HC Deb 02 April 1917 vol 92 cc1079-94

None of the provisions of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1782, or of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1801, shall be construed so as to extend to—

  1. (a) a contract or agreement entered into before the twenty-first day of February, nineteen hundred and seventeen, for or relating to the supply of property to any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War; or
  2. (b) a contract or agreement entered into on or after the said date as to the price or compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned or taken by any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War or as to any other terms on which any property so requisitioned or taken is to be handed over or supplied.

Mr. KING

In the absence of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Watt), I beg to move, after the word "shall" ["Act, 1801, shall"], to insert the words "while the present War lasts."

The hon. Member in whose name this Amendment stands takes a very great interest in this Bill, and he has been obliged to go away to address a meeting, a very proper, public-spirited, and patriotic action. On his behalf I beg to move the Amendment. I am not quite sure that it is necessary, but at any rate the Motion will give the Solicitor-General an opportunity of saying whether he can meet our objections to this Clause in any way.

Mr. BOOTH

I have frequently suggested that, in some of this emergency legislation, words should be put in to show-that it is war legislation. We want it made quite clear that these Acts of Parliament shall come to an end at the close of the War.

Sir G. HEWART

All I have to say about this Amendment is that the words are unnecessary. If hon. Members will look at the Clause as a whole they will see it is perfectly clear that the operation of the Bill is limited to the time while the present War lasts.

Mr. KING

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ROWLANDS

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).

I wish to get an explanation from the Solicitor-General of the scope of this particular Sub-section. It seems to take a very wide and sweeping range with regard to a Member taking contracts. It opens, as far as I can judge, the door with regard to Members not belonging to a company. We know that when a Member of this House is covered by belonging to a limited company he is not responsible, as an individual, for any contract which may be made with the Government. As far as I can gather, the effect of this Clause will be to reopen entirely the old question of contracts. It will leave an individual Member perfectly free to take Government contracts. It may be that this is a very simple thing at the present time, while the War is on, but people outside this House are watching this matter, and I have been in receipt of correspondence which is not particularly flattering in some respects, because these people seem to think that, under the press of the War, we in this House intend to take advantage of the War to liberate ourselves from the responsibility for entering into contracts with the Government, under which we are at the present time. More than one of the letters I have received has drawn my attention to a recent case, well known to hon. Members, in which the late Member for Whitechapel was subjected to heavy penalties in this regard, and I wish to elicit from the learned Solicitor-General information on the scope of this Sub-section.

Sir F. BANBURY

The Solicitor-General may remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill attention was drawn to this Clause, and attention was also drawn to the fact that paragraph (a) differs from paragraph (b) The latter Clause only applies to a date subsequent to the passing of this Act, and relates to property which may be requisitioned or taken by any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, or as to any other terms on which any property so requisitioned or taken is to be handed over or supplied, and I think the Government are right, because if it requisitions a man's property it is rather hard that it should also fine him for sitting or voting in this House. But paragraph (a) is quite different. In the first place, it is retrospective, and, in the second place, it does not apply to property requisitioned or taken, and really it whitewashes a Member for having voted contrary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament—and, if I may say so, a very good Act of Parliament—which has been in force for a number of years and for contravening which a Member of this House only two or three years ago had to pay a very considerable sum. I asked the learned Attorney-General if it was intended in any way to put an end to any action that had been already commenced, and he said that as far as he knew there was no such action. Since then I have had a letter from a solicitor informing me that such an. action was commenced in September of last year, and it was not an action which was taken in connection with any property which was requisitioned or taken, but was connected with a payment received for voluntary service. The hon. Member in question is a Conservative Member, so that I cannot be accused of any party bias in this particular matter. I will not give the name unless I am pressed, but I do say that it is not right where an action has been commenced to interfere with it. I do not know what rights are in this case, but the solicitor informs me that the hon. Member in question was warned that he was doing something illegal, and yet after that warning he continued to sit and vote in this House. In those circumstances, I do not think it right that a Clause should be put in a Bill of this sort which would render the law ineffective and prevent an action from being proceeded with. I trust that the Government will consent to the omission of this paragraph.

Mr. BILLING

I support this Amendment because I feel keenly about this. Sub-section. It seems to me as if this. Sub-section has been introduced into the Bill to cloak a number of actions which have been done in this House by private Members during this War. Before I had the privilege of being a Member of this House I was told that the Lobby of this. House was the stable for the stalking horses of limited companies. I do not want to say that since I have been here that opinion has been strengthened cither one way or another, but during the past twelve months I have repeatedly put questions to the Prime Minister endeavouring to ascertain from him whether it was legal or illegal for Members of this House to trade with the Government. This Clause, if we pass it, practically gives an indemnity for any man who has in past times entered into contracts with the Government. Practically what it amounts to is this: that an hon. Member can sit in this House and vote public money into his own pocket. I doubt whether at the present moment there is any Member who has a mandate to vote public money into anybody else's pocket, but I am perfectly confident that no Member has any mandate to vote public money into his own pocket. I do oppose any such proposal, and if the hon. Member goes to a Division on this matter I shall certainly support him in the Division Lobby. In these strenuous times, when we legislate in this House at the rate at which we do, it is a very simple thing to slip through a Bill which presumably is quite a harmless Bill, and is going to relieve possibly tenants who have landlords who are not as kind as they might be, and at the same time it may have the result of altering the whole idea of what this House has stood for for centuries. On the integrity of the Members of this House rests a very great deal more than the mere relieving of one or two Members of this House from any liabilities which they may have incurred by trading. with the Government. I would like to suggest that profiteering to a very great extent resulted in a revolution in Russia, and I would like to suggest that if we condone profiteering in this House it will be impossible for us to handle it outside this House. If hon. Members of this House vote money into their own pockets, and if there is any Member of this House richer when peace is signed than he was when the War broke out it is difficult to know how he can attack or endeavour to stop Members outside from doing likewise. My position here is rather difficult. I can say candidly that so far as I am concerned, I have no axe to grind at all. I ask for nothing from the Government, and I seek nothing, but I do say that if this paragraph (a) is put into the Bill it will be a message to the people of this country that not only are the Members of this House in favour of the profiteers, but they have framed a special provision of this Bill for the purpose of voting public money into their own pockets.

Mr. D. MASON

This is a most important provision of the Bill, and the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) certainly went to the root of the matter when he showed the difference between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b)The House is practically asked to give a blank cheque indemnifying any Member who has any contractual arrangement with the Government, and in asking us to do that he is asking us to do what we ought no; to do and what there is no justification for our doing. I object to this particular paragraph because it is based on legislation by reference. We are referred to two Acts, one going back as far as 1782, and the other 1801. I have taken the trouble to go through those Acts, and, if I may say so, they are carefully drawn up and they show what the ideas were then as to the integrity of any man who might become a Member of this House. To ask us to cancel one of the very best statutory provisions passed by this House, and which reflect honour on this House, seems to me unjustifiable, and I consider that no case has been made out for it. I will just trouble the House with a reference to the Act of 1782, which provided for "furthering the freedom and independence of Parliament." The Act goes on to say: Any person who shall directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust; for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold or enjoy in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement or commission, made or entered into, under or from the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury … for or on account of the public service. or shall knowingly and willingly furnish, or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, or contract or commission, which he or they have made or entered into a? aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad … shall be incapable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold or enjoy such contract, or agreement or commission. I think that it is a very wise Act, and it is made stronger by the Act of 1801, which prevented a Member who had such a contract from sitting in this House. The provision which the Amendment seeks to leave out seems to me unwise, and I do not see any occasion for it. We may be asked, What would you do in the event of any such contract being necessary for carrying on the War, and how would we provide for that Member, in the interests of the public-service, carrying on the contract without being indemnified? That could easily be met by an Order in Council or by some special legislation in respect of any large contract. To ask us to give what amounts to unlimited power to any Member, and, in fact, to tempt any Member to engage in contracts with the Government during the War, seems to me most indefensible and most unwise. In the very nature of things during the War there must be an enormous number of contracts between the Government and private persons. That is an occasion when you ought to be extra particular and careful not to make it easy for irregular transactions to be carried out. For the honour of the HOUSE and its members we ought not to facilitate entering into such contracts. and rather we should do all we can to guard the good name and reputation of our Members. I hope that the Solicitor-General will meet the case by some other words. I support enthusiastically the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Clause. A particular case can be met by some such means as I have suggested. I trust that the Solicitor-General will show that we are most anxious to maintain the good name of this House.

Sir G. GREENWOOD

I cannot help thinking that the objections which are being raised to this Clause are really very much exaggerated. As the hon. Member has stated, the House of Commons Disqualification Act was passed in 1781, in the reign of George III., and at the end of Lord North's Administration, when it was failing. That was an age notoriously of very great corruption.

Mr. BILLING

Not as bad as to-day!

Sir G. GREENWOOD

The hon. Member knows more about the corruption of to-day than I do. Happily it has not been brought to my notice, and I have not seen the stalking horse which is supposed to be stabled in the Lobby.

Mr. BILLING

You must have your eyes shut.

Sir G. GREENWOOD

I looked at May's Constitutional History of England in regard to this and he says that at that time costly and improvident contracts were encouraged by a system of Parliamentary jobbery. Lucrative contracts for the public service were found a convenient mode of enriching political supporters. A contract for a supply of rum or beef for the Navy was as great a price for a Member as a share in a loan or lottery. Government candidates were encouraged by this system because it was well understood that if the Government candidate got a lucrative contract his constituents were to have a share in it.

Mr. BILLING

We do not go as far as that to-day.

Sir G. GREENWOOD

Hon. Members speak of the corruption of to-day, but I have not seen it, and I do not think anything like that state of affairs exists at the present time, or that any such danger is to be guarded against. What really seems to mo to reduce this to almost an absurdity is that by Section 3 of the Act it is provided that it shall not apply to contracts made by any corporation or company. At that time limited liability companies did not exist. Since 1855 and 1862 especially limited liability companies have sprung up in number innumerable. The effect is this, that I, as a Member of Parliament, might hold all, or nearly all, the shares in a limited liability company. I might be a director of it, and I might then be allowed with perfect impunity to tout for contracts and to enter into as many contracts as I liked with the Government. That would be allowed by this Bill. Allusion has been made to the contract entered into by Sir Stuart Samuel. I believe it is admitted that that was an entirely fair contract, and that the Government gained by it, and if only Sir Stuart Samuel's firm had been turned into a company there would have been nothing to be said against it, so far as the law was concerned. But it happened that it was a private firm, and as a Member of this House he had to pay a penalty of £500 a day. When an Indemnity Bill was introduced there was so much objection taken to it that the Bill was never passed. I understand this is to apply as a war measure to cases of contracts which may have been entered into under some pressure from the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I have no knowledge of any of these contracts, but I understand that the Bill refers to contracts entered into in the course of business connected with the War, and which were required by the Government. The exemption is confined to those cases.

I should, perhaps, not be in order to enter into the question of requisitions, because that is dealt with by the next Sub-clause, but I may be allowed to say this: When a man has his goods requisitioned by the Government the requisition itself is, of course, no contract, but there is a contract all the same if goods are requisitioned, whether it be hats, or hay, or boots, or anything else, because you have to enter into an agreement, so as to settle price and other things, and there may be a doubt whether it amounts even to a requisition. I believe a case of this sort has arisen where a member of a certain firm was approached by the Government, who said, "We want you to supply us with a certain number of articles"—I will not say what kind of articles—and the reply was," We cannot do it, because one of the members of our firm is a Member of the House of Commons." "Very well," says the Government, "we are going to have the goods anyhow, and we shall requisition them." It would be a monstrous injustice, in that case at any rate, if the Member were penalised. I submit that in time of war this provision in this Bill is required, and these fears about the corruption of Members of Parliament are grossly exaggerated. I have never heard them, and I resent the imputation that Members are so corrupt in this House that they are not to be trusted in such a matter as this.

Sir J. SIMON

The speech of my hon. Friend would appear to be a speech in support of the proposal that, at any rate for the period of the War, if not for all time henceforward, Members of the House of Commons may contract with the Government without penalty. He has been telling us that we do ourselves a great injustice if we imagine we require the stringent provisions of an Act of Parliament such as was necessary in the bad times of Lord North. That is not at all the proposal which is before this Committee. The proposal before this Com- mittee is that if there be any contracts or agreements entered into before 21st February last that so far as those contracts go a Member of Parliament, who is a partner, shall not be liable for certain penalties. That is quite a different proposition. If the proposition here was that that because of the War we should repeal these two disqualification Acts for the benefit of ourselves and our fellows, I do not think that any Member of Parliament would be found to support or justify that proposal. I quite recognise that this is a much more limited proposal. I would none the less like to ask the Solicitor-General a question or two about it. My excuse for so doing is that I think I am the only Member in the House at the moment who served on the last Committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into one of these cases that of Sir Stuart Samuel. I am bound to say that it always seemed to me that Sir Stuart Samuel got fairly severe treatment for what in the circumstances was a mistake easily explained. Be that as it may, he was required to pay to the uttermost farthing. I observe, first of all, that this is not a Clause which is addressed to the relief of specified and named cases. Has there, in the history of legislation since the Statute of lv82, ever been any general relief in respect of unnamed and unidentified persons'? I am only relying for the moment upon my own memory, which is treacherous, as are all memories, but I have a clear recollection of some specific cases. There was, for example, the case of Mr. Forsyth, a well-known lawyer and editor of an extremely valuable collection of cases of constitutional law. He was a Member of the House of Commons and got himself involved in some difficulties because, I think I recollect, although a lawyer, he had some interest outside. There was the case also of a Member of the House, who was also a partner in a firm of printers who printed for the House of Commons. His case was dealt with specifically. There was the case also of that very famous Member, Mr. Home Tooke, who was not only the last clergyman that sat in the House of Commons, but he had this distinction: he only had three constituents. He was Member for Old Sarum. I think he was specifically relieved. Is there any case in which we have legislated blindfold? If there is, I think we should hear it If there is not, I think we ought to know why these proposals are now introduced.

Mr. BOOTH

There is the case of the present Attorney-General!

Sir J. SIMON

That is another specific case. The present Attorney-General came forward and himself expressed how necessary it was that he should have relief—and we all agreed! It does seem to me to be a rather serious innovation, war time or no war time, that the House of Commons should be asked to pass a Clause of this kind without having the slightest notion to what it refers. Supposing, for the sake of example, a case was a flagrant one, I think we are entitled to know about it. Supposing, on the other hand, it was merely a technical and nominal one. I am sure in times like these the House of Commons would be glad to offer relief. I invite the Solicitor-General to tell us whether this is done out of excessive caution, whether it is a matter more or less imaginary, or whether it is an endeavour to cover up something like a scandal. I think we are entitled to some explanation, and such justification as the Government can offer.

Sir G. HEWART

The immediate Amendment before the House is to leave out paragraph (a), but the discussion upon that part of the Clause has gone beyond the limit—I am not complaining in the least—of that paragraph, and I readily respond to the invitation of my right hon. Friend. He may dismiss from his mind at once the notion that there is any attempt here to hide—I think his phrase was—something like a scandal.

Sir J. SIMON

I said I did not know.

Sir G. HEWART

My right hon. Friend may put aside that notion altogether, as also the notion that somebody else mentioned that here was a case of a mystery. The fact was this: After the commencement of this War Government Departments had. and were known to have, the power to requisition goods for the purpose of the War. The knowledge that they had that power was shared by Members of this House, and by persons who are not Members of this House, and what took place was that various commodities—wool, timber, hay, leather, and so forth—were required sometimes from Members of this House. No doubt it may well be that if the Members who were so required to hand over their commodities for the purposes of the War had bad present to their minds the sweeping words of the first Section of the Act 22 George III., Chapter 45—words which referred to "any Contract, Agreement, or Commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury," and so forth, "for or on account of the public service," they would have at once replied, "We cannot pay the slightest attention to this request unless you put it in the form of a requisition." In some cases, no doubt, that was not done. This Clause was not invented by this Government; we took over this Bill from our predecessors. The Government as a Government have no interest whatever in this Clause except to render what we conceive to be an elementary measure of justice What happened was that out of an excess of caution it was thought right to provide a Clause of this kind, not because anybody is of opinion—certainly no Law Officer that I know of is of opinion—that something has been done which undoubtedly brings the Member within the ambit of the Act of 1782, but it may be that that has been done which might give rise to an action for penalties—and we know how vexatious these actions can be, especially if brought by impecunious persons—which, even when they do not succeed, put the defendant to considerable anxiety and expense. Therefore this Clause is introduced ex abundanti cautela, in order to make it plain that actions cannot successfully be brought, and cannot usefully be commenced against Members who in circumstances that I have described have done that which I have mentioned.

Mr. BILLING

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether ho has any knowledge of the case of a common informer having informed against a certain hon. Member?

Sir G. HEWART

I am coming to that particular case upon an Amendment later on the Paper, and no doubt it may be contended that with regard to that particular case in which proceedings have already been taken, other considerations might arise. But to go back to the point which has now been raised, it is observed that there is a contrast between paragraphs (a) and (b) and the reason of that contrast is pretty plain to anyone who considers the Clause as a whole. The line is drawn at 21st February of this year, the date of the introduction of this Bill, and in this paragraph the subject of the Amendment now under discussion what is provided is that a contract or agreement entered into before the day upon which this Bill was introduced is not to be subject to the provisions of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1782. That is to remove doubts, and it is intended to cover the case where a question might arise whether the request which had been made was in the form of a requisition. But with regard to the period since the introduction of the Bill the policy of this Clause is to say that, if from this day forward anything of the kind is done, from this day forward relief shall not be extended beyond a case where all that has been done is to make an agreement as to price or compensation payable, and where there has been an undoubted requisition. That is the whole contrast between Sub-clauses (a) and (b).

Sir F. BANBURY

Why is that?

Sir G. HEWART

That is the very thing I have been explaining. May I say that Sub-clause (6) is limited to the removal of doubts as to whether there is a contract within the meaning of the Act of 1782 where there has been an agreement as to price or compensation following upon an undoubted requisition. Sub-clause (a), on the other hand, removes doubt in like manner where it is not so clear that there was a requisition or a requisition in proper form. What is the position as a whole? We have heard some rhetoric on this point—I do not complain of it—about voting public money into our pockets. What is really being done? We do not know of any scandal—in fact, there has been no scandal—but we know from certain Government Departments specially concerned with the provision of material for the conduct of the War that certain Members of this House have given up commodities and other things I have mentioned. There may have been a defect in the form of the request. There have sometimes been negotiations which could be called an agreement as to the price payable, but it is that kind of transaction that it is sought to meet.

I enter upon this matter as a bequest. but I submit this is a reasonable thing to do, and there could not be a greater travesty of the facts we are dealing with than to represent this proposal as one to extend impunity to an indefinite amount of corruption, and I regret that language of that kind has been employed, because it has no sort of relation whatever to any fact that is sought to be comprised within the ambit of this measure. When one comes to the definite and specific question whether this Clause shall be permitted to cover and defeat proceedings commenced before the Bill was introduced, we come to another and a different question, but, subject to that observation and that alone, I do submit that this is a Clause rightly and prudently provided to prevent what would otherwise be a vexatious public mischief. A right of requisition exists, and it is known to exist. Where there has been a formal requisition, I submit that it would be intolerable that a Member of this House should be exposed to expensive and vexatious litigation, not because he has entered into a contract, but because he consented to his commodity being used for a Government Department.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very good defence, but he has carefully avoided answering the question which I asked him. He did allude to it, but, having alluded to it, he skated off in another direction. Does or does not this particular Clause give an indemnity to a Member of this House against whom an action was commenced six months ago?

Sir G. HEWART

I am extremely sorry if I omitted to deal with that matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe that it was not through subtlety on my part, but merely through forgetfulness. I say at once, so far as that particular action is concerned, that I have had the advantage of considering it with some of my colleagues, and we do not think it would be right that this Clause should extend to defeat the action, and I propose, when we come to it, to accept the Amendment which is upon the Paper, not quite in the terms employed, but so as to give effect to what is desired by the Mover, words which will prevent this Section from having the effect of defeating that action.

Sir G. RADFORD

I ventured to raise this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I had hoped that the Solicitor-General would have given us some explanation which would have saved some of use who object to this Clause from persevering in our objection. I raised the question on the Second Reading not with any desire to embarrass the Government or any Members of this House, but knowing, as most of us know, that a considerable number of Members have had dealings with the Government, very honourable for the most part I have no doubt, and that they may be considered to have come within the Acts of 1782 and 1801 and may stand in need of the relief which is accorded by this Sub-section. If the Solicitor-General had given us an assurance that all those persons had been requisitioned and therefore could not reasonably be blamed for anything that occurred, I should myself have been satisfied and should not have said another word.

Sir G. HEWART

May I say that so far as my information goes, and I have no reason to doubt its completeness, every case has followed either upon an undoubted requisition or that which was a requisition except perhaps in some point of form. In substance, as I now understand, one may say that there has been requisition in every case.

Sir G. RADFORD

I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his explanation, but it does not seem to me to cover the ground. There are people who have been requisitioned and there are some people who have not been requisitioned, and they come within this Clause. The Solicitor-General limits what he says by adding as far as he knows, and that seems to me a fatal defect in his answer. He knows—or if he does not he ought to know—what contracts there have been. The Government know—or if they do not they ought to know—with whom they have made contracts. I cannot allow the Solicitor-General to ride off on the suggestion that so far as he knows it is all right. I hope that he will give us a little more information, and if he will give us the information that all the persons who will obtain relief under this Clause are conscripts or the victims of requisition, then I shall have the greatest sympathy with him, and do all I can to support his Clause. At present he must consider whether he should not give us a little further information. I for one would be extremely reasonable and ready to be satisfied. It is all the more necessary that some information should be given, in view of the fact that my right hon and learned Friend the late Home Secretary pointed out to us that so far as he knows—and his knowledge is considerable—people have not obtained the relief from offences against this Act without their being specially named in the Act of Parliament and an indemnity given to them accordingly. I still hope to support the Solicitor-General in regard to this Clause, but I hope he will be kind enough to throw a little more light on the subject than he has done already.

Mr. PRINGLE

The explanation which the Solicitor-General has given is not one which will enable us to pass the paragraph now under consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman has submitted that several Members of the House were in some doubt or ignorance as to their position in regard to the Contractors Act. We all know there has been a very recent instance which has been more than once referred to in the course of the Debate. Only a few years ago—I think the year before the War—a case arose in reference to Sir Stuart Samuel, which was so very doubtful a case that it had to be investigated by a Select Committee of this House. My right hon. Friend opposite was a member of that Committee and he knows how difficult and complicated was the question which had then to be investigated. In spite of the difficulty and complexity of that case this House refused to give an indemnity. Even though it was a doubtful case they said that Sir Stuart Samuel ought to have known the law. My point is that everybody, in view of Sir Stuart Samuel's case, ought to have been on his inquiry. The old maxim about ignorance of the law excusing nobody should be applied. If we are going to apply that to the poor criminal who goes into Court before a magistrate, are we going to exempt ourselves as Members of Parliament from it. We have already exempted the head of the Bar—the Attorney-General. He was a big enough departure; but he at present is in splendid isolation. Why should we make a further indemnity for all Members of Parliament? We may excuse the Attorney-General—it is his business to know the law—but why should we excuse every Member of Parliament? The Solicitor-General has left us in a good deal of doubt in this matter. As my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Simon) has pointed out, this is the first case in which a general indemnity has been asked from this House. In every previous case the indemnity has been limited to the specific individual, whose case was known to the House and upon whose case the House was in a position to express an opinion. Here we do not know what the circumstances are. We are told that there is a number of doubtful cases. The Solicitor-General has told us that, first of all, there are the cases where there might have been a requisition, but where the requisition was not in proper form. Where the requisition was not—

It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAXER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BOOTH

May I ask whether recent proceedings on this Bill and the stage to which we have got imply any change in the order of business for to-morrow or the day after?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

We propose to continue the progress of this Bill after the Military Service Bill to-morrow.

Mr. BOOTH

Will there be any suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

Lord E. TALBOT

No.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Can we be told if we meet at twelve on Wednesday or at the ordinary time?

Lord E. TALBOT

At the usual time on Wednesday. At twelve on Thursday.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.