity of debating the subject on Report. We can have that on Monday. I do not say that I am going to agree: I have an open mind on the point. I think it is a case that ought to be considered, but if we take the Report stage on Monday there can be no objection then, and I can take the Third Reading on Monday with the Re-port stage. The House may accept it from me that it is really very important that I should get the borrowing powers by Thursday.
  Sir E. LAMB: With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, when he uses the expression that he has an open mind and is prepared to take the decision of the House, does that statement carry with it that the Government Whips will not be put on?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have a proposal to make, but I would rather not put it before the House now. I think I shall probably get general acquiescence. If the House will agree to that course, I will agree to withdraw this Motion and to make another Motion on Monday to take the Report stage and the Third Reading on the one day.
  Sir E. CARSON: Another Motion?
  Mr. McKENNA: Another Motion on Monday.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the new suggestion made by my right hon. Friend has modified to some extent the proposal which he put before the House originally. I do not intend to enter into the merits of the particular Clause. So far as I am concerned the right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case from that point of view. What I object to is the departure from the custom of the House. What ground does he give to make us depart from one of the oldest customs of this House in respect to our powers over finance? We are losing them one by one, and this might be set up by Ministers as a precedent for some future encroachment. We have had warnings ever since the War began of the importance of not passing things too quickly and without due consideration. We all know very well what has happened with respect to the Defence of the Realm Act and other matters. The idea of the Government is simply this: They have now the whole time of the House, they have no Opposition, and we have no means of communication of our wishes to the Government in regard to policy. This House is only sitting four days a week. I do say that they ought to be able to pass all the business without breaking the ordinary rules. If the right hon. Gentleman will bring in another Motion and will give us an undertaking, so far as he is concerned, that he will not repeat the proposal he is now bringing forward, I should certainly be inclined to let the right hon. Gentleman have his Motion, but there was no reason why we should depart from the custom in this particular thing. The Government should not bring forward a Finance Bill on the assumption that the House is going to give them it at the very hour and on the very day that they expect to get it. They proceed on the assumption that we are going to be entirely silent and entirely docile to the Government. They
  572
  should have brought in the Bill and have asked the House, if necessary, to sit on more days so that they could have had a week to gamble upon and not keep it until the last minute. This is a very bad proposal on the part of the Government. The course put forward is not fully justified, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the situation.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do not think the House fully realises the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend is placed. Why does he not give us the argument which he says would convince us? Then we might agree.
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be irrelevant to this Motion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That could not be given now, because we are not discussing now the merits of the Clause.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am not going into them either. I quite feel the strength of your observation, Sir. I was merely going to say that we had an opportunity yesterday, when the reason was kept back. To-day the reason is kept back necessarily, because of the circumstances in which we are debating the matter. We are now told that my right hon. Friend will present arguments on Monday which will make us all unanimous. I am afraid about that argument.
  Mr. McKENNA: I will give it to-day; immediately you sit down.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am very glad that I have got the cat out of the bag. That is exactly what I wanted.
  Mr. McKENNA: I mean I will give it when we get to the Bill later.
  Mr. LOUGH: This is a very old custom.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I suggest that we should sit to-morrow?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret to say that is impossible, because I have a conference to-morrow with the Ministers of Finance of France and Russia.
  Sir E. CARSON: You have a Financial Secretary.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only appeal to the House. I shall have to take two stages again on Monday. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion, and give notice that I shall make another Motion on Monday to take the Report and the Third Reading.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  POSTPONEMENT OF HOLIDAYS.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I would ask the indulgence of the House to enable me to make a statement. I was un-able to be here to answer a question put by my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Crooks) because I was engaged in public business at a Munitions Conference of the Allies. Although not strictly in order, perhaps the House will permit mo to make this statement.
    It will be within the recollection of the House that all holidays due in June and July were postponed in view of the urgent military requirements of the moment. I have to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, the very full response made by the workers of the country and the public generally to the appeal I addressed to them on the subject of 31st May last. In making that appeal, I suggested that the postponed holidays might, subject to military exigencies, be taken at any time after the end of July. Since the date of that announcement a great and, I think I am entitled, to say, a very favourable change in the military situation has been produced by the Allied offensive now in progress. That offensive is only at the beginning. It necessarily requires for its successful fulfilment a great and continuous supply of munitions of every kind. An ample supply is now happily available, but the daily consumption is enormous. From the successes achieved we are able to gauge the paramount necessity of avoiding even the slightest risk of the restriction on the use of munitions in the field, not merely in the weeks immediately before us, but until our objective has been fully achieved. In the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief there must be no slackening of output even for a moment. I have, therefore, to make an appeal to the patriotism of the workers of the country and the public generally again to postpone their holiday in order that the attack which has so brilliantly begun may be carried through to a triumphant conclusion.
    In the circumstances, after fully considering the matter from every point of view, the Government have decided that it is essential in the national interest that there should not be any holiday, either general or local, until such subsequent date as may be announced. Though the most obvious urgency relates to the supply
    574
    of munitions for the present offensive, there is an equally real urgency for every class of munitions for the Navy as well as the Army, and for the production of all the materials and means of their manufacture, In coming to this decision the Government do not underrate the sacrifice that is thereby demanded from men and. women, some of whom are already over-strained by long and continuous work. It is clear in any case that, where health requires it, leave of absence must be given to individuals. Further, the Government make themselves responsible for seeing that the holidays are merely postponed and not abandoned, and that as soon as military exigencies do permit, all postponed holidays are given in full. The Government are of opinion that the days that would otherwise have been holidays should be treated as ordinary working days, and any privileges in regard to special pay will be carried forward to the new holiday period given in lieu of the postponed holidays. The August Bank Holidays will, as before, be suspended by Proclamation. The Government are inviting the help of the Lord Mayors and Mayors, and Lord Provosts and Provosts, throughout the country in taking the necessary steps in every locality. The Ministry of Munitions and the Admiralty are arranging to meet representatives of the workmen and employers immediately to secure their co-operation in giving effect to the decision of the Government. I have no doubt as to the result of their appeal. No greater or more direct service can be rendered by the workers of this country to the forces in the field than to give the latter the encouragement and our enemies the discouragement of the certain know-ledge that the present intensity of bombardment and assault will, if necessary, be continued indefinitely. That service will be unhesitatingly rendered.

  RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I understand that it will not be in order to discuss on this Bill the position of Ministers in respect to duties they may have to perform here-after. The House will be in general agree-

  575
  ment with what the Prime Minister said yesterday, that it is essential that the Ministers for War and Munitions should return here as soon as possible. Therefore I do not propose, having regard to the conditions of order as I understand them, to deal with any question which one might have liked to have raised in that connection in regard to this Bill. That will have to be done by questions to the Prime Minister at another stage. The case of the Attorney-General stands on an entirely different footing. We are asked to-day to release that right hon. and learned Gentle-man from what the Prime Minister yester-day termed
  "the ordeal of a by-election."
  The question is whether the House is justified, having regard to all the facts, in taking that course. I need hardly say that no question of party politics arises in any-thing I say. Party politics are now supposed to be dead. It must, however, be within the recollection of the House that an hon. Member sitting on this side of the House sometime ago was turned out, and claims by common informers were made amounting to £40,000, which that hon. Member had to pay. In 1913 the Government introduced an Indemnity Bill. That was opposed by the Labour party, by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), by a member of the Irish party, and also, I believe, by the present Attorney—General himself. His name does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT as taking part in the discussion, but what I gather is that the Noble Lord who put down the Motion for the rejection of that Indemnity Bill was acting with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that matter. Members of the Opposition, the Irish party, and the Labour party put down Motions for the rejection of that Bill. Why should we, at the present time, give an indemnity for the illegal acts that have been committed by a Law Officer of the Crown, when the House has refused to give that indemnity to a private Member? I cannot for the life of me under-stand why the Government should come down and make such a proposal.
  When the Coalition Government was being formed I think the Prime Minister, for the first time I have ever known him to be so, was a little envious. The iron of envy entered for once into his soul when he saw the light-weight galloper belonging to the party opposite. He thought he must also have a light-weight galloper.
  576
  Therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman was installed as Solicitor-General in the Coalition Government. But that did not meet the desires and aspirations of the then Solicitor-General, and the Prime Minister therefore took steps by which he reached a higher stage. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who did?"] The galloper. Be that as it may, Sir Frederick Smith—I presume he is not a Member of the House now-aspired to the higher honour, which he eventually acquired, of Attorney-General. The first step he took was to gallop full tilt down to the office of the Attorney-General. As the House knows, at the present time there is a circle of water round Government offices. He jumped right into the pool, much to his disgust, because he did not wish to get into the pool. Then he became installed in the office of Attorney-General. Having got into that office, and fallen into the pool, he wanted to get out of it. He has incurred heavy liabilities, so he sends for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister comes down and says; "What have you been up to?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied, "I do not know at all. I have got into this office and into this trouble, and you have got to get me out of it." The Prime Minister says, "I cannot get you out of it." The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I do not want to get out of it. I want to remain where I am. If I go out, I am in the un-fortunate position of having to go a month without any salary, and I shall have to go through the ordeal of a by-election." Then the Prime Minister says, "Well, I can deal with the House of Commons. I am quite sure they will fall in with my wishes on this matter." Knowing very well the influence he has with all parties in the House, the Prime Minister comes down here, and, in a very perfunctory manner, says that his right hon. and learned Friend had made a mistake. In fact, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was also accused of making a mistake which he ought to have found out.
  Why is that a reason why the House of Commons should be asked to take this special step for this right hon. Gentleman? There are a number of reasons why it should not. There is a great opportunity for Liverpool to express an opinion on the policy of the Government—Mesopotamia, the Dardanelles, the Irish policy, and ship-building. There are two schools of

  577
  thought in Liverpool. There is the school of the senior Member for Liverpool—I believe he is the senior Member for Lancashire-who is root and branch opposed to the policy of the Government, and there is the view of his political godchild, who, I believe, owing to his introduction gained his first mount in political life, Sir Frederick Smith. Who is to be the judge? Are the electors of Liverpool to be the judge as to whether he is a fit and proper person to represent his constituency? On whom are the Government going to rely? Are they going to take the senior Member for Liverpool, to maintain that he has the confidence of his electors as opposed to the policy of the Government, or are they going to take the view of Sir Frederick Smith? It is quite clear to me that the electors of the Division are entitled to express their views on this subject. I can see no good reason whatever why in this present time, or at any other time, Ministers should not go through what the Prime Minister says is their ordeal. Why should they not? Very much to my regret, and to the regret of a good many others, the life of this Parliament has been pro-longed, and, instead of having a General Election, as we ought to have had, we have not had a General Election, and the country has been unable for a long time past to express any opinion as to whether Ministers still retain the confidence of the country or not. The Prime Minister there-fore seeks to remove in this case the opportunity of the electors expressing their opinion on this question.
  There is another reason why I think Sir Frederick Smith should not come back here. He never comes to the House. The Solicitor-General is most assiduous in his attendance. He is here till late at night, and no one is more courteous in the House. He furnishes Members with any particulars and any details which they require; but we never see the Attorney-General. I do not know whether, when he received office, the Prime Minister made it a condition that after dinner his learned Friend should learn philosophy and read Epictetus. I expect he did, but I am complaining that we have not had that attention from the Attorney-General to which the House of Commons is en-titled. There is another reason. I do not think the Attorney-General is in favour of the policy of His Majesty's
  578
  Government as expressed in the Military Service Act, because that Bill was introduced for the purpose of taking all able-bodied men who could possibly be spared. Here we have the right hon. Gentleman going to the War Office and getting ex-emption for his clerk, a person of military age, simply to collect his fees, while a large number of men in the Temple are out of work and would have been very glad to do it.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave)made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I assure the Solicitor-General he is wrong, because the Attorney-General appealed to two tribunals, and both said to the clerk, "You must go." The right hon. Gentleman went to the War Office and got a letter with regard to these fees. They have to be collected, and the clerk is exempted. Where do we stand in regard to this indemnity? I believe the total amount Sir Frederick Smith has become liable for is about £140,000 for fines already incurred. What about the Common Informer? Where does he come in? The House has not given these indemnities before. Here is a man supposed to be learned in the law, the chief Law Officer of the Crown, who made a mistake in a simple matter which I am quite clear any of my hon. Friends around me, if they had taken the trouble to look it up, would have found out in a moment. It may be said the Attorney-General did give the House valuable advice on one occasion. I once asked him a question and the answer he gave me was as pure and unadulterated nonsense as was ever stated on the Treasury Bench. He said a Member of Parliament could go outside the House and make statements which he was not liable for because he spoke under the privilege of the House. Be that as it may, I am going to vote against this Motion, and I hope hon. Members who took the same view as I did before the War will support me in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I do not propose to fol-follow the hon. Baronet into the case of Sir Frederick Edwin Smith, but I wish to say one word with reference to the general subject.
  Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that the hon. Member is seconding this Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Amendment moved.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not know whether my words were quite clear in the last part of what I said, but I beg to move, if you will give me the opportunity to do so, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet never said anything about moving at all. He said he was going into the Division Lobby. Do I understand him to move the Amendment?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member second it?
  Mr. ASHLEY: Yes, but on different grounds. I also wish to bring up one other matter in connection with Mr. Montagu and the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster. That Gentleman is now out of this House, having vacated the office of Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster and become Minister of Munitions. I have no complaint at all to make against him personally, but I have a serious complaint to make against His Majesty's Government with reference to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Government seems to treat that ancient and very important office as if it does not matter very much how long the occupier is there.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the relevance of that to this Bill. We are not discussing the different offices or the holders of them.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I thought the hon. Baronet had had a good deal of latitude to say what he liked. He ranged over the whole political history of Sir Frederick Smith. All I wished to refer to is the last six months of the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is now under discussion in this Bill because Mr. Montagu has resigned it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know exactly the point the hon. Member is going to make. If I understand the point at all, it is that he has some objection to the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy should combine with it some other office.
  Mr. ASHLEY: No, Sir. What I say is this: This is a Bill which enables Mr. Montagu to return to this House without an election and without his constituents having any word to say to his conduct of political affairs. I object to the Bill because if there was an election, which this Bill stops, I could go down and put
  580
  the sins of the Government before the electors. Within the last eight months we have had four Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If we had forty I do not see that it affects this matter at all.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I will not pursue the subject any further, but on the general principle I wish to second the rejection because, I think, especially at the present moment, it is important that the electors should have an opportunity of passing judgment on His Majesty's Government. We see that the right hon. Gentleman who has lately resigned the office of Under-Secretary of State for War, and has now taken up the office of Secretary for Scot-land, is to go down to meet his electors. He goes like a man. He is going to face the music. I hope and trust be will come back; but if he goes down, I cannot see any reason why we should exempt Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Montagu. It is idle to tell me that the electors of this country have any more confidence in the Government than they had twelve months ago. The Government themselves have announced that they are going to prolong the life of this Parliament, and we know it will be prolonged till after the end of the War, and the Government is taking away from the electors of the country the few isolated instances where they can pass judgment on the Government and all its works. It looks very much as if, because the one or two by-elections that have occurred within the last few months went unhappily for them, they are taking this opportunity of preventing the electors having their say in this matter. Perhaps the Government knows how unpopular it is in the country. I expect that is the reason. At any rate, if they travel in 'buses, trams, and railway trains, they would not find anyone to speak a good word for them. I mean what I say. It may be unreasonable, but surely it will be far better to allow these by-elections to take place and then members of the Government could explain, not only to the country, but to Members of this House, what their policy is and what they mean to do.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am very glad the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) raised no objection of any kind to the Bill so far as it affects the Minister for War and the Minister of Munitions. No one suggests that they should be relieved from facing the electors for their own sakes. The

  581
  reasons given by the Prime Minister yesterday were entirely directed to this point, that in the interests of the country and of the House it was desirable that they should not be absent during the time necessary for a by-election. Both of them have very urgent work to do in their new offices, and they ought to be there or here in the House. That is the only reason-that it is desirable that they should not for any pro-longed period be absent from the House. I do not think I need say more about those Ministers. The hon. Member for Mansfield has taken the opportunity of making some observations, more or less humorous, about my right hon. and learned Friend. I think we must all regret that the Attorney-General is not here to reply to what the hon. Baronet had to say. I am sure the Debate would have gained interest by his presence. In his absence may I say a few words in answer to the specific points made by the hon. Baronet? I understood him to say that in the case of an hon. Member of this House who had incurred penalties an indemnity was not given. He says that the present Attorney-General, in some undefined way, was a party to some opposition to that indemnity. My right hon. and learned Friend took no part what-ever in the Debate or in any Division. I do not think anyone can say that he was opposed to the indemnity being given. There is no cause whatever for anyone saying so. The hon. Baronet said something about the Attorney-General not being here as often as he would like to see him. On this point I am put in a position of some difficulty, because certain references were made to myself. The Attorney-General has this special position, that he not only has the work of a Law Officer to perform—which I am sure the House will realise is very heavy at the present time—but he is a member of the Cabinet and has to attend Cabinet meetings and Cabinet Committees day by day, and it is only fair that while he has that double responsibility he should take every chance he has of devolving upon those who are willing to take it certain work that would otherwise fall upon him. It must be remembered that my right hon. and learned Friend took an active part in the Military Service Bill and other Bills, and he is always here when his services are required. I do not under-stand the reference to the Attorney-General's clerk. The Attorney-General's clerk is considerably above military age. There must be some mistake in the reference which my hon. Friend made.
  Sir E. CARSON: It depends what clerk he is talking about.
  Sir G. CAVE: I believe he has only one clerk to whom the hon. Gentleman can have been referring.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Did he apply for exemption?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Baronet seems to have some sort of anxiety in the interests of the common informer. The common informer has really had his chance. Eight months have elapsed, and he has taken no steps of any kind. It is only fair to say after that delay that he has had his run.
  Mr. PRINGLE: How do you know he has not started?
  Sir G. CAVE: I think we may say that he has had his opportunity and we are not bound to give him any further opportunity. The other point, which is one of greater substance, is that my hon. Friend seems to think that the error which has occurred is one which he would not have fallen into and which few Members of the House would have fallen into. The point, which was not detected before, was a very fine point indeed, so much so that even my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) said yesterday that he himself might very well have come to the same conclusion, and that it might not have occurred to him to take this particular point, which, I may say, did not occur to anyone during the whole of the eight months until the other day, when, in connection with the appointment of the new Minister for War, these Statutes, which are very complicated, were looked into, and the point immediately arose.
  HON. MEMBERS: Who found it out?
  Sir G. CAVE: Just as I think occurred in connection with that well-known book "The Origin of Species," the same idea occurred to two people at the same time. Both of them were engaged in looking at these Statutes for another purpose when the point arose. The matter was looked into and was at once brought by the Attorney-General to the notice of the Prime Minister. That being so, I am sure the House will realise that the point might have escaped even the hon. Member for Mansfield. It has escaped a great many other people, and I do not see that any

  583
  blame whatever can attach to the Attorney-General. The whole matter has been dealt with in an extremely good-humoured way, and I am sure there will be no really serious opposition.
  Sir E. CARSON: For my own part, my only regret about the Bill is that the Government when they were bringing it in did not make it applicable to any offices falling vacant in the future. I will deal in a moment with the technical part of the matter, because it is a purely technical question that arises in connection with this Bill. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) really thinks that in the middle of a war, and in the middle of great and serious operations in the War, when every shell is of the utmost importance, and every contract for every shell is of importance, that it would be of advantage to the country that the Minister of Munitions should go down and have a contest at a by-election and have the whole question of Government policy raised. I think that would be an outrage. I think it would be an outrage that the Minister of Munitions should be diverted for one moment from his work, which is a matter of very grave and serious importance. When the Act of 1867 was passed the office of the Minister of Munitions did not exist and, therefore, it was not put in the Schedule and so this Bill has to be brought in to remedy that. That is the whole question as I understand it as regards the Minister of Munitions, and also as regards the Secretary of State for War. If the Secretary of State for War were to go down to Wales and have a contest he would be in exactly the same position as the Minister of Munitions. Apart from that, by-elections of any kind at the present time are utterly futile. There is no register. The Government have taken care there is no register. Everybody is disfranchised.
  Mr. HOGGE: What about East Herts?
  Sir E. CARSON: Half the people in the various constituencies have no votes now. I am not speaking of soldiers and sailors, but of the ordinary people who have moved from one place to another, and who have no votes now. There is no case whatever made out for saying that these Ministers ought to fight these by-elections. As regards the Attorney-General I suppose the point raised about him is the most technical that could possibly be conceived. It "would take a microscope to find it, and as
  584
  I understand it, it was simply found out when looking into the question as to whether the Minister of Munitions and the Secretary of State for War ought to be re-elected or not. The whole point is, that he would have a perfect right to go from the office of Solicitor-General to that of Attorney-General in the ordinary course under the Act of 1867, were it not that a temporary Emergency Act was passed which said that it was not necessary for him to be re-elected. That is the whole case as regards the Attorney-General. For my own part I do not believe that any law officer could have the slightest degree of blame attached to him for a matter of this kind. The Attorney-General sits in the Cabinet with other great lawyers. There is the Lord Chancellor, who decides a number of these points, and there are several others who are quite competent. When the point was found out, apparently he came and asked the Prime Minister to save him from his own want of knowledge of something that nobody else knew any more than himself, and so the Bill is brought in. If anybody has a grievance in regard to this matter it is myself, because all this time I ought to have been getting the salary. But in the interests of the Coalition, and because of my great admiration for the present Government, which I know is firmly established as an indispensable Government, I can forego, and the common in former will have to forego, any claims arising out of this microscopical point not having been discovered earlier. I think there is no serious reason for opposing; this Bill and putting the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman Sir E. Carson is more solicitous in his usual rôle as leader of the Opposition to the Government rather than as a supporter of the Government on the present occasion. During the recent months he has constantly appeared among us with a number of his colleagues on both sides as an advocate of a General Election—a General Election which obviously must take place before the month of September. Now, however, in order to support this Bill, he intimates that it is ludicrous, if not impossible, to have any by-elections in this country at the present time.
  Sir E. CARSON: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I do not think I have advocated a General Election without a new register.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If the conditions of war-fare on the Western front make it impossible and unthinkable to have any elections at all, surely that applies, altogether apart from the fact of a new register, to a General Election far more strongly than to a by-election. We have been having by-elections sporadically throughout the country, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if not personally, at any rate through some of his colleagues, has possibly incited some of those by-elections and has taken ad-vantage of those opportunities on a stale register to test public opinion, such as it is. It seems to me that he is somewhat unfortunate to-day in scouting the possibility of by-elections in relation to the three Ministers who are affected by this Bill. We all know that the late Under-Secretary of State for War is to submit to re-election, and the process is not occasioning him any particular difficulty. Nor do I think it would occasion any difficulty either to the Minister of Munitions or to the Secretary of State for War. The Minister of Munitions has already had to go through the process, and it did not even cost him a visit to his constituency. Therefore, all this nonsense about the time it would occupy and about diverting him from the important business of manufacturing munitions is surely quite irrelevant. The same remarks apply to the Secretary of State for War, who is really in a far stronger position. We know that any conscientious objector who had the hardihood to tilt against the shield of this great Minister would meet with a very sorry fate. The Secretary of State for War has all the Press mobilised on his side, and he has mobilised a new party, in which all the British and Israelitish financiers are engaged. Surely he need fear no by-election. I think there is a somewhat different consideration arising in regard to the Attorney-General. I do not wish to make an attack upon the Attorney-General in regard to this particular oversight, although I think it is a matter which calls for combing that the late Attorney-General, the man who is responsible for every prosecution in this country, is claiming from the House of Commons immunity from penalties amounting to £140,000, on a plea which would be scouted in any Court of law. Everybody knows that if a poor man in some backs wood part of the country fails to screen his lights he may be brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction,
  586
  and if he pleads that he did not know the law, that he did not see the notice, the Court will promptly fine him £50, as has been done in some rural areas in Scotland. Here we have the Attorney-General who is to be set free of penalties due to his negligence upon a matter upon which he is paid to have expert knowledge. It is a matter which calls for combing. I think that he should be the last man to ask for this, and I think further that had such a case of negligence and oversight occurred in any commercial undertaking the gentleman guilty of it would probably have received the punishment which is usual in such cases. But, of course, he is a member of an indispensable Government whose continued existence and integrity in its pre-sent form are indispensable to the successful prosecution of the War.
  Apart altogether from the matter of indemnity I do not think that the case of the hon. Member for White chapel (Sir S. Samuel) was so glaring. After all it was a highly technical far more technical case than this, because this House will remember that in that case it was necessary to set up a Select Committee of the House of Commons to decide whether the Statute of George III. had been infringed or not. It was only after the Committee had reported that the hon. Gentleman vacated his-seat and submitted himself for re-election. But here is a case when for the first time those in the Law Department of the Government thought it necessary to consult the Statutes bearing on the matter and found it out. One or two underlings of the Government discovered it. It did not require a microscope. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentle-man (Sir E. Carson), out of a loyalty to his ex-colleague, which I can understand, should have suggested that it was such a microscopic point. It was not such an obscure point as that involved in the case of the hon. Member for White chapel, in which it was necessary to appoint a Select Committee of the House of Commons to determine the matter, and in spite of that this House refused an indemnity to the hon. Gentleman. If in such a difficult case an indemnity was refused to the hon. Member for White chapel, far more should an indemnity be refused to the Attorney—General. Then there is the other point of a new election. We know that there is a very important question engaging public attention at present in which Liverpool is considerably concerned. We know, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that there

  587
  is a considerable division among the representatives of Liverpool. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about?"] About the Irish settlement. We all know that the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for War had actually a Lancashire luncheon at the Ritz.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to come to closer quarters with the question under discussion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am endeavouring to point out the importance of a by-election in Lancashire, and the reference to this luncheon is merely an argument as to how far Lancashire Members are interested in This question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the importance of an election in Lancashire really has any relevance to this Bill. The mere fact that one of the persons affected happened at one time to sit, or does still sit, for a Division of Liverpool is really immaterial.
  Mr. PRINGLE.With all respect, may I point out that if this Bill is not passed there will require to be a by-election in the Walton Division of Liverpool, and I submit to the House that it is extremely important that at this juncture, when the Irish question is so much in the public mind, the electors of the Walton Division should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. If they are not to be treated in the same way as their representatives at least they might have the opportunity of a Lancashire hotchpotch supper. However, I will leave the gastronomic argument and say that it is mainly upon this question that I think this Bill should be dealt with I do not believe that it would be desired to oppose in either of the other two constituencies for the simple reason that there opinion is not so keenly divided, but here we know, from obvious indications which are revealed in the public Press, that Lancashire opinion is keenly interested in this matter. Surely then the opportunity should be offered to the electors of Walton of saying whom they will have, whether the Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Houston) or the Attorney—General.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with a personal question. I think that the Debate should not be brought down to a personal question. It is very easy to refer to the action of an hon. Member and to make attacks on him,
  588
  but it would be very desirable to raise the level of the Debate from the personal question to the more serious question.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask the Government whether this Bill does affect the purpose which they had in view. The question which I put on the Notice Paper indicates the point in my mind. It is not that Mr. Lloyd George at a particular point took the post of Minister of Munitions. It was rather as to the position in the interval between the resignation of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer and taking the post of Minister of Munitions. May I remind the Prime Minister that the Home Secretary at that time, the late Attorney—General, the present Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) misled the House, and this trouble has arisen because: the House was misled by the then Home Secretary. I think I can convince the House that this question was gone into. When the Home Secretary at that time was asking the House to pass the Ministry of Munitions Bill, he said:
  "I would point out that it is only by the operation of this Bill that the Minister appointed for the purpose becomes qualified to sit in tins House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1915, col. 93, Vol. LXXII]
  Now we are told that exactly the opposite was the case, that it was the passing of the Ministry of Munitions Bill and the fact that it was done in error that put him out of the House. I have been examining the Bill very closely, and I do not find any Clause in the Bill which indicates that the Minister of Munitions is not to seek re-election. There is a sort of negative Clause that the post may be held by a man notwithstanding the fact that he is a Member of this House. The then Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, said that until it passed his colleague could not appear in the House. I raised the point on that occasion with Mr. Speaker because one of the Members on the Irish Benches alluded to the hon. Member for Carnarvon by name, because the Reporter says, in the name of Mr. Lynch, at column 139,
  "I should like to see Mr. Lloyd George, as I think we can call him now—"
  and then he linked him on to some French revolutionary, and I drew the attention of Mr. Speaker to the point. I felt sure that the Home Secretary was wrong. I asked Mr. Speaker whether it was in order to refer in that way to the Member for Carnarvon, and whether he was not at that time a Member of the House, and the

  589
  Home Secretary therefore wrong, and the Speaker, at column 145, said, in answer to my queries:
  "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon has not, so far as I am aware, accepted any offer of profit under the Crown which would vacate his seat. He is still a Member of this House, and, so far as I know, I do not see how he could have accepted this particular offer if the office has not yet been created."
  Therefore, the Home Secretary had to retire from the position and to admit that he was conducting the Bill in order to give the Minister of Munitions time to get into harness, which was a much better reason to give the House. Now we find that the advisers of the Government of that day were entirely wrong. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon was a Member of this House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was not, and the Bill which they said would put him right was the Bill which got him into trouble. I have searched the Ministry of Munitions Act. I have taken advice and seen many advisers, and I cannot find that that Munitions Act did put the matter right. In the case of Mr. Lloyd George there was a gap after his resigning the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he was appointed Minister of Munitions when he was a private Member.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Supposing he was!
  Mr. BOOTH: The Home Secretary of that day was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman was a private Member, and what is there in the Act constituting the Ministry of Munitions which enables a private Member to take that post without re-election and to pass it on to another? I submit that that is the point which has now been found out to be entirely wrong. I do not say that there is anything in it which is not met by this Bill. My case is this: If there is nothing in my point, then the Home Secretary of that day hopelessly misled the House. Now I want to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, that on two occasions a huge mistake has been made on a matter of high importance by men who are very highly paid for their legal services. These men are getting some-thing like £20,000 a year, yet we have a big mistake made a year ago and never apologised for or explained away, and now we have another great mistake made by his successor. I re-echo the suggestion that if anything of this kind occurred in the case of a private firm it would be very
  590
  severely dealt with. Very severe penalties have been enforced on business men for smaller slips than this. Judges of the High Court will never allow a business man to plead that he has not a microscope for looking into some small point, and yet we find a measure like this brought in so late to correct mistakes made by two highly-paid men one after the other. I am not objecting to the measure. There is nothing personal so far as I am concerned against any one of the three, but I do want an assurance that this second Clause will put the matter right. It is worded in a legal form, and I confess candidly that I am not able to understand it. Will the Government take the responsibility of saying now that it is all right? I wish to know that these Ministers are secure, and that we will not have another Amending Bill at a later stage. I want to point out the importance of this question, for if this Bill had been in operation Mr. Master man would have been a member of the Government and still a Member of this House. If Mr. Masterman were still in the House, this Bill would put him right—I think it would. I am not making the point against the Gentleman in question except for the purpose of reminding the House that it was only because Mr. Masterman had to submit to a by-election under the old law that the country was able to manifest how deep was their feeling with regard to the Insurance Act. That was the first intimation which the Government got of the feeling of the country, and, a year or two after, they appointed a Committee in regard to the Act. During the "War we must follow the leader of the Government, but we want to be perfectly sure that this Clause is actually effective and that we shall not have another Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was interesting to me as an old lawyer to see the House devoting an hour to one of the most purely technical points ever submitted to the House of Commons.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: £140,000.
  The PRIME MINISTER: First of all, as to the point of my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). There is no substance of any sort or kind in his question, and the whole of this difficulty arises from the fact that the House of Commons restricted the Bill of last year to May and June of that year.

  591
  If the House had passed the Bill as pro-posed by the Government none of this difficulty would have arisen at all. For some reason or other the House limited the operation of the Bill to the months of May and June, 1915, and from that circumstance the whole of this has arisen.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The House never asked for that.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was done in Committee.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The Government put it in. The House never asked for the restriction—only a section of the House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was the act of the House. My hon. Friend who has just sat down is not a lawyer by profession, but he has shown considerable forensic ingenuity. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) left the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer on his being appointed Minister of Munitions, but a fort-night elapsed before his appointment to that office, and in that period he became a private Member. What consequences followed? None whatever; because the Re—Election of Ministers Act provided for the case of acceptance in the months of May and June, and my right hon. Friend accepted the office of Minister of Munitions in the month of June, and therefore nothing more can be said about that.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It was the same in the case of other private Members.
  The PRIME MINISTER: All other Members are in the same position as my right hon. Friend. With regard to the other point, the only argument which has any 'substance in it is the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney—General is being relieved of penalties which other persons have incurred, not having succeeded in getting rid of them by Parliamentary interference. A common informer is not generally regarded with favour, but if a common in-former chooses to exercise his statutory power he should do so promptly. It is very curious, when we see the acute forensic and juristic activity of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, who are now as hot as hounds on the track of the common informer, and who had at least eight months in which to take advantage of the situation, that they never exer
  592
  cised their ingenuity and activity until now when we are passing this Bill and when, for the first time, they bring into operation what I regard as a very pernicious form of activity. It is one of the scandals of our law that the common in-former should be allowed to act without the leave of the Attorney-General or any public authority, and to sue any Member of this House for a matter of inadvertency. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on the chivalrous and public-spirited action he has shown in this matter as regards the Attorney—General. I think the House will agree that it would be an ungenerous thing that we should not give him the indemnity which this Bill pro-vides. As to the general question, that the Secretary of State for War, the Minister of Munitions, and the Attorney-General should be required at this moment to submit themselves to the ordeal of by-elections, on a register which everyone knows is an unreal register, and to with-draw them from the exercise of duties which are urgently and imperiously needed in the interests of the successful prosecution of the War, is a thing, I think everybody will agree, that this House ought not to tolerate. Therefore, I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time and to pass through all its subsequent stages.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: As to these transactions I would recall one of the pro-verbs, that "The way of transgressors is hard"—very hard. What has occurred in this case is that the very head of the law did not know the circumstances and conditions under which he was appointed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently paid a very eloquent tribute on the retirement of one of the principal judges from the Irish Bench, a tribute which was greatly appreciated by the Irish people. The Chief Baron, to whom that tribute was paid, laid it down that it was the duty of a judge to read a Statute from the beginning to the end before he comes to act upon it. The Solicitor-General did that. He was, perhaps, wiser and perhaps had read the Statute on other points, and my belief is that it was that right hon. Gentleman who discovered this blot, or whatever it was. My right hon. Friend, during his unregenerate days, was only a party man, and not a coalition man, and he fulfilled his part then by reading an Act of Parliament through, whereby he found that he could appoint two judges right off. His services then were very much

  593
  admired. The House of Commons is not, perhaps, a mutual admiration society, but it is an association of men who are, in the main, good natured, and I am perfectly certain that not one of us would wish to see the Attorney-General mulcted in £150,000. And while we are passing this Bill to afford an indemnity we cannot but contrast what has taken place in the case of official Members and private Members. The Solicitor-General largely, and the Prime Minister in a slighter way, have endeavoured to draw a great distinction between the case of the Member for Whitechapel (Sir Stuart Samuel) and Sir Frederick Smith. Both cases are exactly parallel except that one was a law officer who ought to have known the law, and the other was a gentleman largely engaged in mercantile business and a member of a firm of enormous transactions who had some petty contract with the Government of which he himself knew nothing and which did not in the slightest degree affect his Parliamentary actions. He had been ten months in Parliament when the right ion. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) called attention to the case, and in doing so was actuated, no doubt, by the purest feelings of keeping up the absolute independence of the House of Commons from all association in contract business with the Government. But the Member for the City was himself a director in a large railway company, whereas Sir Stuart Samuel was a member of a private concern, and by this law the Member for the City could be a member of a company having transactions every day with the Government as it was a company, with perfect impunity, whereas in the other case Sir Stuart Samuel rendered himself liable to be mulcted to the tune of £500 for every day he sat in this House under those conditions.
  When the case came up it was largely scouted. It was argued very well indeed that the contract was not such as to bring him within the purview of the Contractors Act of 1789. A Select Committee was appointed, and as there was a division of opinion the matter was referred under the Act of 1834 to the Privy Council, which gave the opinion that Sir Stuart Samuel vacated his seat. He was re-elected, but he did not escape the penalties. He is a well-off man, one of the richest in Eng-land, and I think he had to pay to the tune of £20,000. I was a member of the Committee, and when the witnesses were—examined in public a man came forward to
  594
  do what—to represent the common in former. You were not there, Sir, and I did not address a single word to that fellow. What is the difference between a high commercial gentleman knowing nothing whatever of the business and taking possibly nothing from it and the professional lawyer well paid who does not know his own business or the circumstances under which he is appointed, because he does not take the trouble of looking? It is the greatest illegality perpetrated by an Attorney-General of which I have any knowledge save one. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University was here to hear me. One Attorney-General, and one only, perpetrated such an act of illegality. There was a Mr. T. B. C. Smith, whom O'Connell called "Alphabet" Smith. He was a Loyalist to the backbone and well paid for it. In State trials against O'Connell and others the late Lord Justice FitzGibbon, who was then Mr. FitzGibbon, said something that "Alphabet" Smith did not like. I am afraid to say it before the Solicitor-General, as it would make him blush. In open Court this head of the law sent a challenge to counsel to meet him in com-bat. The matter was brought before the judges, and they—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Really, really, this has nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The hon. and learned Member can give his anecdotes some other time.
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that the Attorney-General conducting a State prosecution and sending a challenge to counsel was a greater act of illegality or more scandalous than an Attorney-General sit-ting in this House for eight or nearly ten months when he had no more right to do so than anyone crossing over Westminster Bridge. I am delighted, and it is a very proper thing, that he should be relieved of the penalties of this, and it would be most outrageous if it were otherwise. In the case of the other two Gentlemen, the Bill is most necessary and just, because it is only carrying out in their case what was clearly meant for Ministers when the Act of 1915 was passed. I do say that since this Coalition Government have come in the special Acts that have been made by them for themselves are exceedingly irksome, and lead to comment. I am afraid of anecdotage, even Parliamentary anecdotage, on that subject, but this bears very completely on the case. In 1869 there was a Bill proposed to repeal

  595
  the Place Act on which Sir William Harcourt made one of his great speeches. He objected to that Bill for this reason, that it might be all very well until a Coalition Government came into power when they could easily make arrangements for them-selves to stay there. That standard case occurred on the 23rd of February, 1869. If advice given in Parliament some forty years ago had been taken, this amending Bill, so far as Sir Frederick Smith is concerned, would not have arisen at all. Mr. York, a lawyer with an eye to the main chance, and that is an exception to the rule, on the 12th of May, 1874, pro-posed that Members of the House who accepted law officer ships should not vacate their seats. The House of Commons, as a common-sense establishment, rejected the Motion, but if it had been adopted Sir Frederick Smith could have simply gal-loped into office. Under all these circum-stances, I am delighted at the Motion before us, and I hope that the Second Reading will pass, and I shall remember the case for the perfect ignorance of the Attorney—General with reference to his own duties.
  Mr. HOGGEThere is a point which I think ought to be made before this Debate is brought to a conclusion. The Prime Minister, in defending this Bill, said that the. difficulty was due to the position the House of Commons took up in May or June of last year. I think the House will recall that particular incident and why they objected to give the Prime Minister and the Cabinet the powers that they then sought. They asked those powers in order to enable Ministers to avoid going to their constituencies on election to new offices. The House on that occasion had an experience which I do not think they, or at all events those on this side, will ever forget in which the Prime Minister, acting entirely on his own initiative, dismissed all the members of his Liberal Administration and formed the Coalition without at all consulting the members who brought him here into this House, and whose presence in this House made it possible for him to remain on the Front Bench. I think the attention of the House ought to be directed to this point. We are told that we shall shortly have a recess, unless presumably the difficulties of settling the Irish question keep us here until late in the autumn. But there is nothing as you,
  596
  Sir, know to prevent the Cabinet prolonging that recess for a very considerable period of time and preventing the House of Commons meeting here to discuss its business. Under those circumstances there is nothing also to prevent the Prime Minister making rearrangements in his Cabinet of Ministers to hold other offices, without reference to the constituencies. I think a protest ought to be made on every occasion on which a House of Commons is deprived of some of its rights, and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet made more absolute than they are. If there is-one thing which is more ridiculous than another it is this theory which is growing into a fetish that this War cannot be concluded, and that the Government can-not be conducted unless the present men who hold their offices remain there.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This has really nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a general attack on matters which are quite irrelevant to this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGEWith due respect, I have not got very far with any attack. The real point I am making is that if we agree to this Bill we are depriving our-selves who represent Constituencies of a general reference on every occasion that a Minister goes to another office to the constituency of that Minister.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is governed by the Act of 1867.
  Mr. HOGGEI know, but these posts are in the hands of the Prime Minister, who moves the present occupants about like pawns on a chessboard, just to suit his purpose and the purpose of those who make up the Coalition. I submit that the Constituencies have the right to have those changes referred to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University made a great point that, if Mr. Montagu were forced to seek election, there would be a stoppage in munitions. Is there anybody who believes that t There is not a man in his senses believes that if Mr. Montagu had to seek re election there would be a single ounce of munitions less produced. This House knows that there would not be, and it is pure eye-wash for anybody to say anything of that sort on that point. If Mr. Montagu's constituents wish him returned, and I should hope they would, because I

  597
  should like to see him brought back as I have no complaint against him, there would be no trouble in returning him; and, in fact, he need not go there, so that there is nothing in the argument which has been used. There is nothing also in the point about the Minister for War, that there would be any difference in what is going on if the Minister for War had to go down to Wales to seek re-election, because between the death of Lord Kitchener, whose death this House regretted so much, and the appointment of Mr. Lloyd George to that post, the Minis-try of War got on pretty well by itself. The Prime Minister went across occasion-ally just to keep things going, but there was no Minister in the post.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It was a great misfortune.
  Mr. HOGGE: It may have been a great misfortune-the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee says it was-that there should have been that interval with-out a Minister, but we all know that the Prime Minister was in charge of the War Office, and, as the Prime Minister is the ablest Minister in the Cabinet, I do not think it was so great a misfortune as the right hon. Gentleman thinks it was that no Minister of War was there. That disposes of two Ministers. I have no desire to see Sir Frederick Smith out of this House. He has always been very kind to me, but is anybody going to allege that if he has to go for re-election in his Division in Liverpool any legal interest of the country is going to suffer? The presence of the Solicitor-General this afternoon is evidence that no legal interest would suffer if Sir Frederick Smith goes to a by-election. For the Government to come down and give us as reasons for this Bill such absolutely childish reasons is not to show the House proper respect. Why do they not come down and say, "We ask the House to pass this because we have got into a muddle"? To do as they have done is to try and throw dust in the eyes of people who can see through their procedure. We are told that if you have a by-election or a General Election there is no proper Register. Have the Government forgotten some of the by-elections which have taken place? In East Herts an opponent of the Coalition Government stood at the by-election, and the Register
  598
  was good enough to defeat the Coalition candidate. There are also the elections; at Mile End and Wimbledon, and the Register was good enough there. As regards Registers, I maintain that they are more or less like this: there is a broad division of opinion on every register-you may call it A and B. It may be diminished by absences from the Register, but people who think as A or B do will be absent more or less in the same proportions, and therefore on that Register you get a fair reflex of what the constituency is thinking. I am going to-divide against this Bill because I am against giving more power to this Cabinet, and, apart from the Cabinet, of putting more power in the hand of the Prime Minister. We have got enough absolutism in this Cabinet as it is.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I think all the aspects of this measure have been fully discussed this afternoon, and I hope the House will now come to a decision on it. I only rise to make one remark in respect of what I think is the general apprehension this, afternoon, that the Attorney-General him-self is responsible for this mistake. I have investigated the matter as far as I can, and, as far as I have learned, the Attorney-General was in no way consulted in the drafting of the Bill.
  Sir G. CAVE: Hear, hear!
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General confirms that view. I think the cause of the mistake was this: that the Re-election of Ministers Bill was not fully considered at the time it was introduced. It was in the faulty drafting of this measure that the mistake arose. When the Government brought in that Bill they ought to have drafted it properly, and then we should not have these periodical discussions and questions of re-election. That ought to be kept in mind at the present time. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), and also the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a Division on this matter. I think their main object to-day was to place their views before the House in regard to what they thought was a mistake and neglect on the part of the Government. That having been done, for my part I hope they will not go to a Division.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question

  Division No. 35.]

  AYES.

  [5.50 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Partington, Oswald

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Prothero, Roland Edmund

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Beach, William F. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Herbert, Major-Gen. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hinds, John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs).

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Boyton, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, James

  Bridgeman. William Clive

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Illingworth, Albert H.

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Butcher, John George

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Jessel, Col. Herbert M.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cave, Rt. Hon. sir George

  John, Edward Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert(Herts, Hitchin)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  King, Joseph

  Thomas, J. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wardle, George J.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Whittaker. Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Currie, George W.

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Morison, Hector

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

  Fell, Arthur

  Newman, John R. P.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  NOES—None.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Watt.

  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Rea.]
  6.0 P.M.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and (2) reported without Amnedment; read the third time, and passed.
  The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, none.

  FINANCE BILL— [RECOMMITTED].
  Considered the Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the chair].

  FINANCE BILL— [RECOMMITTED].
    CLAUSE 33.—(Limitation of Relief from Income Tax in Respect of Insurance Premiums.)
    Question, "That the Clause stand part if the Bill," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of Belief from Income Tax in Respect of Insurance Premiums.)
    The relief given under Section fifty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1853, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall not—

    (a) be given at a greater rate than that of three shillings in the pound; or

    (b) be given, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section sixty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, for the purposes of Super-tax.

    (2) The said relief shall not, as regards insurances or contracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, nineteen hundred and sixteen,—

    (a) be given except in respect of premiums or other payments payable on policies for securing a capital sum on death, whether in conjunction with any other benefit or not; or

    (b) be given in respect of premiums or payments payable during the period of deferment in respect of a policy of deferred assurance.

    Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect premiums or payments payable on policies or contracts made in connection with any superannuation or bond-fide pension scheme for the benefit of the employés of any employer or of persons engaged in any particular profession, vocation, trade, or business.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Clause (b) brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Mr. McKENNA: The Committee are very well aware of the purport of this Clause, because I believe this is the third or fourth discussion upon it. I would like to answer various objections that have been taken to the Clause being made operative as regards existing contracts. It is said that in touching existing con-tracts we are engaged in retrospective taxation. I venture humbly to submit to the Committee that that is not a correct use of language.
    An HON. MEMBER: Substantially.
    Mr. McKENNA: Neither substantially nor technically. The Act of 1853 allowed Income Tax, in certain circumstances, to be deducted from premiums paid for life assurance. The Income Tax up to that
    602
    time was at a very low rate, and at no time until this calendar year, from the date of the passing of the Act of 1853, has the Income Tax stood at 3s. in the £. Every contract of assurance that has been entered into up to this year has been entered into in contemplation of deduction in respect of Income Tax of less than. 3s. in the £, and it cannot be said that any taxpayer who entered into a contract had at the time that he made the contract the anticipation that he would be allowed to deduct anything like 3s. in the £ from his premium. So much with regard to re-trospective taxation. It is perfectly open to the House at any time, without inflicting any injury, to cease to give the allowance which has been allowed to be given in the past, provided, in ceasing to give the allowance, the House does not take-back something which has already been allowed. The House is absolutely at liberty, without any question of breach of contract, or retrospective taxation, to refuse to continue allowances which have been made in the past. If there was anything in this doctrine it would be equally" true to say that it was retrospective taxation when the abatement in respect of Income Tax was reduced from £160 to £120 by this House, which, with enthusiasm, cut down the abatement. Yet the allowance, as is well known, of the £160 in respect of small incomes had gone on for years, and it was never alleged that it was retrospective taxation to discontinue that allowance in future years. Equally, it is not retrospective taxation, in any sense of the language, to discontinue an allowance which has been made in the past. So much for that point.
    There is another aspect of the question. When this allowance was made it was made in contemplation of an entirely different system of taxation from that which we have to-day. I do not think it was ever intended-my researches at any rate con-firm me in the view that it was never in-tended-that this allowance should be given in the circumstances in which it is claimed to-day. It is not only in respect of Income Tax that the allowance is claimed. It is claimed in respect for Super-tax. The result of that claim is that those who pay Super-tax get an abatement in respect of their premiums of 8s. 6d. in the-£, if their Super-tax rate is on a maximum scale. I do not think that was ever in-tended, either when the original Act was passed in 1853, or when Super-tax was first introduced. I am sure I shall have the

    603
    general opinion of the House with me in the view that these premiums ought not to be free from the charge of the Super-tax. [An HON. MEMBER,: "Certainly not."] That is my opinion. The general opinion of the House, I think, will be with me when I say that it was not the intention of the original Act, or when the Super-tax was passed. I think the point was overlooked that premiums paid for insurance should be entitled to be free of Income Tax and Super-tax. I have listened to what has been said in the House, and I observe that there is a considerable opposition to this Clause so far as it operates in regard to existing contracts of insurance. I recognise that in the number of taxing Bills for which I have had to be responsible that this House has accepted with remarkable willingness immense burdens. I should, therefore, be the .last to refuse to pay attention to a general expression of objection to a particular form of tax. It is not as though I bad an unfortunate experience in that respect. I have found the House more than willing to submit. Therefore I am bound to assume that when a proposal of this kind is made, and there is serious opposition in various quarters of the House, that it is contrary to the sense of equity entertained by a number of hon. Members in the House. For myself, I think the proposal is right. That is my own view. To allow a deduction of 3s, in the £ in respect of premiums is going as far as ever was in contemplation when the principle of deduction in respect of premiums was first allowed. A change is necessary now, because we find that it is impossible to prevent unfair evasion of the tax, unless we in some way or other limit the amount of deduction in respect of Income Tax in regard to future contracts. Of course, existing contracts would not be evasion. Companies, however, tell us now—and from our own experience it is so—that most unfair contracts of assurance are now being entered into merely for the purpose of avoiding Income Tax.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Only by a few companies.
    Mr. McKENNA: Only by a few companies, my hon. Friend says. May I tell him this, of which he is, perhaps, not aware? The companies that have not done it are as urgent as anybody that the practice should stop. They are saying that if it is not stopped their business will be
    604
    unfairly competed with by the few companies. When my hon. Friend said a few companies only he must not suggest
    Mr. BRYCE: I did not mean to suggest other than, what is the case. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in the great majority of cases the companies are very anxious that the practice should be put a stop to.
    Mr. McKENNA: They are very anxious that it should be stopped. I am sure that the public at large are equally anxious that it should be stopped, because the honest man does not wish to have to pay higher taxes because the dishonest man evades his share. It is common ground that we have to take some measure. I recognise the feeling evinced with regard to existing contracts. I am prepared to make this offer: I will agree that with regard to existing contracts the only alteration for which I shall ask shall be not in respect of Income Tax, but in respect of Super-tax. I think that an amendment of the law ought to have been made when Super-tax was first imposed, I do not think it was ever intended that a tax in the nature of the Super-tax should be deducted on account of insurance premiums, and if the House is willing to accept
    Mr. LOUGH: What about existing policies?
    Mr. McKENNA: Existing policies of insurance will be left standing except as regards Super-tax. The Clause shall be made prospective only outside the Super-tax. With regard to future contracts, the proposal will leave all cases of persons paying up to £2,500 a year quite untouched. Persons with an income between £2,500 and £11,000 who make an insurance will be deprived of the benefit of the maximum; they will lose the Super-tax on this graduated scale of deduction. I submit to the Committee that this is a fair offer. A feeling has been shown that this should not affect existing contracts to the extent of Income Tax, and I ask the Committee to agree with me that we should tax existing contracts as regards Super-tax. I hope what I put forward will be accepted as a fair compromise.
    Sir J. D. REES: I think the right hon. Gentleman has met the case very fairly, but, for my part, I am unwilling to leave the position as regards the Super-tax where he would leave it. It seems to me

    605
    it is not fair to make a distinction in this matter between Income Tax and Super-tax. While I regard the right hon. Gentle-man's conduct in this matter as reason-able, I do not think he can establish any true distinction between Income Tax and Super-tax in this matter. If he can, he did not do so. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) raised a specious point about the effect of the tax upon the rich and the poor. Who are the rich and who are the poor? A rich man is one who has all the reasonable requirements of his mode of life. A poor man is a man who has not got them. A man who is accounted a rich man may become poorer and have less money to spend than a poor man who is getting richer, which I I believe to be the broad state of the case now. If, however, my Amendment, which raises the point as regards the Income Tax, will be in order, I do not think I shall be right in taking time now in speaking on this point.
    Sir E. LAMB: I want to say for myself quite frankly that I appreciate the con-cession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I felt there was much in the argument adduced last night and the night beforehand I felt that possibly we were asking rather more than we should probably succeed in securing, and that was why I put down the Amendment on the Paper to alter "three" into "five.'' That would have had the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's concession. For myself, I appreciate this concession, and I think we should express that appreciation as we feel it. But I want to point out one thing in connection with this. I believe I am correct in saying that, largely owing to pressure from the Government, insurance companies at the outbreak of war took on the added liability consequent on the War of men who were then insured. In other words, policies that were then running on the lives of men who had never any thought of going to war when they took out those policies naturally become an added liability on the part of the company, and I say quite frankly, as a director of one of the insurance companies, I thought that added liability should be borne by the whole country—that is, the Exchequer-because as that added liability is taken by the
    606
    companies, it means that their profit-earning capacity is thereby reduced. That has this effect: Policy holders who have been anticipating taking their bonuses in the form of reduction of premiums are having the bonuses reduced, and, at the time when they most need relief, they are prevented from getting it because of the action of the Government in asking insurance companies to take over this added liability for which they were really not responsible. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind the voluntary act of the insurance companies in taking on this added liability at the request of the Government when he is considering the further aspect of this Clause. I under-stood him to say that his proposal would clear all income up to £2,500 a year. I would point out that it would clear all in-come up to a penny short of £3,000.
    Mr. McKENNA: Quite right.
    Sir E. LAMB: So that it really means we have by this agitation in the House secured the continuance of this concession to existing policy holders who have incomes up to £3,000 a year. For that reason I gladly accept the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and shall not move my Amendment.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to come to a conclusion to make some concession on this matter. Certainly I myself felt very strongly about the Clause as it was originally brought in, and I was prepared-and I took some trouble in asking some of my friends to co-operate with me-to resist this Clause as it stood to the very utmost. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is not a very logical one. What I mean is, the ground upon which we put our objection to the Clause was
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Blackmail.
    Sir E. CARSON: I think that is rather an insolent sort of observation.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I did not intend it as such. I apologise.
    Sir E. CARSON: The objection that we put was that companies issue the most magnificent prospectuses demonstrating to people the advantages that accrue to them by taking out policies and not having to pay Income Tax. I am not finding fault

    607
    with the companies for doing that. Every-body knows that a large number of insurances were affected in the past, both large and small, becasue it was thought that there was this saving of Income Tax. That principle is involved whether a man pays Super-tax or does not. However, in war time, and when a great deal of money is wanted, we cannot be very logical, and I have no doubt as time goes on the man who pays Super-tax and who has very few friends in the House or in the country, will be more and more bled, whether logically or illogically. He will get no logic. He has the advantage of having an income over the limit prescribed by the Government, and he must bear his sorrows with a knowledge that he is a Super tax payer. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to offer further opposition to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would only like to say that I really do hope in the future, when grave alterations in the law affecting so many thou-sands of people who are trying to be thrifty are made, a little more notice of it may be given to the public than has been given in this case. There is plenty of time for considering these matters, and if this had not been observed by some of the very astute gentlemen who watch finance in this House, of which I know nothing either in the House or out, it probably would not have been seen at all. However, I do not want to accept ungraciously what has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think the best way I can assist him is by saying I shall offer no further opposition.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: I think we shall all agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is unfortunate this has to be discussed under such pressure. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for that. I am one of those who believe that the proposal originally made is a sound and right one, but personally, and especially in view of the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion has been met, I am not going to press any further in that direction. I will just make an attempt to suggest a logical reason for something in the direction of the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up. I do not know whether right hon. and and hon. Members have noticed this: Life offices pay about 4s. in the £ Income Tax. Five shillings is
    608
    levied upon them, but they get an allowance for their expenses, which practically brings their tax to about 4s. in the £. Now if a policy holder who has a large income, and whose tax is 8s. 6d., invests his money in a life insurance office, he is investing it where it will be only charged 4s. Income Tax; whereas, if he invests it anywhere else, he will be charged 8s. 6d. Therefore, he is saving 4s. 6d. in the £ on the income derived from his accumulated premiums. On the top of that, and in addition, he has been getting 8s. 6d. off the premiums. It really was an enormous difference, and, therefore, I think it does, form some logical ground for omitting Super-tax from this arrangement. There-is just one point which arises out of this arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested, and I am not quite sure whether he will safeguard that now. New policies, as I understand, are to be allowed 3s. in the £, and old ones are to be allowed up to 5s.
    Mr. McKENNA: They will be allowed, whatever the Income Tax may be. It may be 10s. in the £. We leave the law un-touched as regards existing policies.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: That goes a little further than I thought. It is rather a wide concession. As to the point whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not take some steps to safeguard it, it is possible for an old policy to be very much enlarged, and it is not a new contract. The new policy is to be limited to a tax not exceeding 3s.; the old one is to have the benefit of any tax that is going. Now there are policies issued by offices which contain an option to increase the amount of the policy. It is quite possible to confer that option on all old policies, and, if you do not mind, there is a loophole there through which all policies will be in-creased, and, unless the wording is going to cover those increases, you will, by having two rates of taxes, one for old policies and one for new, leave a door which, I think, ingenious people will get through. I want therefore to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a point to bear in mind, the barring of in-creases in existing contracts. It is a very doubtful point.
    Mr. LOUGH: I want to offer just a word of warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the suspicious counsel that

    609
    he sometimes receives from behind him. I think the House generally will agree that he has met the difficulty in which he was placed in a fair and handsome way, and he has made a broad compromise which I think ought to be generally accepted. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the original Clause in the Bill he explained that he was not going to touch the general law with regard to insurance. It was not planned in his original Finance Bill. It was a new Clause which he brought in, and he said he brought it in to deal with a new evil. I think the advice he has received from the right hon. Member for Spen Valley was that, even if the new Clause has the merit which my right hon. Friend thinks, this was a good time to bring it in. I do not think it was. It was not at all a fair time to make a broad and sweeping change like this, and that was the point which struck the House so particularly in resisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal. That was the only point in the argument which I did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer met very well. We understood we were dealing with new policies, and the House was entirely willing to assist the Chancellor of—the Exchequer in doing that. I will only add that it strikes me we have got a very fair compromise.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: With regard to the Super-tax and the Income Tax, the same rule has applied hitherto to both and the same deduction has been allowed. I do not think any man objects to paying Super-tax if he has really got an income which exceeds £3,000, but if you are to knock off all these deductions a man may have not nearly £3,000 and yet may be assessed for Super-tax. There are many other anomalies surrounding the assessment of Super-tax. If a man owns house-hold property he is only able to deduct one-sixth of the rent for repairs, although the repairs may cost him very much more. In that way he already has to pay Super-tax, although his income really is not £3,000. Here you are adding further in-justice by refusing in future to allow him to deduct his insurance premiums which hitherto he has always been allowed to do. I cannot see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should differentiate in this way between the assessment for Income Tax and Super-tax, and I think while he is making the concession he ought to go
    610
    the whole length which the case requires, and I do not think if he did so it would make very much difference to his revenue.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: As one who opposed the Clause when it was first introduced in the Finance Bill, I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made to-day. I think he has met us fairly in not touching the exist-policies. That is a concession which will be very gratefully received throughout the country. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) said on this point. When this matter was brought before the House by the Chancellor the one object in view was to meet the case of a large number of men who were taking out not the ordinary life and endowment policies, but deferred annuities in large sums, and they were getting a very large abatement of Income Tax and thereby were able to effect a larger insurance. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to touch these excessive insurance policies, I have always felt myself that it is a very serious grievance that he should by this means touch and affect existing policies. Now he says that he is not going to do it, and on that ground we all agree that he has met the Committee fairly. I should like to make one remark with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) stated about options. There are two kinds of options with regard to insurance policies. There is the option given to a man upon the maturing of a policy at the end of a period-say of ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty years. He then has the power in his contract to take the option of not obtaining the cash value of the policy, but of increasing the policy without paying any further premiums, and in that case there will be no Income Tax charged. My hon. Friend says that there are a very large number of policies where there is the option to increase the amount of the policy, and in that case he thinks the proper thing would be to bring it within the new policies issued up to the passing of this Bill. With that I agree, because all new policies ought to come within the terms of this Bill, and in future they will be subject to the Clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now going to ask the House to adopt.
    With regard to insurance companies, so far as my knowledge is concerned, and I have had some active experience with

    611
    them, at the present time there are no other companies in this country who are suffering like them. For instance, take industrial offices. Up to the present time they have paid £1,700,000 upon claims "which have been brought by those killed in the War without any legal obligation to pay those claims. I have never heard it suggested by the Government that we should pay and honour those policies, but we have done so because we thought it "was our duty, and we are suffering in-tensely from the fact that we are up to the present time paying up for every claims that comes in upon the lives of these men who are killed; and not only this, but we are losing the premiums at the same time. The insurance companies are not in any way affected by this particular arrangement, and I have argued right from the beginning that the matter affects, not the insurance companies, but the individual policy holder who pays the premiums. He is the man that will get this rebate. I disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley that we should act upon the general principle in existence since 1853 as to whether it is right or not to give this remission, and if that question is going to be de-bated it certainly should not be upon an Amendment like this, but it should be taken at the end of the Clause, when the whole question of the incidence of the Income Tax could be reviewed. But it would be a mistake to discuss that question now. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us, and I think we are all prepared to support him most heartily.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It is only in the most narrow and technical sense that it was argued yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no contract made in 1853 with. those who took out policies of insurance. Of course, what did result from what was done in 1853 was that a number of persons then and since then have placed them-selves in a position from which they can-not recede without disaster or loss to themselves. If you make the modifications which the right hon. Gentleman is pro-posing to make they will be in exactly the same position, and will suffer from the same kind of mischief as people do whose rights are taken from them under a con-tract which they had a right to think would be left sacred and inviolate. There
    612
    was another, I will not say fallacy, but an argument of a superficial character which was put forward yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. He said that in 1853 Mr. Glad-stone gave these concessions as regards Income Tax, not to promote thrift, but for the purpose of providing somehow for the general desire that there should be a distinction between earned and unearned income. The right hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly very far from right. We all know that Mr. Gladstone had an un-conquerable aversion to facing the problem of distinguishing between earned and unearned income.
    Some of us can remember the late Mr. Hubbard, who yearly brought forward his hardy annual about distinguishing between earned and unearned income, and some of us remember the persistent way in which Mr. Gladstone refused to accede to Mr. Hubbard's contention. Those of us who remember those things are well aware that it was really the fear of the administrative difficulty that prevented Mr. Gladstone from drawing that most just and necessary distinction. The earned income is, by its very nature, an income not permanent in its character, and can last no longer than the life of the person receiving it, against the termination of which you make provision by life assurance, as you do by other forms of saving. Therefore, it is in the highest degree necessary that in respect of these con-tracts which have to run for long periods in the distant future the very highest standard of public confidence should be kept up. When a man is going to enter into an insurance contract lasting, perhaps, a quarter of a century, there should be no suspicion that the relations between him and the company are likely to be disturbed before the time expires. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has looked at this matter from that point of view and paid this regard to the opposition with which he was threatened. It is not logical to exempt Super-tax entirely from the arrangement, because there again you are faced with the distinction between earned and unearned income. An income of a thousand a year may come to an end with the life of the recipient, and this may be a proper case for insurance, and it deserves the same public encouragement towards provision for its termination. We must not, however, look at concessions

    613
    too closely. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has recognised the justice of the claim put forward yesterday as regards the old policies, for I do believe he has warded something off which would have very seriously deteriorated the credit of the British Exchequer.
    Mr. BRYCE: I do not wish to minimise the concessions which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think it is well that the House should realise that the right hon. Gentleman is only making concessions on the terms of the Amendment put down yesterday, and not as regards the propositions of the original Bill. It is only under this new Clause that we get future life policies roped in and exempted from the operation of the Act of 1853, and that is really not a concession at all. As a matter of fact we are going back and imposing further restrictions, and in view of the harmonious tone prevailing, I am afraid the House has not really understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he is making concessions in one direction, is taking away what he proposed in the original Bill. I am not quite clear whether the original provisions of Clause 33 in the Finance Bill were directed against these endowment policies for a short term of years. I gather that those are no longer in any circumstances to get exemption. Is that so. Formerly Clause 33 of the Bill said:
    "Relief shall not be given except in respect of premiums or payments for (ii.) an insurance limited to the payment of a capital sum on death, and the payment of a sum on reaching a certain age, so long as—(a) that age is not less than sixty years; and (b) there is an interval of at least twenty years,"
    and so on. Those were endowment policies.
    Mr. McKENNA: That Clause is with-drawn.
    Mr. BRYCE: I know. They are gone altogether. I understand that endowment policies are no longer to be allowed exemption in any form.
    Mr. McKENNA: Has my hon. Friend got a copy of the Clause before him?
    Mr. BRYCE: Yes, on the Order Paper.
    Mr. McKENNA: Endowment policies are recognised there.
    Mr. BRYCE: By what words? The only words referring to anything in the nature of endowment policies are
    "in respect of premiums or payments payable during the period of deferment in respect of a policy of deferred assurance."
    That does not cover endowment policies; it covers deferred annuities.
    Mr. McKENNA: A particular kind of endowment policy is covered by paragraph (a)—
    "Except in respect of premiums or other payments payable on policies for securing a capital sum on death, whether in conjunction with any other benefit or not."
    Mr. BRYCE: Those are the words covering the endowment policy?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Belief shall not be given?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, except in certain circumstances. May I read it?
    " The said relief shall not

    (a) be given except in respect of pre-miums or other payments payable on policies for securing a capital sum on death, whether in conjunction with any other benefit or not; or

    (b) be given in respect of premiums or payments payable during the period of deferment in respect of a policy of deferred insurance."

    That is the only kind which is excluded.
    Mr. BRYCE: I do not quite follow. The thing would really very largely depend upon what you meant by the words "in conjunction with any other benefit or not." This was really a particular method of get-ting in under the old law. Do I under-stand that the insurance companies have now agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those particular evasions are to be prevented?
    Mr. McKENNA: We hope so.
    Mr. BRYCE: If not, the Clause is no good.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that under the Clause as it now stands it will not pay to adopt these particular evasions. There is no financial advantage either to the in-surer or to the company under the Clause as it now stands.
    Mr. BRYCE: That is in consequence of the limitation of 3s.?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Mr. BRYCE: I am very glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say so. It seems to be all right, but I think it is a mistake and in contravention of the policy by which these allowances were originally made, no matter what the rate is. That was a policy of encouraging thrift, and surely when there are all these War Savings Committees and War Expenditure Committees and everything for the purpose of encouraging saving-you are having posters 100 feet long-it is a mistake to do away with one of the greatest inducements to saving by limiting in any way the deduction for Income Tax from insurance premiums. I do not want to minimise the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would point out that he is illogical, and he is committing a breach of the policy the country has so far pursued in encouraging thrift.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been engaged in the pleasant task of looking a gift-horse in the mouth, but whether he thinks this is a concession or not, I can assure him that a good many Members of the House think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a very large con-cession, not merely to the people to whom these placards appeal, to' people with small incomes, but also to people who have very large incomes. Probably the House, owing to the financial emergency revealed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not time really to thrash this question out. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not insist on the Motion which he had down to-day, because even rich people ought to have the protection of the Rules of this House when he proposes to put new taxation upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been congratulated on the handsome way in which he has met the opposition. I am afraid I might be using an un parliamentary expression if I said that he was "blackmailed," and I do not wish to insist on that word, but I do think, if he had had a little more time, that he would have been able to carry through the House his present proposal unaltered. At present he has found it wise to give way to the opposition which has been drummed
    616
    up. I believe if he had left this to the decision of the House of Commons he could have carried the proposal which he himself made. This resistance to the limit of the amount of encouragement of the thrift of the rich is really a method of avoiding war taxation. There is one particular method of saving by those who are so certain of their income that they can undertake year by year to make large payments. There are others who are less well off and cannot undertake year by year to make these large payments and save through insurance companies. They must submit themselves to the ordinary fluctuations of the Income Tax. The time has really arrived when this question ought to be reconsidered. It did not matter very much when the Income Tax was Is., but now that a very large amount of war taxation is being imposed it is against public policy that certain persons should not be called upon to pay the tax. The scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was just, and it secured as great a contribution to the savings of insurers as ever they expected. I can see no reason why the added taxation should not be paid by these rich insurers. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) introduced the sacred word "contract," and said that they have a contract with the insurance company. There are other people who have contracts. There are people who have contracts with building societies, and in regard to matters of that kind. They are not protected in this way. They have to pay whatever increased taxation is imposed.
    Mr. STUART -WORTLEY: Building society contracts do not depend upon life.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: If we are encouraging thrift, why should we not encourage the thrift of a man who saves his money through a building society as well as the thrift of a man who saves through an insurance society 1?If an insurer dies his relatives get £1,000 or £10,000, but in the case of the building society the debt still goes on and has to be paid even if the man does die. There is a certain advantage to a man who saves through an insurance society which the man who saves through the building society does not get. I am not quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made too large a con-cession. I do not suppose that he wished to forewarn us of a probable Income Tax of 10s. in the £. I dare say that he would

    617
    come down to the House with a little Bit of trepidation if he had to propose a tax of 10s. in the £, but still, if this Clause means, in the event of the Income Tax going up to 10s. in the £, that the man who has commitments which do not permit him to insure will have to pay that 10s., whilst the man who is so secure of his income that he can undertake to pay these great sums to the insurance society gets relief, well, then I think he will have to re-consider the matter. After all, this is only a question which affects about 30,000 rich people. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) suggested, something which will be accepted with thanks over the breadth of the Kingdom.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I said by men who have under £1,500 a year.
    Sir G TOULMIN: I understood that the figure was much larger than that. I under-stood that it was up to £2,999 19s. 10d.—that is to say, just under £3,000—or some-thing of that kind. I am told that the number of persons affected is 30,000 or thereabouts. Those are the people to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made this concession.
    Mr. CURRIE: I was one of those who contributed to getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer into this hole, and it is only fair I should say that I think he has redeemed the undertaking he gave, perhaps a little too hastily, in the course of one of the earlier debates and that he has fairly implemented what he said. There is a difference in the alleged retrospective effect of the first Clause, had it been made retrospective, and that of the Clause as it now stands. I always agreed that the fact that the tax is now used as a war tax takes away the right of policy holders to say that they had a contract of immunity. I take exception to the word which fell, perhaps inadvertently, from my hon. Friend opposite (Sir G. Toulmin) and to his argument that the opposition to this Clause had been drummed up and that unfair pressure had been brought to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endorse that suggestion for a moment. Two points which have arisen might conveniently be cleared up at this stage. The first is the exact position in which the right hon. Gentle-man leaves certain classes of endowments. I understand that he cuts out the pure
    618
    endowment—that is, the endowment certain—not resting upon the contingency of life, and that he protects within prescribed limits what is popularly known as the life endowment. The other question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whit-taker). It refers to certain options, which as he very rightly said exist in certain classes of policies. The case he put was this: Under an old policy the holder had a right to convert its terms and he might enlarge its amount. I think the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: If a policy holder had that right it was really part of the old contract, and I took his statement to mean that he would not lay hands on that right and that it would enjoy the same immunity. If that be so, the particular difficulty raised by my right hon. Friend does not exist. I am interested in the point because the first day we discussed this matter I pointed out that these options existed, and, if I under-stand the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, he has dealt with the matter satisfactorily.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: My fear was that that option might be given to existing policy holders where it is not in a policy now.
    Mr CURRIE: That is a new contract.
    Sir T. WHITTAKER: No, it is altering the existing one.
    Sir H. CRAIK: We have heard a good deal during this Debate of blackmail and of gift horses which have been looked in the mouth. I think there is a little too much of the tone running through the whole Debate that this question of taxation is to be settled by concessions which will be favourably received by this person or that person, or by this class or that class. I am old-fashioned enough to think that wo who decide taxation here should be guided by broad principles of justice, and not by the interests of one class or an-other. What are the real principles involved in this matter? I perfectly agree with the right hen. Gentleman in making a distinction with regard to these endowment policies. Endowment policies are more or less of the nature of investments, and I think that, like any other investment, they should be subject to taxation and to fluctuation of taxation. When, however, you come to deal with the other as a broad general principle "which yon must keep in view, you must do what you

    619
    can to promote thrift. That is perhaps an old-fashioned thing, a great deal of which has been set aside of recent years, but it is none the less a virtue, and a virtue that works good for the country. To do anything that can encourage insurance, and to cause people to make pro-vision for those for whom they are responsible, is' a matter you ought to keep in view. The right hon. Gentleman is not altogether keeping that in view, because he says that in all life insurances hereafter you will exempt them from the benefit that has hitherto been given.
    Mr. McKENNA: Above 3s.
    Sir H. CRAIK: That above 3s. he will give them no longer the benefit that has been given since 1853. I am afraid I must interpret that benefit as an exemption from taxation. I differ entirely from my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Currie) in saying that an increase of the Income Tax is therefore a sound reason for breaking this contract. If you carry that to a logical conclusion it would mean that any increase of the Income Tax after a particular date was to be a reason for putting it upon insurance. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to put this tax even to that extent on new insurances which are to be insurances for death, the only way in which married men of the professional class can make provision for those who are to come after, and which I distinguish from anything in the nature of investments, such as endowment policies. I have another objection to the right hon. Gentleman's policy. There are few here who can rise and object to Super-tax, because I dare say a great many are hit by it, and that looking at it in a broad sense they do not wish to interfere in their own interest. I am in the position of not paying any Super-tax, and of never having the smallest expectation of ever paying it now or hereafter. I have always, as I said on a previous occasion, objected to Super-tax on broad grounds of justice, and I do not think I am altogether without support in opposition to it if we look to our great financiers of the past. There was no one more opposed to it, and he opposed it during his whole life, than the financier whom the party opposite like to quote as their chief protagonist, William Gladstone. He never accepted it, and he never did anyhing but speak against it. He thought it an unsound principle, and in a humble way I follow his teaching. I beg
    620
    the Committee to note that the action of the Super-tax imposed by the right hon Gentleman has been to create a new, and I think a very dangerous, position. Super-tax, if it means anything, means the in-crease of a tax that applies to the whole of the community. Now you are establishing a Super-tax which does not rest on a basis of anything paid by those on a lower scale of income. You are now establishing a Super-tax which will be independent of ail payments by the rest of the community, and which will be paid solely by a certain class of the community. If we are to judge on justice, fair play, and logic, and after all we can do nothing but that, is it justice to adduce an argument such as that adduced by the hon. Member who spoke from the other side a short time ago that these are only 30,000 people. Does the principle of justice not prevail as much with regard to those 30,000 people because they are only 30,000 as if they were 3,000,000? If you are going to be guided in your justice of taxation by the number whom the particular Clause' will tax, what will be the result? It will be that all minorities will be taxed, and that the great mass of the community will be free. That may be a popular thing, but it is not logic, and it is not justice; and, speaking for that very large number of men who like myself are professional men of small income and not affected by the Super-tax at all, I wish to raise my pro-test against what I conceive to be an unjust and dangerous extension of the principle of Super-tax, that is, making it a tax which does not in any degree rest on all classes of the community at all, but which touches only a small class which cannot, from their numbers, defend themselves.
    Mr. HUME—WILLIAMS: I want to say a word on behalf of the insurance companies, because I think it has been said on two or three occasions in these Debates that some bargain has been made between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the representatives of the insurance companies. I do not think that is an accurate way of stating it at all. I think I am perfectly correct in saying that so far as endowment policies go, and the evil that is caused in that respect, all the insurance companies were at one, and all agreed that the exemption from the payment of Income Tax ought to be stopped. They gave their loyal co-operation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing a

    621
    scheme to stop it, but beyond that, when it comes to a question of pure life insurance, it is an Income Tax question solely. It really does not concern the insurance companies, and if they have given any help to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it has been as experts in aiding him in finding a just way in which the Income Tax can be paid. I confess myself that I rather regret that in Clause1 (a) and (b) of the new Clause, the Chancellor did not see his way to leave existing policies of pure life insurance as they were. I think, perhaps, that if the limitations of exceptions to relief which are contained in Clause 2, the effect of which is that endowment insurances entered into before the 22nd June, 1916, remain as they were, had appeared with reference to the first Clause, and had been taken out of the second, there might have been a little more sense in it. I should have been inclined myself to say that, so far as pure life insurance goes, which is the investment in respect of thrift of the working classes, it should have been left alone, except in respect of new insurances taken out after the date in question.
    Mr. McKENNA: That has all been done.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking up a point which has already been decided. As to the second Clause, I think it is sound and good, and it will certainly have my support.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Sub section (1), after the word "not" ["sub-sequent enactment, shall not"], to insert the words "as regards insurances or con-tracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, 1916."
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): And to leave out the paragraph letter (" a ") 1
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, to leave out the word "or" ["three shillings in the pound; or"], and to insert thereof the words "and shall not as regards any insurance or contract for a deferred annuity," and then to leave out the paragraph letter ("b").
    The CHAIRMAN: I will make it quite clear to the Committee. I was a little
    622
    puzzled myself. We leave out the two letters of the paragraphs, and make it read continuously. Then it reads correct. I will now put the Question: To leave out the words " or (b)," and to insert instead thereof the words " and shall not as regards any insurance or contract for a deferred annuity."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope that, as the Report stage is on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman will have this redrafted. It is very difficult to understand. The simplest way would be to take (" a ") out of Clause1 and put it into Clause 2.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think it will read all right when the hon. Gentleman sees it in print to-morrow. I have it written out myself.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Are the words "three shillings" to remain in the Clause?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. It reads, "as regards insurances or contracts for deferred annuities made after the twenty-second day of June, 1916," etc.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move—
    Mr. McKENNA: That is covered.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: No, my Amendment is to add at the end of the Clause the words "or on any policy taken out by a teacher in a secondary school." I beg to move that. The meaning of it is this: that there was a committee set up before the War on which I had to work-not a Committee of the House-and the Government appointed a Committee of this House who were very anxious to encourage, and if it had not been for the War would have subsidised, a scheme for teachers in secondary schools to purchase annuities at age fifty-five and sixty, so that they might be able to retire when they felt too old to work. That scheme was never set up, and there is, therefore, no exemption provided for in this Clause. There is a scheme for elementary school teachers, and that is in the Clause, but there is nothing as regards secondary school teachers. In the course of the committee meetings, and the conversations we had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Committee of the House of Commons, that recommendation was strongly made, and everybody was urged so far 13 was reasonable to buy these annuities for themselves, and they did so very largely,

    623
    more especially the female teachers. A large number of these policies have been taken out. I have letters from different associations of assistant secondary school teachers and head-mistresses of secondary schools saying that they have taken out such policies which give them annuities at the age of fifty-five.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: This does not apply to them.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it does.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sure it does. This is a very difficult Clause to under-stand, and I do not believe that half of the hon. Members of the House under-stood what they formally read a second time. I have taken the trouble to read it. Undoubtedly these people are hit by this Clause, and it will be a serious matter for them if they are. They are annuitants. They do not insure against death because they cannot afford it. They insure so that at the time a retiring pension would be due to them they get an annuity. It was recommended that they should do it, and they have done it. I believe that, in addition, they have a certain right of commutation if they marry, but there are not very many policies to which that would apply. In the original New Clause put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Committee stage I had no difficulty in drawing an Amendment for this purpose, but on this New Clause I have had great difficulty in doing so. I believe the Amendment is in rather a crude form, but it will carry out what I am sure is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House, namely, to exempt these policies. No teacher in a secondary school would be likely to gamble in policies on a certain basis. Their finances are sufficiently small to safeguard the Exchequer against that, which would be the only danger the Chancellor of the Exchequer would run in accepting my Amendment exactly as it stands. There is no necessity for the Amendment so far as elementary school teachers are concerned, because they have a scheme, and they are exempted; and there is no necessity for it in the case of certain bigger schools, where there is also a scheme. I am dealing with the large masses of people who are not under any scheme, but who would have been
    624
    under a scheme had it not been for the War, who were not in the habit of insuring themselves, but who were advised by many people un-officially that they should carry out a scheme for themselves. Those cases are even more numerous than I thought them to be some time ago. I strongly urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I recognise the case my hon. and learned Friend has put. I thought my words covered it, but I was not aware that the scheme proposed as long ago as 1908, when I was at the Board of Education, had not matured yet. I recognise that something has got to be done to meet future contracts of this kind. Of course existing contracts are already saved. Existing contracts of insurance already made will get the benefit in future of the deduction. This Clause applies only to future contracts. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend, in anticipation of the scheme, wants secondary teachers still to have facilities to insure?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is so.
    Mr. McKENNA: He may take this assurance from me, that I will inform him by Monday of what we can do in the matter. I am not sure that his particular words are those we should like to put in, but I will deal with the point, and, if I find no other form, I will accept his words on the Paper. I hope he will leave me liberty in the matter until Monday.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: What will happen in case I cannot be here on Monday?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will see to it. The hon. and learned Member may rely upon that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. BRYCE: At the end of Sub-section (2) add the words, "Provided also, that a premium paid in connection with a life assurance policy to secure a licence to engage in the Naval or Air Services of the Crown or to engage in the Military Service of the Crown outside of the United Kingdom shall not be subject to the restrictions imposed by this Section of the Act and by Section seven-teen of the Finance Act, 1915."
    Mr. BRYCE: I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on the

    625
    Paper a new Clause which has not yet been read a second time which deals with this point.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    Mr. BRYCE: Then I do not move.
    Clause, as amended on re-committal, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of Belief from Income Tax in Respect of Insurance Premiums.)

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Income Tax Belief on War Insurance Premiums.)
      (1) Section fifty-four of the Income Tax Act, 1853, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply to all war insurance premiums, whether payable annually or not.

      (2) War insurance premiums shall not be taken into account in calculating the limit of one-sixth of the profits and gains under the proviso to the said Section fifty-four or the limits of 7 per cent, or one hundred pounds under Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1915.

      (3) In this Section the expression "war insurance premium" means any additional premium or other sum paid in order to ex-tend an existing life insurance policy to risks arising from war or war service abroad, and any part of any premium or other sum paid in respect of a life insurance policy covering those risks, or either of them, which appears to the Commissioners to whom the claim for relief is made to be attributable to those risks, or either of them.—[Mr. McKenna.]

      Clause brought up, and read the first time.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      This new Clause carries out a promise I made yesterday on a point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bryce) and by the hon. Member for Dundee. It is moved in order to give the war insurance premiums the benefit of the Act.
      Mr. BRYCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be thanked by a very large section of the people for this concession. It is a genuine concession made whole heartedly, without any arrière pensée. I do not want to look this gift horse in the mouth.
      Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendments of Law with Respect to Income Tax on Woodlands.)
      (1) Any person occupying woodlands who proves to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners that those wood lands are managed by him on a commercial basis, and with a view to the realisation of profits, shall have the same right under Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-two of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, to elect to be charged under Schedule D, as a person who proves those facts to the satisfaction of the General Commissioners, but an application to prove those facts in any year in respect of the same woodlands must be made either to the General or Special commissioners, and not to both.
      (2) Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-two of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, which provides that the election shall extend to all woodlands managed on the same estate, shall not apply to wood lands which are planted or replanted after the passing of this Act, if the person occupying those woodlands gives notice to the General or Special Commissioners within a year after the time when they are so planted or re-planted, that they are to be treated for the purpose of that paragraph as being woodlands on a separate estate.
      (3) Section twenty-three of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890 (which gives relief to trading persons in case of loss), shall, where a person occupying woodlands has elected to be charged to Income Tax in respect of those woodlands under Schedule D, apply to losses on those wood lands as it applies to losses in any trade.—[Mr. McKenna.]
      Clause brought up, and read the first time.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      This is to carry out a pledge made yesterday with regard to woodlands.
      Captain BATHURST: I should like to express my gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for moving this very generous Clause. I say "generous," not from the point of view of the landowner, but from the point of view of national exigencies. Most taxation of rural land and rural products has tended for many years past to restrict production. This Clause, at any rate, has the merit that it may encourage many public-spirited people to increase the production of an article of which there is great national

      627
      need at the present time. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Sub-section (1). I under-stand that reference can be made under the Sub-section to either the General Commissioners or the Special Commissioners " to decide as to what are commercial woodlands?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Captain BATHURST: I take it that by Special Commissioners the right hon. Gentleman means what are known at the present time as Special Commissioners, and not Commissioners ad hoc with special knowledge of woodlands. I believe we are approaching a time when there will be very great danger of what might be popularly regarded as sporting woodlands being unfairly treated when, in fact, they are woodlands of high commercial value. I will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a small illustration of what I mean. In the West of England at the present time there is a large amount of alder being grown, not for local purposes, but for clogs for the Lancashire workers. I am quite sure the ordinary Commissioners, whether General or Special in the sense of this Clause, would find it very difficult to realise that there was any value in that alder except possibly for sporting purposes. The same thing applies to cricket-bat willow, of which a large amount is being grown for that purpose, which is an important commercial purpose. I do not want to press the point now, but to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to get full justice done the time is coming when a special meaning ought to be given to the words "Special Commissioners"—that is, com-missioners ad hoc-who have to deal with questions relating to woodlands. With regard to Sub-section (2), I understand that is inserted in response to an appeal made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee and also yesterday, to exempt, as far as possible, all new plantations from taxation. I understand it will now toe possible for any person who plants land freshly with trees to take that portion of his estate and treat it for the purposes of Income Tax as though it were a separate estate altogether, and that if he elects to be taxed under Schedule B in respect of the bulk of the estate it will be possible for him to ask to be taxed under Schedule D in respect of that portion of his estate. That is going a long
      628
      way to encourage landowners, as far as their means permit, to take part with the State in afforesting a large area of land.
      As regards Sub-section (3), which is quite new, so far as this sort of property is concerned, it looks as if it might prove to be a very valuable concession. What I want to know is this: Supposing in any one year, owing to larch disease or serious gales, a large amount of timber suffers loss or destruction, will it be possible to bring into account the loss upon that timber, after a careful valuation, as against a profit that may be derived during the same period from timber that is felled and has its full commercial value? If I read the Sub-section aright, that is what is contemplated, but it is a point upon which I should like some guidance, because it is the sort of thing that happens frequently. In a wind-swept country, where a good deal of planting goes on, you may get a large portion of a large plantation laid low in a single night. That happened last March in many parts of the country. I want to know whether, in conditions like that, either the present or prospective loss resulting from such abnormal conditions can be brought into account in reckoning whether the tax-payer is to be assessed up to the full value of the profits he derives from the other parts of his woodlands? The same thing frequently happens in the case of larch, disease, particularly in damp climates such as we suffer from, unfortunately, in the West of England, Subject to any enlightenment on that particular point, I desire to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers for the very reasonable' way in which we have been met in the matter of the taxation of wood-lands.
      While referring to this subject I should like to suggest that the time is coming when the Government might well make it perfectly clear to landowners generally what part the Government are going to take in this work of afforestation, and what part landowners themselves are expected to take in that patriotic task, because it is a patriotic task. There is no great inducement to landlords to under-take that task with a view to future profits, but a large number are prepared to do their part if the Government at an early date indicate what their part is to be. We all know that the Government have in view, perhaps in a nebulous condition in their own minds, a large scheme of afforestation. If landowners are to be expected

      629
      to plant their estates, it is only fair to them that the Government should indicate to them at the earliest possible moment what the Government's scheme is to be.
      Mr. McKENNA: Clause 1, except with regard to the construction of the word "special," was thoroughly well under-stood by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite who described its purport. It was un-due modesty on his part when he said he was not fully aware of what this intended. Sub-section (1) gives the same right of application to special Commissioners which now exists with regard to general Commissioners. Sub-section (2) enables the taxpayer to treat a newly planted part of his woodlands as a separate estate for the purposes of assessment. It gives him the option of applying Schedule B of the Income Tax to one part of his estate and Schedule D of the Income Tax to another part of the estate. It is, of course, a very valuable concession that is given, not primarily as a relief to the taxpayer, but in order to encourage afforestation. Only in Sub-section (3) did my hon. Friend fail to take in the full meaning. What we in-tend by Sub-section (3) is to give the owner of woodlands precisely the same advantage which is given to the trader. Supposing a landlord spends money upon developing woodlands and that money is all lost and does not give him any advantage, he may treat it as a loss, just as the trader would treat it as a loss.
      Captain BATHURST: In what way?
      Mr. McKENNA: It does not bring him the appropriate advantage. He spends money on his woodlands and expects to get a return. He does not, and he will treat that expenditure as a loss just as a trader would. The other descriptions of loss which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned would be treated as loss without this Clause. They would be loss in any event. I think I have given a sufficient answer, and I hope I may now have the Clause.
      Mr. AINSWORTH: I think everyone will be thoroughly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he has made to the forestry industry. I should like particularly to speak of forestry now as an industry of the country, and a most valuable one.
      Clause added to the Bill.

      NEW CLAUSE.—(Repayment of Income Tax on Sums Deducted from Profits under Munitions of War Act, 1915.)
      (1) Where in calculating for the purposes of Part II. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, the profits of a controlled establishment a deduction has been allowed under that Part of that Act or rules made there under in respect of exceptional depreciation or obsolescence of buildings, plant, or machinery, and the sums so deducted have not been deducted or allowed in computing the amount upon which Income Tax has been paid in respect of those profits, there shall be allowed a re-payment of Income Tax equal to the amount of the Income Tax at the rate at which that tax has been paid on the amount of the sums so deducted.
      Provided that the repayment of Income Tax under this Section—

      (a) shall be made in respect of the In-come Tax year which includes the end of the period of assessment in respect of which the said deductions have been allowed under the Munitions of War Act, 1915; and

      (b) shall be deemed to have effected a reduction of the Income Tax assessment by the amount upon which Income Tax has been so repaid.

      (2)Any application for relief under this Section shall be made to the Commissioners by whom the Income Tax assessment has been made, and those Commissioners upon proof of the facts to their satisfaction shall certify to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the sum repay-able, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall cause repayment to be made accordingly.—[Mr. McKenna.]
      Clause brought up, and read the first time.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      I move this in response to an appeal made to me yesterday by the hon. Member (Mr. James Mason). I think it carries out his object entirely.
      Sir J. HARMOOD—BANNER: In looking at the Clause I think it meets what was asked for yesterday, but it only deals with Income Tax, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he deals with the other references to depreciation which he has promised previously. I do not mean as regards Income Tax, but

      631
      as regards the calculation of excess pro-fits. There is no Amendment brought in as regards that. I know Clause 50 gives a reference to the Minister of Munitions. I do not know whether that is the response to the application which we made on this side in reference to depreciation for the purpose of the Excess Profits Duty. I should like to have a word or two as to how it is to be carried out, because apparently it is not in this Clause, and whether it is to be done by regulation if it is omitted from the Clause? From first to last the right hon. Gentleman has told us he is going to give us this depreciation on the basis of the Munitions Act, 1915, and to that deputation which saw him the other day consisting of Messrs. Vickers, Maxim, and Cammell Laird, he also stated that the items A, B, C, and D in that Act would be dealt with as a matter of calculation in assessing the excess profits. I do not see it in the Bill. It is perhaps my stupidity in not understanding it, but I should like an explanation so that one can go away perfectly satisfied that the matter is fully dealt with.
      Mr. McKENNA: The power to deal with the controlled firms in the way in which we have promised to deal with them is contained in Section 40, Sub-section (3), of the original Act, under which we can make Regulations. The only power which we have not got was to transfer the jurisdiction of the Referee under the Excess Profits Duty to the Referee under the Munitions Act, and that we accomplish by Clause 50. We have, therefore, power under the two Acts combined not only to adopt the Munition Rules, but to make the decision of the Munition Rules depend upon the decision of the Munition Referees and not the Referees under the Excess Profits Duty. Otherwise there is no further enactment necessary. The pledges which I have given, of course, stand upon record. They will be carried out by the two Departments, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that everything we have said will be executed to the full.
      Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: An Act of Parliament supersedes all pledges.
      Mr. J. MASON: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Clause, which, as far as I can see, fairly carries out my object.
      Clause added to the Bill.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended on re-committal, to be considered upon Monday next.
      The remaining Orders were read, and 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."

  MILITARY SERVICE. RUSSIAN SUBJECTS DEPORTATION).
  Mr. KING: At Question Time, upon the answer of the Home Secretary to Questions 25 and 3, I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, the point at issue between us being whether the Home Secretary was now actually deporting Russian subjects in spite of promises that before they were sent away they would be able to put their case before a tribunal which, is not yet set up. I have had an opportunity of going into this matter with the Home Secretary, and he would have been here to-night only he has a political engagement which made it difficult, and in fact it is almost unnecessary for him to be present. Technically I was wrong in stating that anybody was at pre-sent being deported. As a matter of fact no deportation order has been made by the Home Secretary in any of these cases, but in spite of that, I think I was almost justified in the remarks that I made, because it certainly is the case that a number of Russian subjects are now being sent away, not at their own expense but at the public expense, to Russia under rather curious circumstances. The facts I stated in my question are quite right, and reveal this state of things, that if a Russian subject of military age now applies for leave to go to Russia he is refused permission, and if in answer to the question whether he still desires to go there he says he does, he is told that he must go in such manner, at such time, and in such way as the Government wish. It does happen that the gentleman whom I have brought to

  633
  the notice of the House was actually under I notice to quit this country to-morrow, not being aware that he had the right to stay here if he likes. That is the position in which a good number of Russians are at present, and in view of sudden visits from the police and being told they must pre-sent themselves at the railway station to-morrow and go to Russia, as has actually happened, I desire it to be made known—as I think the Home Secretary does also—that such cases are only where men feel that they have an urgent desire to go to Russia at once and that if they prefer to stay and await the tribunal which will be set up, with the options that these tribunals will give, they are
  634
  in no sense bound to be deported or sent away in this way to Russia at the present time. I wish that to be made quite clear, and I have taken the opportunity of doing so. The Home Secretary has met me very fairly over this matter. If I showed any irritation or inclination to challenge him this afternoon I know he will forgive me, and I see no reason why at an early date some solution of a really difficult question cannot be found which will be honourable to this country and satisfactory to all parties concerned.
  Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before Eight o'clock till Monday next, 17th July, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd" February.