Commons Sitting of 19 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] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1916–17 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Sum required to be voted for Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 102.]
NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
Copy presented of Account showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between 1st April, 1915, and 31st March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 17th July, 1916, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Greenock [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Statement of particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off, in whole or in part, from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
Yeadon Water Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    WOOL.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Chester Jones stated at a recent Home Office inquiry at Bradford that wool is being brought into Germany through Norway and Sweden, and that German yarn manufacturers are now paying very good dividends; whether the Department of blockade communicated these facts to Mr. Chester Jones; and whether action will be taken to make our blockade more effective?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Certain wools had been imported into Sweden from South America and sent to Germany to be combed and spun on commission and returned to Sweden, as Sweden was unable to obtain wool or yarn from other sources and did not possess the necessary machinery for combing the wool thus imported. The Swedish Government supervised the return to Sweden of the wool in the spun state. These facts had been communicated to Mr. Chester Jones and also the report that two spinning factories in Germany had declared a good dividend. Action is constantly being taken to make the blockade as effective as possible.

    GREECE.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can lay any Papers with regard to recent Diplomatic events in Greece?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green asked me a question on this subject yesterday, and I am afraid there is nothing to add to what was then said.

    BELGIAN GREY BOOK.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian Grey Book states

    987
    that the German demand for a passage-way through Belgium was presented at Brussels at 7 p.m. on 2nd August, 1914; and, if so, will he state why the hour is omitted from what purports to be a translation of the document issued as a Parliamentary White Paper?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot say, after this length of time, how the hour 7 p.m. came to be omitted in the translation of No. 20 of the Belgian Grey Book. I presume it was due to inadvertence. The hon. Member will see by reference to No. 23 of the same publication that the hour 7 p.m. is given.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out the great desirability that the hour should appear in future reports, and so set at rest the statements being made that this country took no stand alongside France before the Belgian incident arose, and that only that morning we decided to place the Fleet at the disposal of France?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will represent that point. I was not aware that any reasonable person had any doubt of it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the recent statement of the late First Lord of the Admiralty in the " Sunday Pictorial" that this country did not decide to stand by France until the Belgian incident consolidated the Cabinet?
    Lord R. CECIL: My attention has not been called to that.

    CAMEROONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made for retaining a hill station in the Cameroons for the benefit of the administration of Nigeria?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The hill stations in the districts of the Cameroons provisionally placed under British authority are now occupied by officers of the Nigerian Government, which is administering those districts.
    Mr. ASHLEY: In case of any change, or proposed change, in the status of these hill stations will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that, if possible, one or the other is retained in British hands?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That will certainly be considered if any rearrangement is made.
    Colonel YATE: Do the hill stations in our occupation provide good sanatoria?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, of the very best.

    H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the names of the two destroyers which accompanied His Majesty's ship "Hampshire" on her last voyage?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The names of the two destroyers that escorted His Majesty's ship " Hampshire " have not been reported to the Admiralty, but inquiry has been made by telegram.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked what steps have been taken by the Admiralty in connection with the authority given by Parliament in the year 1914 for the use of £2,000,000 sterling for the development of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's properties; and what advantages have accrued to this country financially and in the obtaining of an oil supply?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty is represented on the board of directors of the company, and is satisfied that, in spite of interruption caused by the War, and the difficulty of obtaining the necessary plant, good progress has been made in the work of development. It has, of course, been inevitable that operations have been much hampered, but even in normal circumstances it would hardly be expected that capital spent in the development of oil properties would yield a return in less than two years. As my hon. Friend is aware, the company has not yet paid a dividend on its ordinary shares. He will probably concur that this would be too much to hope for in the circumstances. But a large quantity of oil fuel has been supplied for the Navy. Nothing has occurred to impair confidence in the productivity of the field.

    ENEMY RAIDS.
    Mr. WINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give an assurance

    989
    to the inhabitants of the North-East Coast that special precautions are being taken against submarine or other sea raids, especially those portions of the coast which are industrial and which offer temptations to the enemy, seeing that the recent submarine raid on the Seaham portion, though abortive in a general sense, is evidence of the possibility of runaway attacks without sufficient means of defence, and that the inhabitants of the coast, while bearing themselves with remarkable coolness and confidence, would have been enthusiastic if they had seen or heard evidences of defence and reply?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not possible to prevent the occasional appearance of an enemy submarine within range of the shore, but I can give an assurance that the measures which have been and will be taken are such as to render a proceeding of this sort increasingly dangerous for the submarine.

    ROYAL NAVY (YACHT PATROL SECTION).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the practice of the yacht patrol section of his Department, presided over by Commander Lecky, to refuse all evidence of the capacity of men who offer themselves for his Department once they have given a decision, no matter how much experience the men may have gained between the two applications; and, if so, will he see that a more efficient system is adopted in future so that good men may not be lost to his Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Candidates for appointments are interviewed by a Board and not by Commander Lecky personally. The greatest possible care is taken in selections made from amongst those who present themselves, the competition, I may say, being very keen. If a candidate is unsuccessful and seeks thereafter to improve his qualifications, his case is considered again. I can assure my hon. Friend, in reply to the second part of his question, that we have every confidence in the efficiency of the methods at present adopted.
    Mr. WATT: In view of the mismanagement by this commander of the Scottish part of the yacht patrol section, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to have him raised to a higher level?
    An HON. MEMBER: In the usual way.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend is a competent yachtsman, and will he avail himself of his very special knowledge?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Gentleman can make any suggestions to me, I shall be glad.

    INTERNED CIVILIAN MALE PRISONERS.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of interned civilian male prisoners under the age of forty-five, the number between the ages of forty-five and fifty, and the number over fifty?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: (Mr. Brace): I am not in possession of the information desired and it could not be obtained without a great expenditure of time and trouble.
    Sir C. HENRY: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be worth while to go to the trouble and expense, seeing that these facts are material, taken in conjunction with what was said last week by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
    Mr. BRACE: I will put my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    KINMEL PARK CAMP.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the senior medical officer at Kinmel Camp has lately resigned his post; and, if so, whether he has stated the reasons for so doing, and what are they?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No officer who has been in medical charge of Kinmel Park has resigned his post. The present incumbent has held the appointment since April last. His predecessor was relieved on account of ill-health as certified by a medical board.

    DISTRICT COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for War why permission is now refused to the public to be present at the district courts-martial held at Chelsea Barracks; whether he is aware that on

    991
    Wednesday, 12th July, several friends of a prisoner who was to be tried at this Court were refused admission on the ground that they were not named as witnesses and were not representatives of the Press, and that the president of the Court had given orders that no other persons could be admitted; and whether such orders are in accordance with the Regulation which provides that the Court must be open to the public, military or otherwise, so far as the room or tent in which the Court is held can receive them?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry has been made, and I find that the Court on the date mentioned was throughout the proceedings open to the public, military or otherwise, and was always crowded, to the inconvenience of all present. I am also informed that a man handed in a visiting card purporting to be that of the hon. Member who puts this question, and that this man was accommodated with the best seat in the Court, although he was not named as a witness nor admittedly a representative of the Press. I think the House will agree that this goes to show that ample facilities were afforded to the public for attending this trial.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was personally denied admittance as a member of the public, and that several members of the public "who were at the same time with me were refused admittance; and I only obtained admittance by sending in my visiting card and saying that I demanded to be present?
    Mr. FORSTER: Then my hon. Friend had ample opportunities of seeing that the public were admitted in so far as the space in the Court allowed.
    Mr. MORRELL: Will my hon. Friend see that in future it is made quite clear that courts-martial are public, and that the public shall not be excluded, as they were here?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed they were not excluded.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these courts-martial are held in very small places, and there is not room for everybody?
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Adjournment.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. MORRELLasked what steps are being taken to see that men who resist orders on conscientious grounds are not in future to be treated with such brutal and illegal violence as has been used on various occasions in the past but are to be brought immediately before a court-martial, with a view to coming under the provisions of the new scheme?
      Mr. FORSTER: Sections 37 and 40 of the Army Act provide penalties for the striking or ill-treatment of a soldier. I cannot accept the hon. Member's generalisation as a correct description of what has happened, but I can, of course, assure him that, where there is good ground, the Sections of the Army Act mentioned will be put into force. On the second part of the question I would refer him to Section 45 of the Army Act, and to the note appended thereto on page 421 of the Manual of Military Law. The provisions for ensuring that no undue delay takes place before a man is brought to trial are sufficient.
      Mr. MORRELLasked whether Lance-Corporal Barker, of the 17th battalion Cheshire Regiment, against whom disciplinary action was ordered to be taken in consequence of the undue force which he was found to have used towards conscientious objectors at Prees Heath Camp, has recently been promoted to the rank of corporal?
      Mr. FORSTER: Lance-Corporal Barker is now Private Barker. He had been appointed an unpaid acting corporal prior to the receipt of instructions that disciplinary action was to be taken against him for exceeding his duty when in charge of conscientious objectors.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the War Office have an inquiry made into this man's state of mind, seeing it is quite evident from his letters to Members of Parliament that such a step is necessary?
      Mr. FORSTER: If there is any reason to think that his mind is affected inquiry will be made.
      Mr. MORRELLasked whether the provision contained in the Local Government Board Regulations, R. 85, Part III, paragraph (2), is still in force under which a case may be reheard by a tribunal with the consent of the Army Council after the

      993
      man has joined the Colours; and whether in the case of a man who is in custody for disobedience to orders on conscientious grounds, the Army Council have power to grant him a temporary re-lease for the purpose of such rehearing?
      Mr. FORSTER: The provision to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of his question is still in force. With respect to the second part of the question, the case put by the hon. Member would seem to come within the arrangement out-lined by the Prime Minister, on the 29th June last, and, if so, the question of permission for a rehearing before the tribunal would not arise.
      Mr. MORRELLasked when the scheme recently outlined by the Prime Minister for dealing with conscientious objectors in the Army will be brought into operation; and whether all those men who are now serving sentences for disobedience to orders on conscientious grounds will have the opportunity of being brought under the new scheme?
      Mr. FORSTER: The scheme is being brought into force. The cases of all conscientious objectors who have been sentenced to imprisonment, and of all who are undergoing detention, will be inquired into.
      Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that the men whose sentences are now about to expire will not necessarily be sent back into the Army, and are they to go through the whole thing again merely because there is delay?
      Colonel NORTON GRIFFITHS: Will they be sent to Germany?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not really very well posted in the details of these arrangements, and perhaps the hon. Member will kindly give me notice.

      CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of H. W. Hampton, No. 5 Eastern Company, Non-Combatant Corps, Valley Camp, New-haven, who was handed over to the military authorities by the Dartford Bench on the 8th instant, was placed in the guard room, Woolwich on Saturday night and part of Sunday for refusing to be medically examined, on Sunday afternoon was taken to Guildford and placed in detention cells, next morning was forcibly stripped of his clothes, medically examined, and forcibly
      994
      dressed in khaki, then sent to Newhaven, there placed in the Royal Sussex guard room, deprived of any tea, and treated in a rough manner; whether the officers told him that he would be tried by district court-martial; can he state whether Hampton has been tried by court-martial; and, if so, with what result?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will give instructions to the recruiting officer at Keighley to cancel the calling-up notice to a tradesman whose name has been supplied to him, who offered himself for attestation in November last and was rejected on medical grounds, who was given an Army form B 2 512 A in February, marked permanently unfit, who was called up for re-examination last month and passed for general service, and later was sent a notice calling him to the Colours on 20th July; in view of the illegality of this notice under Section 3, Sub-section (2), of the Military Service Act, will special instructions be given to the recruiting officer to carry out the law in such cases; and (2), if he will order the release of Frank Sutton, who is now undergoing imprisonment in Winsom Prison, Birmingham, for refusing to obey military orders, seeing that Mr. Sutton has been taken into the Army by force, without a civil trial to prove that he was an absentee, and that he was taken from employment as inspector at the gunworks of Hodgkiss et Cie at Coventry; and, as he is a skilled engineer and a member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, whether he will take steps for the better employment of Sutton in his trade instead of his being supported at the public expense in prison?
      Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that a lieutenant in charge of a signal section of the 5th Royal Munster Fusiliers, stationed at Haynes Park, near Bedford, on 21st or 23rd March last, threatened to arrest a farmer named Burr, of Willington, Bedfordshire, who endeavoured to protect from destruction his crops of young wheat and cabbages, and pointed out a neighbouring piece of grass which could be utilised by the men without any resultant damage; if so, will he say under what authority an officer is empowered to threaten to arrest a civilian endeavouring to protect his own property, in this case farm produce for the use of the nation; whether instructions will be issued by his Department to prevent such action in

      995
      future on the part of officers; and whether this particular officer has been reprimanded in any way?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have not the information to-day to answer these questions. Reports have been called for, and when they have been received the results will be sent to the hon. Members, with their permission, by letter.

      FURLOUGH.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked if a Territorial whose time expired in June, 1915, who has been on active service since the outbreak of the War, is now stationed in Egypt, who has had no furlough since he was called to the Colours twenty-two months ago, and who by the passing of the Military Service Act has been deprived of the expectation of release in June, 1916, is entitled to a furlough; and if instructions will be given that the furlough shall be granted in such circumstances?
      Mr. FORSTER: Instructions have been issued for the granting of a month's furlough in such cases—provided the exigencies of the Service will allow and that accommodation on ships is available.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether any steps have yet been taken to liberate Mr. Walter Robinson from military control, in view of the fact that the Middlesbrough Local Tribunal has granted him a certificate exempting him from military service on condition that he became engaged in work of national importance; and (2) whether a man who, having been granted by a tribunal a certificate of exemption from combatant service only, applies for a reviewof the certificate and is granted by the tribunal a variation of the certificate exempting him from military service on condition that he becomes engaged on work of national importance, is debarred by any provision of the Military Service Act from obtaining that exemption by reason of his having in the meantime been called up for military service; and, if so, will he state the provision which so debars him?
      Mr. FORSTER: The case of Mr. Walter Robinson appears to fall within the terms of the hon. Member's Question No. 53. With regard to this latter question, I am informed that doubt exists as to how far the provisions for review of certificates
      996
      under the Military Service Act apply in the case of certificates of exemption from combatant service only. Such certificates, as the hon. Member is aware, are not certificates of exemption from military service. Further inquiry is being made into this point, and I will inform the hon. Member later of the conclusion reached.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Hendon Local Tribunal hold their sittings in private, and that members of the public, though friends of the applicants whose cases are being heard, are refused admission; and whether he will draw the attention of the chairman to the Regulations issued by the Local Government Board on this subject?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend is informed by the local tribunal that the sittings are held in public and that members of the Press attend every sitting. Where the applicant expresses a wish for his case to be taken in private the tribunal do so.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will make an inquiry into the action of the majority of the members of the Aberdare Military Service Tribunal in refusing to allow Mr. Evan Parker to have a review of the certificate granted to his son, seeing that Parker is able to submit new facts to the tribunal in support of his claim that his son is absolutely indispensable in his business as a garage keeper and motor vehicle repairer; and will he instruct the tribunal to review the certificate?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I understand that a certificate of exemption was not granted in this case, therefore there can be no question of a review. It rests with the tribunal which finally decides a case to determine whether it shall be reheard.

      MEN CALLED TO COLOURS (CIVIL LIABILITIES).
      Mr. PETOasked whether the scheme for meeting fixed charges such as rent, rates, insurance premiums, etc., in the case of men now serving in the ranks of the Army will also include men serving in the Navy as well as junior officers in the Navy and Royal Naval Reserve?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The scheme applies to men who have joined the Navy on or after the 4th August, 1914.
      Mr. PETO: Can he say whether in the case of the Royal Naval Reserve men it would not apply to those who were on the list of the Royal Naval Reserve before the outbreak of the War?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should like to consult the Secretary to the Admiralty before answering that question.
      Mr. BARLOWasked what number of applications have now been received by the Committee for providing grants for serving soldiers and sailors under the Civil Liabilities Relief scheme, and in how many cases grants have already been allotted; also what steps have been taken to inform officers that they are entitled to apply for relief under the scheme; and how many officers have made application?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The number of applications received, including applications still under investigation by the Commissioners, is approximately 50,000. Grants have been allotted in approximately 10,000 cases. The extension of the scheme to junior officers was notified to the Officers' Families Fund, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, and the Statutory Committee, and was given publicity by the. Press. Up to the present only about a dozen applications from officers have reached the Committee. I cannot say how many such applications are before the Commissioners.

      SOLICITOUS IN SCOTLAND.
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions how many solicitors act in Scotland as military representatives of the War Office on the tribunals under the Military Service Act; is he aware that a feeling exists that these solicitors do not press the claims of the War Office against their own clients; and will he see that this is altered?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have no record showing how many military representatives in Scotland are solicitors, nor am I aware that any feeling exists that those military representatives who are solicitors, and who, like other military representatives, are performing an important public duty, do not faithfully perform that duty at the cost, in many cases, of great sacrifice of personal convenience. If the hon. Member has any definite case in mind and will send me particulars I shall be very happy to make enquiries into the matter.
      Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in many districts cases can be given where solicitors acting for the War Office have got off great batches of clients?
      Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars I will certainly have inquiries made.

    SHORE DEFENCE AGAINST SUBMARINES
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for War if, after the recent experience of the submarine attack on the North-East Coast, Seaham portion, which is of vital industrial importance, he will provide some more effective form of defence in the direction of guns, as it is believed that results disastrous to the enemy would have occurred if such had been in readiness, and seeing that the confidence and rational conduct of the people, which was commendable under such circumstances, was largely the result of their reliance on effective means being at hand to deal with such an attack?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, acquit the Army Council of any want of sympathy with those who were the subjects of the recent attack if I say that the disposition of the guns and other means of defence available for the protection of the coast, which are settled and must be settled after careful consideration of all circumstances, cannot be made public. If I may say so, I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the demeanour of the people in the recent attack was worthy of all commendation.

    PIONEER BATTALIONS (PAY).
    Sir W. PEARCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in Pioneer Battalions at the front engaged for long periods on mining and similar important skilled work only receive pay at the rate of Is. 2d. per day, while men of Infantry regiments working with them carrying away earth, and also men in Engineer regiments when on exactly similar work, receive 2s. per day; if so, will he explain on what grounds the pioneers have been refused extra pay and required to work for 10d. per day less than any other members of His Majesty's Forces

    999
    when engaged on this skilled and dangerous work at the front; and will steps be taken to alter this state of affairs, which is keenly felt by the pioneers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Men in the Pioneer Battalions are employed on the work for which they were enlisted, and receive continuously the appropriate rate of pay. They do not receive the extra working pay granted to other soldiers for occasionally performing these duties.

    TERRITORIAL THIRD-LINE UNITS.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked what is the average number of returns per month which a commanding officer of a third-line unit of the Territorial Force has to compile and send in to superior military authority?
    Mr. FORSTER: All returns are standardised, and Army forms are provided so that they may be rendered with the minimum trouble, and the number of such returns is kept as low as is consistent with due regard to proper and economical administration. It is impossible to say without instituting inquiries what the average number of returns per month would be over the whole of Great Britain, and it would hardly meet my hon. Friend's view if the War Office were to call for special returns in the matter. Only two weekly returns are rendered regularly to the War Office, but commanding officers are continually being asked for information on various subjects due to questions in Parliament.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised if I furnished him with the names of two battalions where the average number of returns which every commanding officer has to send in during the last three months is between 175 and 200 per month'? Is it not better the commanding officer should be out training his men instead of making returns which nobody reads?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to communicate with me.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps
    1000
    to amend the Regulation made on the recommendation of the Select Committee under which the family of a soldier whose wife dies after his enlistment is placed in a worse financial position than where the wife has died before her husband's enlistment by enacting that the full allotment made by the soldier to his wife, together with the full separation allowance she received, shall, in the event of the wife dying while her husband is serving with the Colours, be paid to the soldier's sister, aunt, or other relative undertaking the charge of his children and without other means of support?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is not proposed to alter the Regulations. These cases fall within the sphere of the Statutory Committee, who, I understand, are arranging to supplement the allowances to the children in proper cases.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this will be completed?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the Committee have settled to take the action which I have indicated, and I think they are only awaiting the creation of the local committees in all parts of the country.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman give the information as to the scale of allowances?
    Mr. FORSTER: The scale would be up to the maximum of the separation allowance. I may say that, so far as the War Office is concerned, the Department is very anxious that these people should get the allowance up to the maximum scale of separation allowance. We really think the statutory body is the best body to do it.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take care there is no undue delay? Is he aware that there are great complaints of delay in obtaining this money?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope there will be no avoidable delay.

    INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a meeting held on 13th July of the committee of management of the Cavan and Monaghan Asylum, under the presidency of the Bishop of Clogher, at which the clerk reported that with two exceptions all the patients returned as criminal lunatics were soldiers who had been sent home from the front

    1001
    suffering from shell shock, and that in consequence of recent legislation all patients committed under the Army Act were treated as criminal lunatics, the full cost of their maintenance being paid by the Government; if he will say whether this is the practice in such cases; and whether he proposes to take immediate steps to put an end to such treatment of invalided soldiers?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention has not been called to this meeting. There is evidently some misapprehension as regards the treatment of these men. The explanation is that, owing to a misprint, the word "prisoner" in the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, became "person"—a mistake which was copied into the Irish Lunacy Act, 1901, the consequence being that soldiers committed as dangerous lunatics to asylums in Ireland, whether they are prisoners or not, become chargeable to the Prison Vote instead of to the rates. The matter is one of technical classification and the treatment of the invalided soldier is not in any way affected; it corresponds in all respects to that of the ordinary patient. No action is therefore called for. The term "shell-shock" is not correct as applied to these cases in the majority of which there is disability of another kind.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the War Office take steps to make these mistakes known, in order that the practice may be rectified?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is very desirable.

    INLAND LETTERS (CENSORSHIP)
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether a letter sent from Brocklesby Camp, near Grimsby, to a friend in this country is liable to be opened and censored; and, if so, who is the responsible authority in this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: All letters are liable to be opened and censored if and when naval or military considerations render it desirable. Different authorities are responsible in different cases for carrying out the censorship under the orders of the Army Council. If the letter referred to is produced, inquiry will be made as to whether it was opened in the course of post and, if so, whether it was opened in accordance with instructions applicable to this particular case.

    DISCHARGED WOUNDED SOLDIERS (MEDICAL TREATMENT)
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers discharged from the Army with a pension on account of wounds are left to pay, out of their pension, for any subsequent medical treatment that the wounds may require; and, if so, whether provision will be made for gratuitous treatment for discharged soldiers in so far as they suffer from the direct effect of wounds received in the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: Soldiers discharged from the Army on account of wounds can, on application to the secretary of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, obtain treatment in a military hospital provided there is a reasonable probability that their disability will be cured or materially improved thereby. While in the hospital their pension is raised to the full amount allowed for total disablement and any allowance for children born before discharge to which they may be entitled. A stoppage of Is. per day is made for maintenance while they are in hospital.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Could not the same arrangement be made applicable to people in country districts who cannot get up to Chelsea Hospital?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, the same arrangement would apply, and accommodation would naturally be found for them in the most convenient military hospital.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Where ought they to apply?
    Mr. FORSTER: Apply by letter to the Secretary of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then, are we to understand that the allowances to wives and children still go on?
    Mr. FORSTER: No. Where they are in receipt of pension, of course there is no separation allowance.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But the pension still goes on?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. The hon. Member will see, when he reads my answer tomorrow, that while in the hospital their pension is raised to the maximum.
    Mr. W.ARDLE: Is it the practice of the War Office to discharge a man who is suffering from wounds before being admitted to a hospital?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; these are cases where the wound breaks out afresh, or some further disability arises after discharge.

    AIR COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the case of a witness from the Royal Aircraft Factory who recently appeared before the Judicial Committee as Mr. A, although his name was given in confidence to the said Committee, Colonel O'Gorman on the afternoon of that day communicated to the assistant-superintendant of the factory, Major Heckstall-Smith, the fact that the said witness was a viewer, Mr. Valentine, and as a result Mr. Valentine was taken seriously to task by the assistant-superintendant; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mr. Valentine's name was not disclosed by Colonel O'Gorman. Major Heckstall-Smith identified Valentine from the Press reports of his evidence, and on his own initiative had an interview with Valentine to enable him to investigate the breaches of discipline, etc., on which Valentine had given evidence. He had no intention of taking Valentine to task, but assured him at the interview that he had a perfect right to hold any opinion he liked, and that nothing he said would be used to prejudice his position. No disciplinary action whatever had been taken against Valentine.

    ARMY CONTRACTS (FUR COATS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether contracts for fur coats for the Army have been placed with Wagner and Company, Schiltze, Festenstein, Ariostien, and Josselsonn; and can he give the House the name of any British firms to whom orders have been given?
    Mr. FORSTER: Orders for the manufacture of fur coats have been placed with Messrs. C. Wagner and Co., Limited, Messrs. N. Schultz and Co., Messrs. J. Festenstein and Sons, Mr. J. Arenstein, and Messrs. Josselson Brothers. Mr. Josselson, the proprietor of Messrs. Josselson Brothers, has been in business in this
    1004
    country for the last twenty-five years, but is still a Russian subject. With this exception, however, inquiries by the Department show that the directorate or proprietors of the firms mentioned consist of naturalised British or Britishborn subjects of Russian or Polish origin. Similar orders have been placed with several firms whose names clearly indicate British origin, such as Messrs. Debenhams, Limited, Messrs. F. Cornish and Co., Messrs. G. Rice, Limited, and Messrs. Peters Bridges and Co., Limited, and O. F. Smith.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was not the contract placed with Messrs. Debenhams, Limited, sublet by that firm to another firm of foreign designation?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Who is the firm of Schiltze which had this contract? Is he aware that these people were convicted at the Central Criminal Court recently?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that. It is not a very easy question to answer offhand.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I have given notice on the Paper.

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the waste of petrol in the camps, and will he cause measures to be taken that will prevent this waste; whether he can say if officers stationed at the depots in this country and possessing motors of their own are given a free supply of petrol; and, if that be so, will he see that any gratuitous supply for services other than military is stopped?
    Mr. FORSTER: Measures to prevent waste in petrol have already been taken, and a careful record is kept of the consumption in accordance with the mileage run by the various vehicles. These records are subject to constant inspection in the commands. Officers possessing motor cars of their own are not given free petrol.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he aware that in some cases officers are given free petrol?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I have just said officers possessing motor cars of their own are not given free petrol.
    Mr. KING: Is similar care taken with the great waste of petrol that is going on at aerodromes, which is very great?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will communicate with the proper authorities.
    Sir E. CARSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not stop practising economy.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the card system for the supply of petrol comes into operation within the next fortnight and the apprehension that the introduction of the card system for the supply of a necessary commodity has created, he will inform the House of the general outlines of the scheme which it is proposed to adopt?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is intended to issue to owners of cars licences entitling them to obtain such supplies of petrol as may be specified in the licence. The general outlines of the scheme are contained in Clause 15 of the Finance Bill. A census of cars has recently been taken by the Petrol Control Committee under a Defence of the Realm Regulation, and the Committee will communicate with the various owners with regard to the issue of a licence on payment of the Motor Spirit Licence Duty.
    Major NEWMAN: Am I to take it that until 1st August the owner of a private car will not know what quantity of petrol he will get; that no notice will be given?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No. Until he gets his licence, he will not know. The licences will be issued as early as possible.
    Mr. LOUGH: Is it necessary to send in an application to the Board of Trade? Will any communication be made to the owners of these cars?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The owner of a car will be required to make a return of the quantity of petrol he has been using and wishes to use in the ensuing six months and upon that he will receive a notification in the form of a licence from the Board of Trade that he can be given so much petrol a month for the next few months on the payment of the duties.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will there be any appeal from the decision as to the amount
    1006
    of petrol any particular person will be allowed have, and, if so, what kind of appeal can be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I sincerely hope there will be no appeals.

    PRIMARY MILITARY EXAMINATION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state as precisely as possible what is meant by the primary military examination?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think it will answer my hon. Friend's purpose if I say that the primary military examination is directed to determining whether a man who offers himself for enlistment is deficient of intelligence, suffers from impediment of speech, and whether he is in all respects desirable as a recruit. The primary military examination is carried out by the recruiting officer or recruiter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has it anything to do with the medical examination?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.

    INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES (LEAVE OF ABSENCE)
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House as to the regulations under which interned alien enemies are granted leave of absence from their place of internment; what is the average length of such leave of absence; how often is it accorded; and is it given solely for the purpose of allowing the interned person to attend to private and urgent matters of business?
    Mr. FORSTER: Interned alien enemies are granted leave of absence, under escort, to attend to urgent matters of business. Leave in such cases is limited to the period between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. In very exceptional cases, and with the concurrence of the local police, a man may be released for one or more days on parole. He is then required to report himself to the police.
    Major NEWMAN: I take it that the interned person does not have an escort.
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS (MOTOR TRANSPORT), GROVE PARK.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the late Major Wright, who was in charge of the establishment at Grove Park, was granted leave of absence in May last at his own request or whether his absence was enforced by the War Office; if the latter, will he say what was the reason of such enforcement; and was the management of Grove Park found to be in an unsatisfactory condition?
    Mr. FORSTER: Lieutenant - Colonel Wright obtained leave in the ordinary way, and I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that his apprehensions are unfounded. I am informed that the management of Grove Park has been quite satisfactory.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the board of three or four officers who pass candidates at Grove Park make the strongest point in the viva voce examination of the capacity of the candidates to play polo and ignore entirely the results of the examinations in the subjects taught by the various officers; and will he therefore see that the expense incurred in teaching the various subjects at Grove Park be abandoned in view of its inutility?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that the statement which has been made by my hon. Friend, and upon which the first part of his question is based, is without foundation.
    Mr. WATT: May we take it that the men at Grove Park are perfect in the eyes of the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I did not say that.
    Mr. WATT: That is the effect of the answer.

    WAR NEWS (PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPERS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the Director of Special Intelligence has informed the proprietors of the "Times," the "Daily Mail," the "Morning Post," the "Labour Leader," and the "Tribunal" that the matter published in these journals has been used by the enemy for the purpose of his propaganda, and that in these circumstances no further copies of these journals will be allowed to leave the country; and, if some but not all of the news—
    1008
    papers named have received this intimation, will he say why certain of them have been specially selected for this prohibition?
    Mr. FORSTER: The proprietors of the "Labour Leader" and the "Tribunal" were informed in the sense stated by direction of the Army Council and with the concurrence of the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman is misinformed in thinking that a similar communication was sent to any other newspaper.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why were not such communications sent to the " Times," " Daily Mail," and "Morning Post," seeing that the late Home Secretary said that extracts from the "Daily Mail" are being constantly used by the enemy for the purposes of their propaganda and are being translated into the European and Asiatic languages and are doing great damage to the cause of this country?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will remember that that observation was made a long time ago and that we are now dealing with current issues.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Have any of these papers said a single word except for the prosecution of the War with the utmost vigour?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is perfectly true.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many Regular captains in the Royal Army Medical Corps have been promoted majors since the War began; and does the number of medical promotions bear any proportion to that of combatant promotions of similar rank?
    Mr. FORSTER: One hundred and fifty-five captains have been promoted since the beginning of the War. The number of promotions in the Royal Army Medical Corps has not been fixed so as to bear a definite proportion to combatant promotions of similar rank.

    10TH ROYAL WEST SURREY REGIMENT (LIEUTENANT PETRE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieutenant Lawrence Joseph

    1009
    Petre gave up his business and was granted a commission in the 10th Royal West Surrey Regiment soon after the commencement of the War, that he worked hard and satisfactorily in that capacity, and that on the battalion going abroad he was kept behind on the ground of age; whether he is aware that he was recommended by his commanding officer as a very hard working and industrious officer for appointment as officer in command of details at home and he was so appointed; whether he is aware that he was then asked to relinquish his commission on the ground of age, that he then applied for a vacancy in the mechanical transport section of the Army Service Corps, and after an interview at the War Office proceeded to various tests, all of which he discharged satisfactorily, and that on the 22nd June, when he was expecting his transfer to the Army Service Corps, he was gazetted out of the Army without any further communication whatever; and whether the Army Council has the slightest complaint against this officer, or whether this is to be taken as a sample of the way in which the Army Council treats those officers of whom they were glad to avail themselves earlier in the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot, I fear, follow my hon. Friend through all the numerous points of detail raised by this question. Broadly, the case is that Lieutenant Petre's retention as an Infantry subaltern in a service battalion was not, on account of his age, considered to be in the public interest and Lieutenant Petre stated in writing that he appreciated what was said as to his position as subaltern. He asked to be transferred to some branch of the Army Service Corps. This was considered, but as it was found that he could not suitably be employed, a notification was sent to this effect. On receipt of this Lieutenant Petre asked for and was granted an interview, after he had submitted details of his qualifications. It was not, however, found possible to employ him in the Army Service Corps and this was notified on 19th June. Lieutenant Petre was gazetted as relinquishing his commission on 21st June. The concluding sentence of my hon. Friend's question does not represent correctly the attitude of the Army Council to this officer, and consequently the generalisation is also incorrect.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. JESSE COLLINGSasked if any arrangements are made or are about to be made for the employment of German prisoners on British farms in the same manner as British prisoners are engaged on German farms?
    Mr. FORSTER: This matter has, of course, been very carefully considered, but owing to the small number of men required in any particular place and to the short period during which, as a rule, such labour is wanted, it has not been found possible to make suitable arrangements for the employment of combatant prisoners of war in agriculture with due regard to necessary economy in troops for guards and escorts. It is understood, however, that the Home Office is prepared to consider applications for the employment of interned aliens of a suitable class on agricultural work.

    NAVY LEAGUE
    Major W. GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the warning issued by the Navy League as to the dangers to British sea-power involved in the setting up of a possibly hostile Irish executive; and whether he will consult the Admiralty as to the necessary safeguards?
    Mr. REDDY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him who are the members of the Navy League, as I tried in the Library and could not find their names? Would they be ancient mariners or retired admirals, landlubbers, and other citizens, sea cooks or dyspeptic cranks and other faddists? Did they suffer from brain storm? Were they of German descent, and did any of them live in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The hon. Member's researches seem to have been not unfruitful. Yes, a copy of this document has been sent to me. The Admiralty are fully alive to all the necessities of the situation?
    Major GUINNESS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that prior to the rebellion his administration of Ireland was so successful as to justify him——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of controversy and for debate, not for a question.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS
    Mr. ROCHasked the Prime Minister if he will give a day for the discussion of the present position of old age pensioners if forty Members express a desire to this effect?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My experience is that there are few proposals involving an increase of expenditure which forty Members could not be found to support, and I do not think it would be desirable to create a precedent by acceding to my hon. Friend's request. Of course I shall be glad to consider any expression of the general feeling of the House.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many would the right hon. Gentleman want before he would be willing to consider the general feeling of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not like to pin myself to the precise number.

    MUNITIONS.

      MUNITION WORKERS (HOLIDAYS).
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of removing the doubt and misunderstanding that prevail regarding the postponement of holidays, he will state whether the Government desire all workpeople to post-pone their holidays or only those who are engaged on munitions or providing material for carrying on the War?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, my appeal was addressed to the patriotism of all classes of workers.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: All classes?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, all classes.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Including Members of Parliament?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

      MUNITION FACTORIES (EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. THOMASasked the Minister of Munitions whether the factory built ten months ago on the North-Eastern Railway, where expensive machinery was erected and 1,500 females employed turning out thousands of shells per week, was recently closed for three weeks, during which period a number of the workers were paid off, and that when another start was made the girls were only employed three shifts
      1012
      per week, and although the shift starting at 6 a.m. on the 13th July were ordered to work until 9 p.m., they were at the same time given notice that owing to the closing of the shop their services will not be required after Thursday, 20th July, 1916; and, in view of the need for munitions, as evidenced by the suspension of August Bank Holiday, and having regard to the suffering likely to result from such a large number of workers being suddenly thrown out of employment, whether he will make full inquiries into the matter?
      Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer his questions. This matter was dealt with in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on the 17th instant, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
      Mr. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the notices of these 1,500 people expire on Thursday, and that the men in munitions cannot understand the dismissal of this number of people and the abandonment of holidays; and will he give an assurance that they will not be dispensed with?
      Mr. REA: I am informed that everything is being done to give these people employment. I undertake that my hon. Friend's supplementary question shall be brought to the immediate notice of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. PRINGLE: How is it, seeing that there are two Parliamentary Secretaries to the Munitions Department, neither of them is here to answer questions?
      Mr. REA: There is only one.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the National Shell Factory, Newport, Monmouth, has given a week's notice to the whole of their women workers; and, if so, whether this has been done with the knowledge and consent of the Ministry of Munitions; and whether he will state for what reason such action has been taken?
      Mr. REA: A week's notice was given to about 600 operatives in the factory referred to, with a view to facilitating certain special work required in the later stages of manufacture. Later it was found possible to make arrangements for carrying out this work without interfering with the ordinary work of the factory, and the notices only became operative in regard to 22 out of the 600 operatives concerned.

      BELGIAN FACTORY.
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether a Belgian turner named Mertens, who is the branch secretary to the men's union, has been discharged from the National Projectile Company's works, Durham County, for distributing union literature outside the works in his own time; whether he is aware that the Belgian works manager, Mr. Le Panne, has personally warned five of the Belgian workmen that they were not permitted to be members of a trade union; and whether he will inquire into this matter, with a view to making it quite clear that the Belgians have exactly the same right to join trade unions as other workmen?
      Mr. REA: The factory referred to by the hon. Member is under the management of the Belgian Government. The staff consists of the most part of soldiers, the bulk of whom are unfit for further military service, a small proportion being skilled men withdrawn from the Army for special work in the factory. It is provided that English rates of wages should be paid, but the other conditions within the factory are within the discretion of the Belgian Government. I am making inquiries from the Belgian authorities as regards the points mentioned in the hon. Member's question, and will inform him of the result.
      Mr. DUNCAN: Does this Belgian factory come under the Munitions of War Act?
      Mr. REA: I cannot answer that without notice.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      AMENDING BILL.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the gravity of the situation in Ireland and its repercussion in the United States and in the Dominions, he will outline and submit to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions the main features of two alternative policies, one that of dragooning and coercing the Irish people into submissiveness, the other that of healing the wounds by means of a policy of general amnesty and of conciliation; and whether, in the event of such a consultation being arranged, he will give particular attention to the advice of General Botha, who dealt not unsuccessfully with a similar crisis in South Africa?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I do not think this is a practicable suggestion.
      Mr. MACMASTER: In the event of representations being made to the Prime Minister either from foreign countries or from the Dominions, will the right hon. Gentleman have the goodness to permit me to remind him of the answer once given by his predecessor, the late Mr. Gladstone——
      Mr. SPEAKER: The question partakes of an anecdotal character.
      Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Prime Minister upon what day the Irish Government Bill will be introduced?
      The PRIME MINISTER: We intend to introduce the Bill next week.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: What day?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.
      Mr. J. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix any date?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot for the moment fix any date. We have next week to take a Vote of Credit; that is essential, and that is why I cannot fix any particular date at this moment, but I will give full notice.
      Mr. BARLOWasked the Prime Minister whether the Bill to amend the Home Rule Bill has been submitted to and has the approval of the Member for Waterford and the Member for Dublin University; and, if not, whether it will be so submitted before it is introduced to this House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Communications have taken place, and will no doubt continue to take place, between the Government and the hon. Members referred to before the introduction of this Bill.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (SERGEANTS. SPIERS)
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will investigate the case of ex-Sergeant Samuel Spiers, No. 47,583, C Battery, 55th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery; whether he is aware that this man, before the out-break of war, had retired after twenty-one years' service on a pension of 2s. per day, I and had, in addition, received employment

    1015
    by the Belfast Corporation at a wage of 38s. per week; and that he rejoined at the outbreak of war, and was discharged in 1915, owing to complete breakdown in his health: and, seeing that he has since been a complete invalid and has received no more than 14s. a week, his old pension, on which he has to keep his wife and family, will he say what action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiry made into this case, and will, in due course, communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    HUTTING CONTRACTS.
    Mr. ROCHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is now in a position to give the original and the revised percentages agreed upon by the War Office in respect of hutting contracts; and if he can at the same time give the names of the contractors and the amouunt of the contract in each case?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret I cannot yet give this information, as negotiations are still proceeding.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to give an answer?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Well, in a fortnight's time?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will try.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether it is true that a Member of this House has claimed £200,000 in regard to this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think I will leave it until I can deal with the question as a whole.

    BILLETING ALLOWANCES (LICENSED VICTUALLERS).
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted on licensed victuallers by the rate of billeting allowances for soldiers at present paid to them; and whether, in view of the price of provisions,
    1016
    he will establish the rate of remuneration to licensed victuallers at the same amount as that awarded to private householders?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Monday to the hon. Member for Chippenham.
    Mr. RENDALL: As the answer merely stated that he would look into the question, can the hon. Gentleman say when he will have looked into it and when he will be able to make a new list of prices?
    Mr. FORSTER: These lists naturally and necessarily take some time, and I want to be certain of all the facts before I come to a decision. I am afraid that I cannot state any time.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN TURKEY (PARCELS).
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has any information to give as to the dispatch of parcels to prisoners in Turkey; whether he is aware that a considerable number of parcels sent to British prisoners fail to arrive; and whether he can do anything to secure a more satisfactory arrangement?
    Mr. FORSTER: I fear that the facts are as stated in the second part of this question as regards the prisoners taken in Mesopotamia. I am informed that not withstanding all the efforts of the United States Ambassador at Constantinople—for which efforts His Majesty's Government are very grateful—it has been impossible as yet to learn where the greater number of the British prisoners just referred to are interned. Unless parcels are accurately addressed the eventual receipt of them by the addressee is of course doubtful. The United States Embassy in Constantinople are doing all they can to obtain accurate information as to the location of the British prisoners in Turkey and to get this information as soon as possible.
    Mr. BARLOW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty with regard to the transmission of parcels even to Turkey, and can he hold out any prospect of better possibilities in the future?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend may rely upon our doing everything that we can to see that parcels and everything else may be sent to prisoners.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the prisoners in Turkey generally are well treated?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think so, but in view of the experience of my right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for War, I rather hesitate to commit myself to any definite statement without notice.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any payments have been made to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company on account of the £2,000,000 sterling authorised by the House of Commons in the year 1914; and, if so, what were the amounts and at what dates the advances were made?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The following payments have been made:

    On the 19th August, 1914

    £38,000

    On the 20th August, 1914

    462,250

    On the 30th November, 1914

    250,750

    On the 15th July, 1915

    250,000

    Total

    £1,001,000

    Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask whether the Government are seeing that the pledge is carried out and that this money is being exclusively devoted to development in the Persian area and is not being spent on oil tankers for transport?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would like notice of that question. It would not be in my Department.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of this amount went to the parent company?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should like notice of that question.

    SUGAR COMMISSION.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked if it is by direction of the Sugar Commission that certain shopkeepers are refusing to sell sugar to poor people unless they will also buy tea; and, if not, whether the Government will take steps to prevent a continuance of the practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will
    1018
    bring to the notice of the Sugar Commission any cases in which it is alleged that retailers are refusing to sell sugar unless purchases of tea are made at the same time. The Commission will then take action with a view to stopping the practice.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the universal practice not to supply sugar unless other articles are purchased?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is not the question put to me. Other commodities, I understand, but that any specific article should be named is different. Of course, I think the practice is quite usual to insist upon other articles which are required being bought in order to stop the practice of buying sugar at a great number of shops and thereby acquiring an amount which is greater than the ordinary consumption.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is he aware of the fact that in many portions of Ireland sugar cannot be supplied because people have not got it to sell?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think there is a question later on the Paper on that point.
    Mr. O'DOWD: Seeing that there is a shortage of sugar, a regular sugar famine, in many districts in the West of Ireland, can no means be made available to have a supply in some shape or form sent to them?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will be so good as to bring any particular case to my notice I will have inquiry made.

    BANKS IN DOMINIONS (UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the Dominions banks have to surrender to Government all deposits, securities, and articles of value unclaimed for a specified number of years; and whether, in view of the financial situation, he will consider the desirability of adopting a similar policy here, always safeguarding banks against loss?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that in some of the Dominions unclaimed balances may in certain circumstances be claimed by the State. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness on the 21st March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

    ROUMANIA (WHEAT PURCHASE)
    Commander BELLA IRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the British Minister and the commercial attache in Roumania have no staff for the purpose, whether he can state what agents were employed for the expenditure of £10,000,000 sterling in purchasing wheat in Roumania; and whether the Government is satisfied that the transaction has been carried through in a thoroughly satisfactory manner?
    Lord R. CECIL: These purchases were conducted by a purchasing bureau under the supervision of His Majesty's Legation at Bucharest, assisted by expert advisers. This bureau only completed its purchases on the 14th instant, and until a final report has been received it would be premature to express an opinion upon the financial, as opposed to the political, aspect of the transaction.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the financial adviser?
    Lord R. CECIL: I cannot without notice.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the balance sheet just issued by Furness, Withy and Company, showing, with £141,446 brought in, a profit for the year of £1,528,406; and can he say whether the transference of £350,000 to depreciation account and of £300,000 to the trades contingencies fund lessens the amount payable by the firm in Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: Liability to Excess Profits Duty is governed by statutory provisions which are not affected by any allocation of profits to reserve or otherwise which a company may see fit to make.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of getting a greater share for the Treasury of these large profits to enable the old age pensions to be raised?
    Mr. McKENNA: The share we shall Deceive of these profits will amount to 77 per cent. I think it is pretty large. It does not leave a very considerable sum to be put to reserve.

    PENSIONS GRANTS
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state whether the Government are prepared to provide additional funds for the pensions Grants to be made by the Statutory Committee, in addition to the Grant of £1,000,000 already promised and whether the Statutory Committee are unable to make Regulations or to provide Grants pending the promise of additional Government funds?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am in communication with the Statutory Committee and hope shortly to be in a position to make a public announcement of the additional Grant which I am prepared to advise.
    Mr. BARLOW: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he thinks it likely he can make an answer, because there is great anxiety about it in the country?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope to be in a position to make it to-morrow.
    Mr. HOGGE: Did he not say a few weeks ago that it would be necessary to provide a great deal more than a million?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have always contemplated that the State will have to provide more than a million—a very great deal more.

    BUILDING TRADES (LONDON AREA).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that all sections of workmen engaged in the building trades in the London area will receive 1d. an hour advance on the payday for the week ending 22nd July; and whether he is making arrangements for all workmen, including labourers, engaged in the building trades employed under his control to receive the same advance at the same time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; and in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution the agreed advance will become payable automatically to all workmen, including labourers, employed under contracts for my Department.

    NATIONAL GALLERY (APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR).
    Mr. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Education in whose

    1021
    hands the appointment of the director of the National Gallery rests; and whether he has any information as to how soon the appointment is likely to be made?
    Mr. REA: The director of the National Gallery is selected by the First Lord of the Treasury, who hopes to make an announcement shortly.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND
    Major GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information as to the riot which took place in Cork on the night of the 13th July owing to the nonarrival of released prisoners who were expected from Dublin; and whether any damage was done to the recruiting offices in Cork?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel);The newspaper accounts of this occurrence have been greatly exaggerated. There was nothing in the nature of a riot. A noisy crowd of about 100 persons gathered at the station and subsequently proceeded through the streets, but dispersed quickly on the appearance of additional police. A window in the recruiting office was broken apparently by a member of the crowd.
    Major GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that, about 800 men, many of them of military age, boohed the troops in the streets?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. REDDY: Did they have any portraits taken?

    School Fees (Pendleton)
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education the reason why a fee of 3d. a week payable by infants has been sanctioned in Halton Bank Council School, Pendleton; how many infants in this school are now paying school pence; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, he will consider the abolition or reduction of school fees?
    Mr. REA: The fee of 3d. a week, to which the question refers, is payable only by children in Standard I., taught in the infants' department. Standard I. children were formerly taught in the senior
    1022
    departments, where a fee of 3d. is payable, and when, for educational reasons, it was decided to group Standard I. with the infants' department the Board, on 13th August, 1914, sanctioned the continuance of the same fee. On 31st October, 1915, the end of the last school year for which the Board have returns, there were no children in the infants' department paying this fee. Two hundred and fifty-three children in the infants' department were paying the fee of 2d. a week which was sanctioned in 1904 for this department. With reference to the suggestion made in the last part of the question, I have no evidence that there is any deficiency of public school accommodation without payment of fees, or that the parents who send their children to feecharging schools desire relief from such fees.

    School Buildings (Plans).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue another circular asking that in the case of new school buildings, authorised before the War or required after the War, plans should now be submitted and approved by the Board, with a view to speedy completion after the War; and whether he will encourage such foresight on the part of local education authorities by a provision similar to that in Section 96 of the Education Act, 1870?
    Mr. REA: The Government are collecting information as to the probable extent of the demand upon the supply of labour and capital for necessary public works at the end of the War; and the Board of Education are about to consult local education authorities as to the amount of school building which will be required in the different areas and as to the relative urgency of particular cases. It would be premature to make any statement as to the advisability or possibility of the suggestion made in the latter part of the question which, as my hon. Friend will be aware, could not be put into effect without legislation.

    Elementary Schools (Attendance Returns)
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give a Return stating the number of boys and girls aged twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, respectively, who were in attendance in elementary schools at the end of the educational year 1913, and at the end of the last educational year?
    Mr. REA: I have not the information in the form in which my hon. Friend desires to have it, but I trust that the figures which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT will prove sufficient for his purpose.

    Leeds Training College
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has noted the recent resignation of teachers at the Leeds Training College and the public criticisms of the state of things there existing; how much money voted by Parliament was received last year by this college; and whether a public inquiry will be held?
    Mr. REA: I am familiar with the circumstances of this case. The amount of the Board's Grant to the college during the financial year 1915–16 was £21,395. The question whether an investigation shall be conducted by the Board, and, if so, what form it shall take, is now receiving my consideration.

    Cattle-Driving (Ballinasloe).
    Major GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Mathers, owing to the compulsory purchase by the Congested Districts Board of his other grazing land in Connaught, was compelled recently to bring his cattle to his grazing tract near Shannon Bridge, and that these cattle were driven off the lands by the local people, assisted by a lot of young men of military age from King's County; what number of troops and police have been sent into the Ballinasloe district to keep order, and whether any and, if so, what provisions will be contained in the new Bill for the Government of Ireland to avoid the necessity for this policy of coercion in Ireland?
    Mr. REDDY:—before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I draw his attention to the fact that it is grossly inaccurate and misleading according to the facts, and ask whether he is aware——
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better hear the answer first.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Congested Districts Board have no knowledge that their purchase operations affected in any way Mr. Mathers' management of his grass lands in county Roscommon, and they have not purchased any lands from him. Of those
    1024
    who participated in the recent cattle-drive of 4th July, one has been identified as being from King's County. There are at present encamped on the lands three officers and 127 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary and a battalion of soldiers. As regards the concluding portion of the question, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the introduction of the Bill.
    Major GUINNESS: Arising out of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is it not a fact that Mr. Mathers was renting a large amount of the Pollock estate, which has been acquired compulsorily, and that that displaced his cattle?
    Mr. REDDY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if he is aware that Mr. Mathers rented 1,500 acres from Pollock and that Pollock made him surrender the tenancy owing to the non-fulfilment of certain conditions in the agreement with regard to repairs; whether the disturbances that have arisen there are not what is commonly called cattle-driving, but arise from a hay famine in a district of Roscommon where for a hundred years there was always a hay crop available?
    Major GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware of all those facts.
    Mr. REDDY: May I respectfully ask whether, under the same conditions in England, Scotland, or Wales, there would be 1,000 soldiers and 500 police sent to deprive 100 poor farmers of hay?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,—Finance Bill, Royal Marines Bill, Re-election of Ministers Bill, without Amendment;
Gas (Standard of Calorific Power) Bill, with Amendments.

BILL PRESENTED.
ISLE OF MAN CUSTOMS BILL,—" To amend the Law with respect to Customs duties in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REGISTRATION AND ELECTION
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I beg to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether it is practicable and desirable to prepare a new Electoral Register which would include adequate representation for those engaged in the War or in war work, and to conduct an Election upon such Register during the War; and, if this is found practicable and desirable. to recommend the changes in the electoral laws which would be necessary or expedient for the purpose:
  "That the Committee do consist of Sir Ryland Adkins, Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir John Bethell, Lieutenant-Colonel Campion, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Hazleton, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Nield, Mr. Parker, Mr. Pringle, Sir John Simon, and Sir George Younger:
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  "That five be the quorum."
  The Members proposed to constitute the Select Committee on Registration and Election will, I am sure, be regarded by common consent as constituting a most representative and able Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I perceive that there are some Members who are not on the Committee who do not share that view. Within the terms of their reference they will find it necessary to consider a number of points which are of no small difficulty. At the outset, no doubt, they will give their attention to the question whether or not, if a register is constituted, the men serving in the Army and the Navy should be placed upon that register. It is difficult, indeed, as the House will unanimously recognise, to dispute the contention that, if anyone is entitled to a voice in the government of the country, the men who have been willing to risk life and limb in its defence are surely entitled to a share. It would be difficult to contemplate a General Election for the constitution of a new Parliament, to sit possibly for five years, from which the millions of men who have come forward to fight in the
  1040
  country's cause should be excluded. But if they are to be included it will also, I am sure, be generally agreed that they must be given effective inclusion—not merely the registering of their names upon a list, but an opportunity of voting when the election occurs. No one can contemplate a mere mockery of a register which would, on the one hand, place soldiers upon the voting list, but which, on the other hand, will not give them any opportunity of exercising their franchise. And when the Committee comes to consider this aspect of the question, it will no doubt turn its mind to the conditions under which the franchise could be exercised by men actively employed in military operations in such circumstances. They will consider what opportunities the men serving in the Army would have for acquainting themselves with the issues of a General Election and familiarising themselves with the personalities and capacities of the candidates between whom they are invited to choose. The Committee will no doubt take the opinion of the military advisers of the Government on the practicability and the desirability of inviting an Army in the field to turn its mind to political controversies. It is unlikely that during the War an armistice could be arranged for the purpose of enabling the British Army to poll, nor should we be in a position to invite the Germans to abstain from attacking our lines in a given week, or on a given day, for the reason that the Army was engaged in recording its votes. All this is quite obvious. The Ballot Act contains no provision to meet the contingency of a bombardment taking place while the voters are at the poll. Clearly, if the Army were on the move at the time when the General Election was fixed to take place, any arrangement which might be contemplated to enable the soldiers to vote would be put out of gear and would become impracticable. These are all questions which the Cabinet has been considering. These are questions to which the Committee necessarily will have to give its attention.
  In the very forefront of this problem stands this dilemma, "Are you to contemplate a General Election excluding the soldiers, or, on the other hand, can you make arrangements effectively to include them?" Secondly, there is the case of the munition workers, many of whom have almost an equal title to claim inclusion

  1041
  in any special arrangements which are made with the soldiers. There are large numbers of them who have been most eagerly anxious to join the naval or military forces who have been forbidden to do so, or pressed not to do so, for the reason that the work that they are doing in pursuance of their vocations at home is as valuable to the prosecution of the War as service in the field or with the Fleet. Great numbers of these men have moved from one part of the country to another and have consequently lost their ordinary qualifications, and if they were to be registered it would need special provision to be made. Furthermore, you would have to define what is meant by a munition worker. Many Members, like myself, represent Constituencies containing great numbers of miners. Many of them have been forbidden to enlist for the reason that their work underground is essential to the nation. Are they to be regarded as munition workers or not? Where are you to draw the line between the person who is rendering service in the War and the person who is not? Can you draw any such line? You have only to look at the .list of reserved occupations which have been communicated to the Military Service Tribunals to see how vast is the variety of occupations of persons who, directly or indirectly, are rendering service valuable to the War. These are problems which cannot be put aside. When you come to the drafting of the Bill, everyone of them has to be dealt with in such a fashion that the provisions of the law may be translated into practice in the Registration Courts. But if you make special provision for the soldiers, the sailors, and the munition workers, the Committee will no doubt consider whether it is possible or desirable to avoid embarking Parliament on the great controversy of Women Suffrage. There are, I know, some who lightly assume that some magic change has been worked by the War, and that a proposal which has hitherto evoked, not only enthusiastic support, but also resolute opposition, we can now expect will be agreed to almost with unanimity. If there are any who have such a thought I think the wish is father to that thought, and I have no doubt the Committee, when they come to investigate the matter, will find that if the registration or franchise proposals raise the question of Women Suffrage, both Houses of Parliament will
  1042
  be involved in a very bitter political controversy at the present time.
  Let it be assumed, however, although it is a very large assumption, that all these problems are satisfactorily solved that you have decided whether you will include the soldiers or exclude them; if you include them, how to enable them to vote; that you have decided what is a munition worker, and under what conditions he is to be registered; that you have also either avoided or solved the problem of Women Suffrage, the question then arises is there any justification for embarking upon the expense and the labour of preparing a Parliamentary register at the present time. The existing register, it is notorious, is greatly in arrear. We are advised that in order to bring it effectively up to date it would be necessary to have a house-to—house canvass, and that nothing short of that could really enable you to secure a thoroughly effective register. The cost which would be involved, from a Local Government Board estimate, would be at least £300,000, and very possibly more. We have just been celebrating a war savings week. Ought Parliament lightly to contemplate an expenditure of £300,000 on the preparation of a Parliamentary register unless clear necessity can be shown for doing so. Furthermore, it will probably be necessary to employ many thousands, possibly at least 20,000 persons, in the preparation of the register and in making this house-to—house canvass throughout the country, and the Committee will no doubt consider whether it is legitimate to take for a certain period so large a body of persons from the occupations in which they are now engaged in order to compile a new list of voters. All this might no doubt be necessary if an early General Election was contemplated or desired, and the Committee will, of course, have to weigh the probabilities and the degree to which it is desirable that a General Election should take place during the War, possibly at an early date. It appears to me that to hold a General Election, except in case of overwhelming necessity, during the progress of the War is open to the gravest objections. The whole country would, of course, be thrown into turmoil, the mind of the nation would be diverted to political controversies, Ministers would be prevented from carrying on the work of their Departments, most

  1043
  of which is essential to the operations of the War, and would be expected to visit their constituencies.
  Mr. HOGGE: I understand the Government are bringing in a Motion to appoint a Committee. My right hon. Friend is making a speech against the Motion. Is that in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so at all. The right hon. Gentleman is pointing out some of the matters which the Committee will have to consider.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. SAMUEL: That is precisely my point. The Committee, under the terms of reference that I am now moving, will no doubt have to consider all these various points, and the reason why I am emphasising them and elaborating them is in order to show the reasons why the Government are proposing to the House the appointment of a Committee instead of placing upon the Table of the House a Bill such as some right hon. and hon. Members desire they should produce. The effect on opinion of holding a General Election in the midst of a great War ought not to be left out of account. What should we think here if in one of the belligerent countries of one of our Allies there should be held within the next few weeks a General Election? We should look upon the prospect—[Laughter]—I hope hon. Members will be patient—with some surprise, and we should think it rather unfortunate that a country which ought to be devoting the whole of its energies to getting on with the War should devote itself to prosecuting quarrels and controversies amongst its politicians, and taking the attention of the whole of the people from the object which it ought primarily to have in view. No doubt circumstances might arise—we all have to recognise that—in which a General Election might be inevitable as the only way out of some political impasse, but that it is undesirable I, for my own part, do not doubt, and I feel convinced that public opinion as a whole does not desire it. If that is so—and this is my point—ought the Government to come to Parliament and say, " We agree that a General Election is undesirable in the course of the War; nevertheless, we invite you to spend time on discussing and passing a Bill which would probably give rise to many contro-
  1044
  versial points. We invite the Treasury to provide a sum of one-third of a £1,000,000 for the preparation of a register, and we ask the political parties throughout the country, and tens of thousands of canvassers, to devote themselves for some weeks to the preparation of a register which, ex hypothesi, probably will never be used at all." These are the reasons why the Government does not come to the House to-day and make proposals for the constitution of a register.
  The matter has been long under consideration by the Government. It is a subject which, by its very nature, is obviously surrounded by difficulties. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) will tell us what his solution is for these several difficulties.
  Sir E. CARSON: I will tell you what I think when you have finished.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an alternative, and give us an answer to the various problems with which the Committee will be faced, and with which the Government has been faced. If the Government had merely taken a negative attitude, and come to the House and said, "We regard these difficulties, as far as we are concerned, as insoluble, and we are unable, to use the words of the Prime Minister, 'to present to the House any scheme which is at once practicable and free from controversy,'" we should have been open to the easy accusation that our only desire was to make registration impossible in order that there should be no General Election and so that the present Government could retain its office. Consequently, we invite the House itself to decide whether any practicable scheme can be devised, and the normal and proper course is for the House to act through the organ of a Select Committee. I have heard, as we have all heard for many years past, the Cabinet continually denounced as autocratic, as absorbing in its own hands all authority, as endeavouring to reduce the House of Commons to a mere shadow, and as refusing to give opportunities for proposals to be spontaneously made by the House of Commons itself. That accusation, I firmly believe after nearly eleven years' experience of Government office, is profoundly untrue. But as soon as the Government comes to the House and says, "Here is a problem

  1045
  with which we wish you to deal," instantly the Government is accused of abdicating its duty of leadership, and possibly placing the House itself into difficulty. The right course, clearly, is for the House itself to decide. We give the opportunity now for the House to appoint a Committee, if it so desires, and for the Committee to make proposals for the solution of problems which, as I say, we have found surrounded by very great difficulties. As for the Government, we will naturally give the Committee all the assistance in our power in the way of furnishing all the information that may be desired and may be in our possession, and we shall watch with very keen interest the solution of these problems, which I have briefly sketched to the House, by the Committee whose appointment I now beg to move.
  Sir E. CARSON: One finds some difficulty in characterising the performance to which we have just listened. After all, the encroachments that have been made upon the Constitution of this country since the War, probably necessary encroachments, are not to be treated as opera bouffe. I doubt very much if any Minister, at any other time, would have dared to treat the House in the comical manner which we have just witnessed. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an insult!"] It all arises from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is so conscious that he is an indispensable Minister of an indispensable Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to recommend this Motion to the House or did he not? For my own part, I believe all he wished to do was to show that this great Government now in power are so divided amongst themselves that they can make no solution whatsoever of the question, and, therefore, he thought it best to ridicule the idea that a Committee of the House could do so. How does he expect us, after that speech, to approach the question seriously? What does it mean? It means that the questions that arise in this case are insoluble. I will show in a moment that there is a very practical course which I think is open if the Government will meet the matter in a businesslike way. He says, "Go, with all my blessings, and see what you can do, and see whether you are better than we superior people who sit upon this Front Bench." Yes, but when the Committee has taken all that trouble, what are the
  1046
  Government going to do then? Are they going then to treat the labours of that Committee as a farce, just as the right hon. Gentleman has treated his own Motion as a farce?
  For my own part I refuse to be any party to such a pantomimic performance as this, and I shall oppose this Motion. I had a very strong idea the other day, when the Prime Minister made his statement, that this was merely a shelving performance, like so many other performances of the Government. Now I know. The right hon. Gentleman has put a Motion upon the Paper which, among: other things, submits this to a Committee of the House of Commons—
  "whether it is practicable and desirable to prepare a new Electoral Register which would include adequate representation for those engaged in the War or in war work, and to conduct an Election' upon such Register during the War?"
  Did you ever hear of a proposal beings submitted to a Committee of this House whether an election could take place upon a particular kind of register in the course of a War? I wonder whether this is the way the War is generally carried on? The worst part of this is that the Government, if the views of the Home Secretary are accurate, have been humbugging the House for nearly a year. I will trace in a moment the history of this question, and I will show the pledges that were made and the answers that were given to questions. It was not until we brought them to close quarters by putting down a Resolution upon the Order Paper of this; House, and asking a day for it, that they made up their minds that they were absolutely hopeless and helpless in the matter. The Government have no right to leave this country without a register. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I will tell the hon. Member in a. moment. They have no right to leave this country without a register because at any moment a General Election may be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that himself. To carry out a General Election upon a register that is nearly two years old means that you go to the election with the disfranchisement of thousands and tens of thousands of people who are in this country, not to talk at all of the men in the trenches.
  Mr. DUNCAN: You do that at any time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why did you destroy the machinery of registration last year?
  Sir E. CARSON: I will go through the history of that in a moment. Let us not mix up the question of enfranchisement for the moment with the question of the register. There may be great difficulties about the question of enfranchisement. The right hon. Gentleman, in a way certainly which I could not imitate, talked about raising the question of what is a munition worker, what is a woman, who is a woman, and should a woman have a vote, and all the rest of it. Let us leave all these terrible questions for the moment out of consideration. Let us not be frightened about them. Let us see what the history of this question is. In 1915 there was an Election and Registration Act passed which stopped the ordinary procedure of keeping the register. I am now beginning to doubt very much whether that was a wise course upon the part of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of the Government!"] Upon the part of this House and the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were a party?"] Certainly, I do not set myself up here as infallible at all. I frankly admit it. But I did not know at that time that in future you were to treat registration of voters as a farce. What were the provisions of that Bill? That the Election Register of 1915 as then in force was to remain in force until Parliament provided for a special register. But there was a promise that Parliament would provide for a special register, and it also went on to say that it was not to be in force for a later period than December, 1916. Then came the Parliament and Registration Act of December, 1915. I should like to ask the attention of the House to what was said then by the right hon. Gentleman who was the predecessor in office of the present Home Secretary, and see how his statements fit in with the impossibility of registration. He said:
  "As the language of the Bill will be found to show we contemplate the preparation of a special register to be used when the General Election comes which will secure that those returning from the front do not lose the opportunity of voting because of the length of the present period for qualification."
  What is the difficulty of carrying that out?
  '' The House will understand that the proposal does not involve any change in the franchise law, and that it merely adjusts and shortens the period of qualification in order to meet a situation which we desire to meet if we can. The creation of such a special register
  1048
  is not as easy as it looks. It is a matter of some difficulty in more points than one, but this is a matter to which the Government is giving urgent attention, and it is our intention to make further proposals to Parliament hereafter under this head in order to secure that these citizens shall not be deprived at the next election of their votes."
  That was in December of last year. It involved no change in the franchise. There is nothing there about giving women votes. There is nothing there saying that because you cannot carry on an election in the trenches, therefore, thousands of people who are home in this country are to be deprived of their votes. On the contrary, what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said, and it was upon this he got his Bill was, "The Government are giving it immediate attention, and will bring in proposals." Where are the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman? The proposals have been asked for over and over again during the whole course of this year, and whenever a question was put we were always told that we were on the eve of having a statement made, and of the proposals being brought into this House. That went on until we were out of date for a register prior to the bringing in, I suppose, of a new Act to extend this Parliament in September next. The Government think that it is a very light matter for Parliament to extend its own duration. I think that it is a very serious matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there has never been an election in war before? Why, there has hardly ever been a war in which there have not been elections carried on during the war.
  Sir S. COLLINS: Never a war like this.
  Sir E. CARSON: There is only a question of degree, but I know perfectly well what will happen. The moment the right hon. Gentleman comes down to propose an extension of the Parliament Act to prolong the life of this Parliament beyond that of any Parliament that has ever existed, certainly in modern times, he will then say, "What is the good of your opposing this? What is the good of your arguing about an election? You have got no register." We have got no register because the Government have not redeemed their pledges, and there is really no difficulty whatsoever in having a register. Why should not we register the voters who are here? Why should we not, as the late Home Secretary the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman said, " shorten the necessary time for those who

  1049
  come home, so as to enable them to be put upon the register"? Why should we not at the same time take care that all those who, in doing Government work have been moving from one place to another, have their names upon the register of the particular places to which they have moved 2 The truth of the matter as regards a register is that there is no difficulty whatsoever. The register may not be a perfect register, but no register ever is a perfect register. There are always necessarily large numbers away, but as regards the register itself, the position in which you are now is that if you have a by-election, as we have had by-elections during this year, you will find hundreds and thousands of people actually living in the constituencies who ought to be on the register and are not, because the Government does not prepare a register.
  It is quite a different question whom you are to enfranchise. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there may be great difficulties when you come to enfranchisement. I put a Motion on the Paper at the request of a number of my hon. Friends for the enfranchisement of all sailors and soldiers who have served or are serving in this War. I believe that if you are to attempt anything you will have to draw a broad line somewhere, and I believe that the only broad line you can draw is this, that no possible sacrifice on behalf of anybody can be equal in any respect to the sacrifice by the man who is prepared, and whose duty it is, to go into battle, whether it be on sea or land, and risk his life for the preservation of his country. That is and can be the only broad division which you can draw. I am prepared to move the Motion standing in my name. I believe in giving the franchise to the soldiers and the sailors who are fighting our battles. That is the real property qualification—for what property would any man have in this country if it were not for the soldiers and sailors who are fighting our battles? And upon that broad principle I believe that if the Government had brought in such a measure this House would have carried it without any real division of opinion from any section of the House.
  Mr. SAMUEL: To enable a soldier to vote?
  Sir E. CARSON: I am just going to deal with the right hon. Gentleman. But, as regards that question, how is the Committee to decide it better than the Govern—
  1050
  ment, and how do we know that the Government will accept the recommendation of the Committee? We cannot allow them to be broken up. That would be a catastrophe which no serious person could contemplate. But then the Government can best form an opinion as to whether that can be done, and I will tell you why. They are in daily communication with their own military advisers. The question whether a soldier can vote—though I myself can see a great compliment conferred upon a soldier in giving him the vote, even if he is not able to exercise it at a particular election. I hope that many of thems will live for many elections, and I hope that they will have a very much bigger voice in the government of this country than they have had hitherto. For myself, I believe that it would be an encouragement for men in the difficult tasks which they have undertaken in fighting for their country to know that one of the Recognitions of their country was that they were given, so to speak, the freedom of the country, just as a man is given the freedom of a city in which he may never exercise a vote at all. But the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me, which he seems to think settles this matter, is, Can he vote at an election? The only persons who can decide that are the Government. They are the Executive. They are in daily contact with their military advisers. This is a military question. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Can they vote while a bombardment is. going on? Is there any provision in the Ballot Act allowing them to do so?" Is that the kind of thing which he is firing at the head of a serious Committee? Yon may not be able to have them all vote. You may only be able to have some of them vote, but the Government have the advice of their military authorities. They, and they alone, are able to determine this question, and, after all, it cannot be so very insoluble, and it cannot be such an absolutely difficult one, because it has been solved in Canada, where they have given a vote to the men who have gone. Nobody thought that very ludicrous in Canada. It has been done in Australia.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It has not been exercised.
  Sir E. CARSON: They have given them the power of exercising it. It was done during the American War by a number of the American States. One would think 'we were talking of something which is

  1051
  absolutely ridiculous, but, if it is as ridiculous as the right hon. Gentleman says, what right has he to say to a Committee, "You are going to do it." But even if you settle none of these questions you can still have a register, as I have already pointed out. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say, "No General Election is possible during the War." Well, perhaps he did not say it as frankly as that. But he did not contemplate a General Election during the War. I take exception to that view altogether. On the contrary, I believe a General Election must take place during the War—certainly at some period of the War. Do you "think that this is the proper House to determine peace questions, when peace arises? When that time comes this will be a House so stale that its Members will represent nobody but themselves. Already it is a House in which a number of constituencies have repudiated their own Members. Is that the kind of House that is going to settle and determine the whole future of this country on the question of peace? What was this House elected for? It was elected to abolish the House of Lords, or, so far as they could abolish the House of Lords, and, curiously enough, to abolish armaments. It is not so very long since some one hundred and fifty Members of this House tried to persuade my right hon. Friend here (Mr. Churchill) that he should reduce the Navy.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Not so long ago he was trying it himself.
  Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Member will recollect that he did not do it. That is a very curious kind of House for my right hon. Friend—if I may call him such—to say of it that it is the only possible House that we can have during this War to settle questions of peace. No, Sir; the moment peace begins—and Heaven knows we all hope it may be soon, so long as it is honourable and victorious—the moment peace begins to foe talked of, I mean seriously talked of, not by mere faddists and cranks, that moment you will have to ascertain the real views of th8 country, and not merely the viwes of this House. And are you, then, when the question arises, going to say either of two things, "We cannot consult the country because we have not got a register," or, "if we do consult the country, we must consult it upon a register by which thousands and thousands of people who,
  1052
  otherwise are here to vote cannot vote"? That shows to my mind at all events, conclusively, that however else you deal with enfranchisement or anything else, you must have a register, and it is the duty of the Government to have a register as complete as they can possibly make it. There is another argument which is sometimes made upon this point, on which I will say a word. My Friends say to me, "What is the good of an election with a Coalition Government in power; one caucus is bad enough, 'bat you cannot beat the two." All I can say is—and I suppose I am as strong a partisan as most men in this House—that in my opinion it is indecent to use the caucus at any election of either side during a war of this kind, which brings about such a set of circumstances as necessitates a Coalition Government. Why should the caucus be used at all? There is a political truce, and you want to maintain that truce. If that is so, what right have you to use the political caucus on one side or the other? For my own part, speaking as a member of the party to which I belong, I resent either the money or the organisation of that party being used at by-elections or any other elections for electoral purposes at the present moment. The Government have no right to abrogate the duties which are put upon them to bring in a Bill for a register. This Committee will lead to nothing. This Committee is a farce. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed it as a farce. He has thought that was the best way of dealing with it. He is not in earnest over this matter. So far as I am concerned I hope the House will refuse to agree to this farcical Committee being set up, and will tell the Government to go and do their own business.
  Mr. WARDLE: The House certainly finds itself in an extraordinary position with regard to the Motion which is now before it. And certainly I am bound to agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir E. Carson) that the speech in which the Home Secretary introduced this Motion was one calculated to cover the proposal with entire ridicule. Either the House is asked to appoint this Committee in order that it may face the difficulties—and there are difficulties undoubtedly—and if possible overcome them, or else this is being proposed as a refuge, and is put before the House because the Government cannot make up its mind upon some kind of policy either with regard to a General Election or with regard to the

  1053
  register upon which that General Election is to be fought. For my part I am indeed surprised that the Government should have sought at any rate this refuge out of its difficulty. Undoubtedly the whole problem is difficult. Even the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will admit that the problem is a difficult one. He himself, when a member of the late Government, saw that it was a difficult one—even the keeping of the register under the old conditions, and the conditions are much worse now. I think the initial mistake was made when the right hon. Gentleman himself was a member of the Government, which did not keep up the register.
  Sir E. CARSON: I agree with the hon. Member.
  Mr. WARDLE: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I think it detracts very much from his criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "Why?"] May I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me not to always indulge in running comments. I do not know how hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite find it, but anyone sitting here finds it exceedingly difficult, and anyone trying to speak here finds it still more difficult, because of the number of running comments from behind, of which he perhaps catches part and loses other parts. All this makes it exceedingly difficult to follow a consecutive argument, and therefore I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will have the same opportunity of speaking as other Members will, at any rate, refrain from making these running comments. With regard to the whole question, I do not think that this House, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, can lightly contemplate the prospect of a General Election during the War. But surely, if that be the position, we should face, so far as it is possible to do so, the question as to whether there is or is not to be a General Election; and then the right hon. Gentleman might have proposed a Committee to prepare some kind of register upon some such lines as might be suggested to the Committee. They might have done that when the first question was settled one way or another. But as to this present proposal—really is it seriously meant?—that the question of whether there shall or shall not be a General Election is to be remitted to a Committee of this kind. Who is to decide
  1054
  it when that Committee makes its report? The Government itself. And I think that is one of the first questions which the Government itself ought to take up. I think this is one of those opportunities—and I desire to make an appeal to the House in this connection—which can be used for settling many long outstanding questions. For my part, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the question of enfranchisement should not now be considered either by this Committee or by the House. I do not see how it is possible to avoid consideration of that question.
  Sir E. CARSON: I did not say that the question of enfranchisement should not be considered, but I said that a register should be made, whether you enfranchise or whether you do not. I said that, in my opinion, our soldiers and sailors ought to be on the register.
  Mr. WARDLE: That I can quite understand; but surely, the two things seem to me to be part of the same question. If you are going to have a register, the question of who are to appear on that register is a question of enfranchisement; otherwise, if you put soldiers and sailors on the register, then you enfranchise them; and, therefore, the whole question of enfranchisement comes under the purview of the Committee, or ought to do so, and under the purview of the House. I want to make an appeal to the Government to take a definite line, and I want to make an appeal to the House, on this occasion, that we should try and settle at this time many of these outstanding problems with regard to the franchise while there is a Coalition Government in power; while there is a so-called political truce—I will put it, a so-called political truce.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a truce between parties.
  Mr. WARDLE: It is a truce between parties, but while there is this political truce we should face this question of enfranchisement and see if we cannot get it out of the way. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Redistribution."] And Redistribution, too. I am for the full programme of registration, enfranchisement, and redistribution while there is a Coalition Government, and that an agreement be reached, so that we may have one of the matters of political controversy cleared out of the way. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the War?"] There, again, we haye a running comment,

  1055
  "What about the War?" Surely it would not add much to the labours of the Committee, if it is a serous Committee, if it is supposed to settle the problem, to let it face the whole problem and bring it before the House, and then let the House decide on the Report of that Committee when that Report has been received. I quite agree there are difficulties. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has minimised those difficulties. There is even difficulty in creating the register at the present moment. There is the very, very serious difficulty of finding the labour; there is the difficulty of placing the contracts; there is the difficulty of getting the printing done, and there is also the great difficulty of providing the paper. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government I believe there was no restriction on the use or import of paper. All these difficulties, or many of them, have arisen since the War, and, for my part, I would have been glad if the Government, in making a proposal of this kind to the House, had made it in what seems to me the right spirit, in a serious spirit—not in a spirit that would simply load the Committee with difficulties and make it almost impossible to do its work—in order that we might have a solution of this problem. For, let me say this, some solution must be found. It seems extraordinary that the Government should say hat the position is insoluble and then send it to a Committee with the statement, "We cannot settle it; you please settle it for us." I do really think, with regard to this question, that we might ask the Government to withdraw this Motion for the Committee and to bring down another Motion to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!" and "Yes!"] If hon. Gentlemen behind me like to have a General Election, then let the people settle it, but there is a difficulty, and that is where we come up to the proposition that the right hon. Gentleman put before us. He said that there was a political truce and a political caucus. What would a General Election be taken now, under the conditions which prevail, or which would prevail, even if a register were prepared, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, with the Coalition Government and a political truce? If the Coalition Government goes to the country it would practically be an agreed election. Nothing would prevent, and nothing could prevent, the caucuses on both sides, and
  1056
  in regard to both parties, practically deciding the issue of that election. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that any such General Election as that upon any kind of register, no matter what it was, would practically be a farce. What I want to get at is this: Cannot the Government make up its mind as to what' its policy ought to be with regard to a General Election, and cannot the Government make up its mind to come down to the House and to quite clearly, fairly, and definitely, state what that policy is, and then we shall know exactly where we stand? So far as I can see at present, at any rate, I do not think that this Committee is any way out of our present difficulties.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I confess I find myself in very considerable agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the view that this not a Motion which ought in its present form, at any rate, to be passed by this House. The right hon. Gentleman who moved it did not make a very helpful speech. It was not a speech which was very respectful to the Committee whom it was proposed to appoint, and I should think that everyone whose name appears on this list, as proposed to be a member of the. Committee, would be justified in feeling considerable resentment at the subject being thrown to them in this way, like a bone to a dog. I think, also, that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman showed a complete failure to appreciate the very great seriousness of the subject which we are discussing. It is not a light matter: it is not a mere incidental detail in the conduct of government. It is not a mere question of a list of a few names. What is the register? What part does it play in our Constitution? The register is the very foundation of democratic government. It is the ark of the covenant in representative government, and if we have no register, representative government, or democratic government, is a complete farce—a hollow sham and mockery. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the cost, £300,000 or so, for maintaining representative government in this country, but when he represents a third of a million as a sum which we cannot afford to pay in order to keep alive the principle of representative government in this country, he shows, I think, a complete and hopeless failure to understand really the nature of the subject which we are discussing to-day. In another way the right hon. Gentleman cut away the ground from under his own feet in one sentence.

  1057
  He said that a General Election under these circumstances was undesirable and inexpedient. The right hon. Gentleman says that the test of an election may be necessary before the end of the War when we come to consider the terms of peace—that this House is not representative. If our men are continuing at the front I do not see how this House is going to be any more representative. I should think that there was general agreement that, all things considered, a General Election was inexpedient, and as far as he contended that it was inexpedient I think he carried the House with him generally. But he did recognise the fact that a General Election may be forced, however inexpedient it may be, and that it may be inevitable and unavoidable. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the decision does not lie in our hands. The decision lies in other hands and in hands which are not too favourably disposed to the Government, and in the hands of those who have already passed a vote of no confidence in this Government which, if it had been passed in this House, would have forced the resignation of the Government. It lies in the hands of those people to say whether or not there shall be a General Election.
  A General Election may be forced, and, unconstitutional or not, it is the fact which is unconstitutional, and the fact remains that the election may be forced. This Parliament expires in a month or so, and the House of Lords have it in their power, if they so desire, to force an election. Therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench desire it or not, this election may be forced upon them. Are we to face it without a register? Let us have at least the best register that we can have. There is no one who denies that there are thousands of people in this country in the constituencies who are disfranchised at present and who, if there was a General Election or even a by-election, ought to be able to vote, but who at present are deprived of a vote. Surely it is obvious, if an election is forced upon this country, there ought to be ready at any moment the best register which it is possible to devise. The right hon. Gentleman suggested many difficulties about forming a register or the holding of an election. I agree with the difficulties about holding an election. I think they are very great, and so great as to make an election inexpedient; but as to the difficulties of making a register, there are none. I could suggest a dozen prac-
  1058
  tical ways of making a register and of putting on the names of soldiers and sailors on that register. There is no difficulty about it, and if there is the will to do it a register can easily be formed. But the taking of an election, on it afterwards would be a more difficult business. There is a serious question raised here as to whether it is desirable to depart from our ordinary registration law, and to create a new kind of franchise and give this franchise to those who are soldiers and to those who are engaged in war work. That is a question which might properly and desirably be referred to a Committee, and I think it ought to be referred to a Committee. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should amend his Motion and confine it entirely to the question of forming a register, and let it have nothing to do with an election. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a strong and invincible point when he said what a ridiculous thing it was to refer to a Committee the question of whether we should have an election or not. It is not for a Committee, and a Committee could not decide it, because whatever the Committee or the Government resolved an election may be forced upon us. Therefore I suggest that the Government should withdraw this Motion or bring it up to-day in a different form and confine it solely to the question of the methods of forming a register and the principles on which that register should be formed.
  Major ASTOR: I really do not quite know what the object of the Government is in putting down this Motion and in recommending the appointment of this Committee. Surely during this strenuous period of the War it cannot be the object and policy of the Government to waste the time of the House by this Select Committee which they propose to appoint. If they wanted to show the House and the country how they do business and the way in which they do business, and also the way in which they are out of touch with realities they have done so. The reception which has been given to their proposal by the House shows that the Cabinet are completely out of touch with the Members of this House, and I am perfectly certain they would find that they were equally out of touch with the people of the country. I venture to hope that my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) will carry his opposition, if necessary, into the Lobby,

  1059
  and that if the Government do not withdraw their proposal that they will be compelled to do so, as I feel perfectly certain they will be defeated by an overwhelming majority of the Members of this House. I do not wish to say too much of the tone in which this proposal was introduced, because, after all, the right hon. Gentleman was only following the tone set to him by the Prime Minister the other day. When the Prime Minister told us what the policy of the Government was he treated it as the right hon. Gentleman has done, as a joke. Therefore it is not surprising to find that we should have the same tone of levity to-day.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I did nothing of the sort; no more did the Prime Minister.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It was quite a long sneer.
  5.0 P.M.
  Major ASTOR: I can only say that my impression, listening to the Prime Minister, was that there was a tone of levity running through his speech, but I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says on this point. There is not only the question of an election during the War, but we also have to consider the possibility of an election after the War is over. Are we to make no preparation in anticipation of peace?Are we to find peace coming and no means whatever of having an election? The right hon. Gentleman admitted that although in his opinion an election was undesirable, still that it might take place and that circumstances might compel the Government to face an election. It is quite certain that very soon after the War there must be an election. Are we to deal with this question of the register and of the franchise when we are negotiating peace terms and bringing back the Army? The question of preparing a register and of the franchise obviously must take time. Are we to continue the life of this Government indefinitely during peace time while we are discussing how we are to carry on an election. One of the first duties of the Government surely is to carry on the ordinary routine of administration of the country, and by routine of administration I include such forms of legislation as this. After all, we are a democracy and not a bureaucracy, and, as the last speaker has pointed out, it is absolutely essential that we should get an electorate. We should remember that there is an electorate, and see that the people to whom Parliament in the past has given the right of exercis-
  1060
  ing the vote shall not be deprived by the action or inaction of the Government from exercising that privilege. It is essential also that the Government should rot only do that, but that it should try to keep abreast of the development and of the times. I feel certain that there is a general feeling in this House, and I am sure there will be the same feeling outside, that the men who are serving in His Majesty's Forces and who are doing war work should be rewarded by being given the opportunity of registering their vote. Perhaps not everyone will be able to do it, but of registering the vote as a whole on the issues of war and peace if they should come before the country in the shape of an election. After all, this is not a new problem. It is not a problem which has suddenly come before the Government now in July, 1916. The present Parliament was due to end some time last winter, in January or February; therefore during the whole of last year the Government did not know whether they were indispensable or not. The Government during the latter part of 1915 had to face the possibility of an election in January or February. It was up to them during that time to see that there was a register, and to see that there was an electorate to which they could appeal if necessary in case of an election. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, not only had the Government the whole of last year in which to consider it, but they had repeatedly, in reply to questions in this House, announced that they were considering this question. In fact, on 22nd May, the Prime Minister, I think, said that within a week he was going to announce the conclusion to which the Government had come. Now did these replies mean anything or nothing? Were the Government, in fact, considering the question all that time? And when the right hon. Gentleman said, on 22nd May, that within a week the Government were going to announce their conclusion, surely it meant either that they had come to an agreement or that they had very nearly come to an agreement and that something had happened to upset their agreement. If they had not come to an agreement, why did not they come down and tell the House that they could not come to an agreement? Why did they wait until now before telling us that they could not solve the question, which, after all, cannot be so insoluble. This question is one which has got to be settled. The

  1061
  Government may think that they cannot settle it now, but they have got to settle it at some time during the War or just after the War. Do they propose to postpone coming to a decision now in the belief that the question will be more soluble in six months or twelve months' time? The hon. Member who leads the Labour party has asked if the Coalition Government does not settle this question what better form of Cabinet can we find to settle it? It is a question which affects all parties and all classes of the community. As to the giving of votes to soldiers and sailors, I certainly think that men who are prepared to lay down their lives in the War should have the opportunity of registering their views on the terms of peace, or for the great principles for which they have been prepared to lay down their lives, or the way in which this country shall be governed in the future—the country for which they have fought. Of course it is difficult, and of course an election may come at a moment when you cannot register any large proportion of the men who are in the fighting line; but, on the other hand, an election may come during the winter, during the time when things are comparatively quiet at the front. Moreover, there are large numbers of men on the other side of the Channel who are not always in the trenches; in fact, you have always got a large number of men not in the trenches; and although you may not be able to collect the votes of 100 per cent. of the Army and the Navy, surely, if you can get 75 or even 50 per cent. of the men who are fighting, you will have done something.
  Mr. PRINGLE: What about Mesopotamia?
  Major ASTOR: Well, if we cannot include Mesopotamia or German East Africa, we can at least include the Balkans, Egypt, and France. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the fact that there is already a precedent for carrying out an election during war time. During the American Civil War an election was actually carried out, and a large number of the soldiers who were fighting registered their votes. As far as I have been able to ascertain that election was carried through with complete success. I agree that an election at the present time would be a great nuisance and a hindrance, but we must realise the fact that an election may come whether we think it desirable or undesirable, and whether we are for or against a General Election. An
  1062
  election may suddenly be forced upon us, and it is surely the duty of every Member of this House to see that if we have an election there is a register and an electorate which can give the views of the people outside this House as to the way in which the War should be carried out. Let me say one further word of protest against the way in which the Cabinet are trying to get rid of their responsibility. Why should they put their responsibility on the shoulders of a Select Committee of the members of the rank and file? It is surely for the Cabinet to decide this question. That is what they are there for; and what guarantee have we that, supposing this Committee were to agree unanimously on a Report, the Government would accept it, and, supposing the Committee did not agree unanimously, suppose you had a minority Report, or two minority Reports, what would happen then? The Government would be no better off than at present. In times of war none of us like to go out of our way to criticise the Government unnecessarily. We have a great deal to do. I myself do not very often get down here, but I do feel that owing to the way in which the Government are treating the House to-day, it is necessary for those of us who are interested in this matter to come down and register a protest against the way in which the Government are doing the business. I certainly intend to oppose the appointment of this Committee.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I rise to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not announce the decision of the Government at once on this matter, and let us get on with the other business on the Paper. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is a sufficiently old Parliamentary hand to know that he cannot carry out this matter, and if he did carry it out it would be stillborn, because the members of the Committee whose names are on the Paper would not serve with any success, after the Debate that has taken place. The difficulty about this Motion, as about so many other things connected with this Government, is that it is much too late. It is brought forward at a time when no Committee, even if it sat night and day and every hour, could present any Report which would be any practical use as far as this year is concerned. The Government have not meant business about this matter. If they had, they would have appointed this Committee a year ago or more. They should have appointed it at

  1063
  a time when they proposed an extension of Parliament. Instead of appointing a Committee then to advise them on their policy, they actually took the responsibility of stopping all preparations for a register. The responsibility is clearly the Government's, and they should bear it, and they ought not to ask the House and any unofficial Committee to do so. I think to appoint a Committee with such a reference is without precedent when there is no member of the Government upon it. The Cabinet are shirking the responsibility of their own blunders. I think we are entitled to know what the result of the Cabinet's deliberations were with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said they had been considering the matter for over twelve months. I think we are entitled to know what the result is. They must have formed some views after all that deliberation.
  I speak as one of the most severe critics of the Government on many points, and, speaking quite frankly, I say that I do not desire to change this Government at this moment. What we want is that the Government should get on with the War; therefore the question of an election is not really raised. The question which is raised is whether the Cabinet should ask the House to take the responsibility of exercising powers which really fall to be exercised by the Crown and the Prime Minister. You are asking the Committee to say whether a General Election is desirable during the continuance of the War. As to the practicability of an election, we know that if it really suited the Government to go to the country, and if they were sure that they had a majority, the fact that the register was imperfect would not deter them, in spite of any recommendation that the Committee might make. It is not the duty of the Committee, and not even of the House, to decide when an election should take place. The responsibility lies with the Cabinet and the Crown; therefore any report that the Committee might make would not necessarily be treated with any respect by the Government. We have to consider whether it is worth while asking Members of this House to spend their time on a Committee upstairs endeavouring to arrive at a Report which, when it is presented, we have no guarantee would be taken any heed of by the Government. The Government must recognise that they themselves must decide the policy in regard to this matter. I take upon myself,
  1064
  as we have had no statement from the Government, to move "That this Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second that Motion.
  Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to have no reply from the Government on the question of the Adjournment of the Debate?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I trust that my right hon. Friend will not at this moment press his Motion. I am anxious that the Prime Minister should come in, and make a statement of policy, but at present my right hon. Friend is engaged on a very important deputation.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion, on the understanding that some other Member may move it later on, if necessary.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. DILLON: Before we proceed to a Division on this Motion for the appointment of the Committee, we ought to know whether the Government are now in favour of a General Election or not, and what is the meaning of the reference to this Committee. The question as to whether an election is in contemplation or not surely governs the whole situation. Do I understand the reference correctly, that the question whether there should be a General Election or not is referred by the Government to a decision of a Select Committee of this House? If that is so, and I think it is plainly so, from the terms of the reference, then I say it is the most extraordinary constitutional departure in the whole history of this country. That the question of a General Election should be referred by the Government to a Select Committee of this House, on which no member of the Government sits, is a proposal absolutely without precedent in the history of this country, or I venture to say, of any other country that enjoys constitutional Government. It appears to me that that question governs the whole situation. Do the Government contemplate a General Election or do they not? The great mistake was made by the Government last December in consenting to certain proposals that were made as to alterations in the Bill for prolonging the life of Parliament.

  1065
  They have now passed an Act which brings the present Parliament to an end in the month of September. I ask hon. Gentlemen: Can there be a greater farce than to ask us to discuss the question of the appointment of this Committee without any declaration from the Government as to what is their policy in regard to the life of this Parliament? Is this Parliament to end in September? If it is, what folly, and what nonsense, and what contempt for the House of Commons is contained in the Motion of the Government to set up a Committee to consider the methods for setting up a register when we do not know whether an election is to take place in September or not! Surely, if the Government had wanted to treat the House of Commons with decent courtesy and consideration they would have begun by telling us practically what is their proposal in regard to the life of Parliament; having done that, they could base any further proposals that they had to make upon that declaration.
  I wish, however, to say a very few words on this question of the prolongation of the life of Parliament. When, in December last, the proposal was first made to prolong the life of Parliament for a specified time, I ventured to protest in the most solemn manner against that departure. These actions are always broadened into a precedent. I pointed out that no such Motion had been made in Parliament since the days of the Long Parliament; that to propose to prolong the life of Parliament by an Act of the House of Commons, or the two Houses, for a specified period was a totally new departure from the settled practice of this House for 250 years. So long, at all events, as the party who may be in power can control the action of the House of Lords, it really amounts to a destruction of the Septennial Act, or the later Act shortening the life of the House of Commons to five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, we have reduced the period to five years, and that makes my case much stronger, and not a worse case. By an Act of Parliament we have reduced the life of this Parliament to five years; then, when it suited our convenience, we added six months to our life. The argument I then used was, " No man in this House supposes that he is going to see the end of these operations." Now we are in the month of July, and the life of this Parliament expires in September. Does any man in this House suppose that we are going to have an
  1066
  election in September? Are we in the next few weeks to have a hurried Act passed to prolong our lives again, say, for three, six, or nine months, and then, if the War lasts, are we to have a third Act? [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes!"] I think the hour has come when the Government should disclose their hand and let us know what are their intentions. What I say is this: If this kind of system goes on there is an end of that security which in the old days of the history of the British Parliament was looked upon as one of the most important protections for liberty that was ever won in the constitutional history of this country—and that is the Septennial Act! You have whittled it away, because if you get into the habit—and we have done it already!—and you have set us a precedent—of prolonging the life of Parliament for a fixed period, then the Septennial Act, or the Quinquennial Act, loses all its protective influences, so far as the people are concerned. I ventured upon that occasion to say there were two courses open to the Government, and the House, which could be defended consistently with our constitutional history and precedent.
  The one course was to say boldly, "This is a wholly unprecedented War, and an election during a war would be a great national catastrophe and danger; therefore, we will prolong the life of Parliament until it is past." There you make a precedent of a not very dangerous character, because it could only be drawn into a precedent again if we were involved once more in as dangerous a war. That course would, therefore, not be open to so grave an objection as the course which the Government actually adopted. But I confess I should very much have preferred, and I think it would have been a far sounder course, if an agreed election had been decided upon. That would have been the proper course. That would have been consistent with constitutional practice, and would have set up no other precedent. What difference would it have made if there had been an agreed election? There was really no real issue to fight upon as regards the general body of constituencies in the country. When we have a Coalition Government I know no party issue to divide us. I believe both the greatest safety and the least danger would have been to have had your election in last December as an agreed election, between all parties in the House. The argument was used, I remember, that it

  1067
  was impossible to deny any particular constituency the opportunity to deal with this matter. I quite agree. It is quite true that you might have had ten, twelve, or perhaps twenty contested elections, though I do not believe you would have had so many, because I think—and I differ here from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College—this was a cause in which for the safety of the country it was perfectly legitimate to use the two party machines in pursuance of the policy of this House to have an agreed election throughout the country. The result would have been that if you had had even ten, or twelve, or twenty contested elections, which I very much doubt if a general appeal had been made, they would not have seriously disturbed the general political peace of the country, and they would only have been fought on personal issues. There would have been no broad issues dividing the people in such an election. The result of that would have been to clear away altogether from the path of Parliament the troubles which now beset us.
  I have heard hon. Members stand up in this House and profess to look forward to a contested election. Really, a contested election in the midst of a great war is, I confess, a thing I cannot understand at all. Can any man really and seriously, with a sense of responsibility, propose that we should plunge into a contested election, into all the political issues which divide us—that they should be laid open in the midst of this War? I confess that such a man would be one of the most dangerous enemies of his country. Therefore, I dismiss that idea that it is possible for the Government to throw open the gates, and let all the controversies be aroused. Once you open the gates and let one controversy out, you cannot bottle up the others. If you are going to have a party election in the country, you must have the whole field of controversy open. That is an unthinkable thing. It would be an act of treason and treachery to the country. Passions would be aroused. What I really rose to say was this: That I think the hour has arrived when the Government should open their hand, and let us know what is their policy, and what they intend to do. Are they going to introduce a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament? If they are, for how long? What is their proposal? Do they really look forward
  1068
  to a General Election? If they do not, what is the use of dividing us upon smaller issues?
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I am one of those to whom it would be the greatest regret ever to do anything to possibly inconvenience the Coalition Government. I know the importance of their work. I know how overworked they are in carrying on the War. I know that the Debates in this House ought to be curtailed to within the. shortest and smallest possible limits. But here we are in a difficulty which I do not think any Government ought to have put us in. I do not for a moment think they intentionally did it, or could possibly realise the difficulty into which they have put this House. I agree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mayo when he says that the mistake was some time ago. None of us foresaw it. Very few of us realised that it would have been much better to have an agreed election then and there. We thought the War might be over. No doubt that would have been the way out. At the present time we are in a position that I think few people realise, and I think the Governmen do not. I think if the Prime Minister had been here through the whole of this Debate he would have realised that there are other points possible on which this House may get out of hand. In that case an election would be compulsory. What machinery is there for having an election? None at all! It is the duty of the Government at once, and without delay, not to appoint a Committee to consider, but to do something; to make ready in case an election is forced upon us.
  In the first place, let us look at the wording of this Resolution. It says: "Whether it is practicable." Well, the necessity has got to be got over whether it is practicable or not. We have got to do something which will enable the register to be made. Is it desirable to have an election? We all know that it is not desirable to have an election so far as the Government work is concerned. So far, however, as this House is concerned, I do not suppose there are half a dozen Members, except those who have had notice given to them by their constituencies, that do not think that they would be in a better position, and that the country would be in a better position for having a Parliament that could be recognised as representing the people of England. Few Members of this

  1069
  House, I hope, want to prolong their existence and be coupled with the limpets of the past, or the Rump of Oliver Cromwell, or the bits of the Long Parliament, struggling on, decrepit and ineffectual, nominally carrying on the Parliamentary Government of the country, without power, without honour, and without efficiency! We want to have life and vitality and a Parliament renewed! If this War goes on—which I pray God may not happen—for one or for two years, then Parliament will not be the Parliament to make the peace—or ought not to be! The people ought to be better represented. I think it is the duty of everybody to ask that the machinery for the election of a new Parliament should be brought into existence at the very earliest possible moment. I do not want to find fault with this Committee. Even if it were necessary to have a Committee I think it ought to have had upon it members of the Government. It ought to have had men who sit on the Opposition Bench. They may not be the Opposition, but the strongest men of this House ought to have been put on such a Committee. But I do not complain. Any Committee might carry out the wishes of the House, but if you give the House all this power of recommendation, surely it would be better to leave it a little more in the hands of the House to choose the Committee to make the decision.
  One thing I do think is pretty clearly established by the Debate, and that is that, however inconvenient it is, the desirability of an election has been expressed by all those who have spoken It might not be convenient, and it might be deferred for that reason, but that it is desirable in the interests of the country and the House that there should be a new Parliament is not a thing to refer to a Committee. In the second place, there is another fact I think the Government might take as almost a universally agreed principle, and that is that when the register is made there should be a short qualification, so as to enable people who have been away, in consequence of the War, at munitions, to be put on, and also that our soldiers and sailors shall be given a vote, whether they are able to use it or whether they are not, and I do not think the Government need fear that they are encroaching on any new principle in putting the voters of the country on to the register. The very germ of our national and democratic institutions is the old Saxon meeting of the whole nation, when the Army were the first to vote,
  1070
  and I do not see that we should treat the fighting men of to-day differently from, those who fought in the days when our early freedom was established. I do plead with the Government to withdraw this Resolution, and to introduce, if possible, some machinery on their own responsibility that will enable them, if they are driven to it, to have an election with some semblance of the voice of the people being represented.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not know whether I ought to offer any acknowledgment to the Home Secretary inasmuch as my name appears on the list of this Committee to which he is willing to commit this very important business, but [ must confess that if I ever felt inclined to feel any gratitude to him for his nomination of me to that Committee, that gratitude was very considerably diminished by the speech he addressed to the House in introducing the Motion. It appeared to me, even before hearing the right hon. Gentleman, that the Committee which was to be appointed was to perform a task which, though honourable, is always rather melancholy, and sometimes rather tragic—that of sacrificing themselves to cover a retreat. The Government, as my right hon. Friend in front of me has already reminded the House, have been long pledged to propose to the House a method under the peculiar circumstances of the day of forming a register upon which an election might be taken. Owing to circumstances, no doubt, which have arisen in their own ranks, they find it necessary to retreat from that position, and now they are asking a Committee, of which, if formed, apparently, I was to be a member, to sacrifice themselves in order to cover the Government's retreat. I for one, however, much as I might be disposed to object to the policy as a whole, would have been perfectly willing to take whatever part I might be able to in that work if I saw the slightest prospect of any useful result. But after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly clear to me that the right hon. Gentleman himself does not expect any result from the work of this Committee, and, not only that, but he made it quite clear to the House that he does not want the Committee to have any result. In other words, this Committee is formed as a mere expression of the Government's contempt, first of all for the policy to which they themselves were pledged, and, secondly, of the House of Commons itself. Under

  1071
  those circumstances, I will ask to be excused from the honour which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to press upon me.
  Therefore, I do not want to discuss at any length the more general subject about which debate has taken place, but I would like to say one word with regard to the question of whether or not a General Election is necessary or desirable. I agree with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and I think, with every Member in the House, that, other things being equal, it is very undesirable that we should have the turmoil of a General Election. But what strikes me as the peculiarity of this Debate, and of the whole subject which has excited this Debate, is that, on the one hand, we were always being told there was no necessity to form a register, because nobody contemplates having an election, and at the same time the converse proposition was fired at us that you would never think of having an election because there is not a register. Those propositions are mutually destructive, and both of them appear to me to be untrue. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member opposite said a little time ago, that whatever the House of Commons may wish, or whatever the Government may wish, circumstances might at any moment arise which would make it absolutely unavoidable to have a General Election, however much we should all wish to avoid it. The hon. Member to whom I am referring spoke of the possibility of the action of the House of Lords bringing it about. That, I believe, is quite true, but there are other circumstances than that. Surely it is of the very essence of our whole Constitution that, in the last resort, in the case of disagreement among the Government themselves, that one party or other, one statesman or another, should have the power of appealing to the country to decide whether or not a policy has the confidence of the country.
  However indispensable this Government may be—I do not want to discuss that—is it inconceivable to this House that there may be from time to time matters upon which all the members of the Government are not absolutely in agreement? It appears to me to be quite possible that such cases might arise. We have had, during the last few months, more than one example, in which rumour reaches the outside world. of matters on which the Government disagree. Supposing, in the
  1072
  course of carrying on the War, some very important matters come up for decision in the Government, the nature of which I do not in the least attempt to forecast, but we can all undersand that there may be a matter of policy either with regard to carrying on the War or with regard to bringing the War to a close, about which it would be impossible for the twenty-two or twenty-three men who are gathered in the Cabinet to agree upon a policy. Under those circumstances, after the usual constitutional struggle was gone through, and an endeavour to arrive at an agreement, perhaps an occasional resignation of one or more of the Ministers, it is quite conceivable—and there are numerous precedents in our history—that the time might come when it would be absolutely necessary either for the Prime Minister or for someone, at all events, when the Government has come to that impasse, to go to His Majesty the King, and say that it is necessary to go back to the people and get a new mandate for the policy of the Government. If we have not a register upon which an election can be taken, the whole of that constitutional process is put out of gear altogether. It cannot work, and the consequence seems to me to be that the longer we drift along without reforming the electorate, on which this House rests for its authority and power, the more incompetent not only does this House become to represent the people, but the more incompetent does the Government become to lead this House and lead the country, because it is not merely, as I think, a question of whether or not at any given moment you want actually to take an election. Unless the House of Commons has tacitly recognised behind it an electorate upon which it can fall back, and which it represents—unless that is going on at all times, it appears to me that the very backbone is taken out of our Constitution, and we need no longer regard ourselves as a merely constitutional Government according to our accepted notions.
  With regard to the comparatively side issue of enfranchisement, which, I agree with my right hon. Friend, although extremely important, is not necessarily essential to the question of a register, I believe the real reason, or one of the main reasons, why the Government have tried to shuffle off their own responsibility on to a Select Committee is this: The Government find themselves confronted with a demand not only in this House, but outside this House, that the services to the

  1073
  country of the men who are now fighting our battles by sea and land should be recognised by enfranchisement bringing them inside the Constitution. Now the Government do not like to take upon themselves the odium of refusing that request. They know that if they were to say, " We will not grant that demand," they would be incurring a responsibility in the country which, some day or other, would rest very heavily on their own heads, and, therefore, knowing they could not grant that demand without creating a great deal of dissension in their own ranks, and without opening the doors to similar demands for other claimants for the franchise who, although they have not got the same real right in virtue of their service to the country, could not be rejected by any reliance upon strict logic—feeling the difficulty of that position, the Government have said to themselves, " Well, we shall best escape this by saying that this is a matter for the House of Commons to decide, and to appoint a Select Committee." That seems to me to be a very halting policy, devoid altogether of courage and decision, and especially characteristic—for I am afraid we must call it characteristic—of the present Government in that lack of leadership which the nation has a right to expect from a Cabinet at a time of such a crisis as this. I only wish to repeat, after what has occurred, and after the contemptuous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated the whole matter—not merely treating it with levity, but making the whole idea of this Committee a farce—so far as I am personally concerned I do not consent to have anything to do with it.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I very much regret that, owing to other duties which I could not avoid, I was not able to be here during the greater part of the Debate, but I gather from what has been reported to me that the Motion my right hon. Friend moved has not met with much favour. The view which, I am told, is prevalent to some extent, and has been indicated by some speakers, is that the words of the Motion, "to conduct an election upon such register during the War," are intended to relegate to this Committee the examination of the question whether there should be or should not be an election. I need not say that nothing was further from my intention than that. It was intended that the Committee should suggest machinery. The only
  1074
  speech which I have heard is the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. E. McNeill), in which he indulged in some reflections upon the weakness and vacillation of the Government, which are now familiar in other connections. I should like to say in regard to this Motion one or two things which are quite obvious. The first is that under the existing law the present Parliament must come to an end in the month of September unless its existence is prolonged. Secondly, if it is to be prolonged, it cannot be prolonged indefinitely, and therefore some form of register must be devised for the election of its successor. Those are elementary propositions. Now we come to the question as to what form that register should take. The existing register is already out of date, and I suppose does not represent more than 50 per cent. of the electors. When we come to the creation of a new one we are face to face with the inevitable problem of how you are to secure representation meanwhile for those who are fighting for their country at the front. A large part of our male population are now beyond our shores engaged in the performance of a great patriotic duty, and I quite understand and sympathise with the view that a Parliament elected upon a register in which they had no representation would be one which might fairly be described as wanting in moral authority, and not representing the opinion of the nation at large.
  Sir E. CARSON: Parliament elected upon a new register of even the people at home would represent the country better than this Parliament.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is a matter of opinion. In the consideration of this problem we are confronted with a number of other corollary suggestions of very great difficulty and perplexity, because it is almost impossible—I will not say it is impossible—but, at any rate, it is very difficult to create a new register under conditions such as those in which we are now living, without raising the question of the franchise, and when you do that you let in a number of other questions of a highly controversial character, which we all agree it is desirable, if possible, to avoid raising at the present time. The Government, after most carefully considering the matter in all its aspects and finding it exceedingly difficult to arrive at a practical solution, thought this was a matter concerning

  1075
  primarily the House of Commons, and they thought that the assistance and advice of a Select Committee might constitutionally be invoked. If the House does not think so I certainly shall not press the Motion. We are not yet in the position of having any guidance which the work of a Committee of this kind, consisting of those who are not engaged" as we are day and night in the consideration of other questions, might have facilitated. If the House does not think that is a desirable course and desires to throw the whole responsibility upon the Government to make propositions, we will accept their judgment; we will consider the question, and if we are able to do so, as I hope we shall be, we shall make proposals of our own. I very much regret that we shall not have the assistance in this matter of the advice and researches of a representative House of Commons Committee, but it is a matter clearly for the House, and I should not dream of endeavouring to put any pressure upon the House to accept this Motion, because I understand the general opinion of the House is averse to it. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair]

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Board to Acquire Land for Small Holding Colonies.)
    (1) During the continuance of the present war, and a period of twelve months thereafter, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as "the Board ") for the purpose of providing experimental small holding colonies may, with the consent of the Treasury, acquire by agreement any land which, in the opinion of the Board, is suitable for that purpose:
    Where the Board, or a landlord at the request of the Board, terminates a tenancy of land by notice to quit, whether given before or after the passing of this Act, with a view to the use of the land or any part thereof by the Board for the provision of small holdings under this
    1076
    Act, the tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the Board compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land.
    Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this Sub-section:

    (a)unless the tenant has given to the Board a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid; or

    (b)If the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits;

    and in the event of any difference arising as to any matter under this Subsection the difference shall, in default of agreement, be settled by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908:
    Provided also that compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1914, shall not be payable in any case to which this Subsection applies.
    The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Section shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres, and in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired the Board shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval or military forces of the Crown in the present war.
    (2)For the purpose of the acquisition of land by agreement under this Act, the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated with this Act except the provisions of those Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement and the provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land.
    (3)Where a labourer, who has been regularly employed on any land acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Act, proves to the satisfaction of the Board that the effect of the acquisition was to deprive him of his employment, and that there was no employment of an equally beneficial character available to him in the same locality, the Board may pay to him such compensation as they think just for his loss of employment or for his expenses in moving to another locality,

    1077
    and any sum so paid shall be treated as part of the expenses of the acquisition of the land.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "twelve months" ["and a period of twelve months thereafter"], and to insert instead thereof the words "five years."
    I move this Amendment because I think to limit this experiment to a period of twelve months after the present War would very much jeopardise its success. As we proceed with the Committee stage, I am hopeful that enlarging Amendments will be accepted by the Government extending these experiments, and I should like to see the Board of Agriculture have at least five years in order to carry out this project. As the Bill stands at the present time, it is of a very tentative character, and I cannot see any advantage in limiting it to a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has, I think, made it clear that this is only the first of a series of Amendments intended to extend the whole scope and purpose of the Bill. I think I may take this Amendment as part of a series of Amendments which the hon. Member and others have put down upon the Paper.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think that is permissible. Take for instance the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet to extend the area. We must not argue that point on this Amendment, and we must deal simply with the question of the period.
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir. In that case I must say, unfortunately, I am not able to accept Amendments enlarging the scope of the Bill, because I think we can acquire sufficient land to form the area of our experiment under the Bill as it stands during the continuance of the present War and twelve months after, if not in less time than that. I do not think there will be any necessity to prolong the time, although, of course, if the time was lengthened and no other Amendment was made it might allow us to go a little bit further than the limited area and take pieces of land round the colonies collected, and that might be convenient. For that purpose it might be convenient to have
    1078
    an extended time, but I cannot see that we need it for the purposes of this Bill, and we ought to be able to acquire colonies in the time stated in the Bill. As I cannot announce that we can extend the Bill, I think I ought to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. The idea of the Bill is to provide small holdings for those who have been fighting in the ranks during this War. As it only extends for twelve months after the War, a great number of these soldiers will not have returned to this country, perhaps, for six, nine, twelve, or even eighteen months after' the conclusion of the War. As we cannot deal with the Amendments which followed this one to extend the Bill, I think if the Government were to accept this proposal it would give us more time to get land for the hundreds and thousands of soldiers when they come back in order that they may have something in this country for themselves to work upon.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I think there is more in this Amendment than the Parliamentary Secretary for the moment seems to appreciate. It is clear that under this Clause the limit of time applies only to the acquisition of land. I understand his argument to be that if you limit the area to be acquired under the Bill, as is indicated in the Bill as it stands now, primâ facie an extension of the time for acquiring that very limited area of land does not seem to be necessary. But it may be very necessary. There may be a difficulty in rounding up some of the particular areas wanted for these initial few colonies which cannot be overcome within the limited time contemplated by the Bill. It may be that for some reason by agreement it is not possible to get some particular strip of land which follows the contour of the land to be acquired, and an extension of time cannot possibly be interpreted as an enlargement of the scope of the Bill if it is understood that that is merely the object of it, for the purpose of rounding up whatever colonies are going to be acquired by the Government. Consequently I do think that, although the Bill may have to be kept within the rigid limits imposed by the Government, assuming that, I say that you do want to have this purely permissive power to acquire odd bits of land after a later date than this, and I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should

    1079
    consider this matter, and either give way now or consider it again and bring the matter up again on Report.
    6.0 P.M
    Mr. ACLAND: It was only because it seemed to me it was moved as really belonging to a series to extend the whole scope of the Bill that I felt. bound to lay down the general principle of not accepting such an Amendment, but if the Bill is not to be enlarged and it is a mere question of time by itself I think there is something to be said for it, and I am prepared to keep an open mind. I do not want, however, to accept an Amendment if it is to lead to further demands to extend the scope of the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word " experimental."
    There is no necessity, in my judgment, as I ventured to say on the Second Reading of the Bill, to have any further experiment in regard to small holdings. We have had experiments enough, extending over a great number of years. I have taken an interest in small holdings for the last twenty-five years. I have had various experiments on the go for twenty years at least, and all of them have been a success. We have now had the Small Holdings Acts in operation for seven years, and all hon. Members who know anything about the working of those Acts in the various counties will admit that they have been a success.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No!
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No!
    Sir R. WINFREY: I should be glad to hear from hon. Members the particular districts to which they refer; but far as the counties with which I am acquainted are concerned, I am prepared to say that they have been an unqualified success. I think it is very dangerous, therefore, to use the word "experimental." During the Second Reading Debate we had a speech from the hon. Member who represents the Oxford University (Mr. Prothero) and who, I believe, is looked upon as an agricultural expert. He gave us his reasons why he was in favour of calling this an experiment. He said:
    "Then, again, I think the produce that can be raised on a small holding is very limited in its range.…"
    1080
    I was very surprised to hear. that from an expert in agriculture.
    " You will not find that the small holder is likely to succeed except where the form of agriculture which he adopts gives the last return per acre and also is a form in which manual labour is a very large proportion of the cost of production. If that is the case, then the man has a chance of success, but that limits him"——
    and this is the point I wish to drive home to the House—
    "to vegetables, fruit and flowers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1916, col. 92.]
    The hon. Member seriously argued that at present small holdings could only be made a success when they had a very limited range, and that only vegetables, fruit and flowers could be made to pay upon a small holding. He went on further to argue that this scheme should be considered an experiment until the Government had decided the great problem of agricultural production of the future. He said that if you decided to grow more wheat and more bread and more milk you could not afford to cut up much more land in order to create small holdings. I am entirely at variance with the hon. Member. If you want to produce more wheat and more bread, you cannot do better than cut up more land into small holdings, because the small holder will produce more in proportion on his area of land than the large man. In the light of that speech, I have taken the trouble during the interval to have a very careful record made of the small holdings in which I am interested, and I should like to give the House these facts and figures to directly controvert what the hon. Member for Oxford University suggested, that small holdings can only be made to pay if you grow fruit, flowers and vegetables. I formed a Small Holdings Association in Lincolnshire just twenty years ago. We started in a small way by taking SO acres of land. We went on from year to year until we took no less than three large farms of about 1,000 acres from Lord Lincolnshire, which we now occupy. We then extended our operations to the county of Norfolk, where, not finding a landowner to lease us land, we purchased a farm. We therefore have three farms leased in Lincolnshire and three farms purchased in Norfolk. During the last seven years we have leased a further 1,000 acres of Crown land from the Government. This association, of which I have the honour to be chairman, has now something like 2,500 acres of land and a rental of £5,000 a year. I am in the happy

    1081
    position, as chairman, to be able to say that we have no arrears of rent whatever at the present time, and that all the Lady Day rents have been paid. With regard to the contention of the hon. Member for Oxford University that smallholders cannot produce and do not produce wheat and bread, as he put it, I have not had time to take the record of the 1,000 acres of Crown land, but I have got our steward to get out the figures with regard to the three farms owned by Lord Lincolnshire and which we have on lease.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this would open up a discussion very far beyond the scope of this Bill. Surely the only question here is whether the word "experimental," which the hon. Member proposes to leave out, is right or not in connection with these proposed colonies for returned soldiers. That cannot be held to open up the whole question. A whole day might be spent on the question of how far small holdings of every kind have succeeded, and how far they have not succeeded.
    Sir R.WINFREY: I should be quite prepared to occupy a whole day. I bow to your ruling, but I am only answering the arguments of the hon. Member for Oxford University. I believe you, Sir, were in the Chair at the time. The whole gist of his argument was that this should be experimental, that it ought to be experimental, and that the word ought to remain because we had never yet proved in this country that smallholders could produce bread and beef.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not in Committee answer speeches made on the Second Reading. On Second Reading the House considers the scope of the Bill, and then in Committee we deal in a business-like way with the details of the Bill itself.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I regret that I am not in order, but perhaps during the Committee stage I may have an opportunity of giving these interesting figures to the House. I am quite clear that there is no necessity for any further experiments with regard to the success of small holdings, and, seeing the urgent need of getting these small holding colonies in existence and in readiness for our soldiers when they return from the War, it seems to me a thousand pities to limit the Bill to the experimental stage. I would much prefer to have left out the word "experimental" altogether and to have so enlarged the
    1082
    scope of the Bill so as to give the Department, subject, of course, to their getting the money from the Treasury, all the scope they desire to get these small holding colonies in every agricultural county in England. That is my desire, and I cannot help feeling, so long as we keep this word "experimental" in the Bill, that it will be a stumbling block and that we shall not succeed, as a good many of us hope and desire, in increasing the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid, as the hon. Member has just said, that his intention in moving this Amendment is to enlarge the scope of the Bill, that I must resist it. The word "experimental" is contained in the title, and it is an essential part of the intentions of the Government in putting forward the Bill. I regret that I cannot consent to have it cut out. I said, on the Second Reading, that there are still some important questions which we hope these experiments will solve, and that there are points on which we are now ignorant and on which we hope to gain a great deal more knowledge. I do not want to repeat what I said then, but it is a fact that we have not yet had any experience of settling ex-soldiers, a large proportion of whom, at any rate, have not hitherto been experienced in land matters, although we hope that they will make splendid colonists. We do not know yet, for certain, whether men of that type, or of any other type, can successfully be settled in colonies. There is a great deal of conflicting evidence and information with regard to the success of colonies. We have not anything like enough experience as to the working of cooperative and credit societies to aid colonists and men of that kind, and that is one of the essential things on which we want to experiment under this Bill. We have not even as much evidence as we should like on the question of ownership as against tenancy, as to which I shall be able equally to keep an open mind as systems under which soldiers may finally be settled. I really believe that on all these points useful evidence will be obtained under this Bill. I believe experiment is highly desirable on all these points, and I therefore think the word "experimental" might be retained as rightly describing the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I must express very great regret that my right hon. Friend feels constrained to retain the word "experimental" in this Bill. It is perhaps

    1083
    true to say that in this country we have had no definite experience of establishing colonies of demobilised soldiers and sailors on the land. There can be no question of that. But surely we have had experience in this country of the success of small holdings in general and of groups of small holdings in particular! Some years ago I was a member of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into the whole question of buildings and small holdings, and in connection with that work I visited a number of groups of small holdings which I should think, except for the co-operative principle now to be introduced, were exactly or very similar to those colonies which it is now proposed to establish. I understood at the time—and I have seen no reason to change my mind since—those groups of small holdings were perfectly successful, and they are perfectly successful to this day. I cannot help feeling that, while it is useless to argue this question at any very great length, it is, from another point of view, a great mistake to leave this word "experimental" in this Bill. I understood that this Bill was introduced with the object of finding adequate employment and reward for a number of our demobilised soldiers and sailors. And what do we offer? We offer them an experiment; an experiment which, in a matter like agriculture, must of necessity take some years to prove, during which time I venture to think that our soldiers and sailors will drift away from us to the self-governing Colonies, or will be found tramping the roads of this country. I do not want to argue a foregone conclusion. I must content myself with expressing my most sincere regret that the Government insist on retaining this word, and generally in confining this Bill to a scope which is wholly inadequate to meet any of the purposes we thought it was intended to effect.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["small-holding colonies may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    My experience of legislation is that the word "may" is a very unsatisfactory word, and I always prefer the word "shall," at any rate in dealing with small holdings. We in this House ought to
    1084
    demand that the Government shall provide these colonies, and we have had no information given to us up to the present as to whether any real steps have been taken to find land for these ex-soldiers. We may, in the course of this Debate, hear something more on that point, but that there is likely to be a great demand for land I think we have had very clearly stated in the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Acland) gave in reply to a question which was put to him on 12th July. He then told us that, at the request of Lord Selborne, Sir Douglas Haig had asked the Army Commanders in France to arrange for the commanding officers of certain regiments to have inquiries made through the company officers as to whether any of their men contemplated settling on the land, either in the United Kingdom or in the Dominions, when the War was over. Ninety-seven thousand men drawn from a large number of different units, were questioned accordingly, and 17,000 men, out of 97,000, expressed themselves as desirous of settling on the land, either in the United Kingdom or in the Dominions. The Board had not been supplied in all cases with separate figures for each unit selected, but in the case of those for which particulars were available, the percentage varied from nil in one battalion of the Rifle Brigade to 46 per cent. in a battalion of a Suffolk Regiment. In two battalions, mainly composed of townsmen, the percentage was 5, in two battalions mainly composed of miners it was 9, and in two battalions drawn from rural areas it was no less than 28 per cent. If that be a correct estimate, after taking the opinion of 97,000 of our soldiers, what will it work out at when you take the opinion of 4,000,000? So far as I am able to estimata it, we shall want land for something like 500,000 of men, and in these circumstances it seems to me that the word " shall," rather than the word "may," would be that which it would be advisable for this House to accept. I think we ought to make it mandatory upon the Government and the President of the Board of Agriculture to find this land for these men, and, not merely to say that they may find it if they wish, or they may not if they do not wish.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think this is not the first, and probably not the one-hundredth, time that it has been moved to substitute for the word "may" in a Bill the word "shall"; and this is not the first time

    1085
    by any means that it has had to be explained that it is really a mistake to put in " shall" in this sort of legislation, because, really it has no meaning. You cannot mandamus a public Department, and it is better to leave in the word "may," unless the word "shall" has a technical meaning in that there is some power to compel action to be taken. It may mean "shall" in this case. We take the powers because we intend to use them, but "may" s the better word, because the mandatory "shall" cannot be technically enforced by any process of law. With regard to the figures quoted, although I agree with my hon. Friend as to their interest, I should like to make this clear, that there is nothing to show how many of those men were already employed on the land and simply expressed their wish to return to their usual and prior occupation. The figures have a value, but they would have a great deal more value if the question had been asked as to how many men not hitherto employed on the land wished to settle on the land, and how many hitherto settled on the land did not wish to be so after the War. There is nothing to show that these percentages were not wholly, or mainly, composed of men already settled on the land who expressed a preference to continue in the state of life in which they previously lived. With regard to the earnestness of the Department in the action which they are taking I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. There is no doubt whatever that we do not mean to take advantage of the word "may" not to acquire the area which the Bill, we hope, will give us the right to acquire. We have already gone quite as far as I think the House would consider it right and proper for us to go in making inspections, inquiries, and entering into negotiations about land; and I think that certainly with one of the colonies it will only await the passing of this Bill for us to be able to make a final agreement under which we shall be able to obtain vacant possession at Lady Day next year. There is no doubt we are pushing on action which will result in attaining the area required with the greatest possible speed, and therefore I hope that as it makes no difference to the meaning or to the action which will be taken, my hon. Friend will consent to leave the word "may" in, as I think is almost invariably done in Acts of Parliament, rather than substitute the word "shall."
    Sir R. WINFREY: Can we have this point cleared up as to what the questions really were that were put to the men—"At the request of Lord Selborne, Sir Douglas Haig asked the Army commanders in France to arrange for the commanding officers of certain regiments to have inquiries made as to whether any of their men contemplated settling on the land." Was the question definitely put to the men as to whether they desired to become small holders or colonists, because that seems to me a very important points It would help us very much in debate on this Bill if we could really know what sort of questions were put.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that point arises here. It may arise on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not cognate to the question of the words "may" or "shall."
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words " by agreement" ["acquire by agreement"].
    I make this proposal because I want the scope of this Bill increased. I hope later on we shall be able to carry against the Government the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings), or one of those Amendments extending the acreage of land to be obtained under this Bill. If that is so it is very important that we should leave out the words "by agreement," because we want to give the Board of Agriculture power to acquire otherwise than by agreement, if necessary. They have the power under the Small Holdings Act of 1908. Where a county council fails in its duty to obtain land, and fails to put the compulsory powers into operation, then the Board of Agriculture have the power to set the county council aside and to proceed themselves to acquire land; and when they so do it they can do it under the compulsory Clauses of the Small Holdings Act. I think we ought to give the Board of Agriculture the same power in this Bill of acquiring land by compulsion, if necessary, as we have done in the Small Holdings Act. It seems to me equally important—presuming that we are able to carry the Amendment—that instead of 6,000 acres 60,000 should be obtained, or my Amendment that at least 6,000 acres should be obtained in each agricultural county—for the Board of Agriculture to have compulsory powers.

    1087
    I do not think it will be possible for them to acquire that amount of land by agreement, not within a reasonable time at any rate, and I therefore hope the Committee will support me in my Amendment to leave out these words in order to give the Board of Agriculture full power to obtain this land, either by agreement or by compulsion.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am very sorry to have to make it quite definite that the Government do not think it right to adopt compulsion as a means of getting land under this Bill. We believe we shall be able to get a sufficient area to establish the colonies we contemplate establishing without resorting to compulsion. Further, we know that the questions of compulsory acquisition of land, the Statutes under which land can be compulsorily acquired, and the basis of the payment of the price for which it shall be acquired, are matters of acute controversy. We want to avoid that controversy in this Bill, which is a very small Bill; but if we were to accept the principle of compulsion we should have immediately hon. Friends of mine taking one view of the basis on which compulsory powers should be exercised and other Members taking an entirely different view. We should be in danger of being plunged into a very acute controversy which it would be rather difficult to avoid. As, therefore, we can get the land without raising that controversy at all, we think we are justified in not asking for compulsory powers, and I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not in contemplation, or have not negotiations been commenced for, the acquiring of a considerable area of land for this Bill, and could he tell us for how many of the 6,000 acres in Britain and the 2,000 acres in Scotland negotiations are in progress?
    Mr. D. WHITE: Before my right hon. Friend answers that, will he also give the House information on this point: I understand that Lord Lucas and various other people who are in a position to do so have freely offered some land for the purposes of this Bill. I do not want to ask my right hon. Friend to anticipate any details, but could he give the Committee some idea of the total area of the land which has been so offered in the aggregate?
    Mr. ACLAND: We are certain to be able to get a certain area of Crown land in the south of Yorkshire which, I think, is 2,500 acress in extent, for one colony. Nothing else is certain at all. Naturally, those who are advising us on this matter want to be certain of what offers may be available, and I think also, naturally, we have not been able to invite offers from patriotic people who may be willing to help us in this matter so definitely before the Bill has been passed as we shall be able to do after the Bill is passed. Although, therefore, various other suggestions of areas have been considered, I cannot say anything certain at all except with regard to that particular area about which we have a firm offer from the Crown. With regard to the property that Lord Lucas offered, it is an extraordinarily fine and patriotic offer. That land has been very, very carefully inspected, and it was found that the area of suitable land was held by so many people that it would be inadvisable to dispossess them by people holding a small number of acres, however much we should like to do so. Of the other land, held in larger farms, a very large proportion of the area was too heavy to provide the best chance for the people we want to settle. Therefore, with very great regret, the Board has come to the conclusion that they would not be well-advised to accept that offer, in spite of the splendid spirit in which it was made.
    Mr. SCOTT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question before the Amendment is disposed of. I understand the point of view of the Government in relation to the question whether or not there should be compulsion in this Bill depends entirely upon the very limited scope of the Bill, and that they are not by this Bill seeking in any way to set up a precedent for future small-holding settlements, but that if the scheme is carried further, as we hope it will be hereafter, they do not preclude the possibility of compulsion being adopted if it is necessary?
    Mr. ACLAND: That is so, absolutely.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman proves to me the necessity of adopting the Amendment. We hear that some land has been offered by a Noble Lord, but has been found not to be suitable for the purposes of this Bill. Does not that rather

    1089
    prove that we ought to have power to take land at a fair price if it is suitable for the purpose? If the Government do not require to use the power given by the Amendment, they need not do it. If they get plenty of land by agreement, they need not use compulsion. The Amendment is a safeguard, and the Committee should adopt it.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "land" ["or farm stock on or used in connection with the land"], to insert the words " and for a further sum not exceeding one year's rent for indirect loss due to the quitting of the holding."
    This Amendment has been put down at the instance of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and provides for the giving of adequate compensation to a sitting tenant who may be disturbed by the taking of his land. The history of this Bill in its passage through another place is very similar to that of a former measure dealing with small holdings which passed through this House. Many hon. Members will remember that in the Small Holdings Act, 1908, there was no provision for compensation to sitting tenants whose land was taken, and that subsequently a Bill had to be brought in to remedy that omission. In the same way, this Bill was introduced without any provision at ail for compensation, but in the course of its passage through Committee in the other House a partial compensation was granted which is now included in the Bill before us. The Amendment carries the question of compensation a little bit further. It only does that which is just. The experience of some of the best valuers in this country goes to show that in the hundreds of cases which have been before them, where the land has been compulsorily acquired for the purpose of creating small holdings, the tenant has not received anything like the fair compensation to which he might fairly consider himself entitled. In no case is he compensated for the loss which it is practically impossible for him to submit in a concrete form to an official valuer.
    The Amendment which stood on the Paper before mine in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Ellis
    1090
    Davies) dealt with the question of good-will. That is only one part of the loss which is suffered that is very difficult to assess by means of a valuation. Supposing a man who is occupying a farm has built up a milk trade or some other development in connection with his holding, and, after many years of labour and the expenditure of much time and money, he suddenly receives notice that his farm is going to be taken for an experimental purpose, all that is lost to him. He receives under the valuation the compensation to which he is entitled in regard to stock and certain improvements on his land, but for disturbance, which is a very serious thing to farmers—more serious to farmers, perhaps, than men engaged in any other pursuit—he remains uncompensated. There is another matter which ought not to be lost sight of when we are considering this particular Bill, that is, the sentimental side of the question. This Bill is commended to Parliament very largely on sentimental grounds, with a view to establishing those who have been maimed or injured in the course of the War on the land in order to get them back to their own native land. We have also to remember those who are in occupation of that land. We have to think of the men who have, perhaps, two or three sons out in the War, and who were born on that land. Are we not to think of them? Are they to come home and find that their home has been seized suddenly for the purposes of this experimental legislation? The justice of my proposal is so patent that I feel sure it will meet with considerable support.
    Mr. ACLAND: If ever any Amendment, moved so innocently as it has been by my hon. and gallant Friend, raised a hornet's nest, it is this one. The history of the proposal has been described. The form of words we propose to adopt here originated in the Bill which will always be honorably associated with the name of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings). A Clause was put into that Bill, against very strenuous opposition from certain quarters of the House, providing that a landowner who disturbed the tenants without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, should pay certain compensation. Although, of course, many of us at that time may have thought that it did not go far enough, at any rate certain principles for the payment of

    1091
    compensation were adopted. Certainly no one on these benches wanted to make them any broader, on the contrary, their speeches and voting were the other way. The same words were adopted in the Small Holdings Act, 1910, to apply to persons who were dispossessed from the land for the public purpose of providing small holdings. We have taken the existing Statute, simply changing the words that had to be changed so that the compensation will be paid by the Board instead of by the landowner, as it is in the Agricultural Holdings Act, or by the county council as it is in the Small Holdings Act. We have applied them verbatim to this Bill. This is the first time, but it is not the last time in this Bill, in which we have applied the principle in existing legislation exactly, without making any variation, in order to avoid the risk of raising any new contentious matter which might be used as soon as we put it into this Bill as an argument for making it go very much further. What would be the position if we accepted the Amendment? Were the State, for the public purpose of settling soldiers on these few experimental small colonies, to find it necessary to dispossess tenants—I need hardly say the risk of that will be the minimum, because we have already had to decline several suggestions on the very ground that persons would have to be removed—compensation would have to be given on a different and higher scale than that upon which the landowner is made to pay if he disposesses his tenant for reasons, it may be, of politics, religion, or something of that kind. Surely that is an extremely contentious proposal. The only path of safety and the only right path in this case is to accept and transpose existing legislation into this Bill without making these additions. If you are going to change the whole basis of giving compensation to a dispossessed tenant, you ought not to propose it only in the case of these small colonies for returned soldiers, but you ought to say that you are willing and anxious to do it for all tenants dispossessed by private landowners from one end of the country to the other, and also amend the Agricultural Holdings Act. As that Agricultural Holdings Act was settled in its present form after very severe controversy in this House, I hope we may let
    1092
    that sleeping controversy lie and not raise it all again by trying to expand the scope of the compensation given in this Bill.
    Captain STANTER: I am very sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman looks upon this Amendment in the light he has done. I look upon it in quite a different light. There is no shadow of doubt that if this Bill is to become law and the soldiers are to be put on the land, the whole matter will have to be hurried and done as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was an innocent Amendment, because the existing principles are being followed. This Bill, however, is an experiment. We have just settled that. It is an absolutely new scheme to put soldiers on the land. May I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that; most likely, indeed I think certainly, you will also be unsettling soldiers from the land in order to carry out this scheme. There will be tremendous difficulties for those people who are dispossessed to find out farms suitable for them again, and there will be a considerable period before the man who is being dispossessed will be able to find a farm suitable for him to take and get to work again, and I think it is only fair and just that the Amendment should be accepted, and if it is carried to a Division I and a good many others will back the hon. Baronet up. Why do you quote all these Acts of Parliament when your Bill, as you acknowledge, is an experiment? I sincerely hope you will pass the Amendment and give the people who are dispossessed the very adequate compensation which it proposes.
    Sir W. BEALE: If hon. Members who have supported this Amendment would apply the principles they have been advocating to all cases of tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act and apply it throughout, I should warmly support it. But if this Clause were not in at all the tenant would not get anything. The object of the Clause is to give to the tenant something which he would not otherwise have had, and to add to that something which does not apply in other cases of exactly similar hardship seems to me so much out of place that I shall vote against the Amendment.
    Mr. LAMBERT: It is with very great regret that I cannot find myself supporting the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment does not come from a body of faddists or outside land reformers, such as sometimes hold forth, but from the

    1093
    Central Chamber of Agriculture, and it has been moved by the president and supported by the vice-president, and I really do not understand why, when the Government is taking power to acquire land by agreement for the purpose of putting on small holders, and they will have to dispossess some other men who are possibly farming the land quite well, these tenant farmers should be mulct in considerable loss because they are dispossessed and have to move from one farm to another. There does not seem to me to be any answer to that. Why should you, for the purpose of putting one small holder on the land, inflict loss upon the present occupier? The Clause is perfectly plain:
    "The tenant upon quitting shall be entitled to recover from the Board compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to the quitting which the tenant may unavoidably incur upon or in connection with the sale or removal of his household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the land."
    That means that he will be simply compensated for the cost of transporting his-household goods, implements, and farm stock from one farm to another. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that there is far more in it than that. If a man has to leave his farm and go into a new neighbourhood he has to adapt himself to the conditions of that new neighbourhood. In his old farm he knows what each field will produce. He has got the measure of the farm. If he takes a new farm in a different neighbourhood he has to study that farm. There is a considerable loss. More than that, he may have another connection. My hon. Friend suggested a milk walk, or the sale of dairy produce, or a hundred and one things in which the farmer is engaged. You turn him out and simply give him compensation only to the extent of moving his goods from one farm to another. It is totally inadequate, and I ask the Government why should they injure the present farmers, who are doing their best, for the purpose of putting on other farmers. I gladly welcome the experiment of the Government in putting these settlers on the land, but for heaven's sake do not do an injustice to the present occupiers of the land, and that is what you are doing. I do not think there is a single man but would wish to deal fairly and even generously with the dispossessed tenants.
    Mr. ACLAND: Would you expect it from private individuals?
    Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend is very skilful. He is trying to draw a red herring across the track. We are now dealing with this Bill, and when it comes to dealing with private individuals we will talk about that. This is a question of the Government acquiring land. Are they going to deal honestly and fairly by the present tenants? I suggest that they should. After all, it is a very poor commencement for an experiment of this kind that the first thing they do is to treat ungenerously the farmer who is doing his land very well. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment which has been proposed on the authority of so substantial a body as the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and that in thismatter, at any rate, he will lay down the important principle, the just principle, that a tenant farmer who is dispossessed from his holding shall get not only compensation for moving his goods from one farm to another, but one year's rent in addition.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I very strongly support this Amendment for three or four extremely strong reasons. The first is this, the great difficulty in the wide extension of the principle of this Bill hereafter to other areas, so as to make it possible to settle any considerable number of soldiers upon small holdings, is the posssession of land by sitting tenants If there is one thing that the nation ought to do generously it is this. If they are going to dispossess any considerable number of sitting tenants for the purpose of carrying out a national object like this, the least thing they can do is to treat them generously. It is perfectly well known to everyone interested in agriculture that the measure of compensation laid down in this Clause is not anything like the full loss to a sitting tenant who has to go when he does not want to. There is no question about it, and it seems to me that to say that you are going to do this because this was done in previous Statutes is a ridiculous argument. We are dealing with a totally new problem. We are dealing with a problem that is not only new but has to be carried through under the pressure of extreme urgency in a very short time, so that you cannot wait over a long series of years to take up farms here and there as they become vacant.

    1095
    You have to take steps to get your land quickly. The essence of this problem, as it seems to me, is that the offer of the State to the returning soldier at the end of the War must be made as a firm offer before demobilisation begins. Who knows when the War is going to end? The right hon. Gentleman talked of getting possession of the first of these colonies—one colony—100 men—next Lady Day. The Government will have to get ahead at a very much more rapid rate than that, and, if they are going to do that, the first thing they must do is to prepare to say to the sitting tenants, "If you will only go we will help you and do everything we can to get a comparable farm elsewhere. We are asking you to go on national grounds, for the sake of the soldiers who protected you, and we will treat you handsomely." One hon. Member said this provision of the Bill was a new provision, and that this measure of compensation provided by the Bill was in itself an advance. That is only so to a very limited extent. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1914, this measure of compensation was extended to every tenant where the property was sold, and, consequently, the only newness about the proposal in the Bill is in those cases where there is a sitting tenant on Crown land, or where the Crown or the Board of Agriculture takes a lease instead of purchasing. In every case where the Board buys, the Act of 1914 gives it, and, consequently, I urge very strongly upon the Government that, in common fairness to the farmers of this country, and, if you like, as a measure of opportunity essential in order to enable your policy of small holdings on existing agricultural land to be carried through quickly, as distinguished from land which has to be reclaimed, I urge them to adopt the Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir Ivor Herbert) brought this Amendment forward on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, of which he is the distinguished president. It could not have been in better hands than his.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Finance Act, 1916.

  2. National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916.

  3. Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Amendment Act, 1916.

  4. Re-election of Ministers Act, 1916.

  5 Royal Marines Act, 1916.

  6. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation Act, 1916.

  7. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1916.

  8. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1916.

  9. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1916.

  10. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1916.

  11. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1916.

  12. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1916.

  13. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1916.

  14. Halifax Corporation Act Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1916.

  15. South Metropolitan Gas Act, 1916.

  16. Van Diemen's Land Company's Act, 1916.

  17. Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Act, 1916.

  18. Canada Company's Act, 1916.

  19. Metropolitan Electric Tramways Act, 1916.

  20. Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Act, 1916.

  21. Uxbridge Gas Act, 1916.

  22. Folkestone Gas Act, 1916.

  23. Saint John's Church (Kingston-upon-Hull) Act, 1916.

  24. Wakefield Corporation Act, 1916.

  25. London County Council (Money) Act, 1916.

  26. North British Railway Act, 1916.

  27. Hornsey Gas Act, 1916.

  PRIVATE.
  28. Irvine's Divorce Act, 1916.
  29. Lecky's Divorce Act, 1916.

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Mr. OUTHWAITE(resuming): We have had a speech from the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment, and we have had a speech from the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), in which he depicted in very moving terms the sad fate of the evicted tenant. It suggested to my mind bow very hard-hearted were the landowners on the opposite side of the House in the days gone by, when we have been trying to get some concessions from them for the evicted tenants. They seemed to take quite a different view of the case when it was a matter of squeezing money out of the Treasury for compensation. The hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) urged that this in-creased compensation should be given so as to facilitate the efforts of the Government in acquiring land. He saw a time coming when the demobilised soldiers would have to be provided with large areas of land, and he wanted the whole matter settled before then. I take an absolutely different view of the case. I think that the more we hold back, to the very latest period, the question of the acquisition of land, the better. I think that we should let these demobilised soldiers have something to say in the matter, and, I think, if they have, they will get land on very much more reasonable terms, and under different methods of compensation, than those suggested by this Amendment. Eor instance, we heard to-day from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that none of us would possess any property if it were not for our soldiers and our sailors. I think that when our soldiers and sailors are disbanded and the question of compensation for land arises it will be dealt with in a different way. I think it quite possible that these men will say, "We will compensate the tenant, but we will not compensate the landlord." I think it highly probable if the War goes on for another year that conditions will arise in which that will be the principle on which these men will get the land. They have fought for the country and saved the country, and when it comes to establishing themselves on the landthey will say, "We are not going to pay heavy compensation to the landowner," and therefore in the,
  1098
  future you might be able to make better arrangements with regard to compensation than at present. The whole point seems to be that this provision is completely unnecessary. This is not a case where we are dealing with the compulsory purchase of land. All the acquisition of land is to be on a voluntary basis, and if the landowner is not going to secure from the State a price for his land which would enable him to supplement the provision which he might get from the State, the landowner would not part with his land unless a satisfactory arrangement were made.
  Captain STANIER: The landowner in this particular case is the Crown.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: No, the Crown is the buyer. When it has bought the land and the transaction is finished, then it is the owner of the land.
  Captain STANIER: This is Crown land.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Some of it may be Crown land, but I presume that most of it is land in private possession. It is a voluntary purchase and stands in quite a different relationship from compulsory purchase. The landowner need not sell unless he gets what is satisfactory.
  Captain BATHURST: I do not know that I have ever had reason to agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken until this moment. As a rule my views are diametrically opposed to his on land questions, but so far I do agree with him in agree with him in the contention which he has just placed before the House that this, being a matter of arrangement in every case, whenever offers are being made, even by the Office of Woods, of land at all likely to suit the requirements of this scheme, the stipulation should be made that generous compensation shall be given to all tenants who may be displaced. I have contended most strongly in this House and outside as to the gross inadequacy—I do not hesitate to use the phrase—of the compensation provided for dispossessed tenants under Section 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act and under the the Small Holdings Act of 1910. I have in no way changed my views on that subject. I look forward to a time—I hope it may be soon—when we shall have general legislation which will deal fairly by all agricultural holders who are displaced in consequence of legislation of this House which has the result of dispossessing them from their holdings. There is absolutely

  1099
  no matter on which the Central Chamber of Agriculture has been for many years so unanimous as the adequacy of the compensation paid under the existing Agricultural Holdings and Small Holdings Acts.
  I am not at all satisfied that the basis of compensation which is suggested in this Amendment is the right basis. I think that in many cases it will be found that one year's rent is wholly inadequate to compensate properly certain agricultural tenants, and in other cases—most cases I think—one year's rent would be far more than sufficient for the purpose; but in any case I do not want to see the question prejudiced in the least. If a man has suffered by the loss of goodwill as a consequence of his going to another holding where the effect of the whole of the accumulated knowledge, that is such an enormously valuable asset to a farmer, on the holding which he has had to quit is lost, and nothing whatever is given in respect of those two items, I want to see general legislation which will provide ample compensation on the merits of the case, and not by reference to any rule which may give either more or less than a man deserves, and that compensation shall be given for the loss actually sustained, according to his particular requirements. Whether it is fair or not to deal with this by piecemeal legislation of this sort, I will leave it to the Government to decide. If the Government do consent to accept this Amendment I shall ask, and I hope that all agricultural Members in this House will ask, that immediate legislation shall be introduced to provide the same benefit for all those who have been dispossessed in the past and are likely to be dispossessed in the future when their land is taken for small holdings.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I presume that it is the intention of the promoters of this Act that the Act should work. If the cost of these holdings is added to in one direction or another, it will be quite impossible that the Act should succeed. We are going to purchase the land by a most expensive process. It is to be a voluntary transaction between buyer and seller, which is to take place under the Lands Clauses Act. Over and above that, my hon. and gallant Friend now proposes that we should put a big sum on top for compensation, amounting to one year's rent. My hon. Friend who has just sat down suggests that sometimes that will not be sufficient. While I
  1100
  am very anxious to be fair to all those who are damaged by any action of this House, we should bear in mind the future of the men who will be settled on these holdings. Are they to be overburdened by such a cost that the rent which they have to pay would be so high as to make it impossible to work successfully? I can conceive no more certain method of making a failure of the whole experiment than by piling up the cost of the land acquired under this Act. I believe that the cost will be found to be prohibitive, but the expense, if it increases any more, is bound to lead to utter failure, and therefore I object to this suggestion.
  Colonel GRETTON: I agree with my hon. Friend who sits behind that as the Amendment has been drafted it goes too far. It is not necessary for the purposes of this Bill. It seems to me that an Amendment of this kind, to a limited extent, will be useful to the Government in order to enable the Board of Agriculture to acquire land without hardship to the tenant who will be removed. What is really intended is that extra compensation shall be paid, not exceeding one year's rent, to anyone quitting a holding, where such is necessary in order to obtain immediate possession. I think that some words to that effect should be added, and would make this Amendment a useful Amendment. This Bill, when passed, will come into operation immediately. Land will be wanted at an early date. Of course, Crown land and a few other lands are subject to six months' notice to quit, but general agricultural land in this country is let to farmers on a yearly tenancy, and is managed on a yearly system, and unless a tenant has a year's notice he cannot at once abandon his land without unreasonable loss. If you want to take possession in less than a year the matter should be taken into consideration. In order to get immediate possession and facilitate agreement an Amendment of this kind, limited in the sense which I have suggested, would be useful and would facilitate the acquisition of the land at a very short notice.
  Mr. ACLAND: May I point out, as a very practical point, that where you want to get hold of land without giving the tenant the statutory notice to which he is entitled you have to make an agreement with him, and if you are determined to get the land you are practically in his pocket, so to speak. You have to pay him what compensation he thinks he ought to have for going, and this does not apply at

  1101
  all. This only applies where the tenant gets the proper full legal notice to which he is statutorily entitled, but if you want to take a short cut to possession you shall have to give the compensation asked for.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I did not quite follow the hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) on the point as to which he dissented from this Amendment. What I gathered was that he thought it went too far in allowing a year's rent. May I point out that the words are: "Not exceeding a year's rent." That does not necessarily mean a whole year's rent in every case. As he pointed out himself there are cases in which you will get possession of land at short notice, and you must have the necessary compensation paid.
  Mr. D. WHITE: I think that one phrase which has been used in this discussion is apt to mislead. We have been hearing about the tenant who is dispossessed. The idea of being dispossessed generally suggests the idea of compulsory dispossession. As my right hon. Friend has just pointed out, there is no power of that kind under the Bill at all. The whole thing is voluntary, and the question which the Committee should consider is—should any tenant, who leaves under a notice to quit, receive more compensation than he is entitled to under the Agricultural Holdings Act and the other Act that has been mentioned? It has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wilt-shire (Captain Bathurst), and if I may say so I agree with him, that the compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act given to> an outgoing tenant who receives notice to quit in the ordinary way is not sufficient, but I may point out, as those of us who were here in 1906 remember, that various attempts were made to give more compensation, and those attempts—I do not want to raise party questions, but it is simply a matter of knowledge to anyone who was here at the time—were largely defeated by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. They said that it would wreck the system if that plan were adopted. Now we are told that the Central Chamber of Agriculture is in favour of this Amendment. Where was the Central Chamber of Agriculture in 1906 when these proposals were made? I am not aware that the Central Chamber of Agriculture ever suggested that when compensation was to come from the land-
  1102
  lord there should be greater compensation than that provided in the Bill which afterwards became an Act. Surely the same rule should apply, whether the person taking the land is the State or someone else.
  This is an experimental matter. We are starting on an experimental basis. Even as the Bill stands there is more generous compensation than would be given in ordinary cases under the Agricultural Holdings Act. If you go further and throw in a year's rent as an additional bonus, then from the economic point of view, as compared with other farmers and other agricultural undertakings, this will be to the disadvantage of this scheme from the beginning, because it will work out at an extra rent and the tenant in such cases will be overburdened, or an extra burden will be imposed upon the taxpayer. I do not want to cover the burden by quartering it on the taxpayer. If there is a general proposal that the tenant leaving the land under notice to quit should receive more generous compensation, I am ready to lend a very favourable ear to it, but I am not prepared to make a distinction of the character now proposed. If I may say it to my right hon. Friend, I hope there may be very few cases in which men who are working land will be dispossessed, because a man working a farm is in fact working it on economic grounds, and if you dispossess him to put another in his place, it is possible that the other may not succeed, which would tell against the experiment, and therefore it is very important, whatever scheme of compensation is adopted, that the dispossession of men to make room for others should be kept within the narrowest limits possible.
  Mr. ERNEST JARDINE: The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Dundas White) and other Members on that side of the House, have put forward what is to me a most extraordinary argument, if it were not that I am used to politics. This Amendment is simply asking for reasonable compensation to a farmer who is dispossessed from a selected farm that is wanted quickly for national purposes, and it is suggested that he should not be paid proper compensation because somebody on this side some years ago objected to compensation. Those hon. Members would in that case to which I refer have been very much in favour of dispossessing the landlord, and of insisting on very great or very fair and generous compensation. To-

  1103
  day they are opposed to compensation in favour of the sitting tenant. I want to say that we are in favour of the compensation of the sitting tenant. We think that in the past he has not received sufficient—and I may say that the Central Chamber of Agriculture have always been in favour of more generous compensation to the tenant. To-day hon. Members opposite are opposing it. That is absolutely inconsistent with what practically everyone on that side has been saying in previous years, when they have been in favour of this compensation. Another red herring is attempted to be drawn across the path of this very fair and very reasonable Amendment. We do not want the poor soldier to be charged with the burden of compensating the man dispossessed. Who wants the soldier to be charged with that burden? Who will get up in this House and say other than that we want to treat the men, who have fought for us, in the most generous fashion, and that we mean to help them? The State should help the soldier; not the dispossessed farmer, who, with his sons, has been working the farm and has become thoroughly accustomed to working the land. I do hope the Under-Secretary will see that in some measure more generous compensation is given to the man whose farm is taken, and who had hoped to leave the land to his children. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he would be only too glad to carry out that view if it were the case of a private landowner, instead of the State.
  Sir GEORGE AGNEW: My hon. Friend. who has just spoken pointed out that this Bill is an entirely voluntary arrangement, but I would like to point out to him that there is nothing so far as the tenant is concerned.
  Mr. WHITE: He is entitled to the usual notice.
  Sir G. AGNEW: He is entitled to his usual notice, I admit, but I do think that this House is required to act justly so far as these people are concerned to whom notice is given. I think it is only natural that a man who has been used to a certain piece of land, whether it be a large farm or a small farm, to which he has become accustomed, knowing the kind of land with which he has to deal, is entitled to proper consideration when it is proposed that he should give up his land and seek other land which may be of a totally different character and perhaps has been badly cultivated for several years, and on which he may have to incur further expenditure. Moreover, in some parts of the country a man may have difficulty in obtaining land, and may have to wait one, two, or three years. I think the Board of Agriculture ought to take that possible circumstance into consideration. So far as I am concerned, I only want to see justice done in this matter, and I think that the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member ought to be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 113.

  Division No. 38.]

  AYES.

  [7.38 p.m.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Roche, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Carew, C.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cosgrave, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Doris, William

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Younger, Sir George

  Gretton, John

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Haslam, Lewis

  Perkins, Walter F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hinds, John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Major-General Sir Ivor Herbert and Captain Stanier.

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Bird, Alfred

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Adamson, William

  Bliss, Joseph

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Anderson, W. C.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

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

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duffy, William J.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clynes, John R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Finney, Samuel

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morison, Hector

  Snowden, Philip

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldstone, Frank

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Sutton, John E.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hodge, John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pratt, J. W.

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Hudson, Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Johnson, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  King, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "six" ["six thousand acres"], and to insert instead thereof the word sixty."
  Although my right hon. Friend has expressed unwillingness to extend the scope of the Bill, I hope that decision is not final. As the Bill stands, the Government leave themselves open to suspicion that they are merely bringing in the Bill as a kind of window-dressing in order that they may persuade the general public that they are doing something for the exservice men. It is nothing of the kind. The Bill will only put about 400 men on the land, which is a number scarcely worth considering. That operation, if I understood the answer given to the hon, Member for Devonport, will cost, including everything, about £300,000. Was there ever such a waste of money. Let hon. Members fancy the area which might be obtained for that sum, and which would afford employment, not to 400 men, but to thousands. As an instance, I would refer to the right hon. Gentleman's own county of Cornwall, where a state of things exists of which he is probably aware. The Small Holdings Committee of that place has made inquiries, and report that there are 86,000 acres of waste land quite capable of cultivation, as they have proved by cultivating some of the waste land themselves, and which is now bearing splendid crops. It will not interfere with the character of the Bill if the Government will follow the experiment of that committee in Cornwall. That land is reckoned to be worth, at the present time, a 1s. per acre per annum.
  1106
  If the Government experiments would go in that direction they might get thousands of acres at the same price and increase the food supply. That Small Holdings Committee passed the following resolution:
  "After careful inquiry we are of opinion that a scheme for the reclamation and improvement of unfit land for Cornwall is desirable, and we hope that the Government will pass the requisite legislation."
  What makes it easier is this, that much of that land belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, or, in other words, to the Government, so that the experiments could be made easily, and would cost no more money and would have a fifty-fold effect, both in the production of food and the employment of labour. I hope that the Government and my right hon. Friend will give favourable consideration to the Amendment. I cannot see what arguments there are against it. If he does not do so I hope to carry it to a Division, in order that we may see the nature of the support which the proposition gets. Whether it gets much support in this House or not I am quite certain that it would receive the support of 90 per cent. of the constituencies, especially of the rural constituencies. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to the Amendment.
  Mr. ACLAND: It is really, if I may say so, a delight to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, even if one, in carrying out his duties as a member of the Government, has to disagree with him. I do not say what my personal view would be, but I must make this plain that I think that there is a real substance in the desire, and

  1107
  that it is really essential that these men should be started on good land. Though I know that Cornish land and know that some Cornishmen have got some extraordinary pluck in tackling the land problem by embarking on some of the land which the right hon. Gentleman and I have In mind, yet it would really be no compliment to the ordinary Englishman, as distinguished from the Cornishman, and they differ a good deal, to offer him any part of land of the character of most of that land. That is not the proposition of the Small Holdings Committee, which is a proposition of reclamation. It is an engineering proposition really more than an agricultural proposition in many cases, and though I very much hope that this sort of land, and that similarly situated in many other parts of England, will come under attention when we deal with the question of reclamation, that subject has been declared out of order on this Bill, and I will not now go into it further. In this Bill we are dealing, as I said on the Second Beading, with estimates and plans which were laid down by the Verney Committee. To accept the Amendment would be to multiply the area by ten and multiply the cost by ten. It would make us abandon the basis of that Report, including the recommendation that the land really must be good, friendly, easilyworked land. There would, of course, be this very considerable increase in the possible financial obligations. The reason I am bringing this in now and not as one of what we may hope may be a series of land proposals is that progress may be made now. It may be necessary, and I hope it will, to begin to make payments under this Act long before the conclusion of the War. And surely we must have regard when we are considering expenditure of that kind during the War, for instance, to the warhings that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has uttered as to expenditure. It does differentiate this Bill from any big postwar land scheme which the Government may bring forward, and for which a large amount of money may be wanted when the War is over. It is more to the point, because this brings out what I am referring to as an essential factor, to tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that since the Second Reading Debate so impressed was I, and, of course, the whole House, with the feeling that he and others had ex-
  1108
  pressed during the Debate, that since that time I have had the matter again brought to the consideration of the Cabinet, and they have felt it necessary to reassert the essential factor to which this Bill owes its birth, which really is that it is a compromise between Members having two views on the matter in the Cabinet. Just as Members have two views of the matter in the House. Some Members there very likely would have preferred to do nothing, and others there, as here, very likely would have proferred to go a very great deal further than we are going. There was naturally pressed the not unhappy compromise—I hope it will be found so in the long run—that we should start under fair auspices with three experimental colonies, which would limit the immediate financial liability for purchase, if purchase is necessary, and equipment, to a third of a million, and that it was not right in the general financial interests of the country and otherwise to go further than that. I must make it clear again, whatever our personal opinions may be, that if this Amendment were carried and the scope of the Bill extended in this way I should not be authorised on behalf of the Government again to put it on the Order Paper.
  Mr. COLLINGS: The Amendment asks for no more money.
  Mr. ACLAND: It would be an insult to the House to accept it and then do nothing. I should be lacking in the respect which the whole House wishes to pay to the right hon. Gentleman if I were to accept his Amendment which in character is not compulsory, and then instead of taking 60,000 acres to take only 6,000. In that sense the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is a very considerable extension of our operations under the Act, and it is m that sense that it would not be really fair to him and to the House to say, "Oh, yes, it does not matter whatever words you put in, we are only going to have 6,000." Therefore, I have to take what the right hon. Gentleman really means by his Amendment, and not what it technically says.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of a compromise. It seems to me that the school of land reformers represented by my right hon. Friend have had much the worst of such discussions as have

  1109
  taken place in high quarters. We come back to this, that we are offered in this Bill—and it is the sole object of proposing the Bill—a solution of what may tend to become an enormous problem—that is to say, the problem of finding suitable occupation for the heroes of our race who are now defending this country in the trenches of Flanders and elsewhere. That is the problem confronting the Government. That is the problem so ably discussed by the Verney Committee. I really think that if this Bill is to be confined to its present limits we had better in all decency abandon the suggestion that it pretends in any way to carry out any of the serious intentions of the Verney Committee. I Tiave on the Order Paper an even more ambitious Amendment than the one we are discussing. I shall not persist in it, because, since it has been decided that this Bill is to be purely experimental, I can well imagine that any Government would shrink from devoting 600,000 acres for the purposes of experiment. But I must say that I sympathise most warmly with the view put forward so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division, and I wish that even at this late hour we could persuade the Government to adopt a broader and more generous policy. At any rate, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to the Government what I believe to be the almost unanimous opinion of this Committee, that the Bill is wholly inadequate to meet the problem that we have so much in mind. As I said on the Second Reading, I shall be astonished if this measure does not cause not only disappointment but bitter resentment among our demobilised soldiers and sailors.
  Mr. JOHN(indistinctly heard): I am sorry I shall not be able to move the Amendment standing in my name suggesting the substitution of 8,000 for 6,000 acres. Of course, I should be much better pleased if the present Amendment were adopted. I submit that the suggestion made by my colleagues and myself is much more in harmony with the intentions of the Government and the scope of the Bill. We do not for a moment suppose that the substitution of 8,000 acres would turn this very inadequate proposal into a satisfactory proposition. Wales is very warmly interested in the Bill and generally in the question of settling soldiers upon the land. Incidentally I may say that the people of
  1110
  Wales are extremely anxious that the Welsh soldiers should be settled on Welsh soil. Quite a large contingent of Welsh agricultural labourers are with the Colours to-day. They frequently find themselves with English regiments in somewhat uncongenial surroundings. While they are with the Army that cannot be helped, but if they are settled on the soil away from their own country and among people speaking a different language there is a much larger measure of permanence, and the feeling is that it is highly desirable that one of these colonies should be established in the Principality. It is in that way that our proposal arises. The aim of our Amendment is that the area should be increased to 8,000 acres, and that the additional 2,000 acres should be allocated to Wales as provided in a subsequent Amendment. We believe that the whole measure is entirely inadequate and that something much larger and more comprehensive is required. In Wales we stand in a very favourable position for dealing with that larger problem, as we have a very large acreage of land eminently suitable for this purpose. The small-holdings movement has already attained considerable success in Wales, but we believe that it can be largely extended. We have, however, accepted the position, as expounded to us by Lord Selborne, that this is an experimental effort, and therefore we are urging only a very small extension of the proposal of the Government.
  I believe that the proposal of the Bill will be very fruitful. You cannot do much with these colonies before the soldiers come back, and it will be a couple of years before you can know what has happened in any one colony. The proposals have an educative as well as an experimental effect. There is no necessity for experimenting in small holdings; their success has been demonstrated in Wales and elsewhere. What these colonies will demonstrate is the value of agricultural cooperation—a very essential feature of the whole scheme of the Committee—and the advantage of giving small holders the maximum facilities for acquiring agricultural knowledge and aptitude. In that respect I see great utility in the proposals. They will be living object lessons of the best method of conducting small holdings. Therefore I feel that the Government are moving on right lines, and that there is no occasion to criticise them except in that they might very justly, even from that point of view,

  1111
  increase the acreage in the way we suggest. A garden colony might usefully be established in Glamorganshire, where you have an immense mining population. Another might be established in Anglesey or Carnarvonshire by reason of the climatic suitability of that part of Wales. The secret of the successful conduct of small holdings is in cooperative training, and the multiplication of these holdings by the Government, with intelligent, cooperation, will be most beneficial. In the same way we feel that the establishment of these colonies will do something appreciable to stimulate the general small-holdings movement. I believe that the land acquired for small holdings in England is only some 7 acres per thousand and in Wales 9, so that an enormous expansion is possible. I would urge the Government to consider sympathetically the suggestion that one of these colonies should be located in Wales. We do not want to rob England of one, and so we suggest the additional 2,000 acres. I really think that that might be done. It is not an excessive demand, or one in conflict with the general scheme of the Government. The matter has undoubtedly aroused a considerable amount of interest in the Principality, and, as the Board of Agriculture know, very vigorous representations have been made from various bodies on the subject. Therefore I hope that the non possumus that we have received up to the present may be reconsidered.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: The position in which the Committee is placed by the decision of the Government on this question is a very difficult one. As a member of the Departmental Committee that dealt with the matter, I feel very bitterly the small extent to which the Government have gone in the programme which we suggested. At the same time we very much appreciate the fact that the Government have adopted the principle of our proposals. What is the wise course to take in the circumstances? The Government, in perfectly unequivocal language, have stated that they will not go one acre further than the provisions of this Bill; that they will not go one acre more than 6,000 in England and Wales, or 2,000 in Scotland; and that if the House divides against the Government on the matter, and introduces an Amendment which takes the scope of the Bill beyond that very limited boundary, the Bill is
  1112
  dead. There is an old proverb that "Half a loaf is better than no bread." My own view of the principle of that proverb is that where the portion of the loaf offered is a one-hundredth part instead of half that it is wise to take it. This Bill is a very small fragment if it is to be regarded as an instalment of the measures to be taken to satisfy the soldiers. It is unsatisfactorily judged in that way. On the other hand, if we take the Bill according to the label given to it by the Government as an experimental Bill, and regard it merely as an opportunity on the part of the Government to acquire certain information as the starting of this type of colony, then I would respectfully suggest to this Committee that they should rather accept the Bill as a means of teaching the Government how to do the thing, than reject it altogether. In paragraph 39 of Part II. of the Report of the Departmental Committee—the Minority Report—we summed up the position under the First Part about settlement as follows:
  "In Part I. it was contemplated that some 5,000 men might, after the War, be settled in State colonies, and another 5,000 men by county councils. But if this is be be done land must be acquired, and colonies equipped ready when they are wanted—"
  That is to say, before demobilisation is over.
  " We, therefore, think that the Government should forthwith extend their operations on the lines of their present Bill and also introduce a Bill to amend the Small Holdings Act of 1908 to effect the other changes advised in paragraphs 103 and 114 of Part I. of this Report, to enable county councils to establish colonies of small holdings similar to the State colonies."
  With that general view I am in very strong agreement. I believe it to be the true view. I am perfectly prepared, however, to recognise, in regard to small holdings, that the position is different to what it is in regard to the employment of labourers. The offer of the Government to men to go back in respect of employment as labourers at the end of the War must be absolutely ready by the time the War ends. You have got to make the offer within the conditions of life which are available here in the Old Country, so that men may exercise their option, with the full knowledge as to whether they stay in the Old Country or go to the Dominions. In regard to the small holdings, I also recognise that it is possible to proceed more slowly than was indicated in the paragraph which I have read, because if the men are assured—and you want the men to be assured and really convinced—that the Government are on the way to carrying out a general scheme

  1113
  of small holdings, then they may be willing to undertake agricultural employment as labourers, although those particular individuals would much rather have—and intend naturally, in the end, to have—small holdings of their own.
  This question of acreage to be allocated as small holdings naturally raises the broad question as to what proportion of men can be given holdings, and what proportion of men will want holdings. Estimates have been made—and I believe they will turn out right—that something like 300,000 to 400,000 will be wanting a life on the land. It may be 500,000. Of that total, of course, a large number—those who are adventurous particularly—will "want to emigrate to the Dominions. If I may, for the sake of brevity, respectfully refer to an article I wrote for today's "Daily Express," let me say that I stated reasons at length there. I believe there will be a larger number who wish a life on the land than indicated by any returns that can be obtained from the front. There are two factors that will affect the situation in men's minds after they get back, and which cannot operate when they are at the front. The one thought that many men will have while they are at the front is that there is only one thing they want, and that is a. roof over their heads, and a quiet, warm corner where they can get away from the conditions which they have had at the front. Many will consequently go back to their indoor or underground employment only to find subsequently that, after all, they want a life in the open air. Another factor is the dilution of labour and the economising of adult labour, which, for the moment, cannot have their effect at the front. This will inevitably be a factor operating when the men come back, and it cannot be altered entirely. The result must be that many a man who wants to return to his old trade in some urban occupation will find it impossible to do so. There will be many men whose services will be no longer required. These two factors will go to affect the estimate obtained from the front of the number of men who now say they want a life on the land.
  The figures of Sir Douglas Haig give an average of 17 to 20 per cent. Some of these men were in agricultural employment before the War; but, broadly, even if 97,000 be the average selected from the Army at the front, it cannot have been a very high percentage—for this reason, I do not think
  1114
  that more than 350,000 altogether out of 4,000,000 joined the Army from the ranks of agriculture. That is less than one-tenth. Consequently, the allowance for agricultural men in the return ought, I think, to be put fairly low. We cannot state exactly—for the matter is vague—but if this be somewhat like the number who are wanting a life on the land afterwards it is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that a proposal which deals with three colonies and allows for 300 men altogether can be treated as a real instalment of the small-holdings system, which is to be applied to the extent of 10,000 men altogether in the first two or three years after the War. Consequently, I venture to submit also very strongly to the Government that the scheme in this Bill should be treated by the Government in the sense that they have themselves, through the right hon. Gentleman, regarded it. He told us it was to be regarded as an experimental Bill to enable the Government to learn. The Government have invited the House to accept the assurance that it is experimental. All right. If we accept that offer which they are making from the Government to take the Bill now as merely experimental, and we let it go through, as I think we ought on that footing, then I say it is the duty of the Government to go on from experiment to reality, from sample to bulk, in time to meet the demands of the men as they come back. Subject to that understanding, I strongly urge that we should not press the Amendment.
  Sir R. WINFREY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persist in going to a Division. We must try to show the Government what a strong feeling there is on both sides of the House in favour of extending the scope of this Bill. We have seen that the Government have had to climb down once to-day. It is just possible we may be able to make them climb down again.
  An HON. MEMBER: They did not know their own mind!
  Sir R. WINFREY: I do not know about that, but in my judgment this is really not providing sufficient land even for an adequate experiment. Let us look at the information we have received up till now. We have been told, during the course of the Debate, that 2,500 acres of land have been secured in South Yorkshire on Crown land. I do not exactly know the place, but I believe the soil is alluvial. That only leaves 3,500 acres. My hon. Friend behind

  1115
  me says that they have got a promise from the Government that one of the colonies shall be in Wales, if suitable land can be found.
  Mr. A CLAND: More suitable land!
  Sir R. WINFREY: At any rate, there is to be a colony in Wales if suitable land can be provided. I should imagine in the Principality of Wales there should be no diffiealty about that, so that that disposes of another 2,000 acres—that is 4,500 acres out of the 6,000, and that leaves us with 1,500 acres. Where will that be? I should think probably in Worcestershire, or somewhere in that locality, where they will want to carry out an experiment in fruit farming. So that we shall have one experiment in South Yorkshire, a potato-growing area largely, I imagine. We shall have the Welsh experiment, and one smaller experiment of only 1,500 acres in the centre of England. The whole of the county of Lincolnshire, the premier agricultural county, I think, in England, with its three county council areas, is not to have a single experiment, and yet I believe I am right in saying there is Crown land there which has been offered for this experiment. There is most excellent land on the borders of the Wash, in Lincolnshire, that can be had, which the Crown are prepared to place at the disposal of the Department which has been set up to deal with this matter. But, so far as I can see, they will not be able to accept it because of the limitations of this Bill. I think that is a thousand pities, and I do press, therefore, on the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill that if he cannot accept 60,000, that he will, at any rate, extend the proposal in order that we may have one experiment at least in the Eastern Counties, one in the far Western counties of Devon or Cornwall, and one, say, in the Midlands; and then you have your colonies in Yorkshire and Wales. If we cannot get the whole loaf, we shall be glad to have a half loaf. Under the present proposal we shall not be able to demonstrate all classes of holdings. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), who is not in his place to-day, declared that we have never had a successful experiment in small holdings producing meat and bread. If I might be allowed, I could produce figures showing we have already had successful experiments of that sort. In three farms in which we have been running small
  1116
  holdings for twenty years we have got 577 acres of arable land and 140 acres of pasture land. That is how the three farms are divided. What are the crops. upon this land at the present moment? I am very sorry the hon Member for Oxford University is not present to hear them, as he would see we are producing: both beef and bread. I find the crops on this acreage are: 200 acres of wheat, 123—acres of oats, 50 acres of barley, 136 acres of potatoes, 26 acres of roots (mangolds and turnips), 19 acres of seeds, 1 acre of peas, and IS acres of beans. Those are the crops growing on those farms.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member seems to be replying to a speech of another hon. Member on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not think this is quite the occasion for that. I must ask the hon. Member to come back to the particular Amendment.
  Sir R. WINFREY: I very much regret the hon. Member for Oxford University is not here, but I was going to tell him the number of horses on these farms was 73, of cattle 161, of pigs 381, and of poultry 1,630. Therefore, it will be seen that we have tried the experiment for ourselves. I should like the Board of Agriculture to try that experiment on the very Crown land I have in my mind in South Lincolnshire, and I venture to say you could get small holders to produce bread and beef on that land. There is one criticism I should like to make. I think that some of these schemes are inclined to be too elaborate if you follow the Report entirely of the Verney Committee. I do not think there is the necessity for the elaboration and expense in all these things.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but really the question is whether "6,000" should be "60,000." It is simply a question of the size of the land which the Government propose to take.
  Sir R. WINFREY: My point was that, as the Verney Committee have provided for a very elaborate scheme, the Government should try this elaborate scheme upon three of these colonies, and that they should have at least three or four other colonies where the scheme was not so elaborate, where our Small Holding Commissioners themselves could manage, without having to go to the expense of a

  1117
  paid manager with £500 a year in charge of these colonies. We have six Small Holding Commissioners of our own who at the present time are doing nothing for small holdings, but are busy upon war work, and who might be put in charge of these less elaborate schemes. I suggest that the kind of men we should put on these less elaborate schemes are the men who have had previous experience in agriculture. You have probably got out of my Constituency at least from 700 to 1,000 men, sons of small holders, all having experience of land. When they come back they will not want to be spoonfed like this by instructors at £500 a year and all the elaborate machinery. That is all very well for men coming from the towns to these colonies without any previous experience in agriculture, but for those who have had previous experience, I suggest you might cut down your expenses very considerably, and put those colonies in charge of Small Holding Commissioners, buying up land at once, making small holdings of them, and starting credit banks and trading societies. That brings me back to the point that all that is possible under the Clauses in the Bill, but you cannot carry it out because you are not providing sufficient land for the purpose. Therefore, I do press on the right hon. Gentleman that, if he cannot go as far as 60,000 acres, he will at least double or treble the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I wish to press very strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for increasing the acreage from 6,000 to, at any rate, 8,000, 10,000, or 12,000, or even up to 60,000, if he can, because I am convinced that 6,000 acres for experimental purposes is absolutely inadequate. Take, for instance, the case of Wales. After having promised, as we thought, that one of these colonies should be located in Wales, the right hon. Gentleman has just said that if land is offered which is more suitable in England
  Mr. ACLAND: I think I ought to put that right at once. No words have ever been said which promised Wales a colony by anyone in any responsible position in any shape or form. All we have said, and all we do say, is that if the best site can be found in Wales for one or for all the colonies, they shall be in Wales, but no pledge can be given that one shall be in Wales without any regard to its being the most suitable land.
  Mr. JONES: I understood those Amendments were out of order, and therefore I thought it convenient to pressthe case of Wales by arguing in favour of increasing the acreage. I cannot see what objection the Government could have to increasing the number of acres.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That subject is not out of order, but if it is dealt with now in a general discussion I cannot allow another discussion on the same subject when we come to those Amendments. Hon. Members must select which coursethey will pursue, on the understanding that the discussion is not to be repeated although the Amendments can be moved.
  Mr. JONES: I think it is necessary to increase the number of acres under the Bill in order that we may have all classes of farming represented. If you confine this measure to 6,000 acres you will not be able to deal with Wales in the way it should be dealt with, because their agriculture is conducted in a perfectly different manner. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the land in Wales may not be equal to the land in England, but it is equal to the Welsh farmers, and they wish to return after the War to their former life in Wales. I urge the Government to take the powers, whether they use them or not, to acquire more than 6,000 acres, and that is a matter for them afterwards. Even if they put in 60,000 acres, it does not follow that they will have to take them. If they require any further acreage they will have to come tothe House with another Bill. I press that point. For experimental purposes you cannot deal with a small area like 6,000 acres. I press very strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the whole position.
  Mr. T. DAVIES: I am sure all wholistened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) will agree that it was a convincing speech, proving right down to the ground that the acreage mentioned in this Bill is not sufficient to carryout what is suggested by the Government. It seems to me little more than a mockery to go down to agricultural districts saying that these men who have joined the forces and have been fighting

  1119
  for their country for months, when they come back will be provided for under a Bill like this. What provision does a man who has been used to agriculture require? He does not want any provision except land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Money!"] No, not money. Many of these men who have gone to the front have bitherto been the better class of farm labourers and sons of small farmers, who will be of greater service to the country if they get land on which to settle down than they can be in any other way. I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper, and I suppose if this is carried I shall be in order in moving it.
  The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN: I was referring to the Amendments on the other page dealing with the specific case of Wales, where it is proposed to get at least 2,000 of the 6,000 acres for Wales. If the decision of the Committee is that the word "six" stands part of the Clause is agreed to, of course that is the end of it.
  Mr. DAVIES: I wish to take this opportunity of supporting the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley. Even if you only take one county, part of which I represent, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the whole of this 6,000 acres can be taken up over and over again by men who have joined the forces, and who will, I hope, come back again. The county I refer to is one of the biggest agricultural counties in the country, but I understand that it is not proposed to give even an experimental colony to that great agricultural county. What objection can there be to the Government accepting this Amendment? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get 60,000 acres he may be able to get 10,000, or 20,000, or 30,000. Supposing after six months' time the right hon. Gentleman finds that the demand is so great that even his 60,000 acres are absorbed in three months' time, then he has no more land to give them, and the result will be disappointment to thousands of other men who would like to be placed in the same position as their fellows. If my right hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division I shall feel bound to support him in order to show that some hon. Members who represent agricultural districts know that the land is required when these men come back, and they ought, to be dealt with in a special way by the Government. I tope the Parliamentary Secretary has not
  1120
  said the last word with regard to this Amendment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see as many soldiers as possible put on the land, and if he had his own way, I believe he would accept this Amendment. I appeal to him to allow this small thing for which we ask, for it will simply be a mockery to the men when they return from the front to tell them that there are only 300 or 400 provided for out of so many thousands who will want land when they return.
  Mr. HINDS: I feel very strongly that 6,000 acres are far too little for England and Wales, and I am really disappointed with the whole scheme of the Government. It is totally unworthy of the Board of Agriculture to bring in a tinkering measure of this kind, and it is time they reconsidered it. It is not worthy of a county council of any size. Six thousand acres for England and Wales when there are thousands of soldiers who are anxious to come back to the land! There will have to be some system of selection, and you will disgust the soldier who is anxious to have his bit of land when he comes back. The claims of Wales have not been considered by the Government in the way that they ought to have been considered. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to hold up his hand, but we have not been persistent enough, and it is time we Welsh Members pressed our claims more than we have done in the past.
  Mr. ACLAND: I have never known anything better organised.
  Mr. HINDS: I am very glad to hear it. Thousands of Welshmen, most of them farmers and agricultural labourers, have gone to the War. Recruiting has been most successful in Wales. The case of the Welsh farmer is very different from that of the English farmer. He wants to stop amongst his own people when he comes back, and he does not want to be shifted into England. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said something about sentiment. There is a good deal of sentiment in this matter. The Welshman wants to stop amongst his own people in the land where he has been reared. Religion and the associations of youth come into this matter. The Board of Agriculture, instead, come forward and say that if the Welshman wants a colony at all he must go to some part of England. We have in Wales land suitable for these people, and I maintain that the Government will only

  1121
  be doing right to give 2,000 acres to Wales. We demand it, and we ought to have it. The Welsh Commission, with regard to land, said:
  " The typical Welsh farmer feels the utmost reluctance to migrating to England, even when there may be a pretty sure prospect of his being able to better his circumstances by so doing. Very rarely does he make the removal of his own free will, while in many cases nothing short of eviction and sheer inability to obtain another holding would induce a Welsh farmer to go beyond the limits of the Principality."
  There is the most obvious case of the regiments who have only got one language. There is one regiment which had to be drilled in the Welsh language. These people when the War is over want to come back amongst their own people. They would feel very awkward in a colony in England. I say that we have made out a case for having one of these colonies in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said that one reason why they could not give one of these colonies to Wales was that Wales was a country of small holdings; that was one of the disadvantages of having one of the colonies there.
  Mr. ACLAND: One of the difficulties.
  Mr. HINDS: Yes. But when we can find the land I do not think that holds good. The men have been used to small holdings in Wales. They know what they can get out of 50 or 25 acres of land, and they have had the experience. The Welshman has been used to these small holdings, and knows what to do. That is a great argument in favour of putting these men back in smallholding colonies. We are not so populated in Wales as in some parts of the country, but we have excellent markets for our produce at Cardiff and Swansea, and I think it would be a good thing on economic grounds. The right hon. Gentleman just now said that the Welsh Members have organised themselves. The Government have not dared to leave Scotland out. Why should Wales be treated differently from Scotland? Scotland has got 2,000 acres. It is not half enough. I should give ten times as much to Scotland. The Government are losing a great opportunity in not extending the scope of the Bill. By extending its scope you can get the men from the cities back to the land once more, and you will bring a good deal of sunshine into the life of the soldier when he comes back from the War.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: There is an Amendment later which proposes that 2,000
  1122
  of the 6,000 acres shall be in Wales. I take it that Amendment will be in order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, it can be moved, but in view of the discussion taken on this Amendment, I shall expect very few remarks in moving that Amendment. This Debate does not shut out hon. Members from moving their Amendments, but it does prevent them from talking at large on them.
  Captain STANIER: I rise to support the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings). We have had it very forcibly put to us from Wales, and I should not like it thought that we who represent English constituencies, although we are close to Wales, do not urge the same point that the Welsh Members have made. An hon. Member opposite said that this 6,000 acres was a mockery. I would go a little further. We cannot use words strong enough to put it to the members of the Coalition Government that this 6,000 acres is a mere drop in the ocean. They thought fit to send out to the Commander-in-Chief inquiring what soldiers really wanted land. Of the 5,000,000 who have been enlisted 97,000 have been asked, and 17,000 of that number said that they wanted to come back to something similar to that we are proposing. On that basis, I estimate that there will be some 850,000 small holdings wanted, and, if that is so, this is a mere drop in the ocean. We are asking the great Colonies in this Empire to come to our help and give holdings to those who will go out from this country at the end of the War. Supposing half of them gothat is, 400,000—will not the Colonies absolutely laugh at the Mother of Parliaments for only preparing to give land to 300 out of the 400,000 who will have asked for small holdings? That is all you are doing. You are not going to make all these small holdings in a day, or even a year. You do not get possession until next Lady Day, and it will be a year before you will get started. You have appointed a Committee to go into this great question, and they have laid the whole of the facts before you. You will find everything practically mentioned in the Majority and the Minority Reports, and, looking at it in that light, you must admit that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division is only something that should be justly given to those who are risking

  1123
  their lives for the sake of this country, and you must come to the conclusion that this is an inadequate scheme. It is a mockery of the whole question, and if you do not improve it and create it so that you can enlarge the borders and boundaries of your scheme, you will not only have this country and all the soldiers in it laughing at you, but the Colonies, which create this Empire, looking at you with scorn and derision.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to support this Amendment, and I must express, first of all, my surprise at this sudden and incomprehensible modesty on the part of the Government. The Government in these day's in many directions takes a practically unlimited power into its hands, but with regard to an experiment of this kind, where it is asked to have somewhat arger powers with regard to the direction of this experiment, it absolutely refuses to accept any of these wider powers. This Amendment does not say they must use 60,000 acres. It says that the Government's experiment shall not exceed 60,000 acres of land; that is to say, it may be anything between the 6,000 the Government are now proposing and the 60,000 that the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests as a more suitable maximum. I do say that in between those two figures of .6,000 and 60,000 there would be a far wider scope for various experiments, and different experiments, on the lines suggested by the various Members in this House. I am quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary when he spoke did not put very much heart into his opposition. He said he had to speak for the Government who put forward a compromise, because, once more inside the Government, apparently, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, there are people pulling in this direction and others pulling in that, and the result is what the right hon. Gentleman calls compromise legislation, which is usually very bad because it is an attempt to please everybody and it pleases nobody.
  Mr. ACLANDmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. ANDERSON: No, I know. It is a great pity that you do not agree in a matter of this kind, because if the Government would agree, and if the Government had been a little bolder they would have had no opposition from any part of this House. The discussion on the Second
  1124
  Reading made it quite plain. From every part of the House, with, I think, the solitary exception of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), everybody suggested that this experiment, even for an experiment, was far too limited, and that something bigger and better ought to have been done. What was it that the Parliamentary Secretary said as an argument against accepting this proposal? He said, first of all, that we had to limit this very much because, of course, the colonies had to be founded on good land. Does he suggest that the possibility of good land is limited by 6,000 acres? Surely he does not suggest for a minute that the question of getting good land is going to determine whether the maximum is going to be 6,000 acres or 60,000 acres.
  Mr. ACLAND: I used that argument in connection with finance to point out that if you are only taking good land, as you multiplied the area you would multiply the cost.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I was coming to the other argument, which was a warning about expenditure and the necessity for limiting expenditure on this matter to something like one-third of a million. I would be very much more impressed about this question of expenditure if I did not see a great deal of bad expenditure being allowed to go on in this country at the present time. If we are going to limit expenditure, we ought to limit it first of all with regard to useless and luxurious things we are still permitting. Here is expenditure for something good. I am sure it is good, because otherwise so up-right a Government as the present Government would never propose it. If it is good, there is far less danger in this which is good and necessary than in many useless things we are allowing to continue at the present time. I do say, in conclusion, that surely in various parts of the country there is room for different kinds of experiments, for modifications of the colony arrangements, and so on, and if this is going to be done there must be something wider than this miserable proposal of 6,000 acres on which you are going to put some 400 men. The figures just given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Stanier) showed how widespread the desire will be among many of the soldiers, and the experiment must really be conducted on much bolder lines. Already the limited character of the proposal has had the

  1125
  effect of driving Wales into revolt, and I am quite sure that many of the Welsh Members will be bitterly disappointed if they are not going to get their own share of this experiment. If this is going to be done, it is obvious that something bigger than the present proposal must be undertaken. I suggest once more that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman 'opposite does not compel the Government to take over 60,000 acres; it says they shall not exceed that, and it puts far wider powers into their hands. If the initial experiments work out well, the Government will have more power to extend the experiments, and if the initial experiments are failures there is nothing in this Amendment that compels them to go on in those circumstances.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I wish to ask you, Mr. Maclean, for a ruling as to whether the provision for Scotland, which is made in Section 10 of this Act, must be discussed now, or whether we can have a separate discussion with regard to the provision for Scotland on Clause 10?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the provision with regard to Scotland says, that so far as Scotland is concerned it will read "two" instead of "six," and on the specific Scottish case the discussion must arise there. On the general question, I propose to allow the hon. Member to make what remarks he thinks fit.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I am much obliged for your ruling, Sir, which will naturally limit what I have to say. I wish strongly to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Collings), but I will confine myself to the speeches of other hon. Members. This seems to me to be an utterly inadequate provision for meeting with a great national demand, and that is that the people of this country who are defending it should have some right to a share of it when they come back again. This really does not make any provision for that. It is a mere travesty of a Bill to deal with a very great problem. We are to have 300 holdings in England, and in Scotland forty. In Lewis alone we have 5,000 men who, when they come back, will want the land, and there are 25,000 in other parts of Scotland who will want the land. I strongly urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government that the universal sentiment of this House is that this Bill in no sense meets
  1126
  the case. We have had a valuable Report from the Verney Committee, which has done very good work. It has brought out most valuable facts, much information, and many valuable suggestions. But so far as the carrying out of that in this Bill is concerned, the measure does not carry it out at all, and, as has already been pointed out, what we want is land for men who already understand small holdings. You want places where they can go at once; you do not want a long process of training for men who cannot do that, though that is a good thing. There are tens of thousands of men fit and competent if you would let them have the land on fair conditions, and who could take charge of it at once and become successful small holders. I cannot understand the doubt about small holdings being successful in this country and all this paraphernalia, when you think that out of the 511,000 farms 340,000 of those holdings are the size of from one to fifty acres. The successful farmers of this country are in a very great proportion small holders. I see, Mr. Maclean, that you are rising to call me to order. I will not pursue that point. I only mentioned it in passing. There ought not to be this extreme hesitation on the part of the Government to come forward with a really bold and adequate scheme to meet what is the universal feeling of the country. It is said that the landlorls do not favour these jsmall holdings. I am quite sure that the attitude of the landowners has been very much changed by the War, and that they are ready to welcome men on their land now in a way they never did before. We ought to seize upon that feeling so that we should all be working towards one common end with an interest in one common question to get the men back to the land.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am afraid I am unable to agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I am very glad indeed that the Government is only dealing with this matter in an experimental way, and are limiting the area of land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I can quite understand hon. Members not being able to comprehend why I should take that attitude. It is simply because I have a different vision from theirs of the future. There seems to be a great air of unreality about this Debate. Here we are spending time talking about land reform, very much on the old lines. The only matter of difference between hon. Members is whether the area

  1127
  should be 6,000 or 60,000 acres. To my mind within 100 miles of us the old constituted order of things is being blown away. It would be grotesque and undesirable at this moment, when we know so little as to what the future will bring, except that it will be something far different from the present, that we should establish something on the old traditional lines which, as a matter of fact, have failed. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only two or three days ago that the cost of the War has now gone up to over £6,000,000 a day is going to have a tremendous effect on the question of the acquisition of land for small holdings. If we have this expenditure and gigantic increase of taxation it is impossible that that will not affect the value of land, because that increase of taxation must fall more or less upon land, and the inevitable consequence will be that you will send down the purchase price of land. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is going up!"] Of course it is, because we have a Coalition Government which is taking very good care that taxation should fall upon all interests except the landed interests. When the millions of men return from the front the reverse process will operate. You will then find taxation being removed from the necessities of life and thrown on land monopolies.
  That is my View of the future. That being the probability, it would be absurd at this time to set out to purchase land in large areas. What is the position to-day? Owing to the War the price of everything grown upon the soil has been artificially raised. The consequence is that there is to-day an artificial price being demanded for land. Hon. Members opposite in the past have demanded Protection for the purpose of raising the price of farm products and the price of land. To-day they have virtual prohibition. They have higher prices for their commodities than they have had for generations and which we all hope will never occur again. It would be doing wrong to those men we are going to establish on the land, under quite other conditions, at this moment of artificial prices to purchase large areas of land on which they will be settled. They will be settled on these terms and will become, on these terms, practically the slaves of the soil. The hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) has spoken several
  1128
  times on this Bill and has frequently referred to a Minority Report to which his was one of the signatures. I am quite confident' that if he approaches this question with the belief that the country will adopt in the future legislation of the nature adumbrated in that Report he is very much mistaken. I have looked through that Report, which suggests that we should have artificial prices for wheat and all the old bad system of working the land. If you capitalise all the things suggested, which in the nature of the case must go into the pockets of the landlords, it would mean a present to them of some hundreds of million pounds. I do not believe that those conditions will be brought about after this War. There will not be legislation to enhance the profits of the landowners. The very opposite will take place, There will be taxation to diminish them.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member concluded his remarks?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Very nearly.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: If he has not, I would suggest to him that he is going far wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I quite agree, but so many references have been made as to what is going to happen after the War in advocacy of the proposals in this Bill, that I thought I might perhaps be in order in putting another point of view of what is likely to occur. My point is that at this moment, with these artificial prices, it would be disastrous to purchase land at such prices, land upon which men will be settled when quite different conditions will arise. I hope the Government will restrict the purchase of the land to the limits that are in the Bill.
  Mr. PETO: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) into what I am sure the Committee felt were very irrelevant remarks with regard to this Amendment, but I would point out this, which is pertinent to what he said, that he appeared to regard any further purchases by the Government of land as a very doubtful speculation. I have not so poor an opinion of the future of this country as the hon. Member has. When we are talking about this one-third of £1,000,000, which is the limit of Government expenditure, we must remember that £215,000 of this one-third of £1,000,000 represents the cost of the land. It is very unfair to regard this as a question of expenditure, on the part of the Government.

  1129
  It is capital expenditure. There I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), whom I was delighted to hear support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley in this matter. It is not fair to look upon this as if it were a question of capital expenditure or any other kind of expenditure which is unremunerative. I can imagine no more remunerative expenditure for the State than expenditure upon putting upon the land, under suitable conditions, the men who have fought for that land. It is very desirable to remember that out of this one-third of the million, of which so much has been made, only £119,000 represents the cost of equipment, tenant right, farm material, and everything else, and that £215,000 is the cost of the land. I have only one other remark to make, and that is to call attention to the opening and closing remarks of Mr. Henry Hobhouse, the Chairman of the Committee, on whose Report this Bill is founded. He says:
  "I have signed Part II. of the Report as Chairman in deference to the opinion of the majority of my colleagues and because I am in substantial agreement with them as far as it goes."
  He ends with these remarks:
  "From the inquiries we have made it is clear to me that a very considerable acreage, say, at least 1,000,000 acres, or one-third of the land which has been allowed to go down to grass during the last thirty years, might be brought again under the plough to the advantage of the nation as a whole."
  He points out that there are at least 1,000,000 acres, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) asked for 60,000 and the Government say they will only give 6,000 for this experiment to place the soldiers who are fighting for us now upon the land. Are we to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture and his Department are such bad business men that they dare not go beyond this paltry experiment of the investment of public money in land to the extent of £215,000 for this gigantic purpose, when the Chairman of their Committee says there are 1,000,000 acres of poor grass land waiting for profitable employment in arable cultivation? I leave it at that, and I hope the Committee, on purely business lines, will show its disapproval of the attitude of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. MORTON: I do not think we ought to wait for this reform until we can get Che land in the way foreshadowed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Outhwaite)—until we
  1130
  can get it for nothing, I suppose. All we know is that we are not likely to get it for nothing, and, above all, we know that small holdings are successful wherever they have been tried in this country—at any rate, that is my experience.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not debating the question of small holdings, but whether it should be limited to 6,000 or 60,000 acres.
  Mr. MORTON: I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Collings) came down to propose this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated practically that he was in favour of the larger figure really, but that the Cabinet had fixed it at 6,000. If the Government have done that and ordered that it shall be adhered to, they ought to be here to defend their policy, and we ought not to be told by the Minister in charge that he can listen to nothing at all, but has his orders to stick to 6,000. There ought to be some member of the Cabinet present to defend the policy of the Government, if it is worth defending. This is a shabby Bill, and the Government ought to be ashamed of it. Something will have to be done for the soldiers when they come back after defending and protecting this country, and we ought to do it in a liberal way. I do not believe a penny will be lost over the transaction, and it will do nothing but good. With regard to Scotland, we are to have 2,000 acres. That is no use to Scotland at all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is Clause dealing specifically with Scotland.
  Mr. MORTON: Two thousand acres are no good to the people of Scotland who want land.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not say that here; he must say it on Clause 10.
  Mr. MORTON: Then I understand we are to have an opportunity of rediscussing the matter on Clause 10. I think you have already intimated that if the word "six" is kept in the Bill we cannot discuss the Amendment afterwards.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The difficulty is that the hon. Member has not taken the trouble to read the Bill. If he will read Clause 10 he will see that it deals specifically with the case of Scotland.
  Mr. MORTON: Then the word "six" will not affect Scotland. I trust that the

  1131
  Committee will stick to the Amendment and pass it as the very smallest amount we can do. We have been told distinctly that the meaning of it is not that they shall necessarily at once deal with the 60,000, but simply that they shall have power to do it. The Government Department which will have the carrying out of this, in my opinion, ought to have power to deal with more than 6,000, and the very least that we can authorise them to deal with, if necessary, will be 60,000.
  Mr. D. WHITE: On the question whether the amount should be 6,000 acres, which is proposed by the Government, or the larger amount, it must be borne in mind that the Government have calculated the finance required on the basis of 6,000 acres, and this is essentially an experimental Bill. If it had gone very much further some of us who have been supporting it would have been against it, because we do not think the experiment is likely to be a success. At the same time, we do not want to prevent it being tried, and therefore we do not oppose it, but I think it is hardly fair for hon. Members to try to develop the experiment into something much more than an experiment, when it is on an experimental basis. An hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is an experiment, but as soon as we have got the experiment settled we shall go on. The object of an experiment is to see how the scheme works. We want to see how it works, and we want to see that on a limited basis, so that if it does not work well the loss may not be too great. Some hon. Members have spoken as if this were the one and only way of settling returned soldiers on the land. There are many other ways. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) spoke of thousands of acres of grass land which were awaiting development.
  Mr. PETO: I was quoting from the Chairman's remarks.
  Mr. WHITE: And I presume the Chairman said that he meant that they could be developed by small holders on a commercial basis. If they cannot be so developed I do not see the relevance of his observation. If they can be so developed why should they not be developed on an ordinary basis? Surely some gentlemen who are interested in agriculture would take up these acres at a reasonable price and develop them on a commercial basis, without any question of money coming from the Treasury to start an experiment.
  There is one other point, and it has been rather overlooked in the Debate. It was made by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). Under present circumstances the price of agricultural produce has gone up very greatly, and the price of agricultural land has gone up similarly, and if the Government step in and buy agricultural land now, even at ordinary market prices between man and man, they will be paying much more than they would have had to pay if they had bought it some years ago, and probably considerably more than they would have to pay if they buy it some years in the future. In other words, they would be buying land at top price. That is not a sound basis, if it can be avoided. Therefore I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) that wherever possible, instead of buying land, unless he can get it at an almost exceptional rate, he should rather prefer to lease it for a term of years, with the option of purchase afterwards.
  Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 37.

  Division No. 39.]

  AYES.

  [9.27 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Galbraith, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gulland, John William

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hackett, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Reddy, Michael

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Johnson, W.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  King, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macmaster, Donald

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailesbrook

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Sutton, John E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morison, Hector

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. G Howard.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Hinds, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanier, Captain Beville

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Haslam, Lewis

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Sir R. Winfrey and Mr. Anderson.

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

  Mr. JOHN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "acres" ["shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres"], to insert the words "of which two thousand acres shall be located in Wales."
  Sir H. ROBERTS: I desire to support this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture stated some time ago that if suitable land could be provided in Wales that we should have a chance of having a certain portion of this 6,000 acres. I do not wish to I be unbusinesslike or unfair in any appeal that I make in regard to this matter, but I do think that the special conditions applicable to Welsh agriculture, and the conditions of Wales generally, do give to us in Wales the right to ask that, if we can provide as good land for this purpose in Wales, then, upon the ground of sentiment and nationality, we in Wales should have, at all events, a portion of the land allocated for the purpose of the soldiers who return from the front. I do not like to make comparisons between the doings of Welsh soldiers and the heroism of any other soldiers, but I do think there are circumstances in connection with Wales which entitle us to ask that some special recognition should be accorded, and I desire very strongly to support this Amendment because I believe that it would give great satisfaction in Wales, and be helpful in bringing about the object which we all have in view.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: On a point of Order. I would like to know if Monmouthshire would be included in Wales under this Amendment? An Amendment lower down says specifically "Wales and Monmouthshire." It will make a great
  1134
  deal of difference as to whether I shall vote for this Amendment or not if it includes Monmouthshire.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not a point of Order, but a point of information. As far as I know, Wales does not include Monmouthshire, for the purpose of legislation, unless it is so stated.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: Would it be in order for my hon. Friend—I am sure that it was an oversight on his part—to withdraw this Amendment, and allow the later Amendment to be moved?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite open to the hon. Baronet to move an Amendment to the Amendment to add after the word "Wales" the words "and Monmouthshire."
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "Wales" to add "including Monmouthshire."
  Mr. JOHN: I have great pleasure in accepting the proposed Amendment to my Amendment.
  Captain BATHURST: Surely "including" cannot be correct, because Monmouthshire is in England and not in Wales.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: I desire to support the Amendment. It seems to me that if any advantage is to be gained by the establishment of these colonies by way of experiment, or by the giving of instruction, that we in Wales, who are supposed to be rather backward in agriculture, should have the advantage of that experiment.

  1135
  The case of Wales stands by itself. Wales is entitled to special treatment in this matter, in which she has a peculiar interest. A very large number of our men voluntarily, and others by compulsion, have left their homes to fight for their country, and may come back maimed and unable to take their place in the industrial army. These men have absolutely no knowledge of the English language. They have less knowledge of the English language than most of the members of this House have of the French language. Nobody here would suggest for one moment that English agricultural labourers should be compelled to settle down in a part of the country where they are unacquainted with the language and customs of the people, and the same principle should be applied in the case of Welshmen. I practise as a solicitor in the county town of the county which I represent, and I tell the Committee as a simple statement of fact that I do not carry on my business as a lawyer and I do not speak the English language with one man in twelve of those who come in my office. Does any hon. Member really think that I take the trouble to translate technical and legal terms to my clients in order to waste time? I do it because I am compelled to do it by the conditions in which my practice is carried on. Reference has been made to regiments taken from my Constituency where they have been trained to whom orders are given in Welsh. Are those men to be denied the advantages of this scheme? Am I to go to my Constituents and say, "We asked you to go and risk your lives for your country, but the Government, notwithstanding our appeal on your behalf, have told us that if you want instruction, if you want to be taught farming to enable you to make a living on the land, you must go to an English colony. You must go among a lot of people who differ from you in language, tradition, habits, and everything which really tells ultimately upon life." I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the matter. In view of the fact that provision has already been made in the Bill for the case of Scotland, there is an equally strong case why the Welsh soldier should be provided for in his own country and not sent to a colony in England.
  Mr. CARADOC REES: May I say one word as a Welshman born out of Wales. I agree with everything that has been said by those who represent Welsh
  1136
  opinion. I take it that the main object is to send men as nearly as possible to the environment from which they came, and not send Welshmen to Scotland to come back speaking Welsh with a Scotch accent. No one would think of sending Englishmen to Wales and trying to compel those Englishmen to learn Welsh and our Welsh soldiers and those who are disabled should be as far as possible put back in the country whence they came. They should as far as possible be put near the friends whom they left in Wales, and on these grounds I support the Amendment.
  Mr. ACLAND: I think that we have already discussed this in dealing with a previous Amendment. The case of Wales has been put very eloquently. As one who spent many years of my life in the constituency, the representative of which has just spoken, I sympathise very much with the point of view which has been put forward. The Welsh are a distinct race. Their farming habits to some extent are different from the English, and they are in very many ways born small holders, and if any people are likely to make a success of this kind of holding, it is returned Welsh soldiers. The fact that they are so good is shown by the circumstance that Wales, much more almost than any part of England, is a country of freeholders, and at present there is a considerable number of perfectly prosperous Welsh farmers now on the land. I do not, however, think it would be fair to say more than that if one, or more than one, of the best offers of land situated in Wales is made, the Government will be extremely anxious and will most certainly endeavour to close with them. But in trying to make this experiment we are bound to take the best offers that are made, whether they come from Wales or from England.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: Why do you not do that in Scotland?
  Mr. ACLAND: Scotland has a separate Board of Agriculture, and that, I believe, is one of the ambitions of Wales, so that they will either get their colonies or have their grievance, which, after all, is something. I think it is not at all unreasonable that the area dealt with by one Board of Agriculture should be dealt with as a whole, and that the area dealt with by another Board of Agriculture—namely, that of Scotland—should also be dealt speak English, whose customs and ideas differ from those of the Englishman. If he wants a farm

  1137
  with as a whole. We are constantly working on Welsh offers, but I cannot give a definite pledge on the subject of the Amendment.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: This is not a question of the land; it is a question of the soldier, and the making of provision for maimed and wounded soldiers who have sacrificed everything for their country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not maimed and wounded soldiers, but all soldiers!"] It is to make provision for wounded men. But at any rate, supposing it is to make provision for all soldiers who have made sacrifices for their country, I would again point out to the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot send a Welsh soldier to England who does not you tell him he must go to England, and I put it to the Committee that it is a piece of cruelty to tell a Welsh soldier that he must go to England, whose language and customs he does not comprehend and is not in sympathy with. You would never dream of sending an English soldier to the middle of my Constituency, where he would be unable to carry on conversation with any other people. Why should the Welsh soldier be put to this indignity? Why should he be sacrificed, and be denied privileges given to the English soldier by the Government? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot meet us on this point we shall be compelled to divide the Committee on the question.
  Captain BATHURST: I am entirely in sympathy with Welshmen in their demand that suitable land for the colonies shall be found in Wales, but I take it that there is this difficulty, that whereas a very large number of offers of land in various parts of England—and the amount required for this purpose is 2,000 acres and upwards—we have not so far had a single offer of 2,000 acres en bloc of suitable land in Wales. But so anxious are we to try and find suitable land in Wales for the purpose of the colony, that I have myself asked to be allowed to give up visiting, for a period now of six weeks, any land offered from any part of England on the chance of finding something suitable in Wales. The hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to Anglesey. So far we have not had an offer of anything like 6,000 acres in Anglesey. The most offered has been 1,340 acres, and that has been offered, not by the owner, although I have every reason to believe he is sym-
  1138
  pathetic, but by the Anglesey County Council, in their endeavour to secure a colony in that county. I am not at all sure that Anglesey is by any means the best part of Wales for a colony. Personally, I would infinitely rather see the right type of land sought for, and, if possible, in the Vale of Glamorgan, or in some other part of that county, where a colony would enjoy exceptionally good markets as outlets for produce raised upon that land. There is just the possibility that such land may be available in the county of Glamorgan, but no definite offer has yet been made of suitable land in Glamorgan. All I can say is there is the possibility of suitable land being found in that county.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will allow me to say this, because I have myself seen, I think, all the Welsh Members in the House who are interested in this matter, and I have assured them, and I should like to assure the Committee, that I for my part have done everything that I can, subject to the terms of my instructions, to find suitable land in any part of Wales, and of sufficient area and well adapted for the purposes of one of these colonies. Personally I have not given up my efforts in that direction, but my instructions are that England and Wales for this purpose are to be treated as one unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Those are my instructions, and unless and until you carry such an Amendment as this, or alter the Bill, my instructions are that the best possible land for the purpose of these colonies is to be sought for in England and Wales, treated as one unit. I have asked that a certain time should be allowed to elapse to enable me to find a large enough area of suitable quality to enable Welshmen to have an experimental colony in the Principality. One strong reason that has not been adduced before the Committee for putting one of these experimental colonies in Wales is this, is that there is no part of Great Britain in which there is a greater development of the cooperative spirit than there is in Wales. That, after all, is going to be the marked feature of this experiment which will distinguish it very largely from other attempts at small holdings in this country. All I can say in conclusion is that I, for my part, will maintain every sympathy and an open mind, and if Gentlemen opposite persuade owners—instead of county councils, or trade unions, or other bodies to

  1139
  pass resolutions—to offer suitable land in larger quantities, I shall, for my part, urge the Board to accept such an offer.
  Mr. TOWYN JONES: I do not think that Wales and England should be treated as one unit. The Government asked us to go down to the country, and I myself took part in a hundred recruiting meetings in which we asked the young manhood to go out to the Continent and fight for small nationalities. This is a question of the Welsh soldier, and I think the Welsh soldier ought to be treated as well as the English soldier. I am afraid there is a tendency in England to belittle the Welsh soldier and the Irish soldier. [HON. MEMBEES: "No, no!"] There is in the Press, and I speak from knowledge. We feel a great deal of interest in agriculture, and are doing our best to better the land and get more out of it. I do not think it is right for Englishmen in this House to do all they can against Welsh interests. You shout that you are fighting for small nationalities and you trample on the rights of small nationalities at your own door. You love the English language, and we love the Welsh language, and we are doing our best to preserve it against the encroachment of Englishmen in Wales shouting down our language. After war was declared the Press said that if the Germans came here, German, and not English, would be taught in the school. We are quite willing and we want the English language to be taught in our schools, but we want, at the same time, to retain our Welsh language. We are fond of it, and we know that if we lose our language we lose the best sentiment of people and religion, and morals in the country go down. Do not shout to the world that you are fighting for small nationalities and trample on us. My Constituency is half agricultural and half labour, and I have to speak to the people, especially in the agricultural districts, in the Welsh language. They do not understand the English language. Why should you deal unjustly towards the Welsh soldier who is fighting for you on the Continent of Europe.
  Mr. JOHN: I think it is right that I should make some reply to the speeches we have heard, both from the Parliamentary Secretary and from the hon. Member for Wilsthire (Captain C. Bathurst). We recognise very warmly the services that the hon. Member has given to the whole
  1140
  scheme and his sympathetic attitude towards our demand from Wales. We quite recognise the trouble he has taken, and we hope he will continue in his good efforts. It has been represented that this proposal might imply the displacement of the tenants of small holdings in the Principality. That is a very natural thing to contend because we have a very large proportion of small holders in Wales. In my own county, while there is a great number of small holdings there is at the same time a number of large farms in the immediate vicinity let as accommodation land. Keference has been made to Anglesey. If there were compulsory powers in this Bill, as there should be, you would have most suitable land there. There has been, I understand, the offer of a large farm in Glamorganshire of about 750 acres where the labour employed at present is very small. Whilst the proposition remains that Wales is a country of small holders, it is equally true that there are abundant farms to be had on which there is not a due proportion of labour employed. There is the fundamental issue involved in the proposition that Wales and England are to be treated as a unit in this matter. Agricultural interests in Wales are quite comparable to those of Scotland and Ireland. We propose to persist in this demand for separate treatment for Wales, agriculturally, in season and out of season, and as a commencement we propose to stand by our Amendment and go to a Division upon it. This is only part of a much wider movement. We are convinced that the problems which will come before the House are of such magnitude and complexity that the sooner we get on with a general system of definition the better for all concerned.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: 10.0.P.M. I am sorry that the Board of Agriculture has taken up the line which has been disclosed on this Amendment. I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain C. Bathurst) for what he has endeavoured to do, but I can assure him that in this matter he is up against the same old problem we have always had to face since the Board of Agriculture takes up the attitude that it exists to look after agriculture in England. That has always been its attitude, and whenever Wales has wanted anything for agriculture it has had to fight for it. That has been the case for the past twenty years and we have never got any consideration or attention without a tremendous lot of

  1141
  trouble and agitation of a specialist character such as we are engaged in to-night. It is perfectly clear, despite all the excellent efforts of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, that as things stand at present there will be no farm colony in Wales, and that things are drifting to that pass, and that means no Welsh soldier under this scheme at all. You cannot get away from that and the Board of Agriculture, which exists for England, does not care a straw about it, and thinks not of the Welsh soldier but of the soldier in the abstract. The Welsh farmer adopts different methods from those in England, but the Board does not worry about that. They are the Board of Agriculture for England, and we have got to fight and to appeal to the sympathy of a few Members to join us in the Division Lobby, so that we can get something in Wales for our soldiers. It is perfectly clear they will not go to the colonies in England. The lack of a colony in Wales means that we will have none of the benefits of the organisation to which hon. Members opposite have set their minds with such excellent effect. There will be no colony there to teach Welsh soldiers, who may have to go elsewhere, the particular kind of farming suitable to Welsh conditions. You will have colonies in parts of England that will deal with the kind of land there to be found. For instance, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. L. Scott) when advocating this Bill in principle the other day referred to the excellent effects that might be obtained financially and otherwise by fruit farming. You are not likely to get much of that in Wales. The kind of thing that you can develop in Wales is totally different. On that ground, as well as on others, we claim that we have to get a colony of our own, and we will trouble this House and bother the Board of Agriculture, and get it before this Session comes to an end, or nobody will have any peace. We will make a start to-night, although we are sorry to detain the Committee, by going to a Division.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: The arguments of the Welsh Members have convinced me that there ought to be one of these experimental colonies in Wales. The difficulty is the decision of the Cabinet that there is not to be more than 6,000 acres for England and Wales. I want, if I may, whilst expressing agreement with the Welsh Members that chiefly because of the Welsh nationality and the Welsh language there ought to be such a colony in Wales, at the same time respectfully to make a criticism of their
  1142
  method of approach to this particular Bill. This Bill in my view is experimental in one sense only. It is not experimental from, the point of view of whether or not small holdings are successful in this cauntry. We know that they are a success, and that, with the conditions indicated in the Departmental Committee's Report, that success can be greatly increased. The experimental aspect of this Bill to my mind is that there has been no instance yet of a colony, in the full sense of the word, of small holders with the organisation for a central farm, central expert advice, and a system of collective buying, collective marketing, collective selling, and collective credit. These elements have not yet been applied. That experiment in my view is wanted much more in order to teach the Board of Agriculture and its. officials, than to teach the small holders. From that point of view it does not much matter whether the colony is in England or in Wales. But from the other point of view I think it ought to be in Wales, in order that the spirit of cooperation which has been more developed in certain parts of Wales than anywhere in England may be utilised to the full in one of these new colonies. I do not know whether, with their great arts of persuasion, the Welsh Members can induce the Government to stretch its limit of 6,000 acres a little bit. It would be a very good thing if they could. The view of the Departmental Committee was that in order to get the maximum of success there ought not to be less than about one hundred families in one of these colonies. For fruit and vegetable gardening much smaller individual holdings are possible than in the case of dairy farms, arable or grass, or ordinary mixed farms. In the one case we thought that with suitable land five or ten acres would do, while in the other case—dairying and mixed farming—20 or 25 acres would be necessary, or 50 would be better. For that reason we advocated in the case of dairying and mixed farming colonies a minimum total acreage of 2,500 acres, and in the case of fruit and vegetable growing a minimum of 1,000 acres. Taking two colonies at 2,500 acres, one dairying and one mixed farming, you have only 1,000 acres left.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT: What I suggest to Welsh Members is the practical difficulty of insisting in their Amendment that there

  1143
  shall be one colony in Wales when you have only three to deal with. In spite of that, however, I intend to vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I hope that my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill will reconsider his position. I quite understand the Welsh point of view, and I hope my right hon. Friend will comprehend it also. The Welsh soldier returns. He desires to settle on the land. Can anybody who understands the Welsh character be surprised that the land on which he wants to settle is the land in his own country? In some cases his own language is more familiar to them than the language of England. I am unable to understand the position of my right hon. Friend. The Welsh soldier has certainly deserved well of the country. I am sure my right hon. Friend is entirely in agreement with the Welsh Members in thinking that the Welsh soldier should be looked after. If the Welsh soldier is to be looked after, and to get his share of the land, surely the place where he ought to get the land is in his own country. If that is so, I do not see why out of the 6,000 acres my right hon. Friend cannot reserve 2,000 for the
  Welsh soldiers. He is really going against national sentiment and national feeling, and I trust he will reconsider his position.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not think that anybody who has listened to the Debate can doubt that the Welsh claim has been thoroughly made out. There is only one argument against it, and I think I see a way of meeting it. That argument is that there are only 6,000 acres altogether. I suggest that between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend should secure from the Cabinet an increase of this 6,000 acres to 8,000, with a view to one colony being in Wales. With that in mind I shall certainly vote with my Welsh colleagues on this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. We will dispose of that first.
  Question put, "That the words 'of which 2,000 acres shall be located in Wales, including Monmouthshire' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 46.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES.

  [10.14 p.m.

  Adamson, William

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

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Stanier, Captain Beville

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Sutton, John E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pratt, J. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Mr. John and Mr. Hinds.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gulland, John William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bliss, Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Brace, William

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J B.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Mr. James Hope and Mr. Walter Rea.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Finney, Samuel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Question, "That the words 'including Monmouthshire' be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. D. WHITEhad an Amendment on the Paper, in Subsection (2), after the word "Acts" ["Lands Clauses Acts"], to insert the words "subject to the modifications of these Acts set out in the Schedule to the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916."
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member is not in order. There is no such Act.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words " and the provisions with respect to any lands being common or waste lands."
  I said on the Second Reading the Board had no intention whatever of taking any common land, and this will add at the end of the Clause another category of land of which we do not intend to make use. I think it will be clearer to put (a), (b), and (c) against the last part of the Clause. This Amendment will deprive us of being able to use the powers of the Lands Clauses Acts, which, under certain circumstances, might be used to acquire this land by compulsion. We do not want to take any common land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir W. BEALE: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words " and so much of Section sixty-nine as relates to the application of deposited moneys to ' the purchase of other lands to be conveyed, limited, and settled upon the like uses, trusts, and purposes, and in the same manner as the lands in respect of which such money shall have been paid stood settled.' "
  This Amendment is intended to extend the exceptions from the Lands Clauses Acts to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. They have already excepted, very properly, the Clauses relating to compulsory purchase. They have excepted the Clauses relating to the taking of commons, which would enable them to dispense with the whole of the commoners, and they have excepted, for reasons I do not know, provisions relating to the sale of superfluous land. I do not see how they could possibly have applied in this case. But' what I want to except is this, and it is really a rather serious point, because, although it may not often happen, it is a serious grievance if it does happen. They have retained the Clauses of the Lands Clauses Acts which enable you to buy, by agreement, from
  1146
  persons under disability—that is to say, a tenant for life or a guardian of art infant—glebe land and other lands. They are allowed to buy by agreement from people, who could not otherwise make a title, on the promise that the money is paid into Court. Section 69 of the Lands Clauses Act, to which my Amendment applies, provides that when that money is in Court it remains there until it is applied either in payment for encumbrances or land similarly settled or improvement of buildings and that kind of thing, or in the purchase of other land, or until somebody becomes absolutely entitled. I do not bother about the Clause dealing with encumbrances, but a person becoming absolutely entitled can come and have the money reinvested in other land at the expense of the promoters of the undertaking, who under this Bill would be the Board, and they would be put to the expense of paying all the cost of reinvesting the money in land under those circumstances, instead of leaving it until somebody becomes absolutely entitled. The money should be invested and remain in Court. These Clauses entitle anybody to come and say, "No, we will have it reinvested in land, and the Board must pay all the costs of investigating the title."
  I have known occasions where people entitled to quite comparatively small sums of money have come three times over for reinvestment, and this has piled up the costs far out of proportion to the value of the land taken. I propose simply to strike out so much of Section 69 as says that it may be applied to the purchase of land. I do not mind that if it is done at the cost of the people concerned. Section 85 provides that the promotor shall pay all the costs of the application for reinvestment in land. I am quite willing to make that apply to Section 85, but I thought the neater way was to take away the right to claim the purchasing of the land at the expense of the promoters, leaving it there so that the person entitled may have the money out and reinvest it at their own expense. If the Amendment of the ban. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Dundas White) had been in order, and if the Acquisition of Land Bill had become an Act, this could have been done in a simple way. This Amendment has practically the same effect, because there is nothing to prevent people, when they are absolutely entitled, taking up the land and investing in other land

  1147
  at their own expense. It is only to prevent the unnecessary cost of the Lands Clauses Act which forces the promoters to pay.
  Captain BATHURST: It is not clear from the Amendment what Act is here referred to. Section 69 is spoken of, but there is no indication of what Act this Section forms a part.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is partly due to the acceptance of an intervening Amendment. It must be the Lands Clauses Act.
  Captain BATHURST: There are several Lands Clauses Acts. The figures "1845" should be added.
  Sir W. BEALE: It should be the Act of 1845, of course.
  The CHAIRMAN: If I put it in that form it would involve the presumption that, earlier in the Subsection, some other Lands Clauses Act is referred to.
  Sir W. BEALE: That is simply done by definition. They have been lumped together.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not rise whilst I am standing. If this Amendment is accepted, it will have to be put right at another stage.
  Mr. ACLAND: My hon. and learned Friend has moved this Amendment in a very learned manner, perhaps too learned for me. We find in practice that these limited owners, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and so on, have actually power to sell otherwise than under the Lands Clauses Act, and, as a matter of fact, very little money is paid into Court. We cannot imagine that a case will actually occur where it will not be possible to make such a voluntary arrangement as shall preclude money having to be paid into Court, and therefore preclude the expenses of the investment falling on the person who takes the land. If no money is paid into Court, no cost of the investment could fall upon the scheme. It therefore seems to us that the Amendment is not necessary. 'It is a complication that is not likely to occur, and to the extent that the Amendment introduces a modification of the Lands Clauses Acts which has not hitherto been recognised, I would very much prefer, on the general principle of not introducing a new principle into Bills unless they are needed,
  1148
  not to accept the Amendment. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall not need this power, because we anticipate that anything we have to do will not mean money being paid into Court at all. The point, therefore, will not arise, and if my hon. and learned Friend could see his way not to press his Amendment on this occasion I should be very grateful to him.
  Mr. WHITE: The difficulty will not arise if you purchase from an absolute owner, but you may purchase from a limited owner who has not power to give title, and in these circumstances you can only proceed by paying the money into Court for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust, whoever they may be. That is the case which my hon. Friend desires to meet. If these circumstances arise, then he is quite prepared, as we all should be, that the cost of the original investment of the money in some other land should be borne by the public. He thinks, and I think with him, that if reinvestment is wanted subsequently that reinvestment should not be at the expense of the public, but at the expense of those in whose hands the reinvestment of land is made.
  Mr. ACLAND: May I look into this further between now and the Report stage?
  Sir W. BEALE: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I do not wish to press this to a Division. I know that the whole circumstances have greatly changed by enactments that have taken place since 1845. The only object was to guard against a possibility, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having said that he would do his best.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the word "may" ["Board may pay"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  I feel sure this will at once command the general support of the Committee. It is an Amendment, like the former one I moved, put forward at the instance of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and is designed to secure to the agricultural labourer the compensation for disturbance which is given in the Bill, but which is only made permissive on the Government side. The Parliamentary Secretary, at an earlier

  1149
  period of the evening, explained to us how, in drafting language, "may" and "shall" are synonymous. In this case, I think, his definition would not apply, because this is not a case of giving powers to a Government Department, but it is a case of making sure of the statutory right which is given to a certain class of His Majesty's subjects to receive compensation. It must have been an oversight on the part of those who drafted this Bill to have omitted to make it a certainty that this class, those connected with the land, should not be fully secured. We have now in the Bill compensation for the landowner, who will get the price of his land; for the occupier, who will get a certain amount of compensation, though not the full compensation I should wish him to have; and now there is a permissive power to grant compensation to the agricultural labourer, and that power I should wish to see made absolute and mandatory.
  Mr. ACLAND: This Subsection is, of course, taken verbatim from Section 43 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, with the simple change of "the Board " in place of the " County Council." All that I said earlier in the evening on not altering initial legislation when you incorporate it in this Bill applies to this. It was, of course, debated at the time the Small Holdings Bill was under discussion, and as a matter of fact the hon. Member for St. Albans then, in 1907, did propose that the word "shall" should take the place of the word that we now find, "may." I believe the hon. Member for the Newport Division (Captain Stanier) was present in the Committee on that day when that proposal was made. It is rather difficult to remember things so long ago, but I have refreshed my memory on the point, and I think the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Tyson Wilson), whose name is down in support of this Amendment, was also there. That was upstairs that the Committee stage of that Bill was being taken, and although, if my memory serves me, they were taking Divisions every half-hour or so, they did not have any Division at all on this. It was a matter which was negatived without a Division. That is the history of it so far, and I would prefer that a matter upon which the hon. Members for South-East Lancashire and Newport did net think it necessary at that time to divide should not be pressed now, particularly as, with all respect to my hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Sir I. Herbert), I cannot
  1150
  see that the change of the word " may " to "shall" would really make any difference, because if the Committee wilt look at the words of the Subsection they will see that those words run "the Board may pay to him such compensation as they think just."
  My hon. and gallant Friend does not propose to alter those words at all, so that it would only read "shall pay to him such compensation as they think just."
  Major.General Sir I. HERBERT: I should not wish them to pay what is unjust.
  Mr. ACLAND: But, surely, under "may" the Board would give what they think just. Let us consider how the matter will arise. I am hoping that no question of the dispossession of labourers will arise at all, because we shall want, in developing these holdings and in the first part of the cultivation of the central farm, to keep on the existing labourers who want to stop. If a labourer wants to move and improve his position, no time like the present has ever existed when it would have been easier for him to do so and get better wages. I believe these cases will not arise, because we shall absorb such labourers as wish to remain. Assuming a case does arise, the question will be what compensation is to be given. Under the Clause we have to settle what compensation we think just. Presumably a proposal is made by somebody in the office and we shall say whether we think such compensation, say, £50, is just. We should be acting under the existing law in going into the matter in that way. The only alternative proposal is that, instead of saying that we may give the compensation which the President of the Board has decided to be right and just, the Clause should say we shall give it. If it has been decided by the heads of the office that certain compensation ought to be given, all that is gained by using the word "shall" is that the cashier has to pay what he is directed to pay by the President. That is not the sort of power you want at all, because, obviously, when the head of the office has decided what is the just compensation to be paid, that compensation will be paid, whether the word be "may" or "shall."
  Mr. ANDERSON: Then why not put it in?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reason I hope the Committee will not put it in—although I do not think it has any effect in law—is that if we adopt Sections from existing legislation I would rather adopt them as they stand, without making alterations. I do not want to make any alterations in the existing law, because they would have to be applied to all compensation, and to county councils in regard to labourers dispossessed for the purposes of small holdings. I do not want to adopt in this little Bill alterations which reflect on the existing law and which will be used as arguments for changing the existing law. The Committee Iras agreed on a previous Amendment that in time of war it is not desirable to raise a matter of contention, and that it is fairer to let the law remain as it stands. In this particular case it would make no difference at all to the labourer, because the Board will give the compensation they think just, whether the word is " may " or " shall." But as it will make no difference at all to any single labourer, I hope the Committee will consent to keep the law as it is, and not change it when they adapt it to the new Act.
  Captain STANIER: The arguments against the Amendment are exactly the same as they have been put before us as on the last Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman. When I listened to the speech it struck me that the very arguments which were being used to oppose this Amendment were absolutely the arguments we wanted to back the Amendment up. A great deal of water has run past the Houses of Parliament since 1808 when we debated this very point upstairs, and I recall to myself the fact that I had only been in the House about ten days when that Committee took place, and perhaps I thought it over and changed my mind in that time. I certainly have, and I cannot conceive, if the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture are correct, why he copsiders that we cannot now, after eight years and a bit, change this word "may" into "shall." He says it is not going to do him any harm. It may do the agricultural labourer a great deal of good, because it is the actual word "shall"—"it shall be paid to him"—and without reading up Johnson's Dictionary on the word "shall," I think we should all agree that it is a very much better word to have in an Act of Parliament than the word "may." I do not
  1152
  know how many times I have heard it argued in this House, and it is the exception that proves the rule. I am going to ask that to-day, having had eight years of the word "may," that we shall have that now changed into "shall." Who on the other side is going to say that because the tenant of land who is dispossessed shall have compensation, the working labourer may have compensation? I consider that the one man who stays ought to have his compensation. I sincerely hope the Amendment may be taken to a Division.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I think the word "shall" makes the meaning of the Bill a great deal clearer than "may," and that is a good argument for accepting it. In the Acts of Parliament passed in the last few years the word " shall" appears oftener than "may," and if "shall" is good in war legislation, when it is compelling men to do things which perhaps they do not want to do I do not see why we should not have "shall" inserted in this Clause. It is far and away a better word than "may," because if "may" remains in the Bill the Board of Agriculture may pay compensation to someone else who is not a labourer. It does not say it shall not be paid, but it may be paid to the labourer. If "may" is taken out and " shall" put in it makes it quite clear that the compensation shall be paid to the labourer who is thrown out of employment. I agree that there will not be very many labourers who will become unemployed owing to the passing of the Act, and that being so I do not think we need be afraid of inserting "shall." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment without forcing the Committee to a Division. I feel quite certain that if we have a Division the majority of the Members present will vote in favour of inserting the word "shall" in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will not lose anything by it.
  Mr. ACLAND: My object was to prevent the Committee from doing what, with great respect, I thought was a stupid thing. If they really want to do it I do not see any objection. I only want to make it perfectly clear that it can make no difference whatever to any single labourer under the Bill. You leave entirely open to the Board the compensation which they think just. It makes no difference at all. In so far as this is a modification and a meaningless modification, as it seems to

  1153
  me, I think it is an unwise thing to do; but if the Committee wish it I have no objection to it.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Do I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board to Promote Co-operation in Connection with Small Holdings Colonies.)
    With the consent of, and subject to Regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may promote the formation or extension of societies on a cooperative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the profitable working of holdings provided under this Act, whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may assist any such society by making Grants or advances to the society, or guaranteeing advances made to the society, upon such terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment or otherwise, and on such security, as the Board think fit.
    Sir R. WINFREY: I beg to move, after the word "may" ["the Board may"], to insert the words, "with the assistance of the Small Holdings Commissioners."
    I move this Amendment in order to call attention to the fact that there seems to be no place provided in this scheme of colonies for our Small Holdings Commissioners. I am one of those who with others went to a great deal of trouble in getting additional Commissioners appointed. We had two Small Holdings Commissioners, but we found out that it was impossible for them to get through their work, and so four additional Commissioners were appointed, making six in all. These Commissioners are now scattered about the country. The original two Commissioners had their headquarters in London. The Board of Agriculture have now these six Commissioners in different parts of the country, north, south, east, and west and in the Midlands, and I cannot understand why those who prepared this Report upon which the Bill is based have not brought in those six Commissioners. They are Gentlemen who get salaries of from £800 to £1,000 per year, and so far as I can see
    1154
    there is practically no small-holdings work now being done, because the whole machinery of the Small-Holdings Act is out of gear owing to the want of money. Those gentlemen, I understand, are turned on to attend War Agricultural Committees and things of that sort. I have no objection to their being used for that purpose, but now that we are going to have a further scheme of small holdings, small as it is and futile as I think it is, I do think that those six gentlemen ought to be brought within the purview of the Bill. We ought to get our money's worth out of them.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this Amendment is out of order, because it deals with a purely administrative matter. It must be left to the Board how they employ part of their staff. The hon. Member cannot bring in this sort of thing on the Committee stage.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I intend to move an Amendment, which I have handed in, after conversation with you, Mr. Whitley, instead of an Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name as a separate Clause. The object of my Amendment on the Paper was to enable the Board to give pecuniary assistance to public utility societies as denned by the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, for the purpose of establishing small colonies similar in character but in addition to those provided by the Bill. You intimated to me, Mr. Whitley, that that Amendment would be out of order, and in consequence I beg to propose the following Amendment: After the word "basis," to insert the words "or co-partnership"; after the word "holdings," to insert the words "established or"; and at the end of the Clause to add the words "and the Board, where they think fit, may transfer to such society the whole or any portion of any colony of small holdings provided under this Act upon such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit." The object of this Amendment is, as the Bill is experimental, to permit of an experiment of utilising the services of public utility societies such as there are already in this country in considerable numbers in connection with housing and other matters. It seems to me of great importance, as we are dealing with experimental work, that we should test this aspect of the management of small holdings, and you will observe that one aspect of it is, if we

    1155
    can have a co-partnership system 'worked by a public utility society of the kind, you may test the advantages with the man of ownership as compared with tenancy.
    Mr. ACLAND: Though the hon. Member has not given me a copy of his Amendment, yet, subject to the power to reconsider it on Report, if I find that it does no harm, as I think it will do good—and I believe these cooperative societies have really good work to do—I shall be glad to accept it. I think it will be an improvement.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "(b) during the first three years graduate the rent payable by tenants or advance part thereof on such security, personal or other, and upon such conditions as may be approved by the Board;
    (c) appoint directors and other persons to farm the land kept in hand by the Board, to. instruct and advise candidates for holdings and tenants, and generally to do all things in the opinion of the Board necessary or
    1156
    desirable for the financial and other success of the farm managed by the Board and of the tenants in their holdings."
    It is important to give the Board permissive power to make the first year of rent of the small holder easy, so that if on coming on the holding they have no money they can wait until they gather in their first year's crop. That difficulty will be found in a less degree next year.
    It being Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.